Slashdot Log In
SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 01, 2007 01:00 AM
from the just-the-code-man dept.
from the just-the-code-man dept.
MBCook writes "According to the Official Wine Wiki, SWSoft's Parallels 3.0 contains LGPL code. It seems that the new 3D acceleration features of Parallels 3.0 are based on Wine code (SWSoft isn't hiding this), but despite repeated requests they have not yet released their changes for the Wine developers. It has now been 22 days since SWSoft was first contacted on this issue; at the time they promised the code within 1-2 days. They have been contacted numerous time and currently say that they are waiting on 'legal department approval.'" Update: 07/03 00:06 GMT by KD : Reader something_wicked_thi notes that Parallels released the source code the next day.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
They want me to upgrade (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
legal approval? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why i hate software firms, stealing of gpl'd code is rife in the industry, yet software firms (i'm looking at you microsoft) are constantly pointing the finger at OSS as if THEY are the ones guilty of theift.
the reality of the situation is that OSS is far more concious of copyright and patent issues then anyone else, and do far more then anyone to audit code for violations yet somehow have been slapped with this label of code stealers.
For a lawyers opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
It is LGPL'd not GPL'd code. The license expressly states that the reason for the LGPL is to allow proprietary software to use the library in some ways. Maybe they are sitting down with their lawyers to ensure compliance absent releasing the source. Maybe they have several contributors and need to sort out the rights so they don't get sued. Heck, maybe they are seeking clairity on this point from the license:
Point is, lawyers are slow, and companies often use them to prevent negative, unforseen consequences. Give them more time before crucifying/boycotting/etc. instinctively.
Re:For a lawyers opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For a lawyers opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
But if I understand this, they have modified the library itself, and not released their changes. The LGPL lets you link with a library, including using the library's official header files, without your program being considered a derivative work of the library -- your own code does not have to be LGPL'd.
However, the library itself is still LGPL'd, and anything you do with it must still have source code released.
I'm sorry, the time lawyers have to work this out is before the software is released. They are now in violation.
Let's say I start beating the shit out of you, and you tell me to stop. Should I stop, or should I call my lawyer and wait a week for him to tell me it's OK to stop (during which time I'm still kicking you)? The correct answer is I should stop, and for that matter, I should never have started. My lawyer should have told me not to kick you in the first place.
Re:For a lawyers opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought AT&T vs BSD case settled this. Header files aren't protectable. Of course it gets unclear what happens if header files contain inline functions (whoever puts code to header file should be shot at noon:) but function signatures or class definitions aren't copyrightable code.
Re:legal approval? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen at least one company do their damnedest to ignore the GPL and "forget" to notify their customers of GPL based code or modifications, or provide source, as a "trade secret". It led to a very serious argument between my supervisor and the company president, who liked us having some secret tools we could use to push our products. I wanted the GPL-based fixes to go into the next software release so we wouldn't have to keep patching things and they would just work from then on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, they may be evaluating how the code they built upon Wine can be detached from it (say, modding Wine so that it can link to non-LGPL'd extensions and keeping those proprietary things in the extensions) or how m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Who do you think should make the decision as to what is legally required? Perhaps the legal department? Perhaps they have outside counsel like many small companies, and their lawyers needs to re
Re:Maybe a legal opinion? (Score:4, Insightful)
expect it soon (Score:3, Funny)
Be patient (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be patient (Score:4, Insightful)
Bollocks. Just like other copyrighted code, Parallels shouldn't release derived binaries until they're compliant.
What if (say) Microsoft was including some Apple products in Vista - and hadn't responded to Apple's questions for 22 days. Would you be saying "Calm down, give Microsoft some more time to seek legal advice"?
The alternative is that they'll clamp down, pull the feature, and release nothing.
Well, I can see why that would upset Parallels fans - but please explain wtf wine should care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I they're anything like alot of companies, one of the development managers might have read the license, thought they understood a corner case where
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Be patient (Score:5, Insightful)
As for why they are waiting for 'confirmation from their legal department' or such, who knows, perhaps the lawyers just need to sign off on it and one of them is on vacation. Or perhaps the code contains snippets from other code sources and they need to ascertain some issues first. It does make sense to be careful before publishing source code - although, true, they should have been careful *before* distributing the binaries.
Contant the CEO (Score:5, Informative)
Write to the CEO (Sergey Beloussov) directly: sb@swsoft.com He is pretty responsive actually.
As a former employee, I should say that part of the problem is developers, that choose libraries for the project without looking into the license. I didn't work on Parallels project, so I don't know how exactly it is there, but in our project I several time had to tell people that they can't use some library, because it is GPL and they were like "Hmm, never thought of looking at it from this perspective". Most of them just used to take and use whatever is available
Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:5, Informative)
Wine uses LGPL 2.1, not the latest GPL or even the latest version of the LGPL.
