Re: [Inkscape-board] [REFERENDUM] GPL violation of inkscape
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 14:42 -0700, Josh Andler wrote: [ ] a. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, up to $250. [ ] b. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, at any price. [ ] c. Do not approve purchase I was interested in what was going on so I had a look into it. It's a big 2GB install and has no Linux version. But seems to be liked by it's users (which is yay for us?). I did notice a question on Inkscape's launchpad anwsers about the product, which was interesting. The most ideal outcome for us would probably be having the company help with windows builds or something like that. Because sharing with your supplier is probably a healthy thing to do. No torrents or other sources of the software (I did check). So it's rare enough of a program in that sense. Martin, -- BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15utm_medium=emailutm_campaign=VA_SF ___ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
Re: [Inkscape-board] [REFERENDUM] GPL violation of inkscape
I am, like Tav, a little skeptical on how far we want to take it, but I think that this is a reasonable first step. I vote a. Hope it comes down to just a communication issue. Ted On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 00:41 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following Inkscape GPL violation matter. Proposal: [ ] a. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, up to $250. [ ] b. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, at any price. [ ] c. Do not approve purchase Background: Hi guys, It's been brought to our attention that there is a company selling software called Digital Fashion Pro, which in actuality is just Inkscape with some templates thrown in, and a price tag in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. It appears they neither mention that the software is open source under the GPL, nor make offers of source code for download, which is a GPL violation. In order to establish legal proof of the violation, Conservancy needs to verify the lack of source offer, and to do that they need to examine a purchased copy of the software. Their policy is to ask the infringed project (i.e. us) to foot the bill for that copy. If it is found that the company is in fact in violation, they will be asked (or legally required) to repay this amount. They may also be required to pay legal fees, and to come into compliance with the GPL. The price of the software has varied during the time of observation. Currently it is on sale for $200, but I've seen it offered at $500 and even $1500. Please see below for the Conservancy's estimation of the likely best/typical/worst case resolution of this. Bryce On 04/08/2015 04:33 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote: Before we get too far into this, can I ask a basic question? What is the best/likely/worst outcomes we should expect from engaging with them on this? Probably the best outcome would be for us to find that they already include a fully-compliant source release of Digital Fashion Pro along with the product itself, and that they are willing to update their advertising to make it clear that Digital Fashion Pro is a modified version of Inkscape (assuming that lack of clarity is one of the current issues). Even better would be for them to release Digital Fashion Pro and its source code at no charge, but I don't think this is likely given that it seems to be a main revenue stream so I wouldn't consider it a possible outcome really. Another good outcome would be that, though they didn't ship source initially, they give us a source candidate when we first contact them and it happens to be compliant, so we charge them for our time and they pay us. They might even agree to allow us to write a Conservancy blog post praising them for coming into compliance, though usually companies don't since they don't like people knowing that they weren't in compliance to begin with. But if we did get that, perhaps by giving them a discount on what we charge them for our time checking their source, it would be very helpful in deterring future violators and encouraging compliance generally, as people would see Conservancy is reasonable and willing to work with violators to amicably resolve issues without public shaming. The worst outcome would be that we spend a lot of resources on this issue and it drags on for a year or more and they're unwilling to budge so we have to file a lawsuit and we eventually have to agree to a settlement that offers only the minimum compliance required by the GPL. That minimum compliance might not resolve the trademark issues, which we could try to resolve some other way (through a separate action, possibly also including a lawsuit). Minimum compliance would in practice likely involve them providing source only to people who have purchased Digital Fashion Pro and who have asked for source. Also, we may have to keep chasing them as they may then release new versions that are not compliant. Note that we very rarely file lawsuits to achieve compliance - this is a worst-case scenario. A likely outcome is that we buy Digital Fashion Pro, find that it doesn't include source code or an offer for source code, and then when we ask for source, they initially claim they don't need to send us any, but eventually they capitulate and send us some source code they think corresponds to the Digital Fashion Pro binaries they ship. We will probably need to go back and forth with them a few times when it doesn't build correctly, but we will likely reach a point where they have provided all the source to us. We'll ask them to include an offer for source with their product, which they'll do, and provide source on a CD
