The problem is that if they started with GPL code, it is not entirely their work and they must honor the license of the code they chose to incorperate. I don't know much about this situation, but if they distributed code in binary form that included GPL'd code nested within their logic then they must also provide the applicable source code to the recipients of the binaries. They also cannot restrict what the recipients do with the source code other than keeping it Free. There is no clause in the GPL that allows exceptions for beta tests. They certainly don't have to provide source to the public, but if they put out binaries with nested GPL code to beta testers, the beta testers have a right to the affected code. They also have a right to pass the code on to others if they choose.
Obviously, I'm no lawyer. But that's my understanding of the situation. On Monday 07 October 2002 09:41 am, Charlie wrote: > On Sunday 06 October 2002 04:41 pm, Damian wrote: > > Hi people. > > > > I chose to bring this up because it pissed me off a bit, > > and i think we can do something about it. > > > > There's this new program called "Xbox Media Player" which > > appears to be in clear violation of the GPL. i'm not quite sure what this > > program does, but i think it's purpose is playing DivX movies on an Xbox > > or something... > > > > Anyway, it takes code from FFMPEG (http://ffmpeg.sf.net) > > and XVID (http://xvid.org) which are both licensed under the GPL, > > and the developers of this XboxMediaPlayer have not released > > the source for their program, and when asked for a copy, they clearly > > demonstrate they give a s*** about the issue. > > > > A member of the MPlayer-users list has emailed them concerning > > this issue and got the following reply: > > > > --- > > > > "We are not obliged to release our source until we reach our first stable > > public release version 1.0 - I've made our position about this quite > > clear. > > > > If we continue to get any more such "demands" we shall simply stop > > releasing public betas, and release version 1 and the accompanying source > > 6-12 month from now." > > > > --- > > > > Now, this got me thinking ( and i've already posted my ideas to MPlayer > > list) how about we all *make* them stop releasing their betas? i.e. we > > *all* keep asking for the source untill they choose to give us their > > oh-so-very-feared-punishment and quit releasing programs in clear > > violation of the GPL? > > > > lemme know what you think :o) > > I think you should keep that response in an archive of some sort; as it > seems to be a public promise to release the source code. When development > is done. But I don't see this "clear violation" that you speak of. > Distributed open source code used to make a product means the finished > product must also be open sourced, no? Or do you just want them to stop > developing altogether? > > Apparently you got your wish then: > > "Latest News > 07-10-2002, 13:09 (Post by RUNTiME) > > Development suspended > > Following a number of complaints made to us development on the player is > suspended until further notice. > > We remind you that we have not officially released any binaries to the > public, and as such no source will be forthcoming either. > > You can send your letters of thanks to [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > Why they wouldn't release the code as it is now, and hope other developers > would also take an interest and help refine the software, is anyone's > guess. But nobody else's business I suppose. > > It should also be the author's privilege to control their own work in my > opinion. Any artist should always have control of their own work, and the > ablility to decide what "the public" sees and when. With respect to the > Free Software Foundation, or Open Source Community; if the author of a > particular program/application wants to hold onto their work until _they_ > consider it a finished product, what's the problem? I thought the rule was > that if a product is released that uses any open source code the end > product code also must be released as open source code. If it's still alpha > or beta work where's the trouble? That would seem to mean there isn't any > finished code to release yet. > > Under the "from the sublime to the ridiculous" heading; have you ever beta > tested for any proprietary software development? If you're still in testing > phase in most cases you're bound to not even admit it. Source code? Hell > you're lucky if there's an admission that there _is_ code. It's all done by > magic ya know. Black Magic in some cases. :-) > > Developers may be a strange breed but they have my respect. I can't do what > they do since I don't have that much interest in the field; and so would > never devote the time to learn the required languages and skills. To my > mind that means I have no right to criticize their behavior if it doesn't > harm me. If cutting them a bit of slack (if that even applies here) is what > it takes for them to release a *free* finished product that I may not even > have known I wanted or needed then where's the problem?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
