On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Peter Åstrand <astr...@cendio.se> wrote:
>
> Comments below:
>
>
> Hi Peter,
>> We're not talking about "trivial changes" that would make such a tool
>> fail. FreeRDP is following the official
>> Microsoft specifications. We can easily see the difference between
>> rdesktop and FreeRDP for that reason: rdesktop
>> pretty much remained the same after the specs were published, while we
>> used them to rewrite everything.
>>
>
> Apparently you haven't rewritten everything yet, since the comparator still
> finds similarites. In any case, a "rewrite" which is done with the help of
> the old code means that the new code is based on the old code.
>
> You are making an incorrect assumption here: not all code in the rdesktop
code base is yours. The code we kept is mostly copyrighted to Jay or
Matthew. We have put special care in removing anything that belongs to you.
To be clear: you are not rdesktop, you are a contributor to the rdesktop
project, and we had the agreement from the authors we wanted to keep code
from. Similarities between rdesktop and FreeRDP therefore mean nothing,
unless they are similarities with code which you know is owned by you.
>
>
> Now if you want to keep claiming copyright on our code base, then please
>> point us to code which you found to be
>> infringing on your copyright. Sorry, but you cannot continue to simply
>> claim to own copyright on our code base
>> without ever pointing where it is
>>
>
> Yes, we can. The point of my earlier email today was to show that even if
> there are no code similarities, the code may still be based on earlier work.
> Thus, it might not be possible to point at specific sections; those sections
> might not be present any longer, but the new code might still be based on
> the old one.
>
> Copyright applies to the source code, not ideas. Ideas can be patented, but
you do not own patents on the source code. Your rights are limited to
copyright law.
rdesktop is based on works on reverse engineering. You have personally
supervised such reverse engineering work for the thesis "Reverse-Engineering
and Implementation of the RDP5 Protocol":
http://efod.se/media/thesis.pdf
The implementation that follows can hardly be compared to an implementation
based on the official Microsoft specifications. One can easily make the
distinction between FreeRDP and rdesktop because of that. We did not "change
a few variables", we put the hatchet on large portions of code to then
rewrite them according to the official specifications, not rdesktop. This
new code is not a simple modification of the original code, it is new code,
and you cannot claim copyright on it.
>
>
> We have done a lot of efforts to respect your copyright, but you are now
>> crossing the line. You need to respect our copyright as well.
>>
>
> We believe we are respecting your copyright. If you feel that we are
> violating it somehow, please tell us about it. But so far, we haven't used
> any FreeRDP code at all.
>
> The FreeRDP community owns copyright on code which is ours, not yours. You
are not violating our copyright by using it in a context not allowed by the
license we use, in this case, Apache, but you are trying to force *your*
terms of usage on us by making vague claims that you own copyright on our
code base without pointing out where. If we do use code under your
copyright, we need to respect the terms and conditions under which you have
put that code, which would mean GPL. However, since GPL is viral, it means
the entire code base should be considered GPL, despite the fact that the
rest is Apache.
You are being dishonest by making unsupported claims that you own copyright
on our code base, which would in theory make it GPL. We do not want the GPL
license anymore, and we do have rights on our copyrighted code, and you are
simply trying to prevent us from using *our* code under the terms that *we*
want. The fact that you do not want your code to be used under those
conditions is fine with us: we want to respect your copyright by simply
removing the code, we can easily live with that. Your code is not important
to us.
One very simple thing to do is to point us to the code which you claim is
still left in our code base. Not pointing us towards it is a dishonest way
of trying to force the GPL onto us.
>
>
> Obviously, you do not agree to the license change, and we respect that: we
>> are disposed to fully remove all of your
>> code from our code base. The fact that your copyrighted code used to be
>> part of that code base does not prevent me
>> and the rest of the FreeRDP developers from having rights on the code that
>> they own. By making vague claims that
>> copyrighted code is still left in our code base, therefore it must remain
>> GPL, you are blocking the entire FreeRDP
>> community from moving forward. Not only this is a selfish move, but it is
>> very damageable. Simply look at how
>> development activities dropped last week. Maybe you didn't notice it on
>> rdesktop-devel, but that's because there is
>> normally not that much happening anyway there.
>>
>
> Let's concentrate on the hard facts; if there is a copyright issue or not.
>
> I am starting to wonder the same, due to your apparent unwillingness to
solve the matter. Enough of your nice talking, point us to the code, or stop
making unsupported claims! If this was just a copyright issue, you would
have already pointed us to the code which we infringe on. Your attitude is
only suggesting that you are using the copyright issue as a way to block the
FreeRDP project from changing to the Apache license without any of your
code. If we are using your code, there is a problem, and you must point us
to it. Otherwise, there is no problem, and you must stop making claims which
you can't support.
