Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Businesses Software Apple

Is CocoaTech Violating the GPL? 180

Posted by Cliff from the bad-company-no-donut dept.
elliotj asks: "In the latest version of their Finder-replacement product, PathFinder CocoaTech has included a terminal feature based on sourcecode from the GPL'd iTerm. They have made available the classes they developed from the iTerm sources, but not all the sourcecode for their product. Since iTerm is GPL (and not LGPL), shouldn't they have to make the ENTIRE codebase available? This is being debated on their forums. If this is true, what can we do to get CocoaTech to open up the rest of the code?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is CocoaTech Violating the GPL? More

Is CocoaTech Violating the GPL?

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lexarius ( 560925 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @06:44PM (#7363355)
    They are much more likely to remove the GPL'd code than they are to open up their product.

  • *groan* (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bconway ( 63464 )
    Since iTerm is GPL (and not LGPL), shouldn't they have to make the ENTIRE codebase available? This is being debated on their forums. If this is true, what can we do to get CocoaTech to open up the rest of the code?

    And you wonder why companies are afraid to consider the use of GPL software. Please, do us all a favor and READ the GPL before you continue making the rest of the community look like a bunch of fools.

    • Re:*groan* (Score:4, Interesting)

      by the argonaut ( 676260 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @07:08PM (#7363555) Homepage Journal
      Then instead of simply insulting the author, why not point out how he's incorrect. I DID READ the GPL, and basically come to the same conclusion. They don't have to release the code to everybody - just to those they distribute binaries to.

      So how is this incorrect?
      • Right. They may remedy the situation by releasing all their code under the GPL. However, they don't have to. Instead, they can cut the GPLed code out of their product. Since this is pretty clearly a tacked on feature, the likely course of action is totally clear cut:

        They will stop shipping their current version of the software. The next version will either not have iTerm-like functionality, or they will get similar code from some other source.

        They don't have to release their code to anyone. They may have

        • Instead, they can cut the GPLed code out of their product.

          They could also come to some other agreement with the author(s) of whatever GPLed code they want to use. Nothing in the GPL prevents the authors of GPLed code from offering it under as many different sets of terms as they choose, including (presumably for a fee) inclusion in a closed source product.

          -- MarkusQ

          P.S. They could (under some circumstances) also clarify the boundary between their main product and the part that uses GPLed code so that

          • P.S. They could (under some circumstances) also clarify the boundary between their main product and the part that uses GPLed code so that they did meet the terms of the GPL.

            In this particular case, I think it would be easy. They could probably package the GPLed functionality into its own executable. All the parameters involved could easily be passed as arguments.

            Then they could release the code for that binary, but not the one for their main product.
        • And if they get sued, they will likely be forced to stop distributing the product until they remove the code.

          But I think the point is, the license clearly does require that if they ship binaries that are derivative works of the GPLed code, then they have to ship source code with them. In order to be in compliance, they do have to release the code.
      • They don't have to release the code to everybody - just to those they distribute binaries to.

        True...and only if the people who they distribute to ask for the source.

        So how is this incorrect?

        You're not. For some reason, most people don't get this specific detail of the GPL.

      • Re:*groan* (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bluGill ( 862 )

        Well yes, but they have to release all the code, including theirs under the GPL to everyone they distribute the binaries to. Further they cannot prevent anyone who has recieved the source code from further distributing it.

    • Re:*groan* (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shaitand ( 626655 )
      No actually this is entirely accurate, they DO have to release all of their code under the GPL or they break the law.

      They might be able to get away with it if they stop distributing and cut the gpl'd code out of their next release but that doesn't make it legal.

      The terms of the gpl (which they must release their ENTIRE codebase under since the lgpl allows linking and the gpl does not) also stipulate that they only have to distribute the code to those who they've distributed the binaries to... but that is
      • They might be able to get away with it if they stop distributing and cut the gpl'd code out of their next release but that doesn't make it legal.

        Yeah, they're in violation. But if they correct it quickly they shouldn't be liable for more than actual damages, which I suspect are in the vicinity of $0. There are some demanding that the only acceptable alternative is to force them to release all their code whether they want to or not. This is extremely foolish and only serves to validate Microsoft's propaga

    • And you wonder why companies are afraid to consider the use of GPL software.

      New advertising slogan: BSD: for when you don't want to get sued.

