Re: the new IglooFTP license
On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license, which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the version number. Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. This is the most alarming section. Did the patch go into the new proprietary version? If so, does Igor know? Does he approve? If I was Igor, I would *insist* on seeing the current source code, and making sure that the patch did not appear (assuming, of course, that I had licensed my patch appropriately). Steve
Re: the new IglooFTP license
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999, Steve Greenland wrote: On 28-Jul-99, 07:57 (CDT), Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. This is the most alarming section. Did the patch go into the new proprietary version? Yes; it is in the changelog. If so, does Igor know? I have reasons to think that yes, he knows. But neither him nor the original IglooFTP author answered me yet. Does he approve? No idea, sorry. If I was Igor, I would *insist* on seeing the current source code, and making sure that the patch did not appear (assuming, of course, that I had licensed my patch appropriately). Alas, this seems to be a problem: the patch available for download has no copyright notice on it, no license. I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the code ? Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ? Regards, Sam. -- Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.via.ecp.fr/~sam/ echo what is the universe|tr a-z 0-7-0-729|sed 's/9.//g;s/-/+/'|bc
Re: the new IglooFTP license
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the code ? Yes. Or is it implicitly thrown into 'public domain' ? Definitely not.
Re: the new IglooFTP license
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:35:41PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm quite curious about this: if a piece of code is released
under no license, doesn't the author keep all the rights on the
code ?
Yes.
But only if the patch is substantial enough in itself to be protected by
copyright.
Oneliners like
-if (symbol) {
+if (!symbol) {
are not substantial patches.
--
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the new IglooFTP license
Thanks for bringing this to my attention (I'm the iglooftp debian maintainer)! On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 07:51:16PM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote: [snip - commercial Pro version] /* IglooFTP - Graphical and User Friendly FTP Client. * Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Jean-Marc Jacquet. * All rights reserved. * * THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT * LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * * IglooFTP Original Packages, information and support, * can be obtained at : * http://www.littleigloo.org * * */ in the top level COPYRIGHT file and all the source files I looked at (which includes all of them in src (I'll ignore the one in lib which is netscape-remote). Looking at the source for 0.6.1 (the last free one I saw), the copyright is the same, but it does include LICENSE - which is the artistic license. I'm not sure how this package was classified as GPL to begin with. There are debian modifications that point to the GPL in /usr/share/common-licenses rather than the artistic license it seems to want to include. That looks suspicious to me. I've CCed the Debian maintainer for clarification. (Maybe it was GPLed at 0.3.x and the changes persisted. Seems likely to me.) I _might_ have made a mistake and linked to the GPL ones rather than the artistic ones by mistake, I thought it was GPL'd - although I only checked this for the first version (0.3.1). With all the indications that it is OpenSource scattered around I guess we can assume that it was open source despite none of the source files actually saying this. Is this a fair assessment? [snip] Was it ever GPLed? Looking at the source in Debian I'm not sure that's true. (Of course I don't have the 0.3.x source to look at. Ditto :-( If that says artistic then the debian package linking to the GPL (and /usr/doc/iglooftp/copyright saying GPL) is a mistake on my part. Otherwise, the license has been changed. There is no mention of a changed license in the changelog. Adrian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett Windows NT - Unix in beta-testing. PGP key available on public key servers Avoid tiresome goat sacrifices -=- use Debian Linux http://www.debian.org
the new IglooFTP license
[To: programmers listed as IglooFTP contributors] [Cc: to debian-legal mailing list] Hello, sorry for bothering you about what you might consider a quite futile issue. As you might know, Jean-Marc Jacquet released a new 'PRO' version of his ftp software IglooFTP. The main point is that not only it has a non-free license, but sources aren't even distributed any more: http://www.littleigloo.org/iglooftp.php3 I also noticed that Jean-Marc has removed all traces of the GPLed 0.6.1 release from his website; the download section at http://www.littleigloo.org/softwares_fr.html#IGLOOFTP leads to broken links. But the GPLed 0.6.1 version still exists; it is in the source tree of the Debian distribution, for instance. Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license, which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the version number. Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. Although I do not use IglooFTP very often, I am quite disappointed by this license change because: * I don't understand why Jean-Marc decided to make IglooFTP non-free if he only intends to provide email support. Anyone knowing the former versions' source code and/or having used IglooFTP as well might do the same. * this new version of IglooFTP won't be available for the Debian distribution. * the new version of IglooFTP crashes on my computer. There is no way I can fix it without having the source code. I will have to PAY for the registered version to be able to get support for a crash-free version ! So, what I intend to do is to ask Jean-Marc why he released his program under a non-free license, and whether he agrees to change his mind. Before that, I would like to know: - was Jean-Marc allowed to release IglooFTP 0.6.1 under the GPL, and later release the very same version under a different license ? - what license was Igor's patch released under ? - did the other contributors provide patches or just ideas ? It they were patches, what license were they released under ? - was Jean-Marc allowed to use those patches in the non-free version of IglooFTP ? Thanks a lot for your information, Sam. -- Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.via.ecp.fr/~sam/ echo what is the universe|tr a-z 0-7-0-729|sed 's/9.//g;s/-/+/'|bc
Re: the new IglooFTP license
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...former license was GPL...] Moreover, Jean-Marc re-released 0.6.1 under the Artistic license, which I don't know if he is allowed to do without changing the version number. Meanwhile, he implemented Igor's patch for VMS to one of those two 0.6.1 versions. [...] Before that, I would like to know: - was Jean-Marc allowed to release IglooFTP 0.6.1 under the GPL, and later release the very same version under a different license ? If he owns the copyright, he can release it under whatever licenses he wants. Copyright owners can offer any sets of terms they care to. Note that he can't prevent anyone from continuing to use and distribute the GPL version. -- MONO - Monochrome Emulation This field is used to store your favorite bit. --FreeVGA Attribute Controller Reference
