Sad Tale of Greed and Aspiration. [Archive]

noel.wade

August 25th 10, 05:00 PM

I've been using LK8000 for the last 8 months (and I love it)! I
placed well in 2 regionals and set 17 state records this year, all
while flying with LK8000 as my flight computer / nav system.

Here is my take on what's happening with LK8000 (keeping in mind that
I do not officially speak for the LK8000 developer and the following
statements are from someone who is not directly involved in the
development):

The LK8000 programmer originally was part of the XCSoar team.
However, changes in the person/people heading up XCSoar development
last year caused a rift amongst the people working on XCSoar. From
what I can tell, there were both political and technical issues.

The LK8000 programmer, not being able to make some desired changes to
XCSoar under the new regime, creates the LK8000 project as a way to
get these fixes & changes out to pilots. Along the way, the program
begins to change in many ways and the project grows in a lot of cool
new directions - such as FLARM support, a new Map & Topography format
(with faster load times and much greater detail). There is still a
lot of "XCSoar" at the heart of LK8000; but more and more of it is
being re-written and improved with each LK8000 release.

The GPL and the licenses covering XCSoar state that if you distribute
a program using XCSoar code, you must release the entire source-code.
The LK8000 developer does not want to do this, for various reasons
(including, IMHO, not wanting the new XCSoar developer to take the
work that was previously rejected and suddenly incorporate it into
XCSoar).

The person/people behind XCSoar these days have apparently made some
vague statements (possible legal threats) about LK8000 violating the
GPL and not sharing their code with the XCSoar team.

To reduce the controversy and retain control of LK8000 while all of
the new features and systems are being programmed & improved, the
LK8000 developer has chosen to release only alpha and beta test-
versions of the software to a limited group of people. My personal
opinion is that the motivation behind this is to avoid a direct
violation of the GPL by refusing to officially distribute the
program. However, the developer has made it clear that beta-testers
will not be prosecuted or "punished" if the program makes its way to
other people. The developer _is_ concerned about wide-spread use of
an "unfinished" product (although it is stable and fully usable).

As a result, there are people out there with download links and FTP
sites, giving away LK8000. The developer does not endorse this, but
seems to be OK with the fact that he cannot control what people do
with the program once they have it.

So the bottom-line is that you have to find someone who has the
program, and get a copy from them. The official Beta-testers will
probably always have the latest version, whilst other users may have a
slightly outdated version. (For example, Martin has 1.20i although
the latest version is 1.22b)

For more information, check out the LK8000 forums here:
http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/default.asp?CAT_ID=11
And the LK8000 Manual here: http://www.bware.it/LK8000/

Enjoy,

--Noel

Wayne Paul

August 25th 10, 05:11 PM

Brian,

I have sent you a couple messages to the address listed below. If this isn't your preferred address please contact me directly.

Respectfully,
Wayne

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message ...
>I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
> $100: 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.
>
> Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
> from the vendor (??) - Ever hear of such a thing?
>
> I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
> Approach Systems MM (for <$20, would you believe)
>
> Then I found that the MM I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
> Too bad.
>
> Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 Good!
>
> Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
> owner of XCsoar was objecting. Too bad.
>
> So here I am sitting on my hands....
>
> Brian W

Brad[_2_]

August 25th 10, 05:46 PM

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 25th 10, 10:51 PM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:29:48 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> What? Copyright very much applies to just about all open source
> software. Unless an developer explicitly give up his copyright rights.
>
... but under GPL cannot stop people modifying and further distributing
that fork.

> and to publish source code to any
> modifications to the GPL licensed code. Modifications to the GPL code
> must be published for any software made available publicly.
>
Not quite. The source must be made available to anybody who is using the
code but doesn't have to be broadcast or exposed on a public server. At
least, my reading of the GPL says you may only supply source on demand
with violating the GPL.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Darryl Ramm

August 25th 10, 11:15 PM

On Aug 25, 2:51*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:29:48 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > What? Copyright very much applies to just about all open source
> > software. Unless an developer explicitly give up his copyright rights.
>
> .. but under GPL cannot stop people modifying and further distributing
> that fork.
>
> > and to publish source code to any
> > modifications to the GPL licensed code. Modifications *to the GPL code
> > must be published for any software made available publicly.
>
> Not quite. The source must be made available to anybody who is using the
> code but doesn't have to be broadcast or exposed on a public server. At
> least, my reading of the GPL says you may only supply source on demand
> with violating the GPL.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Please read carefully what I wrote. I've dealt with a lot of complex
GNU and other open source licensing issues, including thorny
permutations of closed source drivers in open source products, bundles
of closed and open source software etc. I even got to deal with
Richard Stallman when we forgot to publish source updated for some
controversial (to some folks) changes we had made to Linux and
associated software. He was rightly ****ed off and I think he thought
we were trying to do this deliberately. It was just our release
process screw up and we never made the mistake again.

I wrote "Made available publicly"... and by that I meant as as in a
soaring software provided publicly for download -- that would require
the source to be made available equally for download. Well that's
GNU's take on it, my take on it and likely most developers and lawyers
take on it. There is a GNU faq covering this and more at -

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

A private beta is another issue. People within the beta certainly need
to be provided the source code if they ask. But it may be messier than
that.

I am not commenting on the technical skills, merits, intents or
anything else on either side of this, but the LK8000 developers should
have been clearly aware of the GNU open source implications.

To your original post, not that you've looked at the GNU license
you'll see it centers around copyright rights. That is a complete
surprise to many people who made the same natural assumption you did.

Darryl

Brian Whatcott

August 26th 10, 02:49 AM

On 8/25/2010 6:35 AM, I wrote:
> I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
> $100: 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.
>
> Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
> from the vendor (??) - Ever hear of such a thing?
>
> I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
> Approach Systems MM app (called APIC for <$20, would you believe)
>
> Then I found that the MM app I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
> Too bad.
>
> Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 - Good!
>
> Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
> owner of XCsoar was objecting. Too bad.
>
> So here I am sitting on my hands....
>
> Brian W

.....but not for very long! By lunch time, I received a note with a URL
which provided access to the manual and the executables for the PNA
version he is testing. And within minutes of downloading those materials
I was looking at the rather interesting possibilities that LK8000
provides on a Chinese cheapie.

I suppose, out of an excess of confidentiality, I should only mention
that it was one of the responders to this note who made his 122a version
available to me, though my inclination is to bless his kindness in
public and likewise all the people who came back so quickly.

For what it's worth: an app that runs as advertized out of the box,
needing only a pointer from the nav soft button to the micro SD address
where the whole ball of wax resides, has won me over already.
It picked up the GPS immediately and displayed the sat count
lat/lon/elevation when that display was selected.

I regret that I had previously put the PNA where a bottle of sun screen
could leak onto it, so I can confirm that the screen surround is not
liquid-proof, from the faint tide mark it left round the edge (Darn it!)

People might consider the virtues of a slim line of silicone bounded
pro temp by masking tape around the chrome screen edging (A tip given me
long ago for water proofing the rear transparency on my airplane)

I see that speeds and distances are presently in clicks and altitudes
are in meters though I see a ft conversion too and I suspect that units
are (or will soon be) selectable.

Someone somewhere has made useful display choices for number sizes,
colors and contrasts. I like the idea of sound coding the touch menu -
nifty touch! Now I need to find topography and a map (preferably the
whole US with airports though that is probably distinctly
un-glider-pilot-like....

Gratefully,

Brian Whatcott

noel.wade

August 26th 10, 05:15 AM

On Aug 25, 6:49*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> Someone somewhere has made useful display choices for number sizes,
> colors and contrasts. I like the idea of sound coding the touch menu -
> nifty touch! Now I need to find topography and a map *(preferably the
> whole US with airports though that is probably distinctly
> un-glider-pilot-like....
>
> Gratefully,
>
> Brian Whatcott

Brian -

Glad you're up and running!

I strongly encourage you to sit down and read the manual; or at least
thumb through ALL of the System Configuration options in the program.
You can customize just about everything (units, colors, font sizes,
etc) to the way you like it. The program works well out of the box,
but there's a lot you can do to make it present just the information
that's important to you, and in just the way you want it presented.

As for maps, see the LK8000 website: www.bware.it/listing/LKMAPS/
(if you want US maps, check out the "NAM" folder, which stands for
"North AMerica").

Enjoy,

--Noel

jb92563

August 26th 10, 05:00 PM

On Aug 25, 4:35*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
> $100: * 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.
>
> Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
> from the vendor (??) *- Ever hear of such a thing?
>
> I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
> Approach Systems MM (for <$20, would you believe)
>
> Then I found that the MM I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
> Too bad.
>
> Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 * *Good!
>
> Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
> owner of XCsoar was objecting. * *Too bad.
>
> So here I am sitting on my hands....
>
> Brian W

Actually the XC Soar/ LK8000 paths is resulting in some great software
on both sides.

Its really no big deal to become a Beta tester for the LK8000, just
sign up and you will get
regular emails of download sites for the latest and greatest version.

I review both XC Soar and LK8000 releases and think they are both
great, although
I prefer the LK8000 since the touch zones are huge allowing you to get
things done
while being tossed around in the most vigorous of Owens Valley, CA
thermals.

Go here to read instructions and sign up.

http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2940

Here are the Instructions from the link above to save you a few
clicks.

<quote>
If you want to become a betatester for LK8000, you need to be already
experienced on XCSoar, and even better if you already used the LK8000-
alfa9 version released in July 2009.

Beta testing is coordinated by several people.

Glider pilots should ask:
- Mino dgtrecentow
- Allan Broadribb (USA)

Paraglider pilots should ask:
- Sergio TiGuy (Portugal)
- Bjorn aka Bo (Norway)

Do not ask publicy on the forum, ask directly to them (only one of
them!). Do not bother other people here with your requests please!

When you write for becoming betatester, do always remember to tell:

- Full name
- Country
- Age
- Glider or paraglider you fly
- Devices you are using (full description)
- Software you have been using so far (ex. 5.2.3Fb8)

Your job is to test the software to ensure it is doing what it is
designed to do - NOT to suggest new or improved features.

BUGS should be reported directly to the LK8000 v1.xx beta test thread
in the forum.
</quote>

Andy[_1_]

August 26th 10, 05:07 PM

On Aug 26, 9:00*am, jb92563 > wrote:
> If you want to become a betatester for LK8000, you need to be already
> experienced on XCSoar, and even better if you already used the LK8000-
> alfa9 version released in July 2009.