>
>
> Making claims without backing them does not necessarily prove anything,
>> but it does hurt by putting a cloud of
>> uncertainty over the project. You will always have the ability to make
>> claims which you can't support.
>>
>
> There's nothing to "prove". It's more of a different view of how the
> copyright laws work. We, as well as Andreas Kotes etc, believes that
> starting out with a code base and then gradually changing it means that you
> have used the old code in the process thus the new code is derived from the
> old.
>
We are not "gradually changing it": we have been removing large portions of
code to rewrite them one by one according to the official Microsoft
specifications. Spending two years simply changing variable names would have
been stupid. The new code is written according to the Microsoft
specifications.
>
> To put it another way: If you had started from scratch, then would FreeRDP
> (as of today) have as much functionality, stability etc as it has? We think
> not. We believe you were Standing on the shoulders of giants; ie building
> upon a previously fine software. Which we have invested a lot in.
>
> Again, your assumption is wrong. If you believe we have been standing on
the shoulders of giants, then we are the giant, and you are that tiny
mosquito. Your software wasn't "fine", it was buggy, hard to read,
undocumented, poorly designed, non modular, etc. It was a pleasure to be
able to rewrite entire modules one by one so that we could finally have good
software. I'm sorry to tell you that, but your investment wasn't worth that
much after all, otherwise you would have put care in not letting rdesktop
fail the way it did. The simple fact that FreeRDP succeeded like that shows
how much there was a demand for a better project to be made.
>
>
> You are now given a choice: you either start playing nice with us, or I
>> will have no other choice but to consider
>> the current situation as a desperate attempt at killing the FreeRDP
>> project. So far, you have shown no intent of
>> solving the matter. We have shown a lot of good will and efforts, yet you
>> keep on insisting on the same things. I
>> think it has become obvious to most people ready this by now that FreeRDP
>> is not something you want to see under a
>> permissive license, and your degree of insistence suggests that you might
>> have personal reasons for not wanting us
>> to exist in such way. Your hatred for us, however, does not remove the
>> rights that we have on our own code.
>>
>
> Let's leave any personal feelings outside this discussion. We do not want
> to kill the FreeRDP project. We are showing good will by carefully trying to
> explain our point of view. It is correct though that we do not accept
> distribution of our copyrighted code under non-copyleft license.
>
> You are hurting the FreeRDP project by making unsupported claims that you
own copyright on our code base. Isn't that clear enough to you? We respect
your choice of not wanting your code to be used under a permissive license,
but you must also respect our choice of wanting others to use our code under
a permissive license. For us to use our code under a permissive license, you
must either stop claiming copyright on our code base, or point us to the
copyrighted code which we should remove to respect your copyright.
>
>
> To make it very clear: we don't want your code, we never wanted it, and we
>> will never want it. You can't force us
>> to use copyrighted code that we don't want, especially if you want to
>> impose us the terms and conditions that would
>>
>
> If you didn't want any of it, then why did you base FreeRDP on it? You
> started out with rdesktop, remember. If you wanted a completely different
> implementation, you should have started from scratch.
>
Wrong assumption, we wanted rdesktop *without your copyrighted code in it*,
so we started from rdesktop, and removed your code. For instance, first
thing we did after forking, was replacing the keyboard handling by my code,
and remove seamlessrdp support completely since we knew it was yours. We
gradually removed each component we knew was yours until none was left. We
still wanted code from rdesktop that is copyrighted to people other than
Cendio AB.
>
> As a side note, different companies and organizations have for years asked
> us if they can use the rdesktop code base in various commercial projects, ie
> without respecting GPL. We have turned down such offers. Nothing has
> changed; companies and organizations are still not allowed to do this, even
> if the software has been forked, renamed to "FreeRDP" and then gradually
> enhanced and rewritten.
>
> I am not asking you to change your view on this. I am only asking you to
either stop making unsupported claims, or point us to the code which we
would infringe on, such that we can remove it and finally stop this endless
discussion. How many times do I need to repeat this? I am NOT asking you to
relicense your code or accept new terms, I am simply asking you to show REAL
good will and point us to the code which we would be infringing on, since
you claim that we are. If we are and that you point us towards it, we will
simply remove it, such that we are both happy. You keep your code, we keep
ours, no harm.
Regards,
- Marc-Andre
>
>
> Rgds, ---
> Peter Åstrand ThinLinc Chief Developer
> Cendio AB http://www.cendio.com
> Wallenbergs gata 4
> 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
Freerdp-devel mailing list
Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
