X-Firefox license issue

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Danix
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:07 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#16 Post by Danix »

webfork wrote: I hope this doesn't prevent you from the work you've been doing: we love portable software and hope you keep it up. I merely suggest that at some point in the future, it seems likely you will be required to change the name.
We know of being a very small organization down to the "empire's periphery". ;)
But, we can assure you all, we're still pushing everywhere is possible to be 100% in accordance with all owner's policies.

JohnTHaller wrote:To erase any confusion, Danilo, I never claimed you were altering code and then not publishing changes nor taking software and passing it off as your own. I said that you were distributing GPLed binaries (OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, ClamWin, Notepad++, etc) and not also distributed the source code for said binaries. I've mentioned this to you before on this forum. And SourceForge staff has reminded you of your requirement to distribute the sources. Basically, if you distribute a binary, you have to also distribute the corresponding source code for a period of at least 3 years from when you last distribute the binary. Linking to the publisher's own download of the source is not sufficient, you have to host it yourself.
I think that there has been a small misunderstanding, John. My post was not a self defense, but I said that other projects were be accused of what I wrote above. But, at least, now is a little more clear who was the "anonymous" who warned SourceForge.. :)

By the way, analyzing the GPL 2, you were refering just to point (3.a), but please note that there are two more alternative options for whom copy and distribute GPL licensed programs. So it is not mandatory to provide the source code, particularly for non-commercial distributions like ours. Please have a look:

Code: Select all

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

[...]

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Have also a look to point (6.d) of the GPL 3:

Code: Select all

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
    place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
    further charge.  You need not require recipients to copy the
    Corresponding Source along with the object code.  If the place to
    copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
    may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
    that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
    clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
    Corresponding Source.  Regardless of what server hosts the
    Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
    available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#17 Post by JohnTHaller »

From the FSF themselves:
Can I make binaries available on a network server, but send sources only to people who order them?

If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well. The easiest way to do this would be to publish them on the same server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a version control system. No matter what you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object code, though. This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3.

The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries. In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of the program—not an older version and not a newer version.
Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... endSources
I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?

Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... JustBinary

This is all well-known and well-documented. If you distribute a GPLed binary, you need to distribute the source code making it available from the same page on servers under your own control (or that you have arranged with another party).

The notice I sent you via SourceForge was sent via my logged-in account, CritterNYC, not anonymously.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#18 Post by webfork »

I did some digging and I have yet to find an organization that FSF went after that wasn't commercial. I don't think they will enforce anything with regard to WinPenPack. However, start taking donations? Put up a simple banner ad? Maybe then.

While it may seem irrational to say that you should have to serve code that is readily and easily available on robust Internet servers, the problem with just linking to the source is what this leads to. I don't know the FSF's rationale behind this decision, but I have a guess:

By requiring people to include source with any distribution, they are making sure that a blame game doesn't erupt when a server goes offline somewhere. It makes sure that the source code is always available. This is important because organizations for example could easily weasel out of providing source code. "We were linking to the code and the server went offline. Nobody here had a copy and it doesn't make sense to delete the executable."
JohnTHaller wrote:The notice I sent you via SourceForge was sent via my logged-in account, CritterNYC, not anonymously.
If this is what he's talking about, it does show up as anonymous.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#19 Post by JohnTHaller »

webfork wrote:I don't know the FSF's rationale behind this decision, but I have a guess:
The blame game is probably part of it. On that same note, ensuring that everyone distributing the binary is also distributing the source ensures that if the original project disappears, the downstream ones both have the source and are distributing it. I think part of it is also fairness. A downstream project who simply points to the upstream project for the source isn't doing their fair share of hosting (and bandwidth costs money) or effort (of ensuring everyone gets the source). This could become particularly troublesome should a downstream project become much more popular than a small upstream project and put demands on the upstream's ability to serve the source that it can't handle.

Oh, and the SourceForge notice I'd done was via the main SF project ticketing system you're supposed to use when a project is violating licenses or trademarks, not the the project's issue tracker. I thought I was logged in when I submitted it, but I can't seem to locate it in my reports at SF, so I may not have been logged in or it could be so old it is archived as I don't see anything older than 21 months in their (relative-to-this) new ticket tracker.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
Danix
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:07 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#20 Post by Danix »

JohnTHaller wrote: This is all well-known and well-documented. If you distribute a GPLed binary, you need to distribute the source code making it available from the same page on servers under your own control (or that you have arranged with another party).
Perhaps this is your respectable opinion. But, as the FAQ you linked said, "the easiest way to do this [ie to provide the object code and the Corresponding Source] would be to publish them on the same server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a version control system. No matter what you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object code, though. This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3."