> Your job is to test the software to ensure it is doing what it is
> designed to do - NOT to suggest new or improved features.

It's a good thing that neither the entry qualifications nor the
restrictions on feedback are enforced. It they were the pool of
useful ideas would have been much reduced.

Andy (GY)

Mike Schumann

August 26th 10, 06:56 PM

On 8/26/2010 11:00 AM, jb92563 wrote:
> On Aug 25, 4:35 am, brian > wrote:
>> I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
>> $100: 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.
>>
>> Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
>> from the vendor (??) - Ever hear of such a thing?
>>
>> I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
>> Approach Systems MM (for<$20, would you believe)
>>
>> Then I found that the MM I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
>> Too bad.
>>
>> Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 Good!
>>
>> Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
>> owner of XCsoar was objecting. Too bad.
>>
>> So here I am sitting on my hands....
>>
>> Brian W
>
>
>
> Actually the XC Soar/ LK8000 paths is resulting in some great software
> on both sides.
>
> Its really no big deal to become a Beta tester for the LK8000, just
> sign up and you will get
> regular emails of download sites for the latest and greatest version.
>
> I review both XC Soar and LK8000 releases and think they are both
> great, although
> I prefer the LK8000 since the touch zones are huge allowing you to get
> things done
> while being tossed around in the most vigorous of Owens Valley, CA
> thermals.
>
> Go here to read instructions and sign up.
>
> http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2940
>
> Here are the Instructions from the link above to save you a few
> clicks.
>
> <quote>
> If you want to become a betatester for LK8000, you need to be already
> experienced on XCSoar, and even better if you already used the LK8000-
> alfa9 version released in July 2009.
>
> Beta testing is coordinated by several people.
>
> Glider pilots should ask:
> - Mino dgtrecentow
> - Allan Broadribb (USA)
>
> Paraglider pilots should ask:
> - Sergio TiGuy (Portugal)
> - Bjorn aka Bo (Norway)
>
> Do not ask publicy on the forum, ask directly to them (only one of
> them!). Do not bother other people here with your requests please!
>
> When you write for becoming betatester, do always remember to tell:
>
> - Full name
> - Country
> - Age
> - Glider or paraglider you fly
> - Devices you are using (full description)
> - Software you have been using so far (ex. 5.2.3Fb8)
>
> Your job is to test the software to ensure it is doing what it is
> designed to do - NOT to suggest new or improved features.
>
> BUGS should be reported directly to the LK8000 v1.xx beta test thread
> in the forum.
> </quote>
>
>
>
>

What kind of beta test program discourages people from suggesting design
improvements?????

--
Mike Schumann

jb92563

August 26th 10, 08:37 PM

On Aug 26, 10:56*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/26/2010 11:00 AM, jb92563 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 4:35 am, brian > *wrote:
> >> I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
> >> $100: * 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.
>
> >> Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
> >> from the vendor (??) *- Ever hear of such a thing?
>
> >> I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
> >> Approach Systems MM (for<$20, would you believe)
>
> >> Then I found that the MM I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
> >> Too bad.
>
> >> Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 * *Good!
>
> >> Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
> >> owner of XCsoar was objecting. * *Too bad.
>
> >> So here I am sitting on my hands....
>
> >> Brian W
>
> > Actually the XC Soar/ LK8000 paths is resulting in some great software
> > on both sides.
>
> > Its really no big deal to become a Beta tester for the LK8000, just
> > sign up and you will get
> > regular emails of download sites for the latest and greatest version.
>
> > I review both XC Soar and LK8000 releases and think they are both
> > great, although
> > I prefer the LK8000 since the touch zones are huge allowing you to get
> > things done
> > while being tossed around in the most vigorous of Owens Valley, CA
> > thermals.
>
> > Go here to read instructions and sign up.
>
> >http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2940
>
> > Here are the Instructions from the link above to save you a few
> > clicks.
>
> > <quote>
> > If you want to become a betatester for LK8000, you need to be already
> > experienced on XCSoar, and even better if you already used the LK8000-
> > alfa9 version released in July 2009.
>
> > Beta testing is coordinated by several people.
>
> > Glider pilots should ask:
> > - Mino dgtrecentow
> > - Allan Broadribb (USA)
>
> > Paraglider pilots should ask:
> > - Sergio TiGuy (Portugal)
> > - Bjorn aka Bo (Norway)
>
> > Do not ask publicy on the forum, ask directly to them (only one of
> > them!). Do not bother other people here with your requests please!
>
> > When you write for becoming betatester, do always remember to tell:
>
> > - Full name
> > - Country
> > - Age
> > - Glider or paraglider you fly
> > - Devices you are using (full description)
> > - Software you have been using so far (ex. 5.2.3Fb8)
>
> > Your job is to test the software to ensure it is doing what it is
> > designed to do - NOT to suggest new or improved features.
>
> > BUGS should be reported directly to the LK8000 v1.xx beta test thread
> > in the forum.
> > </quote>
>
> What kind of beta test program discourages people from suggesting design
> improvements?????
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Easy now Folks, that last part is out of context. "NOT to suggest new
or improved features." .....my fault for not carefully editing.

If you go to the actual forum you will see that there is another
distinct place to put suggestions and
the meaning got lost when I clipped a quote to make life easier here
for everyone.

The developers just wanted 1 place to look for BUGS, which are fixit
priorities over new features, instead of having to read through
hundreds of emails and interpret the bugs from the suggestions.

Also, when visiting this site you have to remember that the prime
developers first language is NOT English
so you have to interpret with a "European to English" twist in mind
and not take every word literally, but rather
distill meaning from the paragraphs as a whole.

Ray

Michael Jaworski

August 27th 10, 12:41 PM

So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is distributed
under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be used/distributed),
create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual obligations with the
original author?

And that we should all help and support the LK8000 author in undermining
this agreement by keeping the distribution channel 'underground' so that
this distribution cannot be so easily proved by the original (XCSoar)
author, thereby leaving him with no redress?

I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.

NB I have played no part in the development of XCSoar or LK8000, but as a
coder who was worked on several GPL'ed projects, I would be MIGHTY pi55ed
off someone did to me what the LK8000 lot seem to have done to the XCSoar
authors. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of LK8000 suddenly
decide, post-beta, to make it a commercial product. I have seen this kind
of thing happen before...

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 27th 10, 01:29 PM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:41:46 +0000, Michael Jaworski wrote:

> So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
> LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is
> distributed under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be
> used/distributed), create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual
> obligations with the original author?
>
Both projects have gone off in slightly different directions. I haven't
seen XCSoar code since shortly after it was open sourced, but it was
somewhat messy and definitely uncommented at that point. Since then I
know Max has been tidying it up and modularising it with a view to making
it less dependent on one OS. Meanwhile a lot of LK8000 has been
rewritten, e.g. it uses different task file and mapping data formats now.

The bottom line is that the projects have most likely diverged
sufficiently that merging code bases now would be more trouble than its
worth.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Darryl Ramm

August 27th 10, 02:17 PM

On Aug 27, 5:29*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:41:46 +0000, Michael Jaworski wrote:
> > So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
> > LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is
> > distributed under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be
> > used/distributed), create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual
> > obligations with the original author?
>
> Both projects have gone off in slightly different directions. I haven't
> seen XCSoar code since shortly after it was open sourced, but it was
> somewhat messy and definitely uncommented at that point. Since then I
> know Max has been tidying it up and modularising it with a view to making
> it less dependent on one OS. Meanwhile a lot of LK8000 has been
> rewritten, e.g. it uses different task file and mapping data formats now.
>
> The bottom line is that the projects have most likely diverged
> sufficiently that merging code bases now would be more trouble than its
> worth.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
behavior worrying.

Implications of the GPL just should not be a surprise to developers
going on open source projects. Pretending something is a restricted
distribution but effectively encouraging wide underground distribution
is unlikely to stand up in court. I wonder what the agreement looks
like with the participants that governs their behavior in the LK8000
program? Does it require them not to redistibute code? Will the LK8000
developer remove participants in that program mentioned here who
appear to be doing of blatant redistibution? By not investigating that
or taking action the likely argument would be that they are materially
conducting public distribution of the binaries (and therefore need to
make the source code widely available). The remedy for all this is
really really easy, make the source available. People here who are not
developers or who have no close experience with open source may not
understand the implications. To many open source software developers
this behavior is not seen as subtle dicking around the edges stuff,
its seen as stealing.

BTW anybody reading (and if you are posting in this thread then I'd
assume you've read it) and then distributing the binaries to others is
going to have a hard time every denying they committed willful
copyright infringement. Ask your lawyer the difference between willful
and non-willful infringement. If I was one of the original copyright
owners everybody identified in thread as distributing the code would
be getting cease and desist letters. Likely nothing will happen, but
just maybe at some time lawyers in the GPL ecosystem will come across
this and go after folks to make a point, as they've done on other
cases, including the theft of the model railroad JMRI GPL code. So
help them out by keeping posting names and contact information on how
to get the LK8000 software.

Darryl

Mike Ash

August 27th 10, 04:25 PM

In article
>,
Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
> effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
> infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
> behavior worrying.

How does it violate the GPL? The GPL simply states that you must give
the source code to anyone who you gave the software to, if they ask, and
that you can't restrict others from distributing either. From what I've
gathered, it sounds like the LK8000 author(s) are simply requesting that
people not redistribute it further. So long as it remains a *request*,
it's completely within the terms of the GPL.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

noel.wade

August 27th 10, 05:43 PM

On Aug 27, 4:41*am, Michael Jaworski
> wrote:

> I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
> themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.

Michael -

As an IT professional I understand your stance on this. Were XCSoar a
commercial product or the results of a dedicated team that was still
working on it, I would have some of those same feelings. However:

1) Both products are free. No one is losing money or being driven out
of business.
2) Most of the team that originally put together XCSoar is, as I
undertand it, no longer involved in the product. The 1 or 2 new
people that have taken control of XCSoar did not actually develop it
AFAIK. If the original developers want to be upset then I can
understand - but that's not the same thing as the current developer
being upset. AND I would point out to the original developers that
their hard work is still completely available as XCSoar or the XCSoar
source. Also: remember that the LK8000 developer WAS one of the
XCSoar authors/contributors - not a black knight who swooped in from
nowhere and "stole" the code.
3) LK8000 is not going to be a commercial product. Heck, XCSoar was
much closer to being a commercial product in the first place, via the
Triadis flight computer. Given what's already freely available, I
don't see a commercially-viable path for LK8000 in any case.