WineHQ states that "The licensing terms are the GNU Lesser General Public License" on their main page, which links to the Licensing page where they have the text for the LGPL v2.1 (http://www.winehq.org/site/license).
I read their copy of the LGPL 2.1, and other than requesting that copies of the library and its source be distributed with the project that uses it, I don't see where it says that the source for the entire project making use of the library has to be released as well, unless it can be demonstrated that significant changes have been made to the library to use it in the project or that the project relies completely on it to make it unusable if removed.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has actually seen any of the Parallels sourcecode, so no one can actually say how much or even if Parallels has modified Wine to use it in their software.
While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=1264
Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll repeat what I said in my post, which I believe you either ignored or glossed over:
"While they admit they use Wine DLLs in a forum post (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=12648 ), the stat
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, you're right of course. I blame my lack of reading comprehension on the beer.
But even so, according to my understanding of the (L)GPL, they are required to offer the source code to any binary LGPL-licensed code that they ship. So it's basically a
Re:Not the GPL, Wine uses LGPL... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no expert but I do work on projects that use LGPL. From my experiences, I have the following answer for you based on the following reasoning:
1) LGPL is by far the most permissive of the FSF licenses.
2) The point of the LGPL is to allow developers to separately license independent code that they write/use from the LGPL code that they may want to include. In contrast to the GPL, independently developed parts of a delivered product can be licensed separately from the LGPL'd code (ie: the LGPL does not have the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL)
3) LGPL does have specific requirements. For example, LGPL'd code that is modified must be redistributed in source form. Not surprisingly, unmodified LGPL code must also be redistributed.
4) Interestingly and importantly, a product that includes LGPL'd code must be built in such a way that it is *possible* for end-users to swap-out and otherwise replace the distributed LGPL'd portions of the codebase with complementary versions of their choosing. Eg: if parallels ships a particular wine dll, then as a user, I should be able to replace that dll with a comparable one of my choosing. If that can only be accomplished by applying patches to standard versions of the LGPL'd codebase (ie: if the distributed product modified the LGPL code) then the necessary changes for the LGPL portions must be made available. In short, modified LGPL'd source code must be redistributed. Of course, non LGPL'd source code need only be redistributed based on the license it was granted under.
The way I see it, point 4 is the crux of the issue. So, if it is true that I can't use parallels without being able to swap in my own version of the wine code that parallels uses just because parallels has made material changes to the wine code that are necessary but which they haven't made public, then the LGPL is being violated. As an LGPL developer, I don't care if you use my code in your project. The only meaningful stipulation is that if you modified my LGPL'd software in such a way that your other code is dependent on those changes, you must make those changes available to everyone you distribute your code to. Failing to do so means that you have effectively usurped the share-alike basis of the LGPL by instilling yourself as the only entity capable of incorporating the LGPL code into your software. IMHO, this is the main difference between LGPL and BSD code -- both are "non-viral" but the LGPL insists on share-alike and (perhaps more meaningfully) restricts products that would attempt to limit how users incorporate LGPL'd portions of the codebase.
Before I close I want to address why this should be important. Let's say that software company X produces product Y using LGPL'd software Z. Say I have a license for Y but that X has gone out of business. In the intervening time, Z has undergone some important updates (perhaps security related). If as a user I can't update my legally acquired Y unless the defunct X does so, then I am out-of-luck. The LGPL is meant to protect users so that they don't fall prey to the whims of their vendors for portions of their software that should be (would be) otherwise openly available to them.
SWSoft's Plesk does similar (Score:3, Informative)
SWSoft are also the developers of Plesk which is (expensive commercial) server management software, similar in functionality to cPanel and the like.
For a number of years now some Plesk users have been complaining that source code is not made readily available for some of the patched packages that are provided by SWSoft with their Plesk software -- specifically here I am referring to Qmail, but this applies to other modified software bundled with Plesk.
It's a total bummer - make's it impossible to tweak the mail server when you can't simply rebuild it, especially with Qmail - the base code for which doesn't have any of the more modern useful features that other mail servers have until you apply a myriad of patches to it.
- Which patches have they applied and how?
- What other tweaks have they made?
- Where can I get the source code for the non-SWSoft bundled components of Plesk?
I really think SWSoft have pushed their luck for too long already, it's about time they either became compliant and released the ALL of the code they were meant to - or they should be punished legally.
Posting anonymously because we use Plesk a lot (not my choice).
I would be interested to hear comments from anyone else on the matter of source code for the modified open source components utilised within Plesk...
Reality check... (Score:4, Interesting)
Before we all get too excited...
The TFA links to a page on the official Parallels website that acknowledges the use of open source code from various sources, including the use of the LGPL, and offers to provide the source on request, as required.