      • Re:*groan* (Score:2, Insightful)

        by You're All Wrong ( 573825 )
        New advertising slogan: BSD: For when you want to write code and let other people make a profit from it while you make nothing.

        Sounds great, where can I get a slice?

        YAW.

  • Pragmatism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fluffy the Cat ( 29157 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @06:57PM (#7363474) Homepage
    Pragmatically, it's a better plan to try to work this out with the company first before splashing it all over Slashdot. People do make honest mistakes - they ought to read licenses and understand all of their responsibilities before reusing code, but they don't always do so. Pointing these responsibilities out may result in things being worked out significantly faster. Immediately getting them bad publicity is more likely to lead to them never using GPLed code again, which is a bad thing - companies enhancing GPLed code and releasing derived works benefits everyone.

    On the other hand, if a company refuses to release the source or never gets back to you, and you're satisfied that the copyright holder hasn't granted them further permissions above and beyond the GPL, then make their lives miserable. While it's desirable to have GPLed code used widely, it's not desirable to allow companies to believe that they can get away with failing to follow their obligations. But don't do that until you've tried doing it nicely. Everyone is happier then.
    • For a small software author getting a major story on slashdot may not be "bad publicity". Especially given that it appears they attempted to comply. Its their legal understanding not their program that is providing the humor.

    • Re:Pragmatism (Score:3, Informative)

      by shaitand ( 626655 )
      cocoatech was contacted via the forums and released some code, but not everything they should be.

      In that sense, they've already been contacted prior to slashdotting the issue and already refused.

    • Re:Pragmatism -- Like VMWare? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) * <passthecrackpipe@@@hotmail...com> on Saturday November 01, 2003 @08:26AM (#7366111)
      VMWare grossly abuses the GPL with their ESXServer product. They use a highly modified linux kernel for their host OS, and the host OS is clearly Linux. however, there is no source for the new kernel they install, and when asked (I did so at a few presentations) they simply chuckle, and mutter something about hell freezing over. None different really from how sw-soft is behaving with their vitruozzo product.

      Everywhere I look in the enterprise space there are software companies trampling all over the GPL. We need a good strong courtcase to send some of these fuckers a message.....

  • Hard to believe they didn't read the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elliotj ( 519297 ) <slashdot&elliotjohnson,com> on Friday October 31, 2003 @07:19PM (#7363660) Homepage
    What amazes me is that these guys went to the trouble of doing a source release for some of the classes in order to comply with the GPL. This means that all the time spent on incorporating iTerm and doing a source release took place without anybody actually reading the GPL. They understood enough about the GPL to know that you have to release stuff if you use it, but didn't read it in any detail.

    Amazing considering they were launching a product that included a signifcant component of GPL'd code.

    I think the fact that they did a source release likely means it was an honest mistake. That being said, if they chose to remove iTerm from it rather than opening the rest of the source, I think they should at the very least make some form of monetary concession toward the authors of iTerm, whose stolen code may have accounted for actual sales of Path Finder.

  • It all depends... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @07:30PM (#7363745)
    Okay, boys. The trick to the GPL is figuring out three things:

    Assume A and B are two sets of source code. B is licensed to the author of A via the GPL.

    Is A a derivative work of B? Then A is in violation of copyright law if A is not GPL'ed (section 2).

    Are A and B being distributed together as part of a larger work? If A and B are part of a larger work and are being distributed together then when A is distributed as part of the whole, it must be GPL'ed, otherwise the author of A is in violation of copyright law. (Section 2, the paragraph after the bullet points).

    Are A and B being distributed together in aggregate, as opposed to being combined into a larger work. (This is in the gnu.org FAQ on the GPL.

    Now, I'm not a Mac person, I've never used any of these applications. However, there are several things to remember. First, in this case, the author of iTerm is the only person who can demand the source be released. You cannont enforce someone elses copyrights. So the copyright holders of iTerm are the only people with a leg to stand on in actually getting the source coughed up.

    Next, the commonly acknowledged meaning of a derivative work is generally that the two binaries share the same address space while running (that is, they are linked either statically or dynamically together at some point).