Look, we can talk in abstracts and ideals; but there's a need to be
pragmatic and realistic about the situation. We're dealing with
personalities and egos that created this mess; and both sides have
chosen to try to exclude the other party, while still making the
results of their work available to the public for free (the LK8000
developer refuses to even accept donations to cover website costs).

Is there a violation of the GPL going on? Possibly. Is the "spirit"
of the GPL being violated? Yes. But is it materially harming
anyone? That's a much tougher question to answer... If I knew it
*was* harming someone, I wouldn't use it; but I don't see how its
causing harm at this point. I'm not happy about the situation, but I
don't see a "perfect" solution at this point. The LK8000 developer
has claimed that the source-code will be made available at a future
date when the software is publicly distributed. Personally I believe
that the best thing for me to do is to apply gentle pressure and
persuasion, to try to encourage this to come true sooner rather than
later.

The practical reality is this: We don't have to like it; but asking
people to stop using a superior product is just not going to happen -
not when its free and already "in the wild".

--Noel

Ian[_2_]

August 27th 10, 09:35 PM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:43:05 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

> Is there a violation of the GPL going on? Possibly. Is the "spirit" of
> the GPL being violated? Yes. But is it materially harming anyone?
> That's a much tougher question to answer... If I knew it *was* harming
> someone, I wouldn't use it; but I don't see how its causing harm at this
> point. I'm not happy about the situation, but I don't see a "perfect"
> solution at this point. The LK8000 developer has claimed that the
> source-code will be made available at a future date when the software is
> publicly distributed. Personally I believe that the best thing for me
> to do is to apply gentle pressure and persuasion, to try to encourage
> this to come true sooner rather than later.

So let me help apply some gentle pressure...

<rant>

There is a HUGE violation of the GPL going on here.

1000's of hours were spent writing the original XCSOAR code. The
developers who did it, as well as all of those who helped with testing,
filing bugs, translating, documentation etc did it for no reward at all.

The only rights they have reserved over their work, is that the source
code of any software developed from their work should be made available
to them and to anybody else who feels motivated to continue with the
work. This is the same motivation that has resulted in entire operating
systems and many thousands of applications being written under GPL
copyrights.

It is exactly this right which is being withheld. It is not only a theft
of the intellectual property of the original XCSOAR authors, but it is
also an insult to 10's of thousands of programmers and developers who
have contributed to GPL copyrighted work over the decades.

The rules are simple. You cannot distribute a "testing beta" derivative
of a GPL copyright work unless you distribute the source code of that
work as well. At the same time, not at some date in the future.

> The practical reality is this: We don't have to like it; but asking
> people to stop using a superior product is just not going to happen -
> not when its free and already "in the wild".

If this is your attitude, then you might as well distribute hacked copies
of Winpilot, CU Mobile, and Pocket Strepla, underhand to other readers of
this newsgroup.

But this is worse. Perhaps the gliding equivalent of a programmer who
violates a GPL copyright is a pilot who falsifies their documentation in
order to earn a badge that they never flew. It does not hurt anybody, so
what is the harm in that?

</rant>

Ian

PS: Just publish the code and all will be forgiven!

Darryl Ramm

August 27th 10, 09:51 PM

On Aug 27, 8:25 am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
> > effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
> > infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
> > behavior worrying.
>
> How does it violate the GPL? The GPL simply states that you must give
> the source code to anyone who you gave the software to, if they ask, and
> that you can't restrict others from distributing either. From what I've
> gathered, it sounds like the LK8000 author(s) are simply requesting that
> people not redistribute it further. So long as it remains a *request*,
> it's completely within the terms of the GPL.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, and others

I do not believe the LK8000 developer is providing source access to
people with access to the binary. The binaries are effectively being
widely distributed. And it seems without meeting the GPL requirements
for making source available to those recipients. I'd love to be wrong
about any of this. Are written notices included with the binaries
letting users know how they may request source code? or is the source
code available for those users to download from a network server? If
not then what are the terms of any agreement in place with current
users providing testing of the software for the developers? (this is a
more difficult route to use to argue you do not need to provide source
code access to a group of people with access to the binary).

A mere "request" by a developer to users not to redistribute binaries,
without also meeting other requirements (Section 2 below) for limited
binary only distribution is unlikely to immunize the developer from
requirements to provide source code and could be seen itself as a
violation of the GPL on restricting distribution. And as I mention
some people will argue that there is effectively no limited testing/
beta/alpha allowed outside a single organization without also
requiring source code distribution/access.

Without getting prissy with the legal crap (which I will do below)
this just does seem to be outside the spirit of the GPL and open
source development. And to me its just a pity as everything I hear
about the LK8000 software is very complimentary and the people
involved seem very technically competent. And yes I understand how
things can get into these messy situations, and I understand why
people want to use the LK8000 software and share it etc. And how many
many non-developers will not understand all the implications of the
GPL. Probably the easiest path to curing this situation is for the
LK8000 developer to just release the code (or remove all XCSoar
copyright code). Appearing to really avoid releasing code may start
people worrying that there may be intent here to take the code
commercial (which they can do if they remove all other non-original
code).

----

Prissy legal stuff follows ... the GPL issue is one of "conveying" a
covered work and then the requirement for providing source code. I'll
try to assemble the two sections from the current GPL that are
relevant. One argument goes that there are certain very restricted
'private' distribution of binaries only that can allow developers not
to provide source at all, and the other general argument controls what
a developer and others must do to provide source code for other
(usual) situations. My comments below in [].

---

From the GPL v3

GPL v3 Section 2 BASIC PERMISSIONS....

....You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

[This clause is used by some folks to argue it is possible to do some
limited alpha/beta testing without triggering the usual GPL source
distribution requirements but to do that the participants in the alpha/
beta program must DO SO EXCLUSIVELY ON YOUR BEHALF, UNDER YOUR
DIRECTION AND CONTROL, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT PROHIBIT THEM FROM
MAKING ANY COPIES... etc. The FSF themselves argue this is not allowed
if you "distribute" an alpha/beta/etc. version, i.e. it all depends on
what is meant by "distribute". A simple test of this control would be
what is in any alpha/beta/test agreement that participants have been
required to agree to. Another test is when the developer is aware of
violations of this part of the GPL what action have they taken? If a
developer wants to use this argument then its really their
responsibility to require and maintain compliance with this. Many open-
source developers never go down this path to argue they don't need to
provide source code to alpha/beta/test users - they just provide
source access as required elsewhere in the GPL.]

---

[If the developer does not meet the requirements mentioned above and
executable are conveyed outside of the limited situation allowed (and
I suspect that may have occurred here) then the usual GPL source code
distribution requirements kicks in. And it is not just "if somebody
with the binary asks for source code"...]

GPL v3 Section 6. CONVEYING NON-SOURCE FORMS.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
ways:

* a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily
used for software interchange.
* b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give
anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the
Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used
for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable
cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access
to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
* c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of
the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only
if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with
subsection 6b.
* d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy
the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be
on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports
equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
satisfy these requirements.
* e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission,
provided you inform other peers where the object code and
Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general
public at no charge under subsection 6d.

[6 (a) and (b) don't apply since the usual distribution here is non-
physical distribution of the LK8000 binary. 6 (c) may apply
"occasionally" and requires a written offer for a physical medium *or*
provision on a network server. An interpretation of this is that
participants in an alpha/beta may fall under 6 (c) but was the offer
to provide the LK8000 source actually made in writing to participants?
If it was not made in writing in an offer in the binary distribution
then the source needs to be on a network server accessible to
recipients of the binary. And those recipients can copy and distribute
that source code freely.

A lawyer might try to argue that there is an "underground"/multi-tier
distribution used in an attempt circumvent the 6 (c) requirement, and/
or fails the "occasional" test and therefore 6 (d) or 6 (e) should
apply. The occasional test is likely to be ambiguous - but I'd argue
that if all distribution of a work over time used this form of source
code distribution then it was not "occasional". Limited use for a new
alpha/beta likely passes this "occasional" test. But that just gives
the developer the option of using the written offer to provide source.
And they need to make that offer up front in writing if they want to
use that option. And once you no longer meet the "occasional" test you
are effectively forced to provide a network or peer-peer download.
Nowadays most GPL developers just push source onto an online server as
it is easy, involves less work and meets compliance across all parts
of Section 6.]

Darryl

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 27th 10, 10:28 PM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:17:51 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that effectlively
> underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright infringement and
> violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this behavior worrying.
>
Explanatory.

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.
I have no idea why this happened, but it could well have been due to
source incompatibility, since at the same time Max was cleaning up and
refactoring the main code base in an effort to improve its
maintainability.

All I know was that the then main PNA developer vanished from sight for a
while before setting up the LK8000 fork. In the interim XCSoar 5.2.4
appeared. It did not, and still does not, have an official PNA release.
Anybody running XCSoar 5.2.4 on a PNA is, like me, running one of Max
Kellerman's two unofficial versions. I'm very grateful for them:
otherwise I'd still be running 5.2.2.

I don't know where that leaves your theory about the LK8000 project
refusing to pass updates back to the root project: there's a big
difference between a refusal to contribute and having that contribution
rejected.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Darryl Ramm

August 27th 10, 10:28 PM

On Aug 27, 1:51*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 27, 8:25 am, Mike Ash > wrote:
[snip
> Darryl

I should point out I was referring to GPL v3, I think XCSoar is
licensed under GPL v2 with the rider that it can be distributed under
later versions. So it is unclear to me what version of the GPL LK8000
is distributed under. Does anybody know?

If it is GPL v2 then the source code distribution terms are different.
The relevant clause if you not actually include the source with the
binary distribution is...

"Accompany [a binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code, ..."

[There is no separate "easy out there, this notice has to be in the
distribution, separately providing on a server does not meet the
requirement alone. If you provide it on a server you must also provide
the notice in the distribution. This is just historical, and many
people will want to use GPL v3 today. So the legal question is does
the LK8000 binary package include a notice offering source code? And
will the developer provide that code when requested.]

[And the corresponding "private test" use that some argue us allowed
in v3 comes down in GPL v2 to how "distribute" is interpreted in the
following clause...]

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.

[So would the current dissemination of LK8000 be considered to
"distribute" or not? I suspect in this case a lawyer would be able to
pretty easily argue the software is being distributed by the developer
and others.].

