Sad Tale of Greed and Aspiration.

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

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

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/m...a3541%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

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

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.

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 softwa 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

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.

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

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 |

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