    The second portion sounds to me, like it is tricky. The working their to my IANAL mind is hard to differentiate from a work in aggregate. When RedHat ships GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed software together is "RedHat Linux" a larger work, and as the kernel is GPL'ed then all other software must be? No I wouldn't think so. However, I can't see how to draw a line so that it makes sense to me. To my mind, either "RedHat Linux" is the larger whole, thus it all must GPL'ed, or that paragraph doesn't mean anything, and thus shouldn't be there. I'm not sure I understand it precisely. The only thing I can think if of is something like Emacs where if I distribute GNU Emacs with some extra runtime support in lisp, then that extra runtime while it might be an independent work, it must still be GPL'ed. Meanwhile, if I distributed Emacs and pico, I don't have to GPL them both. I've never seen a clear explaintion of the difference between "parts of a whole" versus works in aggregate.

    So the trick is to figure out if iTerm code is linked to the larger application, or if iTerm is merely a spawned program which communicate at arms length. In general if it is an external spawned program. If the source code bases are never linked, they are in the clear. If they are linked together, then CocoaTech has some explaining to do. Generally speaking, an strace, ldd, and a ps listing will show you precisely what is going on when they admit they are using the source code.

    Kirby

    • "Now, I'm not a Mac person, I've never used any of these applications. However, there are several things to remember. First, in this case, the author of iTerm is the only person who can demand the source be released. You cannont enforce someone elses copyrights. So the copyright holders of iTerm are the only people with a leg to stand on in actually getting the source coughed up."

      Normally true, but if you've bought the product you have a leg to stand on as well, there are certain legal rights your supposed

      • Normally true, but if you've bought the product you have a leg to stand on as well, there are certain legal rights your supposed to have and you do have a right to demand them.

        That may be true if CocoaTech states that it is licensing part of the product to you under the GPL, but in principle they could say that they are licensing the entire product to you under some proprietary license, and then only the copyright holders of the incorporated GPL'd work could bring them to task for distributing their work

        • They have no legal right to license it under anything other than the GPL, whatever other license they've distributed it under is void. It's terms are void, it's conditions are void.
          • Of course such action would not be legally rightful, but it violates the rights of the copyright holders, not the customers. The terms and conditions of the proprietary license might indeed be void, but this does not mean that customers could compel CocoaTech to give them source code. If the copyright holders do not enforce their rights, no one else can.
            • The customers can compel cocoatech to provide a refund or gpl the code since as things currently stand the customers have paid but do not own a license to the software!
              • Most proprietary licenses grant fewer rights that copyright law does by default. If such a license is void, the customer loses nothing, and thus is owed no refund.
                • The customers do not have a copy under normal copyright law either. If I steal a book and then sell it to you, the FBI may come at any time and take the book away because you do not legally own it. This is no different, cocoatech has no legal right to distribute and therefore the distributed copies are NOT legal, under regular copyright or their license.
                  • OK, what you say makes sense. So, why does the FSF, for example, seek to have developers assign copyright to them?
                    • Oh I fear you misunderstand, I'm not saying the actual copyright holders don't have the right to nail them for copy infringment, they most certainly do.

                      I'm merely saying that cocoatech has wronged both sides, the copyright holder AND those who have purchased a copy (or thought they did) of the software. No matter what they do henceforth they have commited copyright infringment (even if they gpl the software or remove iterm).

                      If they don't provide a refund or give the customers who have already purchased a
      • You've never tried to get your money back when you return software have you? :-)

        You can't compel anyone to give up their copyrighted code as a third party. Depending on the contract/license, you probably can't even get your money back. As the end user, you have a license to use the iTerm software (It's GPL'ed, just don't distribute the software, and it's all good). You've done nothing wrong, and until you transfer or distribute the software, you have a license for the GPL binaries. Thus you have a leg

        • "Depending on the contract/license, you probably can't even get your money back"

          ok, let's try this again. THEIR LICENSE IS VOID.

          "As the end user, you have a license to use the iTerm software (It's GPL'ed, just don't distribute the software, and it's all good)."

          This one is difficult I know, since iterm is gpl'd, but it's not magically gpl'd under all circumstances and any situation. It's only gpl'd if it has been distributed to you under the gpl by the authors of iterm or by someone else who recieved it
    • When RedHat ships GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed software together is "RedHat Linux" a larger work, and as the kernel is GPL'ed then all other software must be?

      [WARNING: This is not an argument; just information]

      Let me remind the reader that non-GPL != proprietary license. There are licenses compatible with the GPL and those that are not. Those that are not, lack the freedom that the FSF requires that we, as users, should have.