Darryl

Simon Taylor[_2_]

August 27th 10, 10:39 PM

At 16:43 27 August 2010, noel.wade wrote:

Hi Noel,

I'm involved in the XCSoar project in a very minor way since 2005 (I
usually say 'did the logo with the swift in it', but I also sneaked in a
number of bugs [that way the swift doesn't go hungry.]) I can't speak for
the main contributors to XCSoar, but I'd like to add a different
perspective:

>As an IT professional I understand your stance on this. Were XCSoar a
>commercial product or the results of a dedicated team that was still
>working on it, I would have some of those same feelings. However:
>

>2) Most of the team that originally put together XCSoar is, as I
>undertand it, no longer involved in the product. The 1 or 2 new
>people that have taken control of XCSoar did not actually develop it
>AFAIK. If the original developers want to be upset then I can
>understand - but that's not the same thing as the current developer
>being upset.

There's a third party site that automatically generates a list of
contributors to the XCSoar project that is useful here, I'll link to it
with the following caveats: It's not up-to-date and gives the wrong
impression about the amount of effort each contributor has made - please
ignore the Y-axis scaling and 'ranking', it's not a measure of lines of
code written or indeed time expended but of something altogether
arbitrary.

http://www.ohloh.net/p/xcsoar/contributors?page=1
(Again, it's people that could be said to have essentially left the
project that we're looking for, the 'ranking'/Y-axis is nowhere near an
accurate measure of the amount of effort contributed and should be
ignored)

Note that while the activity of some members is sporiadic, there are few
who look inactive. And the few who do look inactive include me, and I'm
not. :) The big contributors to the project in its early state are still
with the project, and have been clear from the outset that they want Paul
(Paul Coolwind/Paolo Ventafridda is the LK8000 developer - I'm not sure
which he prefers, but I'll refer to him as Paul since he goes by Coolwind
on the LK8000 forums) to release the source code.

>Also: remember that the LK8000 developer WAS one of the
>XCSoar authors/contributors - not a black knight who swooped in from
>nowhere and "stole" the code.

I'm not sure if the list linked above gives an accurate timestamp of
Paul's involvement, and I have no idea when Paul started developing for
XCSoar, but the following post from Paul as a user at the end of November
2008 presumably predates any development work :

http://tinyurl.com/389dz4f
(Links to Google's 'Nabble' mailing-list archive of the xcsoar-user
sourceforge group)

And LK8000 as an isolated project dates from August / September 2009 if
I'm not mistaken.

>3) LK8000 is not going to be a commercial product. Heck, XCSoar was
>much closer to being a commercial product in the first place, via the
>Triadis flight computer. Given what's already freely available, I
>don't see a commercially-viable path for LK8000 in any case.

The Triadis Altair spurred a lot of the development of XCSoar, and the
improvements filtered back into the Pocket PC version. Done right,
commercial use is beneficial to open source projects and not discouraged.

>Look, we can talk in abstracts and ideals; but there's a need to be
>pragmatic and realistic about the situation. We're dealing with
>personalities and egos that created this mess; and both sides have
>chosen to try to exclude the other party, while still making the
>results of their work available to the public for free (the LK8000
>developer refuses to even accept donations to cover website costs).

There's no way that XCSoar can exclude any party that agrees to comply
with the GPL, so no exclusion has occurred from that end.

XCSoar developers do however send emails whenever some tester's
absent-mindedly uploaded the LK8000 project on a public file-server. (not
legal threats, just details of the GPL infringement and a polite request
that they remove it. They always do, which should be an indicator of
something.)

>
>Is there a violation of the GPL going on? Possibly. Is the "spirit"
>of the GPL being violated? Yes. But is it materially harming
>anyone? That's a much tougher question to answer... If I knew it
>*was* harming someone, I wouldn't use it; but I don't see how its
>causing harm at this point.

Devil's advocate here: By that logic can you suggest any realistic event
that would trigger a moral objection other than Paul charging for LK8000?

>I'm not happy about the situation, but I
>don't see a "perfect" solution at this point.

As far as the GPL goes, the possible solutions appear to be:
1) Paul contacts each of the ~20 XCSoar contributors and asks for their
permission to use their work without the GPL licence, and removes the work
of those who don't agree from LK8000.
2) Paul releases the source code.
3) Paul stops all distribution of LK8000 (until 2 is satisfied).

I think everyone in the XCSoar project's pushing for 2. I know paraglider
pilots especially find the features of LK8000 very useful.

The LK8000 developer
>has claimed that the source-code will be made available at a future
>date when the software is publicly distributed.

Crucially the terms 'alpha, beta' etc have no meaning as far as the GPL
goes - if Paul's publically distributing the program he has to distribute
the source code too. And the program is being publically distributed by the
group Paul has assigned as testers. I'll labour that point a little;
Paul's making no attempt to stop this hand-me-down form of distribution,
even happily mentions this subterfuge on the first pages of the LK8000
manual.

Is this form of distribution violating the GPL? Yes, but in a way that
spreads the responsibility over each link of the chain of distribution.
Lawsuits are an unlikely resolution; perhaps if distributors were a little
less apathetic.

>Personally I believe
>that the best thing for me to do is to apply gentle pressure and
>persuasion, to try to encourage this to come true sooner rather than
>later.
>

Here's a few arguments for doing so, or perhaps taking a firmer stance on
the issue;

Lines of code is a poor way of measuring effort expended, but XCSoar
contained around 220,000 lines of code in the last quarter of 2008 (around
the time Paul joined the project). Paul was justifiably proud of claiming
in May this year that the extra features of LK8000 made up an extra 20,000
lines of code.

On a practical level, the ramifications of LK8000's closed source status
are fairly simple - for the last year both projects have continued in
different directions, both involving very different major changes to the
code. The two projects have been entirely isolated during that period, so
bugs have been fixed independently (and inevitably in different ways) in
each project, and as features and changes are built upon these divergent
sets of code it becomes more and more difficult to exchange features or
fixes between the two projects. This isn't particularly significant to
users at the moment, but the current industry trends suggest the vast
majority of electronic ink / 'pixel qi' sunlight-readable devices will
use Android / Linux.

Packaging source code takes minutes and costs nothing - there's an ocean
of websites out there dedicated to hosting source code.

Regards,

Simon

Darryl Ramm

August 27th 10, 10:53 PM

On Aug 27, 2:28*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:17:51 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that effectlively
> > underground wide distribution of LK8000 is *copyright infringement and
> > violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this behavior worrying.
>
> Explanatory.
>
> On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
> trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
> accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.
> I have no idea why this happened, but it could well have been due to
> source incompatibility, since at the same time Max was cleaning up and
> refactoring the main code base in an effort to improve its
> maintainability.
>
> All I know was that the then main PNA developer vanished from sight for a
> while before setting up the LK8000 fork. In the interim XCSoar 5.2.4
> appeared. It did not, and still does not, have an official PNA release.
> Anybody running XCSoar 5.2.4 on a PNA is, like me, running one of Max
> Kellerman's two unofficial versions. I'm very grateful for them:
> otherwise I'd still be running 5.2.2.
>
> I don't know where that leaves your theory about the LK8000 project
> refusing to pass updates back to the root project: there's a big
> difference between a refusal to contribute and having that contribution
> rejected.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Martin

This is not really irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether XK80000
is meeting source code provision requirements of the GPL or not. I
have never made any comment about the provision of code changes to the
the original XCSoar project, or those developers accepting or not
those changes, etc. And whatever happened there does not modify the
rights of the original copyright owners or modify any of the GPL
license terms.

The original developers do not have to be provided with any special
access any different to anybody else, they do not need to like the
changes to "their code" or approve them. If somebody else wants to
contribute but they have a falling out and that developer(s) takes the
code and branch/rewrite it and makes it better -- then too bad. And if
those changes becomes popular -- maybe a sign they should have
listened to those developers. And maybe sometimes everybody is better
off with multiple branches, especially if they address different uses/
end-users better.

Developers working with GPL code are mostly free to do whatever they
want, including things that original developers do not agree with -
but they need to make clear those changes have been made and they need
to provide the source code to the user community in the ways I've
outlined in other posts in this thread. That is the apparent issue
here.

Darryl

Simon Taylor[_2_]

August 27th 10, 10:56 PM

At 21:28 27 August 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:

>On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
>trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
>accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.

John Wharington, who took lead of the GPLed XCSoar project from the start,
was the one who decided the source code needed overhauling for XCSoar 6.0.
Paul (the LK8000 programmer) wanted to concentrate on new features. To do
both at the same time required very substantial changes to the working
methods Paul had been using (and I can understand is very difficult
regardless); consequently Paul was frustrated at the change of direction.
To be fair he wasn't the only one, and another developer left the project
at the same time. I think the subsequent project 'fork' was inevitable at
this point because Paul and the XCSoar project had different objectives.

Along with the change of direction, John wanted some of the new features
Paul was working on to be specifically excluded from XCSoar, the
LX8000-style interface being perhaps the most significant example.

I feel that making that decision to temporarily change the focus of the
project was entirely John's right - scan through the archives of the
xcsoar-devel lists since the early days and reach your own conclusion.

I expect I've oversimplified the situation, but that's the basics.

Regards,

Simon

jb92563

August 27th 10, 11:00 PM

On Aug 27, 4:41*am, Michael Jaworski
> wrote:
> So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
> LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is distributed
> under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be used/distributed),
> create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual obligations with the
> original author? *
>
> And that we should all help and support the LK8000 author in undermining
> this agreement by keeping the distribution channel 'underground' so that
> this distribution cannot be so easily proved by the original (XCSoar)
> author, thereby leaving him with no redress?
>
> I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
> themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.
>

OPEN SOURCE..=...SOURCE CODE is freely available to modify and mess
with any way you want, just don't sell the
resulting product.

Purpose: So that people can modify and redistribute their own version
of the code as long as they are not profiting.

Result: The source have been copied, modified and is not being
sold.....so what is the problem?

Granted I don't think the source is available yet, but the developer
does not feel its ready yet....needs commenting, documentation etc
so in due course LK8000 should be fully in compliance with the
license. Lets give these amateur developers some slack
as they can not be expected to run like a corporation when 1 person is
doing the majority of the work.

Now if it does go Commercial then they will have the crap sued out of
them, and they know it, so lets not
worry about that. Highly unlikely to go commercial because their
market is too small for it to be worthwhile and pulling a move like
that
will ensure that they have NO customers as I believe the glider folks
will black ball them and not support the commercial
product.

