On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, Fredrik Liljegren wrote:
> > > It is not quite true that WinCVS is GPL'ed. WinCVS uses the
> > > CodeJock MFC
> > > library (www.codejock.com), which is NOT GPL. Below is a
> > > portion of the
> > > CodeJock license (http://www.codejock.com/terms_of_use.htm):
> > ...
> > > >If you do not meet the requirements for free use of the
> > > SOFTWARE, you may
> > > >use the SOFTWARE for up to thirty (30) days for the purpose
> >
> > > This raises questions of whether WinCVS may be
> > > unintentionally violating the GPL of CVS.
> >
> > Well, it might be unintentional, but to me it seems to be a clear violation.
> > Since CVS is GNU software, I guess the FSF has the copyright? If so, I
> > really suggest you, Jonathan, contact them and see what they have to say
> > about it. I don't think they would like their software being turned into
> > some kind of shareware...
>
> You seem to get the term "CVS is GNU software" royaly mixed up.
You don't seem to have it straight either.
It doesn't matter that WinCVS doesn't link with the CVS code. What matters
is that WinCVS claims to be GPL'd *and* relies on a library *whose
redistribution terms conflict with those of the GPL*. (Note that I'm
taking the original poster at his word here about the level of dependency
on the CodeJock library, as well as that library's license.)
In my estimation (and IANAL)...
To say "WinCVS violates the GPL" is not altogether incorrect, but it is
incomplete. You could also make the equally incomplete
observation: "WinCVS violates the CodeJock license." What's going on here
is a license incompatibility: the CodeJock license terms apply
redistribution restrictions that conflict with the terms of the GPL.
The best recourse at this point may be to talk to the CodeJock folks and
see if an exemption can be made for WinCVS.
> Get your bloody facts straight before
> you start accusing someone of being in violation of law.
This is not about violating the law, it's about violating a contract.
> People are still
> innocent until proven guilty. And no, the onus is not on the innocent to
> prove themselves "not guilty", but on the person doing the accusing to
> actually prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, I
> don't think the WinCVS author(s) need answer any of your questions,
> should they decide not to do so.
This seems a bit of an overreaction. The original posting was entitled,
"Does WinCVS violate the GPL?" not, "WinCVS violates the GPL! Crucify
'em!" It looked like an honest question from someone looking for
clarification. Perhaps such clarification would reveal that all the i's
have been dotted and the t's crossed after all. But based on the evidence
presented, it doesn't look like the question was irrational and
unwarranted.
> Also, WinCVS seems to make available the source it uses. Should some of
> this source fall under the GPL, why would this "infect" some library it
> uses?
It doesn't, necessarily. It's just that the particular terms of the
license of this library conflict with those of the GPL.
> So by the simple fact that WinCVS runs on Win95, M$ should be
> obligated to open their source to Win95?!? Even this case is one of
> association, and I fail to see how these sort of arguments could possibly
> hold up.
Then perhaps you should read the licenses. (And no, they don't require
that Windows 95 be made free. Microsoft doesn't place restrictions on how
you redistribute code that links to its Windows system libraries.)
Braden
