Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Himi name its Gianfranco Lutjens, and Im from Chile.I need to know if you ever received the password for the toolbox E4 for matlab. I need it to make a time series analisys very soon. If you got it, please, sent me.greatinf from Chile Gianfranco
Requiring registration of GPL software
Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. A quote from the download page follows: E4 Toolbox is redistributable software. You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation. For the moment E4 Toolbox is distributed in a encrypted zip file. CONTACT us to get the password. [1] http://www.ucm.es/info/icae/e4/ [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee Best Regards, Danilo -- Danilo Piazzalunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ GPG Key available at http://pgp.mit.edu | Linux User #245762 | Fingerprint: D018 815E 8C7F 2AE2 5565 | ICQ #105550412 | 0C36 B5F6 DB20 B800 CB9F ++
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Danilo Piazzalunga wrote: Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. A quote from the download page follows: E4 Toolbox is redistributable software. You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation. For the moment E4 Toolbox is distributed in a encrypted zip file. CONTACT us to get the password. IANAL, but IMO it is legal. GPL requires that vendor give you the sources of binary that you get from them. So to have sources of GPL, you may need to pay. The good thing, after you have the code, you can freely redistribute, and so nobody had to buy the sources. In other word: if you buy or download legally the GPL binary files, they MUST give for free (or small media cost) the sources. There is no requirment to make public GPL software. Immagine if a lot of people ask me about release some of my not finished GPL software? My internet band and forces will interrupt to much my work! ciao cate
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
@ 20/05/2004 10:46 : wrote Danilo Piazzalunga : Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. *snip* Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. Best Regards, Danilo I don't think it's in contrast with the GPL. You are required to register to get the software _from_ _their_ _page_. Once you got it, you can do whatever the GPL permits you to do (including putting the -- possibly modified -- sources and binaries in ftp.debian.org, and no one that gets it from f.d.o needs no password or registration. Now, if they try to impinge you other restrictions when you ask for the password, *then* the software is _undistributable_ (invalid license = GPL + additional restrictions = undistributable) -- br,M
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Whether the E4 developers are doing wrong depends on who holds the copyright. If it's all their own code, and there is no other GPLed source included (that is copyright by someone else), the E4 developers have the right to do this. The license they are granting you specifies what you may do with it, and what you would be required to do if you further redistribute it. It doesn't place any burden on the copyright holder. However, if E4 is not all their own code, I would say this is a GPL violation. Look through the source files and see who holds all the copyrights. Mike -- Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. -- John J. Chapman, Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations http://www.goingware.com/reputation/
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
@ 20/05/2004 12:04 : wrote Michael D. Crawford : Whether the E4 developers are doing wrong depends on who holds the copyright. If it's all their own code, and there is no other GPLed source included (that is copyright by someone else), the E4 developers have the right to do this. The license they are granting you specifies what you may do with it, and what you would be required to do if you further redistribute it. It doesn't place any burden on the copyright holder. However, if E4 is not all their own code, I would say this is a GPL violation. Look through the source files and see who holds all the copyrights. Mike No. No. No. Sorry. No. AFAIK they are distributing in the ZIP file the source code. I did not see the binary code being distributed, and being no Matlab whiz I don't know if there is any. But... As long as they don't add any restrictions after you open and unzip the files, they are safe. They are applying GPL#3, 'a', accompanying it with the complete source code, and they would not be adding any restrictions. No person is obligated to distribute anything /as per/ the GPL, except if this person is already separately distributing something else. -- br,M
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whether the E4 developers are doing wrong depends on who holds the copyright. However, if E4 is not all their own code, I would say this is a GPL violation. Even if it is not all their own code, it is fine with the GPL. They have complete liberty to choose to whom they distribute their work/derivate; this includes the liberty to distribute only to people who have asked personally. Indeed, this is excactly the policy that most of us applies to _foreign_ free software that happens to be in our possession. For example, I have on my computer the source for a work derived from (a rather old release of) the Linux kernel, and I'm licensed to distribute my derivate freely. But I'm not *actually* distributing my kernel to anyone save for people who contact me personally and ask me sufficiently nicely to have it. By adopting this policy, neither I nor the E4 developers are doing anything that conflicts with our oblications under the GPL. The only way things can go wrong is if the E4 people try to extract of registrants a legally binding promise not to redistribute the stuff they get out of the zip archive. But the quote given in the initial posting strongly suggests that this is not the case. -- Henning MakholmDe kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
@ 20/05/2004 10:46 : wrote Danilo Piazzalunga : Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. (me again) I just received the password for the ZIP file. I opened it, and it was a bunch of *.m files, all source, none seemed to be obfuscated, and all of them except c.m (*) had headers copyrighting them *and* establishing the GPL as the license. accompanying the *.m files, a single LICENSE.txt file containing the complete text of the GPL, including the preamble and the epilog how to GPL your work. (*) the c.m file appears to have the same effect as $ perl -pi~ -e 's/SS_DVEE/SS_DVSS/g' *.m ;; so, if lack of individual attribution is a problem (!?) just yank it off the sources, it's not referenced anywhere in the other *.m files OR in the manual. Every evidence on the table says to me this is DFSG-free. The registration process is only to their own control. If you still have doubts, contact the developers. The manual appears to be non-free. MatLab, itself, seems to be non-free. So, even if debian packages this, it should go into contrib. -- br,M
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Henning Makholm wrote: Indeed, this is excactly the policy that most of us applies to _foreign_ free software that happens to be in our possession. For example, I have on my computer the source for a work derived from (a rather old release of) the Linux kernel, and I'm licensed to distribute my derivate freely. But I'm not *actually* distributing my kernel to anyone save for people who contact me personally and ask me sufficiently nicely to have it. By adopting this policy, neither I nor the E4 developers are doing anything that conflicts with our oblications under the GPL. Thanks you all, you've been quite helpful (the quoted reply is especially clear). I am quite relieved now, knowing that I'll not be using/modifying/etc. some undistributable software. Kind regards, Danilo -- Danilo Piazzalunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ GPG Key available at http://pgp.mit.edu | Linux User #245762 | Fingerprint: D018 815E 8C7F 2AE2 5565 | ICQ #105550412 | 0C36 B5F6 DB20 B800 CB9F ++
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Humberto Massa wrote: MatLab, itself, seems to be non-free. So, even if debian packages this, it should go into contrib. Unless it works with GNU Octave, in which case it could go to main. - Josh Triplett