Open Source promotes development of better and free software for the
benefit of all at no cost and I see that
happening exactly as envisioned with LK8000 branching off from XC
Soar.

No one looses, and everyone gains from this natural evolution of the
software.

No need to over complicate the very thing that Open Source was
designed to promote.

Ray

Darryl Ramm

August 27th 10, 11:16 PM

On Aug 27, 3:00*pm, jb92563 > wrote:
> On Aug 27, 4:41*am, Michael Jaworski
>
> > wrote:
> > So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
> > LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is distributed
> > under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be used/distributed),
> > create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual obligations with the
> > original author? *
>
> > And that we should all help and support the LK8000 author in undermining
> > this agreement by keeping the distribution channel 'underground' so that
> > this distribution cannot be so easily proved by the original (XCSoar)
> > author, thereby leaving him with no redress?
>
> > I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
> > themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.
>
> OPEN SOURCE..=...SOURCE CODE is freely available to modify and mess
> with any way you want, just don't sell the
> resulting product.
>
> Purpose: So that people can modify and redistribute their own version
> of the code as long as they are not profiting.
>
> Result: The source have been copied, modified and is not being
> sold.....so what is the problem?
>
> Granted I don't think the source is available yet, but the developer
> does not feel its ready yet....needs commenting, documentation etc
> so in due course LK8000 should be fully in compliance with the
> license. Lets give these amateur developers some slack
> as they can not be expected to run like a corporation when 1 person is
> doing the majority of the work.
>
> Now if it does go Commercial then they will have the crap sued out of
> them, and they know it, so lets not
> worry about that. *Highly unlikely to go commercial because their
> market is too small for it to be worthwhile and pulling a move like
> that
> will ensure that they have NO customers as I believe the glider folks
> will black ball them and not support the commercial
> product.
>
> Open Source promotes development of better and free software for the
> benefit of all at no cost and I see that
> happening exactly as envisioned with LK8000 branching off from XC
> Soar.
>
> No one looses, and everyone gains from this natural evolution of the
> software.
>
> No need to over complicate the very thing that Open Source was
> designed to promote.
>
> Ray

But, you, I or the LK8000 developers don't get to choose. The source
code copyright belongs to others and is licensed under the GPL. And
more than just a legal point, those folks are clearly upset about
this. So the developers of LK8000 should just man up and publish the
code -- and the issue will just go away.

While open source can deliver a lot of benefits, complaining about
this behavior is not attacking open source. Quite the opposite, a lot
of open source developers would see this exact behavior as a threat to
the development freedom and community spirit around open source
development.

Darryl

noel.wade

August 27th 10, 11:25 PM

Simon -

With the many lengthy posts here I'll make this one somewhat brief
(although I have opinions on a lot of what's been said)...

1) THANK YOU for your contributions to XCSoar! I used it from 2007 -
2009 and appreciate the work that you and many others did to create
such a wonderful free product. I even created a video (on YouTube and
Twango) to show off the main features of XCSoar. I also recognize
that without XCSoar there would be no LK8000, and I hope that my use
of LK8000 is not taken as an insult to the work done by contributors
like yourself!

2) Paolo has publicly claimed that his submissions to XCSoar (for
PNAs, as Martin mentions) were rejected. Since someone at the head of
XCSoar development is apparently refusing to accept his code, I see
his refusal to release the source-code for LK8000 as a "tit-for-tat"
response. Hence my comments about exclusion and egos - the GPL has
nothing to do with it. I find this spat annoying and distasteful; but
I also don't think its my place to insert myself between the warring
personalities.

3) Paolo apparently started contributing to XCSoar around 5.2 or
5.22... So he was a late-comer to the party; but he was involved for
a time.

4) My comments about business and harm stem from my personal view on
software development: In my mind there is a clear division between a
commercial or professional project, and a "for-free" or "for-the-
public-good" project. If you code something and say "I'm giving it
away to the masses", then you have to accept the fact that you can't
always control the public. Its understandable to be hurt if someone
uses something you've done and doesn't give you credit for the work.
But if someone gets all knotted up about it, then perhaps their
original motives weren't as pure or altruistic as they thought? Now
if the development was started with the intention of making a profit
or obtaining something else (like a job or an award) through this
project, then mis-use of the code is true theft. The GPL occupies
this weird middle-ground, where people are giving away stuff "for
free", but they don't want someone else to make a profit off of their
efforts; and/or they want to have some sort of hammer to wield in
order to force others to give away *their* code/contributions as
well. As a way of forcing projects into the light to be evolved
through group effort, its cool - but its got its drawbacks as well.

OK, this is getting too lengthy, I'll cut it off here. Just to be
clear: I still think the GPL should be respected and on a personal
level I don't agree with Paolo's course of action. But I do
understand why he's doing it, and there's no arguing that LK8000 is
presently superior to XCSoar 5.2.4 - especially on PNAs and other
newer Win CE/Mobile devices; and that's driving its adoption. As a
private citizen with no control over either project, I hope for a
positive resolution and full respect of the GPL and other laws by both
parties.

BTW - You mentioned Android. Which is cool, but I think a lot of
projects developed for Android may wind up in legal limbo as the
ORACLE lawsuit winds its way through the courts over the next several
years. The legal issues with LK8000 may wind up being peanuts
compared to an XCSoar product on Android! :-P

--Noel

Mike Ash

August 28th 10, 05:10 AM

In article
>,
Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> I should point out I was referring to GPL v3, I think XCSoar is
> licensed under GPL v2 with the rider that it can be distributed under
> later versions. So it is unclear to me what version of the GPL LK8000
> is distributed under. Does anybody know?

If it follows the terms of the GPL, then it will include a copy of
whatever version it's being distributed under. If it doesn't include
one, it's not following either version, so that doesn't matter in that
particular case.

> If it is GPL v2 then the source code distribution terms are different.
> The relevant clause if you not actually include the source with the
> binary distribution is...
>
> "Accompany [a binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
> physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
> copy of the corresponding source code, ..."
>
> [There is no separate "easy out there, this notice has to be in the
> distribution, separately providing on a server does not meet the
> requirement alone. If you provide it on a server you must also provide
> the notice in the distribution. This is just historical, and many
> people will want to use GPL v3 today. So the legal question is does
> the LK8000 binary package include a notice offering source code? And
> will the developer provide that code when requested.]

The notice of source code availability is another one. If LK8000
includes both a copy of the GPL and an offer to provide source, then it
can be compliant even with the limited distribution that its authors are
currently doing. But if it's not, then it's not compliant.

> [So would the current dissemination of LK8000 be considered to
> "distribute" or not? I suspect in this case a lawyer would be able to
> pretty easily argue the software is being distributed by the developer
> and others.].

I'm no expert in this area, but I believe the moment they give it to
another person, it qualifies.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Bruce Hoult

August 28th 10, 05:24 AM

On Aug 28, 10:00*am, jb92563 > wrote:
> OPEN SOURCE..=...SOURCE CODE is freely available to modify and mess
> with any way you want, just don't sell the
> resulting product.

No, no, no.

"Open Source" is not one particular thing. There are many different
open source licenses, ranging from declaring your work to be "in the
public domain", to the BSD&MIT "you can do anything you like except
pretend you wrote it all", to the GPL and others.

There is nothing at all in the GPL that prevents you from selling the
product resulting from your modifications. Or even without
modifications -- just take the existing source code, package it up,
and sell it.

The *only* restriction is that you must provide the source code for
the entire product if it contains any GPL code at all.

If you don't like this restriction then don't use someone else's GPL
code. Simple.

Why would someone pay you money if they could just download the source
code and compile it themselves? The same reason that McDonalds
survives even though you can buy ingredients and make a better burger
at home yourself. Convenience and/or lack of skill. Perhaps also
technical support, in the case of software.

> Purpose: So that people can modify and redistribute their own version
> of the code as long as they are not profiting.

Profit has nothing to do with it. To quote RIchard Stallman, GPL is
free as in speech, not free as in beer.

> Result: The source have been copied, modified and is not being
> sold.....so what is the problem?

The problem is that the terms under which the original authors made
their work available are not being followed. They only asked for one
thing in exchange for the right to use their copyrighted work. That
one thing is not being done, therefore the LK8000 people have no right
to use their work.

> Granted I don't think the source is available yet, but the developer
> does not feel its ready yet....needs commenting, documentation etc
> so in due course LK8000 should be fully in compliance with the
> license. Lets give these amateur developers some slack
> as they can not be expected to run like a corporation when 1 person is
> doing the majority of the work.

It doesn't take any effort. They only have to make their CVS/SVN/git/
mercurial server on the internet. They probably do this anyway, for
their own convenience.

> Now if it does go Commercial then they will have the crap sued out of
> them, and they know it

No, there is no problem in them going commercial, as long as they
provide the source code.

Darryl Ramm

August 28th 10, 06:25 AM

On Aug 27, 9:10*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > I should point out I was referring to GPL v3, I think XCSoar is
> > licensed under GPL v2 with the rider that it can be distributed under
> > later versions. So it is unclear to me what version of the GPL LK8000
> > is distributed under. Does anybody know?
>
> If it follows the terms of the GPL, then it will include a copy of
> whatever version it's being distributed under. If it doesn't include
> one, it's not following either version, so that doesn't matter in that
> particular case.

Since LK8000 includes XCSoar copyrighted code (not that it was really
in doubt and a quick Google shows the LK8000 developers publicly
confirming this) the LK80000 developers can legally now -

1. Either distribute under GPL 2
2. Choose to distribute under a more recent version of the GPL as
allowed for in the original XCSoar license.

If they choose neither they are in breach of the GPL license and then
simply in violation of copyright laws as they have no rights to make,
modify and distribute copies of any of the original XCSoar code.
(Which is what Mike may have meant by "it does not matter" -i.e. it is
in breach anyhow, not it does not matter and is allowed). I just
wanted to make that clear.

So does anybody know what version of the GPL LK8000 is distributed
under? i.e. what GPL license is bundled with the distribution?

[snip]

Darryl

Mike Ash

August 28th 10, 06:37 PM

In article
>,
Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> If they choose neither they are in breach of the GPL license and then
> simply in violation of copyright laws as they have no rights to make,
> modify and distribute copies of any of the original XCSoar code.
> (Which is what Mike may have meant by "it does not matter" -i.e. it is
> in breach anyhow, not it does not matter and is allowed). I just
> wanted to make that clear.