Allegedly, when people have actually EMAILed this address, the response has been less than satisfactory.
Its quite right that the WINE people are keeping an eye on this situation, but I suggest that people browse the rest of the Parallels support fora and form an impression of the company's general track-record vis. timely and helpful responses to EMAIL requests before trying to answer the "conspiracy" vs. "cock-up" question.
Parallels for Mac is a jolly impressive product - they got a perfectly usable package out of the door, at a very low price within, what? six months of the launch of Intel Macs, and have since been regularly upping the ante in terms of OSX/Windows integration. However, they also have issues - e.g. too many people were enticed by the website to try the beta version of 2.5 and the current blurb for 3.0 widely oversells its ability to Run today's most popular PC games on a Mac [parallels.com].
The latter is a pity - what they've achieved is jolly impressive (e.g. I've been quite happily running "Freelancer" - everything apart from the opening splash & movie works, UT2004 was tolerable, with glitches) but its much more "enjoy a few of your 3-4 year old PC games that you didn't think you'd be able to play again".
As for the EMAIL & support: they'd been selling virtualization software to a crowd of tech-savvy developers and sysadmins, then they suddenly started dealing with regular Mac users who wanted to sync their mobile phones or run accounting software and were now trying to "virtualize" the copy of windows previously installed under "bootcamp". Anybody here want to volunteer for that particular helldesk?
My response: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't want to respect other people's copyright, why should anyone respect your copyright?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, you are misreading my comment. Here's my original comment, with the pronouns expanded:
If you (parallels) don't want to respect other people's (wine's) copy
Bullshit... (Score:5, Informative)
The poster is a troll [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How about starting a data-mining project relating insightfulness/informativeness to geographic region, IP address or company affiliation? I offer my free time
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen very similar complaints from folks who never understood or had the GPL carefully explained to them. Yes, if you build on top of someone else's code base (such as a Linux kernel, which is under GPL) and send that modified tool to your customers, then you have to send along your modifications to your customers. This is how Linux the kernel, and the GNU softwaer on which so much of Linux the operating system, became so powerful and effective.
If you're going to compete in that world, and reap the benefits of the software, you'll have to have some real addition to sell on top of it. This may be continuing technical innovation in your product line: this may be unique support for its use: it may be customization services for your customers. But yeah, you can't change 2 lines of code to break compatibility with anyone else's products and pretend it's the same product, then keep it secret. (That's basically what Microsoft did with Kerberos in Active Directory: it's been worked around in MIT's source code.) Nor can you reap 1000 man-weeks of development time, add 2 weeks for a cute new feature, and deny the others who provided that 1000 man-weeks the opportunity to test or include that feature.
If your source code is so precious that only you can be allowed to see or use it, then you are massively vulnerable to software theft. And frankly, that kind of secrecy makes your code untrustworthy: what precisely are you scared of people seeing? That you've hacked your libraries to work around a hardware bug that should never have been there? Or that your security model is a sad, sad joke? Or that your much vaunted "new feature" is something that has been in place for 4 years, but was never published? (Yes, I've seen all of these happen.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't be that hard, define some way of calculating the distance between texts, allow users to flag posts as repeat troll, when enough similar flagged posts are found add it to the list, and finally check new posts against the list at post time.
But OTOH, this is probably a little overkill for something that is already dealt with rather well by the existing modding system.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to feed the troll, but you obviously don't know the first thing about Linux, and both you and your company's lawyers don't know the first thing about the GPL.
ext2 and 3 are both designed to not need to be defragged, unlike FAT or NTFS, which require it on a regular basis to keep from being nigh useless.
Any company that doesn't examine the licensing of the software it will use before putting it into production deserves whatever legal consequences it earns. The first thing I do before starting a project based on other open source (or more rarely proprietary) software is check the listening t make sure I can use it for what I need.
WRONG. The GPL only requires source code disclosure if you distribute the modified code. GPL code isn't free in the do whatever you want, anarchy style freedom that some might want. GPL is free in a community conscious, mutual support style. I personally, as a developer, am of a mixed opinion about this setup. On one side, there is the desire to try making money by hiding "secrets". The other side is that the people who wrote GPL code put a lot of (usually personal) time into developing this code and taking their code without proper credit and listening to their wish on how to use the code.
If you think that using someone's code without proper credit is fair, stop using GPL and label yourself an IP thief. You will also need to write your own kernel (or go back to paying $150+ per seat to use Windows). There are different costs for using different things. Community support is the cost of GPL software, cold hard cash (along with the potential for other, undisclosed costs) is the cost for proprietary software. Its your choice, but when you chose don't complain that you didn't look at what you picked.