      Just for information, although Redhat Linux is not as strict as say Debian i
      • I suppose most of that is relatively true. It's not true if you actually buy the boxed set, or if you purchase the Advanced Server editions, they come with non-GPL software. I believe you are also wrong, in that you missed the redhat-logo package. Those aren't GPL'ed. The are "copyrighted, with all rights reserved". rpm -q -i redhat-logo says so. I can't find a handy copy to read the distribution restrictions, but clearly not GPL'ed, or any other free software type license. They can't distribute them
        • ...if you purchase the Advanced Server editions, they come with non-GPL software.

          Unbeknownst to many, AS2.1 and AS3.0 are readily downloadable distributions, just like any other. I actually have a boxed copy of RH9, RH7.2 and AS2.1, all of which contain primarily free software.

          I believe you are also wrong, in that you missed the redhat-logo package. Those aren't GPL'ed.

          Well, it's one of those things that's common sense. Redhat wouldn't want Joe, Dick, and Jane to repackage a system and put proprieta

  • That's not the spirit of Open Source. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @07:46PM (#7363869)
    If this is true, what can we do to get CocoaTech to open up the rest of the code?

    Why do you want to force them to open up the rest of the code? Even the much maligned RMS doesn't have any desire to force others to release their code if they don't want to.

    This isn't a case where some company took an entire open source project, added a few (potentially major) features then refuse to release the source. Common decency dictates they made an honest (hopefully) mistake, and one should give them a chance to correct it. They've released the souce to the portion they used that is open source. I'm not an expert, but this doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy the GPL to me. If that's correct, then to be in compliance they will either have to stop distributing the version with the open source code, or release all of the code. The choice should be up to them unless they press the issue (ala: SCO).

    Like it or not, their source code belongs to them, and it's up to them to decide whether to release it or not. To force them to release it on a technicality, using legal means, is the exact same tactic the RIAA is using to legally steal money from people who've downloaded or facilitated the download of songs ("piracy" is, of course, bad, but thuggery is worse).
    • > Why do you want to force them to open up the rest of the code?

      Well, that's the terms of the license. Either release the ENTIRE program under the GPL (which he wouldn't have to if iTerm was LGPL), remove the code, or get the author to private relicense it for you. Until they do one of these things, CocoaTech is in violation of the GPL, and distribution of PathFinder can be stopped and damages can be sought.

      • Re:That's not the spirit of Open Source. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @10:26PM (#7364768)
        The posters (to /. and to CocoaTech's forum) appear to solely *demand* the source code (and that's in within their rights, of course). Ostensibly they would not be satisfied with CocoaTech simply removing the GPLd code and ceasing to distribute the version in that's violating the GPL. (I'm just going by the few words they've decided to post, which may not indicate their true intentions, but that's all I have to go on)

        If the cashier at the checkout lane short changes you, do you first point out the mistake ("I gave you a twenty") or do you call the police? In this case, is the proper response: "You guys have to release all the code if you want to use GPLd code." or is it: "All your code are belong to us! Gimme now!"?

        Imagine if you made a similar mistake in your job. You are faced with throwing away *years* of work for an honest mistake? What if you bought a house 5 years ago and the bank notices one of the loan pages wasn't signed. What if legally that meant they could take back the house, and only have to pay you back the money you spent? Would it be legal for them to take it back? Would it be right?

        CocoaTech will do the right thing. Hopefully voluntarily. Potentially not. I'm just suggesting we should give them a chance before condemning them. That's just me, I'm a nice guy I guess.
        • That's all fine and dandy on the larger picture, but what about those who have purchased these binaries and thus have a right to the sourcecode and want it?

          Are they going to at least be offered a full refund if they aren't getting the full product they've purchased? They bought something that should legally be under the gpl, since it's not they are currently holding pirated software.
          • How many of those people actually believe CocoaTech intended to release the full source to Path Finder? Zero. Anyone who will settle for nothing short of full GPLing of the source code is just trying to cash in on an honest mistake. I really doubt there are many who will make that demand, and if they won't accept a refund, it's they who are acting dishonestly.