That is indeed what I meant. I can see how that could be misread, so
thank you for clarifying.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 28th 10, 09:12 PM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:53:24 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> This is not really irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether XK80000 is
> meeting source code provision requirements of the GPL or not. I have
> never made any comment about the provision of code changes to the the
> original XCSoar project
>
Somebody up-thread said that not submitting changes constituted a GPL
violation. I thought that was you: consequently I apologise for the
misattribution.

> Developers working with GPL code are mostly free to do whatever they
> want, including things that original developers do not agree with - but
> they need to make clear those changes have been made and they need to
> provide the source code to the user community in the ways I've outlined
> in other posts in this thread. That is the apparent issue here.
>
Agreed.

I've looked at the binary I have and can't work out what licensing
conditions apply, though GPL (version not specified) seems to be implied.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

PCool

August 28th 10, 09:28 PM

I'd like to point out something here..

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote On Aug 28, 10:00 am,
>The problem is that the terms under which the original authors made
>their work available are not being followed. They only asked for one
>thing in exchange for the right to use their copyrighted work. That
>one thing is not being done, therefore the LK8000 people have no right
>to use their work.

False. Owning and using a GPLd software has nothing to do with distribution.
GPL is about distribution. This thread started because a guy could not find
a distributed
copy of LK8000 on my web page, nor a download link.

>> Granted I don't think the source is available yet, but the developer
>> does not feel its ready yet....needs commenting, documentation etc
>> so in due course LK8000 should be fully in compliance with the
>> license. Lets give these amateur developers some slack
>> as they can not be expected to run like a corporation when 1 person is
>> doing the majority of the work.
>It doesn't take any effort. They only have to make their CVS/SVN/git/
>mercurial server on the internet. They probably do this anyway, for
>their own convenience.

False again. It does take a lot of efforts, and months. It took almost an
year to 4 people so far.
I am doing it alone. I don't use cvs git etc. being alone, and this is
saving me time which I can dedicate to
development. In order to be useful to somebody, with a decent learning curve
to allow developers to contribute,
source code must be cleaned up and explained. And a development environment
has to be made too, and distributed as well.
Otherwise, I don't believe it will be good to anything else but for allowing
companies to sell PNAs running LK8000.
For sure, no contributions to the software itself.

When you say "it does not take any effort" you are for sure talking about
yourself, not me.
It never takes any effort, if you are not going to do it personally!

>> Now if it does go Commercial then they will have the crap sued out of
>> them, and they know it
>No, there is no problem in them going commercial, as long as they
>provide the source code.

Right. I could sell a PNAs at the price of 5000$. That would give the right
of asking for the source code ONLY to legal buyers.
Triadis did that, and the source code was released only after over 1 year.
Sadly, I myself in the meantime had rewritten most of what they had done in
the past, and byebye GPL spirit. And that's commercial GPL.

FYI
- 5.2.4 is out with no PNA binaries. My contribution to PNA version of 5.2.4
was clearly refused and no official release of 5.2.4 was ever made because
of that. I had worked for months on it. Now it is distributed unofficially,
not by me (It doesn't take any effort to create a PNA version, if you only
need to run a "makefile", and get the credits).
- I was told not to bother to send anything concerning lk8000 interface, by
the lead developer of xcs.
- The upcoming 6.0 is 100% different from 5.2.4 and thus from LK8000. No
code sharing possible.
- LK is free, and I refused to accept a single cent in donations. Not a
single cent. So nobody can say I made money of of it.
On the contrary, I remind I told someone to use the donate button on
xcsoar time ago.

paul

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 28th 10, 10:02 PM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:24:19 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> There is nothing at all in the GPL that prevents you from selling the
> product resulting from your modifications. Or even without modifications
> -- just take the existing source code, package it up, and sell it.
>
Agreed.

> The *only* restriction is that you must provide the source code for the
> entire product if it contains any GPL code at all.
>
No.

GPLv3, section 6 says that you must provide source for all the GPLed
sections of the Program, but not necessarily for any parts that you write
and choose not to release under the GPL. However, this doesn't apply to
modifications you make to GPLed code. Did I read that right, Darryl?

Distributing modified GPLed code is much less straight forward
contractually than including unmodified GPLed components in a Program.

GPLv3 clause 6c would also seem to apply: that it is permissible, though
frowned on, release source only on application to people holding a copy
of the object code.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

PCool

August 28th 10, 10:03 PM

Triadis is not selling a "PNA" of course, but a wonderful hardware with
sensors etc.
I did not meant "did that" as selling a PNA.

"PCool" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> Triadis did that, and the source code was released only after over 1 year.

Darryl Ramm

August 28th 10, 10:10 PM

On Aug 28, 1:28*pm, "PCool" > wrote:
> I'd like to point out something here..
[snip]
> paul

Paul

Can you clarify what license are you distributing LK8000 binaries
under? And if it is the GPL what version of the GPL? You provided that
software to at least some original people, and they seem to be
redistributing it. So what license was it provided to those original
people under? Is source code available for download now or via other
ways to users of the software? If not can you explain how you are not
violating the GPL and the copyright rights of other XCSoar developers?

I'm not asking how hard something is, or criticizing your software
engineering or project goals, etc., which all seem pretty impressive.

What any XCSoar developer tells you about whether they like, dislike,
will or will not incorporate your code in the XCSoar project has no
relevance on the obligation you have under the GPL to make source code
publicly available (or at least available to all binary recipients).
The only thing that can release you from this requirement is a
separate non-GPL license grant from all copyright holders of their
code you incorporate in your software.

If you still have questions on the GPL and are unsure about your
compliance requirements I will be happy to discuss this offline with
you.

Thanks

Darryl Ramm

Darryl Ramm

August 29th 10, 12:30 AM

On Aug 28, 2:02 pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:24:19 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > There is nothing at all in the GPL that prevents you from selling the
> > product resulting from your modifications. Or even without modifications
> > -- just take the existing source code, package it up, and sell it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The *only* restriction is that you must provide the source code for the
> > entire product if it contains any GPL code at all.
>
> No.
>
> GPLv3, section 6 says that you must provide source for all the GPLed
> sections of the Program, but not necessarily for any parts that you write
> and choose not to release under the GPL. However, this doesn't apply to
> modifications you make to GPLed code. Did I read that right, Darryl?

Martin I suspect you are reading it pretty right, but the challenge is
when and where can you write code code and not be _required_ to
release it under the GPL? I'll try to cover that below.

Bruce's comment also look pretty much correct to me, it is much much
better than the misconceptions in the earlier post that he was trying
to correct in his reply. And I suspect he simplified this a bit to
make it easier to follow.

There are some corner cases but what is true is you cannot modify GPL
code and choose to distribute/convey it and not have that code
modifications covered by the GPL. The act of distributing the binary,
object or source code triggers the GPL to capture all your code
modifications to the original GPL licensed source code. A developer
can choose to license their changes under both the GPL and additional
compatible open source license. (e.g. Google "GPL compatible license")
but a developer cannot decide to not license their code changes under
the GPL if the object code/binary/source is distributed. This is the
core of the "viral" aspect of GPL that Microsoft tried so hard to
scare software developers with (including companies/projects I worked
for).

There are other specific cases where code can be created to add to a
project while remaining clearly separate from the GPL code and that
can be covered by a separate non-GPL or even non-GPL compatible
license, e.g. typically requiring separate operating systems processes
between each piece of code. That will not apply here to the LK8000
software.

An individual or legal organization/company can modify code and not
need to provide changes if it is used internally by that entity. But
distributing/conveying the binaries or code triggers the GPL
requirements. I expect what has been happening with the LK8000
binaries would easily meet legal test for being distributed (or the
more precise "convey" etc. wording in the GPL v3).

A developer can also modify code under contract to a client and as
long as that code is not distributed outside of the client they do not
need to license the code changes under the GPL. This is a bit of a
fuzzy line as I mentioned in a previous post, where I would argue some
testing type arrangements (but not what the LK8000 developers appears
to be doing) might be allowable, I believe the FSF and others open-
source organizations would disagree with some of my interpretations
there.

> Distributing modified GPLed code is much less straight forward
> contractually than including unmodified GPLed components in a Program.

Once you distribute the modified source/binary/object code then the
source modifications are covered by the GPL and that is usually pretty
straightforward. And it should be straightforward in the situation at
hand. Combining already GPL'ed code should often be straightforward,
but even that can get interesting with things like different GPL
license versions being incompatible with each other. So I rather think
the devil is always in the details of each situation, most should be
straightforward, some will be complex.

[snip]

Darryl

|

Surfer![_2_]

August 29th 10, 09:02 PM

"Max Kellermann" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> XCSoar, on the other hand, is 100% free software. If you don't like
> it, just edit it. You don't need to ask for our permission, because
> the GPL gives this permission to everybody.

<snip>

The chances of me managing to change XC Soar because I don't like something
about it and end up with a working bit of software are pretty much zero.
The same applies to many (probably most) other pilots.

even for people with the time and talent to do it, they will then be either
having to get you to incorporate their changes or reimplement them in each
new version that comes along - or stick with what they have regardless of
changes they might or might not want in the base software.

> If all XCSoar developers suddenly lose interest in the project,
> anybody may pick it up.

Or again they may not. Plenty of Open Source projects have died. IMHO it
depends really if the user base includes enough people with enough of the
right skills, the inclination and the time to spare, remembering that there
will be a steep learning curve initially.

> If Paolo Ventafridda loses interest, the
> project is dead, leaving all users without support.

Meaning of course the LK8000 project. Again, an assumption. If Paolo loses
interest he might pass it on - it wouldn't be a 'first'.

Jason Kramb

August 29th 10, 09:08 PM

> OPEN SOURCE..=...SOURCE CODE is freely available to modify and mess
> with any way you want, just don't sell the
> resulting product.
>
> Purpose: So that people can modify and redistribute their own version
> of the code as long as they are not profiting.
>
> Result: The source have been copied, modified and is not being
> sold.....so what is the problem?

This is missing the point entirely and is precisely the one
restriction that is *not* limited by the GPL. Understand that there
are many licenses that are considered "open source", so your statement
may be correct for some released under some open source licenses,
however, it is very incorrect for code released under the GPL.

In the case of XCSoar, the original developers have released their
code under the GPL. By placing the code under the GPL, the developers
are allowing anyone to use and distribute that code, as long as anyone
who modifies or uses the code in a derivative work also releases and
distributes that new code under the GPL. The version of the GPL under
which all derivative works should be the same version as the original
work, so XCSoar was released under GPL v2, then all derivative works
should also be released under GPL v2. To change the version would
require all original code developers to change the license under which
they released their original code.