Re:You are a liar (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, it sounds as though SWSoft has taken LGPL'd code, modified it to do more stuff in some way and then used that for the 3d accleration support in Parallels 3.0... that's all fine, and Parallels itself doesn't need the source opened. But they have not contributed those changes to the actual LGPL code -- their own modifications, bugfixes, etc. -- back to Wine, and that is *not* okay under the license. So Wine wants the code contributed back, and SWSoft is stalling, which is the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I don't know if all copyrights to Wine have been transferred to the FSF, but if not, then no, that's not how the industry works.
Each Wine copyright holder (there may well be hundreds, as for the L
This is craziness, calm down people... (Score:5, Informative)
The FSF requires copyright assigned because then there is a clear owner and clear damages, because the FSF with the GNU manifesto and other things has its defined benefit from GPL'd code. Makes it more likely you can gain relief... if they sue and ask for damages plus injunctive relief, there is a clear plaintiff, not "a bunch of hackers," that has standing.
22 days is no a long time. Generally, if you are dealing in legal action, 30 days is standard. Sure, obnoxious lawyers demand things with 10 days to correct, but generally, 30 is normal.
It appears to be a major screw-up, they released code based upon LGPL'd code. Legal needs to figure out what they did, what they are at risk for, and what they should do. They need to make certain that they can legally release code, and if that is sufficient.
The copyright holders should hold their feet to the fire, but public shaming and getting half stories out seems a bit premature at this stage of the game. What damages can the Wine project have had from not having access to derivative versions of their software from this company in 22 days? Lots of things can crop of and cause things to take a few weeks. Everyone chill, and don't prejudge until we see a resolution.
Everyone is "free to sue," but each wine copyright holder may or not have standing, and may or may not have sufficient damages to due and/or be granted injunctive relief. If you ask the court to stop them from distributing your software because they are doing so without a license, it's harder to claim that if various copyright holders have 10-15 lines of code.
There is no "class" here for a class action lawsuit.
Not okay doesn't mean anything... (Score:3, Interesting)
Further, courts can offer monetary relief and injunctive relief, that' about it. Damages need to be translated into dollars.
They didn't follow t
Re:"legal department" is probably confused (Score:4, Insightful)
is flabbergasted that their developers embarked upon something where they have to release their code... Except it isn't the developer's code. They do work for hire after all, and their code is SWSoft's. Maybe they didn't have permission to use LGPL code in their product?
I admit is seems unlikely however. I just want to point out that many people don't have the freedom at work to decide things like that. If I tried to incorporate F/OSS code into my work, I would lose my job, and the code would get pulled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, anyone who downloads the demo is eligible for a copy too... since the Wine code is in the demo version too.
Does anyone on slashdot understand the LGPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. They are in a position to demand that the Parallels team stop violating the terms of the license. That is to say that the Parallels team
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal research demands a little more than you can get from Google.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Smarten up, all of you. (Score:4, Informative)
When you contact them to rectify the situation, they say "We know we're using your code and not abiding by the terms set forth in the license, we'll deal with it" and then a month later they still haven't dealt with it. How would you feel? Are you seriously saying that you wouldn't take them to court? They are in clear violation of your license, they have admitted as much in correspondence with your company, and still haven't dealt with it, despite your lenience. You could take them to court for millions of dollars and you would win.
For some reason, a large number of people here don't seem to understand that the GPL is a license like any other software license. It is used by free software hackers in their basements, and it is used by large, multi-national companies like IBM, RedHat, and MySQL. Just because the license is permissive does not mean that it is not a license with requirements that need to be met.
The situation with the WINE crew is exactly analogous to the scenario I outlined above, the only difference being that WINE is not a company. Everything else about it is exactly analogous. And you're going on about the coders having a "sense" of entitlement. Here's the truth: WINE is a huge and complex project that has taken a team of very talented hackers a long time to put together. Along the way, its efforts have been helped by companies, as well as by other projects like ReactOS.
The reason SWSoft used WINE in the first place, rather than just rolling their own solution, is because WINE is complex enough that to reinvent the wheel would probably have cost them millions. They were allowed to use WINE without pay -- but only on the condition that the GPL be abided by. Had it been for pay, would they have used the code first, released a product, and then waited nearly a month before sending a check? Hell no, and you know it as well as I. The problem here is that people like you and like them seem to think that just because WINE asks for source instead of code as payment, no payment is required, or that there is some leeway on the payment of debts.
In any other situation, these "internal issues that this kind of company is going to encounter" would have been taken care of prior to release. Here, they weren't.
On top of that, there's not much for them to figure out: if they used LGPL'd code, any and all changes to that code must be released. Some other posters have suggested that they're "verifying" or some such. There's nothing to verify. If they inserted code they can't release under the LGPL into a LGPL'd product and are distributing binaries produced by that mixture, they are in violation of the LGPL and can and should be sued into oblivion.