On Tuesday 08 October 2002 06:42 am, Damian wrote: > > I'm sure your interpretation of it is the correct one Todd. I just don't > > think the correct answer was to force development to stop by being > > obnoxious.
I was not advocating anyone being obnoxious. I also had nothing to do with the original post. I just wanted to try to clarify some of the ideas that were expressed about the GPL (not that I'm an expert, of course). I also don't feel the original poster was advocating people to be obnoxious. S/he was advocating making a voice about what s/he that was a GPL violation. Taking action to stop a GPL violation is not necessarily obnoxious. > > ..uhm, i think i got the terms of the GPL wrong, then. > I mean, if these guys are releasing a program (does it matter > if they call it a beta if it's available for widespread use?) > taking code from a GPLed project, and NOT releasing > the source, is it not a violation? or is it only when they > call the release "stable"? the latter doesn't make a lot of > sense to me.. what keeps them from calling every release > a "beta" time and time again? > To the best of my understanding (and I'm pretty confident in this) if the binaries are released as betas then the beta testers are entitled to the source code. The exception would be if the beta testing was done "in house". Regardless of the state of the code, if binary code is distributed to another entity, that entity is entitled to source code. The external entity must either be supplied with the source or given reasonable access to acquire the source. With that being said, the original team can beta test all they want in house without releasing source code. They are only obligated to release the source when they distribute binaries to external entities. On top of that, I believe they are only obligated to give the source to those they gave the binaries. However, they are NOT allowed to take away the freedoms offered by the GPL. The recipient of GPL source and binaries is entitled to the same freedoms as the distributor. So, for example, the external beta testers who received the binaries (if any) are entitled to the source code and may distribute at no cost or commercially the code to world+dog if they so choose. Again, I am no lawyer. > > With no development, and no application being done, there's no code being > > released anyway. It may actually have been something useful but we may > > never know that now. Strict interpretation of rules and regulations; > > while not a bad thing at all, may itself be judged as draconian as the > > Everlasting Usurious Leasing Attack used by a certain proprietary > > software company. > Hey, if my choice is no package or a package that violates the GPL then I'll go with no package! That being said, my understanding was that the development was continuing but that they would simply not being distributing binaries or source until they reached a stable point. If that's how they choose to do it, that is their right. We should be happy that the GPL will not be violated. > the point is, the player was able to play DivX files. And to do that, > it took code from Xvid and FFMPEG. the authors admitted to it, > but kept making closed-source releases and telling people to "wait at > least six months for the source" (maybe it's ok because they > were only betas?) If the binaries were distributed to external beta testers, than those testers were entitled to the source. > > > and now they aren't. Temporarily apparently. The problem seems to be > > (according to the FAQ they have posted) that they won't release the > > application "to the general public" until there's a GPLed compiler > This may be a problem with the licensing of available compilers. This is not a GPL problem. There is nothing about GPL compilers or source code covered by the GPL that mandates a GPL compiler. Therefore, this choice of compiler must be for other reasons. We should applaud them for holding out for Free Software solutions. > i think closed-source software is very necesary, even in Linux. And i > also believe that most GPL die-hards will have to learn to live with that. > I'm too much of a recently-arrived foreigner in the Linux community to > turn into a <insert license/product/belief here>-diehard, but still, the > way i understood the situation, i felt a little pissed off. > Closed-source software is philosophically flawed, but that's an entirely different debate. > (and i'm going to add a question here: is GPL's legal validity "proven" > yet? as in lawsuits or something? i think some time ago i read something > about it not being really "tested" for in-court real value) > While the GPL has not made it to court, let's recall that it has a strong lawyer influence and that many GPL violations including those from some substantial companies have been settled in the favor of Free Software. The GPL is not something to be taken lightly or dismissed as legally unsound.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