Profiting from or selling that derivative work has nothing to do with
it. Linux is a perfect example of code released under the GPL that
was modified by commercial companies and sold. The only restriction
is that those companies have to release their modifications and
additions to any code released under the GPL back to the public such
that the community may benefit from their work just as the company
benefited from the original work. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the
community based CentOS are just one such example..

If the developer of LK8000 is using code from XCSoar and had made
modifications to it that have then been released to the public, he is
in violation of the GPL if he is not also making his modifications/
additions to that original code also available to the public. Its
really as simple as that. If he refuses to make those modifications
to the code available, he has no right to use any of the original
XCSoar code, no matter how much of it has been replaced or modified,
period.

Jason Kramb

[email protected]

August 29th 10, 10:39 PM

Surfer! > wrote:
> even for people with the time and talent to do it, they will then be either
> having to get you to incorporate their changes or reimplement them in each
> new version that comes along - or stick with what they have regardless of
> changes they might or might not want in the base software.

That was true in the dark age of CVS and Subversion. Modern source
management tools like git (which we're using) make following an
upstream code base very easy.

> Or again they may not. Plenty of Open Source projects have died. IMHO it
> depends really if the user base includes enough people with enough of the
> right skills, the inclination and the time to spare, remembering that there
> will be a steep learning curve initially.

That is not the point. The point was that you or anybody else is
allowed to pick it up, without having to ask me or John or anybody
else for permission.

This freedom increases the chance that a project will continue to live
on. Whether or not somebody will really do it is of course a
different story.

Many projects have died, but many other projects have been continued
even after the author has disappeared. I have revived a lot of dead
projects in the past. That is only possible because the source code
was open and free.

There are anecdotes for both sides, but the anecdotes about revived
projects are most impressive to me (e.g. being able to play the
original Doom game on my Android phone!).

> Meaning of course the LK8000 project. Again, an assumption. If
> Paolo loses interest he might pass it on - it wouldn't be a 'first'.

Note the major difference: only if Paolo explicitly decides to pass it
on, the project may continue. He is the only one to decide,
everything in the project depends on one man's random decision.

Max

Mike Ash

August 30th 10, 12:55 AM

In article >,
Max Kellermann > wrote:

> Mike Ash wrote:
> > From what I've gathered, it sounds like the LK8000 author(s) are
> > simply requesting that people not redistribute it further. So long
> > as it remains a request , it's completely within the terms of the
> > GPL.
>
> I know a beta tester who got the LK8000 binaries, but his request for
> the source code was denied. Last time I requested the source code for
> a binary I downloaded from his server, he replied:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=005601ca3541%24651e20
> 60%240201a8c0%40OVATION
>
> "No. You are an arrogant person, I will not deliver to you a single
> line of code."
>
> Mike, this definitely is a copyright violation. There is no doubt.

I agree. Based on the information I had at hand, it was not
*necessarily* a violation, but I was unaware that source access was
being refused. I was mainly trying to clarify that GPL compliance does
not necessarily imply full public distribution to everyone. Now I see
that the terms aren't being complied with at all.

It's sad to see such a conflict. Especially withholding code and
violating an open-source license purely because of personality
troubles.... Or so it appears.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

noel.wade

August 30th 10, 04:15 AM

Max -

Not to refute anything about the GPL...

But I wish to make one point: It has been admitted here in this
discussion thread that XCSoar 5.2 versions have many bugs. No version
after 5.2.4 has been released, so no pilots are able to use XCSoar
with all of the bug-fixes you claim have been worked on with the
XCSoar codebase. Is it any wonder that people are willing to use
LK8000 - even illegally - if it means a less-buggy solution (in
addition to its enhancements and new features)?

Again: I'm not speaking to the legality of this issue. But from the
standpoint of human behavior, the distribution of LK8000 shouldn't be
surprising given what it offers people while they wait to see what
happens with XCSoar 6.

--Noel

Mike[_8_]

August 30th 10, 04:23 AM

On Aug 29, 9:15*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Max -
>
> Not to refute anything about the GPL...
>
> But I wish to make one point: *It has been admitted here in this
> discussion thread that XCSoar 5.2 versions have many bugs. *No version
> after 5.2.4 has been released, so no pilots are able to use XCSoar
> with all of the bug-fixes you claim have been worked on with the
> XCSoar codebase. *Is it any wonder that people are willing to use
> LK8000 - even illegally - if it means a less-buggy solution (in
> addition to its enhancements and new features)?
>
> Again: I'm not speaking to the legality of this issue. *But from the
> standpoint of human behavior, the distribution of LK8000 shouldn't be
> surprising given what it offers people while they wait to see what
> happens with XCSoar 6.
>
> --Noel

Both XCSoar and LK8000 teams are still working on bugs.

Max Kellermann

August 30th 10, 05:53 AM

noel.wade > wrote:
> But I wish to make one point: It has been admitted here in this
> discussion thread that XCSoar 5.2 versions have many bugs. No version
> after 5.2.4 has been released, so no pilots are able to use XCSoar
> with all of the bug-fixes you claim have been worked on with the
> XCSoar codebase. Is it any wonder that people are willing to use
> LK8000 - even illegally - if it means a less-buggy solution (in
> addition to its enhancements and new features)?

Couldn't agree more. I'm not the manager of the XCSoar project, and I
urged those who do to maintain a "stable" branch with just bug fixes.
Didn't happen.

I would hate supporting XCSoar 5.2.4. I joined the XCSoar project not
because I thought it's a well-designed software: quite the opposite.
I knew the source code was very, very ugly, full of conceptual
misdesigns and bugs. I had a huge amount of work ahead, which is now
mostly behind me, a year and a half later. Three of us (two new
developers, one old-time developer) rewrote nearly everything in a
clean manner (note that Paolo left because he did not want me to clean
up the code - go figure). Bottom line is: I'm not going to support
the ugly old code which I left behind.

That said, XCSoar 6.0 pre-releases are a lot better and more stable
than any previous XCSoar release (naturally, I also think they're a
lot better than LK8000, but I'm kind of biased ;-)). Anybody can
download those inofficial pre-releases from my private server:

http://max.kellermann.name/projects/xcsoar/

Admitted, it's sad that the XCSoar home page doesn't mention our
efforts. The home page is in a sorry state anyway.

On the other hand, my struggles with XCSoar project management are a
good example of the advantages of Open Source: if the "official"
project managers become (temporarily) inactive, I can continue
developing, and roll my own releases on my home page. Half a dozen of
XCSoar developers submit their patches to me, while the official lead
developer is absent.

Max

Surfer![_2_]

August 30th 10, 07:26 AM

> wrote in message
...
> Surfer! > wrote:
>> even for people with the time and talent to do it, they will then be
>> either
>> having to get you to incorporate their changes or reimplement them in
>> each
>> new version that comes along - or stick with what they have regardless of
>> changes they might or might not want in the base software.
>
> That was true in the dark age of CVS and Subversion. Modern source
> management tools like git (which we're using) make following an
> upstream code base very easy.
<snip>

Anyone who is capable of making worthwhile changes to the codebase will be
able to reimplement them with or without 'modern source management tools',
but for most of us being able to make changes is a pipe-dream and touting it
as a benefit of Open Source is missing the point.

What most of us want is good software with a responsive development team,
regardless of what the licensing is.

Max Kellermann

August 30th 10, 10:48 AM

Surfer! > wrote:
> but for most of us being able to make changes is a pipe-dream and
> touting it as a benefit of Open Source is missing the point.

Missing what point?

I described how non-developers can benefit from Open Source software.
You may or may not perceive and appreciate this advantage, but you're
not an elected spokesperson for the group "most of us".

> What most of us want is good software with a responsive development
> team, regardless of what the licensing is.

Everybody has his/her own reasons for choosing a software platform.
Some people care about licensing, some don't.

If you really don't care about licensing, then why do you participate
in this thread, which is all about licensing?

Max

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 30th 10, 02:32 PM

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:30:37 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> Once you distribute the modified source/binary/object code then the
> source modifications are covered by the GPL and that is usually pretty
> straightforward.
>
Yes, I agree. If you modify GPLed code and distribute them the modified
code must also be GPLed. However I was thinking about another situation
as well and failed to explain that. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

If you distribute an original work that relies on GPLed libraries that's
also clear: to clean ways out would seem to be:
- only distribute the original work under whatever licence you choose
and put directions in the Installation guide that list the required
libraries and where to place them. This will obviously work for jar
files, dynamically loaded libraries for both UNIX-type systems and
Windows DLLs. I think that all requirements have been met in this case
because the end-user is downloading the GPLed binaries.

- distribute the original work as above but include the GBLed library
source together with attributions and an indication or where to find
the source. If I've understood the GPL I think this should be OK
for the situations listed above as well as meeting GPL requirements
for statically linked code.

IOW if you wish to make functional changes to GPLed code but not to
distribute them under the GPL for some reason, then the only way to do
that is to write a shim that sits between the GPLed code and the rest of
your original code and implement the functional changes in that shim
without making even a single character change to the GPLed code. The
resulting original code can then be distributed using either of the
preceding two methods without violating the GPL.

I should add that the only reason I can see for doing something like this
would involve modules that implement some form of DRM (which I strongly
dislike) or license validation code included in a commercial product.

This is now getting somewhat off topic, so if anybody wants to discuss
these points further or correct anything I've misunderstood, I'll be
happy to take this off list via e-mail.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Max Kellermann

August 30th 10, 02:45 PM

Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> IOW if you wish to make functional changes to GPLed code but not to
> distribute them under the GPL for some reason, then the only way to do
> that is to write a shim that sits between the GPLed code and the rest of
> your original code and implement the functional changes in that shim
> without making even a single character change to the GPLed code. The
> resulting original code can then be distributed using either of the
> preceding two methods without violating the GPL.

No, that won't work. That's a technical tweak which only obfuscates
the legal problem without solving it. The resulting product is still
a "derived work" of the GPL code in question.

That's a simplification, reality is more complicated, but that's the
essence.

Max

Surfer![_2_]

August 30th 10, 05:16 PM

"Max Kellermann" > wrote in message
...
> Surfer! > wrote:
>> but for most of us being able to make changes is a pipe-dream and
>> touting it as a benefit of Open Source is missing the point.
>
> Missing what point?
>
> I described how non-developers can benefit from Open Source software.
> You may or may not perceive and appreciate this advantage, but you're
> not an elected spokesperson for the group "most of us".