            When a company makes a mistake like this, a reasonable person will allow them the chance to make it right. If CocoaTech offers refunds to people who
            • Now THAT I absolutely agree with. All I was getting at is that if they remove the gpl'd code and DON'T offer a refund than they've slightest existing customers.

              Besides that I still don't think they want those copies out there. Since their license agreements are invalid they could be held accountable due to loses for bugs and data corruption etc.
      • Why the ENTIRE program? Why not just the terminal? Have they linked the ENITRE program to GPL'd code? It seems that there is a lot of insisting going on by people who are uninformed. In fact, most people here have ZERO information about this product or how it was compiled.
    • Like it or not, their source code belongs to them

      I agree strongly with the rest of your post, but the word "belongs" may not be appropriate here. If their code is indeed derived from a GPLd program, they must abide by the terms set by the copyright holder to distribute the modified work. The power rests with the copyright holder.

      I do urge caution and good faith, though, hoping that this can be resolved amicably.

      • I know very little about the product in question, but from what I can tell, they wrote a Finder replacement, and bolted onto it a terminal (using an open source implementation). It appears they have released any code derived from the GPLd program.

        As you've said, this clearly isn't enough. It's an understandable mistake though, and I'm sure CocoaTech will do the right thing (if not, they deserve all the trouble (including legal) they get into).

        The source code I'm referring to as belonging to them is all th
    • ("piracy" is, of course, bad, but thuggery is worse).

      Piracy is illegal. Thuggery is not. Both are bad, but one is legal.

  • They have a choice of three steps to take (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kgp ( 172015 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @08:07PM (#7364022)
    It's obvious that the guys at Cocoatech don't have a great grasp of the intricacies of the GPL (and didn't run this by their IP lawyers which I suspect they don't have).

    They can do one of three things:
    1. Release the source for Pathfinder. I don't see this happening -- this is not an outcome they had banked on. Hardline GPL zealots will of course continue to bray that "they released the product so they MUST release ALL of their sources".
    2. Remove the iTerm functionality from their product. The simplest and easiest fixed especially whilst they consider their options.
    3. License the source for iTerm under non-GPL terms from the original authors. The owners of the source (though this would mean that they wouldn't be able to take GPLed fixes unless the author of those fixes agreed to whatever license OR the other license is LGPL.

    Give them a break so that they can fix their mistake (from Eblen Moglen's writings on the subject this is the FSF prefered method) at least until it becomes clear that the breach of the GPL is egregious.

    Who knows they might even release some source this way!
    • Hardline GPL zealots will of course continue to bray that "they released the product so they MUST release ALL of their sources".

      I challenge you to find a real GPL zealot who says this. This is actually what is said by people attacking the GPL. Hardline GPL zealots know the limits of copyright law: the worst possible thing that can happen is a lawsuit by the original author, it is impossible to force somebody to lose their own copyright.

      Also there is also a 4th possibility which I think likely:

      4. Rea

      • I challenge you to find a real GPL zealot who says this. This is actually what is said by people attacking the GPL. Hardline GPL zealots know the limits of copyright law: the worst possible thing that can happen is a lawsuit by the original author, it is impossible to force somebody to lose their own copyright.

        You've just defined the difference between a GPL zealot and a GPL advocate> I agree with the OP ;)

        There's yet a 5th option, of course - rewrite the terminal functionality using a LGPL or otherwi

      • Hardline GPL zealots will of course continue to bray that "they released the product so they MUST release ALL of their sources".

        I challenge you to find a real GPL zealot who says this. This is actually what is said by people attacking the GPL. Hardline GPL zealots know the limits of copyright law: the worst possible thing that can happen is a lawsuit by the original author, it is impossible to force somebody to lose their own copyright.

        "No true Scotsman would ..." etc. I agree that someone who under

    • don't have a great grasp of the intricacies of the GPL (and didn't run this by their IP lawyers which I suspect they don't have

      Thus the reason, as a small operator, that I would never even consider GPL'd software or code when trying to create a product that would (hopefully) return revenue.

      To my mind, the only acceptable licenses are either completely proprietary (no code released) or the type that give it away with no strings attached and no responsibility after the release (Artistic, Public Domain, etc
  • It was always my understanding that the code they borrowed and modified needed to be released as source. Anything that they make that's not the essentially the same program, could be kept closed if they choose. I definetly could be wrong but that was always my understanding.