Section 6.d of GPLv3: "If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements."

I think what matters is to give access to the source code, on the same or another server or even through CVS or SVN. Among other things, the source code we are talking about, belongs to programs associated with the launchers for creating portable versions. Programs are included in portable versions in unmodified form, at least in winPenPack's portable software. So, I think it is unnecessary to provide the unmodified source code belonging to a program developed by others, especially if this code is already present on the same server (although we have however added all sources on SourceForge).

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#21 Post by JohnTHaller »

Danix wrote:Perhaps this is your respectable opinion. But, as the FAQ you linked said, "the easiest way to do this [ie to provide the object code and the Corresponding Source] would be to publish them on the same server, but if you'd like, you can alternatively provide instructions for getting the source from another server, or even a version control system. No matter what you do, the source should be just as easy to access as the object code, though. This is all specified in section 6(d) of GPLv3."

Section 6.d of GPLv3: "If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements."

I think what matters is to give access to the source code, on the same or another server or even through CVS or SVN. Among other things, the source code we are talking about, belongs to programs associated with the launchers for creating portable versions. Programs are included in portable versions in unmodified form, at least in winPenPack's portable software. So, I think it is unnecessary to provide the unmodified source code belonging to a program developed by others, especially if this code is already present on the same server (although we have however added all sources on SourceForge).
That alternate location or version control system needs to be one that you also control for the same reasons stated above. You have to provide the source. Pointing people to upstream or someone else providing the source is not providing the source. It doesn't matter whether it is modified or not. You provide the binary, you must provide the source. The same applies to GPLv2:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-license ... JustBinary
I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
If you only had to provide instructions or give a link to, say, AbiWord's sources, they would say you only had to provide instructions. But you have to provide the source: "you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too". It's the same reason you can't just provide the diffs as mentioned in my previous post and in the FAQ I quoted. Because the upstream provider may have a different version available or may not be providing them any longer.

This is a well-documented, well-known and accepted reading of the GPL, and adhered to by everyone I can think of in the open source community. And, honestly, it's the only way that's fair. You distribute a binary, you distribute the source, meaning hosting it yourself. Not linking upstream. It means you providing it on a server or version control system of yours or a 3rd party contracted by you (example SourceForge), as that is the only one you can ensure will remain active for your users to be able to access. You are responsible for providing it because you chose to redistribute it. Respectfully, I checked your site and you're not hosting the source nor are you giving instructions for finding the sources upstream for most of the apps I looked at.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
Danix
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:07 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#22 Post by Danix »

I was thinking again about it, and IMHO the main fact is this: we must ensure the source code of distributed version will be always available. If the source code is linked from the author's website, and if he upgrades to a newer version, we are not sure that source will stay still available. So, that's true: the source code can be hosted by another server, as the GPL states, but must be controlled by whom distributes the binaries and the source code. Anyway there are some exceptions, for example in case of programs providing the source code via SVN or doing different release day by day (Eg Chromium: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/b ... ortby=date).

But, you/we lose the primary target. Projects like ours should have as priority to make available the source code of their own programs, as safely as possible, like the menu that launches applications and the launcher attached to the original program that needs portability. And this is what we do (everything is hosted on SVN)! If not, this would be a really wrong behaviour, showing the true will of not complying with GPL. Actually here is so bizarre finesses on the distribution of source code of programs developed by others, whose source code, among other things, stay unchanged and is easily available. One example, the case of Pidgin: it is present on SourceForge. That version is four years old. What's the matter of publishing the source code, already present on the same server?

Most programs included into "Portable X-Software" are very popular and sources are already present in their related projects on SourceForge. Honestly I think again this is a pointless debate, also because we have these sources on SourceForge for both versions, 3.6 and the newest 4.0, as is easily verifiable. But, anyway, adding a download link of the source code for each Portable X-Software's download page can be a good idea, to settle any doubt.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: X-Firefox license issue

#23 Post by webfork »

Old thread update:

Just linking to the FAQ thread I put up to try and resolve these types of issues going forward.

Post Reply