So in your view "most of us" would be capable of amending the code and
achieving something that works?

I doubt it very much. There seem to be a lot of IT people in gliding, but I
still suspect that most of us are not capable of changing something like XC
Soar.

>
>> What most of us want is good software with a responsive development
>> team, regardless of what the licensing is.
>
> Everybody has his/her own reasons for choosing a software platform.
> Some people care about licensing, some don't.
>
> If you really don't care about licensing, then why do you participate
> in this thread, which is all about licensing?

It was the statement that being allowed to change the source is a benefit.
It's only a benefit is one is able to do so, for anyone who can't it's not a
benefit - they are just as tied into the development team as they would be
with a commercial product.

Darryl Ramm

August 30th 10, 06:04 PM

On Aug 30, 9:16*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
> "Max Kellermann" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Surfer! > wrote:
> >> but for most of us being able to make changes is a pipe-dream and
> >> touting it as a benefit of Open Source is missing the point.
>
> > Missing what point?
>
> > I described how non-developers can benefit from Open Source software.
> > You may or may not perceive and appreciate this advantage, but you're
> > not an elected spokesperson for the group "most of us".
>
> So in your view "most of us" would be capable of amending the code and
> achieving something that works?
>
> I doubt it very much. *There seem to be a lot of IT people in gliding, but I
> still suspect that most of us are not capable of changing something like XC
> Soar.
>
>
>
> >> What most of us want is good software with a responsive development
> >> team, regardless of what the licensing is.
>
> > Everybody has his/her own reasons for choosing a software platform.
> > Some people care about licensing, some don't.
>
> > If you really don't care about licensing, then why do you participate
> > in this thread, which is all about licensing?
>
> It was the statement that being allowed to change the source is a benefit..
> It's only a benefit is one is able to do so, for anyone who can't it's not a
> benefit - they are just as tied into the development team as they would be
> with a commercial product.

I think you are underestimating the power of the "free" software in
the sense of the GPL. You and others can benefit from the freedom of
any developer to modify, fix bugs etc in the GPL'ed code. Does it
guarantee that will happen? Of course not. But an individual developer
not releasing code to others guarantees others will never be able to
improve the code or fix problems.

But so what anyhow. Here is a straightforward case of somebody
modified GPL code and distributing binaries and so violating the GPL
license by not releasing code changes as required. If somebody does
not want to operate under those license restrictions, then don't use
other developers GPL protected code in you work. This stuff might seem
unusual to non-developers or those outside the software industry but
all this should be very straightforward to a software developer
working in open-source. The cure can be as easy as just dropping a
snapshot/tarball of the current code online, an operation fairly
trivial to add to an automated software build/makefile.

Darryl

Max Kellermann

August 30th 10, 06:48 PM

Surfer! > wrote:
>> I described how non-developers can benefit from Open Source software.
>> You may or may not perceive and appreciate this advantage, but you're
>> not an elected spokesperson for the group "most of us".
>
> So in your view "most of us" would be capable of amending the code and
> achieving something that works?

No, that is not what I described.

> It was the statement that being allowed to change the source is a benefit.
> It's only a benefit is one is able to do so, for anyone who can't it's not a
> benefit

Trying to name a simple example: you want a new feature in either
XCSoar or LK8000. What are your chances to get it implemented?

- LK8000 (or any other non-free and proprietary software): submit a
feature request to Paolo Ventafridda. Either will he implement it,
or not. If not, you're completely out of luck. One single person
decides.

- XCSoar: submit a feature request to us (half a dozen of developers,
not just one person). If nobody in our team is willing or able to
implement it, go and find *any* person capable of writing code,
motivate him to implement your request. You could even collect
money to pay a coder to do it. If it turns out that the XCSoar
derivative created by that coder is better and the new feature
really is useful, more and more users will choose it instead of our
version, putting pressure on us to merge it. Either way, all users
get a superior product.

You may not be able to edit the source code, true so far. Your
advantages in using free software are indirect, and may be hard for
non-developers to understand. It works, it's a proven concept. Many
projects have been forked and superseded this way, which would not
have been possible without a free software license.

Max

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 30th 10, 06:50 PM

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:45:08 +0000, Max Kellermann wrote:

>
> No, that won't work. That's a technical tweak which only obfuscates the
> legal problem without solving it. The resulting product is still a
> "derived work" of the GPL code in question.
>
You've lost me here.

I was thinking of the situation where you design a function that calls a
few of the library APIs and returns a result that depends on some
combination of the values returned by library calls. Often there is a
design choice of whether you extend the library or build the function
into the application. If the library in question is part of a proprietary
OS there's no choice: you *have* to build it into the application, but if
the library is GPLed then you have the choice of adding the function to
the library, just as you might for a privately developed library, or of
including it in the application.

I see this as adding another variable, this time constrained by the type
of licensing you're planning to use for the application, to the design
decision of where to put the function rather than a technical dodge to
get round GPL conditions.

A similar consideration arises if you want to, say, call parts of a C
library from a Java program: are you really telling me that the JNI
interface code used to implement the calls *must* be GPLed despite the
fact that it doesn't affect the library binary or source in any way?

I don't see anything in GPLv3 that even hints that such code must be
GPLed. What did I miss?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Darryl Ramm

August 30th 10, 07:11 PM

On Aug 30, 10:50*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:45:08 +0000, Max Kellermann wrote:
>
> > No, that won't work. *That's a technical tweak which only obfuscates the
> > legal problem without solving it. *The resulting product is still a
> > "derived work" of the GPL code in question.
>
> You've lost me here.
>
> I was thinking of the situation where you design a function that calls a
> few of the library APIs and returns a result that depends on some
> combination of the values returned by library calls. Often there is a
> design choice of whether you extend the library or build the function
> into the application. If the library in question is part of a proprietary
> OS there's no choice: you *have* to build it into the application, but if
> the library is GPLed then you have the choice of adding the function to
> the library, just as you might for a privately developed library, or of
> including it in the application.
>
> I see this as adding another variable, this time constrained by the type
> of licensing you're planning to use for the application, to the design
> decision of where to put the function rather than a technical dodge to
> get round GPL conditions.
>
> A similar consideration arises if you want to, say, call parts of a C
> library from a Java program: are you really telling me that the JNI
> interface code used to implement the calls *must* be GPLed despite the
> fact that it doesn't affect the library binary or source in any way? *
>
> I don't see anything in GPLv3 that even hints that such code must be
> GPLed. What did I miss?
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

As a frequent explorer or rat holes I can identify this is going down
one :-) This type of stuff is pretty well discussed on the GPL FAQ,
search for keywords "link" or "library" and "system library" and also
search for "LGPL" (Lesser General Public License).

The details of JNI and Java and GPL, or Java licensing in general and
various Sun open licenses and GPL compatibility could fill a book. (I
negotiated a complex commercial J2SE license with Sun and still mostly
have my sanity, well the medication helps a lot). You can probalby
find a lot of that by Googling around. None of that is relevant to
this situation.

Darryl

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 30th 10, 10:14 PM

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:11:29 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> As a frequent explorer or rat holes I can identify this is going down
> one :-) This type of stuff is pretty well discussed on the GPL FAQ,
> search for keywords "link" or "library" and "system library" and also
> search for "LGPL" (Lesser General Public License).
>
Thanks for those pointers. Thats clarified things somewhat.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

jb92563

August 30th 10, 10:56 PM

Seems that about the only thing folks can agree on about the GPL is
that Paolo should release the source code.

So....Paolo, could you do that so everyone can feel
satisfied that the spirit of the licensing is being honored?

That way we can enjoy both products for each of their benefits and
benefit from the sharing.

Like many others I like both and use which ever one is the most stable
and functional in flight for my particular missions.

Ray

Max Kellermann

September 1st 10, 07:01 AM

jb92563 > wrote:
> Hey Folks, Paolo is going to formally Post the Source for LK8000 so we
> can all
> relax..
> He asked me to post the following message on his behalf.

I share Darryl's concerns, this sounds just like he's going to do only
half of what he is obliged to do according to the license.

The source code of *all* binaries he ever published must be offered to
anybody who downloaded the binaries (including me!). I will drop my
threat to bring this case to court only if there is full GPL
compliance.

That said, it is definitely a first step in the right direction, so
let's see what really happens. I will send a formal request for the
source code of all binaries I have downloaded (again).

> What can I say about Max Kellerman's concerns about LK8000? Not
> much. I am astonished by the amount of foolishness he just wrote.

Apparently, nothing has changed. Paolo Ventafridda can't stop
spilling personal insults against me, in a purely technical/legal
discussion.

Max

jb92563

September 1st 10, 03:40 PM

On Aug 31, 11:01*pm, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> jb92563 > wrote:
> > Hey Folks, Paolo is going to formally Post the Source for LK8000 so we
> > can all
> > relax..
> > He asked me to post the following message on his behalf.
>
> I share Darryl's concerns, this sounds just like he's going to do only
> half of what he is obliged to do according to the license.
>
> The source code of *all* binaries he ever published must be offered to
> anybody who downloaded the binaries (including me!). *I will drop my
> threat to bring this case to court only if there is full GPL
> compliance.
>
> That said, it is definitely a first step in the right direction, so
> let's see what really happens. *I will send a formal request for the
> source code of all binaries I have downloaded (again).
>
> > What can I say about Max Kellerman's concerns about LK8000? Not
> > much. *I am astonished by the amount of foolishness he just wrote.
>
> Apparently, nothing has changed. *Paolo Ventafridda can't stop
> spilling personal insults against me, in a purely technical/legal
> discussion.
>
> Max

Max,

I appreciate that you would ideally like to see full compliance
by getting the source for every prototype/release preceeding this one
but it seems you two are playing tit for tat now, due to your
differences of
opinion or what ever.

For the benefit of the community of users who like both products,
can't we use this
latest source code release as a starting point for compliance
going forward?

Is having the previous releases available to you really going to
have any positive impact on LK8000 or XCSoar?

At this point Paolo is about ready to throw in the towel on LK8000
and we end users will ultimately loose out.

You programmers are doing this work because you enjoy it and derive
the satisfaction
from what you have created, so I see all the posturing, scuffles etc
and
threats of litigation as enough to terminate one or both projects as
you
are likely not enjoying the current situation.

Lets use today as the point for a new beginning on both tracks and
leave the
past behind.

Please.

Ray