    • No (Score:2)

      by etymxris ( 121288 )
      Your understanding is wrong. There is a license that works the way you described, it's called the CPL [opensource.org].

      The GPL does not allow proprietary and GPL code to occupy the same memory space, though it is somewhat vague. For example, if there are a set of GPL C++ classes, and you derive from these classes, then your derivations fall under the GPL. If you link in a static or dynamic library that is GPL, then your code is also GPL. Let's break it down:
      1. Invoking a GPL program in a separate memory space from a proprie

      • Extending GPL coded classes in object-oriented code - Not OK in any version of the GPL that I am aware of, though a waiver clause similar to glibc may be possible.

        Your point 6 is false.

        In general point 6 should be covered by your point 3 and 4 allready.

        If you can manage to "extend" in the java sense or use ":" for inheritance in a C++ sense without touching point 3 or point 4 of your list, then you do not violate the authors rights of the code from wich you inherit. Regardless of license.

        Read the rel
        • If you can manage to "extend" in the java sense or use ":" for inheritance in a C++ sense without touching point 3 or point 4 of your list, then you do not violate the authors rights of the code from wich you inherit. Regardless of license.

          If you could, sure. But you can't. Extending a class is a strong form of static linking. If you know how to extend a class by linking it dynamically, or extend a class without linking at all, then I am very interested to learn how.
          • In Java using "extends" is dynamic. All classes are linked dynamic in Java anyway, regardless if you inherit or aggregate(reference) other classes.

            If you use COM or CORBA in C++ you also have dynamic linking and probably also the system distributed over several adress spaces ... where you not even have the "refered" code in the same executeable.

            Also, I was refering to "the legal issue" ... some people believe a derived work is constituted by only using the keyword extends and using the name of the class t
      • Extending GPL coded classes in object-oriented code - Not OK in any version of the GPL that I am aware of

        This is the one I don't get, and maybe it's related to #3. Say there's a GPLed Java library that contains a class named Foo. I make a Bar subclass and use it in my application which is *not* distributed with Foo (i.e. users are required to have a Foo class available on their systems). How is this a derivative work? My code doesn't include any GPLed code, it just assumes the existence of a Foo class t

  • Wrap GPL with LGPL with proprietary, vice versa (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JGski ( 537049 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @09:10PM (#7364385) Journal
    IANAL but it seems the general solution to this kind of problem is to wrap GPL code with LGPL code with proprietary code, or the other way around. That was the point of the LGPL license, wasn't it? That's what I've done in the past.

    The primary issue is: can you actually wrap it and keep the pieces properly separated so free pieces can be free and non-free can be dealt with apart or are the links too pervasive between the two (three)? If the different components are too interwoven to be cleanly separable, it suggests your code design sucks, the code design of the GPL your using sucks, or both.

  • Want to know how much merit this has? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SensitiveMale ( 155605 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @04:25AM (#7365738)
    Every single person arguing for CocoaTech to release the entire code is posting anonymously.

    Apparently no one has the balls to attach their name to their "demands".
  • If you're on the Cocoa Dev mailing lists, you'll know that CocoaTech have been very generous with their source code. They have released a number of the libraries they developed for Path Finder for use by other people. So maybe they aren't complying fully with the GPL here, but they're not exactly the evil hoarders of source that everyone seems to be rushing to assume they are.

  • Coccoatech Says ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SteveM ( 11242 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @10:53AM (#7366344)

    From the Cocoatech [cocoatech.com] web site:

    The GPL and Path Finder

    It has come to our attention that there has been controversy about Path Finder's use of some open source code. Path Finder uses a heavily tweaked version of the open sourceiTerm application as the basis for Path Finder's built-in Terminal window and drawer. It always has been Cocoatech's intention to comply fully with the open source licensethat iTerm falls under. We believed that by releasing the complete framework that contains the open source code, this would fulfill the requirements of our usage of GPL'ed code. We are investigating this issue in depth and intend to fully comply with the rules of the GPL. We are also working with the authors of iTerm to make sure this issue is resolved. We wish to reiterate that we support the spirit of the GPL and the open source community, and did not / do not intend to break the rules. We will post another update to this web site to follow up on this issue. We hope to have a clarification and have this issue rectified as soon as possible.

    SteveM

  • Maybe it's just me, but could this be a reason why the GPL has a hard time being accepted outside of the RMS following community? Wouldnt it have made more sense to design the GPL so that any direct changes to the source (of the GPLed code) had to be released, and they had to release the code that hooks the GPLed code into their program (what functions it calls etc) but beyond that they shouldn't be required to release any other code?

    I think that would tend to promote the use of GPL much better.
    • Congratulations: you've just described the LGPL (pretty much). It's up to the author to decide that license to use. If the author intended what you descibe, then s/he would have used the LGPL or equivalent license.

      All that aside, at least I couldn't care less about GPL acceptance: don't accept it, don't use my code.

      • > Congratulations: you've just described the LGPL (pretty much). It's up to the author to decide that license to use. If
        > the author intended what you descibe, then s/he would have used the LGPL or equivalent license.

        But, of course, it isn't that simple. There are lots and lots of people out there using the GPL because it was what was handy, because they don't understand it, because they don't really care about it, or, in two cases that I've actually seen, because they found some 'Hello World' sort

        • There are lots and lots of people out there using the GPL because it was what was handy, because they don't understand it, because they don't really care about it ...

          That's not the fault of the GPL.

          So you wouldn't be amenable to licensing your source code under different terms if someone approached you and offered you a licensing fee?

          I never said I wouldn't. However, the few times I've been approached, the people wanted to pay me so little as to not make the effort worth it (a few hundred dollars),

          • For some strange reason, companies balk at spending, say, $2000 to license code; and they seemingly have no problem spending a lot more than that to have it written in-house (developer salary to write, debug, document; plus loaded cost of developer time: health insurace, office space, equipment use, etc).

            Just a thought, but that might have something to do with if they write it in house, they maintain full controll and rights to the code as well as have the option to profit not only from the finished prod

            • ... if they write it in house, they maintain full controll and rights to the code as well as have the option to profit not only from the finished product, but from licensing their own code.

              The context is library code. For example, in my case, it is a C++ XML library. There really isn't any monetary value in (yet another) XML library. There isn't any profit in licensing a proprietary XML library when there are very good, free, open-source alternatives. As for maintaining full control, well, yeah, OK;

            • The cost of a license is explicit. The cost of adding extra projects to an existing team of coders is nearly hidden and doesn't have to be justified as much.

              In addition, there's the security that comes from "you can't fire me - who will maintain your payroll?"
          • > Then either you don't write open-source software or you're foolish to let other people profit off your efforts
            > without getting anything back either to yourself or the open-source community as a whole.

            Or perhaps I have a different view of the situation. You think that anyone who doesn't use the GPL is foolish. I think that anyone who does use the GPL is... someone who uses the GPL. I don't like the GPL, I don't use the GPL, but I don't think people who use it are stupid. That's the mark of a fa
        • If you "hate" the GPL, then you're alot more of a zealot than most of the people posting in this thread.

          Lets look at this a little differently - I write something and I release it as GPL, not because open source is trendy, but because I believe in the principles it espouses - that people who use my work should have the right to change it and hack on it and see how it works. Because I like doing that, and I want to pass that enjoyment along. Why should I sell that out for money? I'm not doing it for money i

          • > If you "hate" the GPL, then you're alot more of a zealot than most of the people posting in this thread.

            No, I don't think so. Because I don't think people who use it are stupid or malicious by definition, nor do I think people who don't use my particular brand of software licensing are gullible sheep. I think that the GPL is a very bad idea, but I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that there are people who believe in it and who are honest and dedicated in their beliefs, and I don't believe that thi

  • GPL goes too far (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is why I will never use any GPL-license code in any of my products.

    1. I've used PathFinder and have never used the iTerm functionality. It was not a deciding factor.

    2. iTerm is a side feature at best, and it does seem like an example of why GPL (vs. another Open Source license like BSD, LGPL) will not be adopted by anyone that wants to create a business around software.

    3. I would rather see the author pull out the GPL code rather than FORCE to open ALL his code up because of some side feature that h
    • If you are stupid enough to use code with a license you are not willing to adhere to you deserve to lose your precious 'ip'. Period.

      The only people adversely affected by the GPL are greedy fucktards who want the advantages of open source (free code mostly from their pov), but do not want to contribute back to the community that initially created that code. Nobody has to my knowledge ever been forced to download GPL code and integrate it into their product, there is nothing viral about the GPL. IT would

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close