Re: [Inkscape-board] [REFERENDUM] GPL violation of inkscape
I vote a. I think GPL enforcement is important but don't want to see this become a big money sink. Tav On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 00:41 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following Inkscape GPL violation matter. Proposal: [ ] a. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, up to $250. [ ] b. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, at any price. [ ] c. Do not approve purchase Background: Hi guys, It's been brought to our attention that there is a company selling software called Digital Fashion Pro, which in actuality is just Inkscape with some templates thrown in, and a price tag in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. It appears they neither mention that the software is open source under the GPL, nor make offers of source code for download, which is a GPL violation. In order to establish legal proof of the violation, Conservancy needs to verify the lack of source offer, and to do that they need to examine a purchased copy of the software. Their policy is to ask the infringed project (i.e. us) to foot the bill for that copy. If it is found that the company is in fact in violation, they will be asked (or legally required) to repay this amount. They may also be required to pay legal fees, and to come into compliance with the GPL. The price of the software has varied during the time of observation. Currently it is on sale for $200, but I've seen it offered at $500 and even $1500. Please see below for the Conservancy's estimation of the likely best/typical/worst case resolution of this. Bryce On 04/08/2015 04:33 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote: Before we get too far into this, can I ask a basic question? What is the best/likely/worst outcomes we should expect from engaging with them on this? Probably the best outcome would be for us to find that they already include a fully-compliant source release of Digital Fashion Pro along with the product itself, and that they are willing to update their advertising to make it clear that Digital Fashion Pro is a modified version of Inkscape (assuming that lack of clarity is one of the current issues). Even better would be for them to release Digital Fashion Pro and its source code at no charge, but I don't think this is likely given that it seems to be a main revenue stream so I wouldn't consider it a possible outcome really. Another good outcome would be that, though they didn't ship source initially, they give us a source candidate when we first contact them and it happens to be compliant, so we charge them for our time and they pay us. They might even agree to allow us to write a Conservancy blog post praising them for coming into compliance, though usually companies don't since they don't like people knowing that they weren't in compliance to begin with. But if we did get that, perhaps by giving them a discount on what we charge them for our time checking their source, it would be very helpful in deterring future violators and encouraging compliance generally, as people would see Conservancy is reasonable and willing to work with violators to amicably resolve issues without public shaming. The worst outcome would be that we spend a lot of resources on this issue and it drags on for a year or more and they're unwilling to budge so we have to file a lawsuit and we eventually have to agree to a settlement that offers only the minimum compliance required by the GPL. That minimum compliance might not resolve the trademark issues, which we could try to resolve some other way (through a separate action, possibly also including a lawsuit). Minimum compliance would in practice likely involve them providing source only to people who have purchased Digital Fashion Pro and who have asked for source. Also, we may have to keep chasing them as they may then release new versions that are not compliant. Note that we very rarely file lawsuits to achieve compliance - this is a worst-case scenario. A likely outcome is that we buy Digital Fashion Pro, find that it doesn't include source code or an offer for source code, and then when we ask for source, they initially claim they don't need to send us any, but eventually they capitulate and send us some source code they think corresponds to the Digital Fashion Pro binaries they ship. We will probably need to go back and forth with them a few times when it doesn't build correctly, but we will likely reach a point where they have provided all the source to us. We'll ask them to include an offer for source with their product, which they'll do, and provide source on a CD or similar to anyone who's bought the product and asks for source. This
[Inkscape-board] [REFERENDUM] GPL violation of inkscape
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following Inkscape GPL violation matter. Proposal: [ ] a. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, up to $250. [ ] b. Approve purchase of Digital Fashion Pro by the Conservancy lawyers, at any price. [ ] c. Do not approve purchase Background: Hi guys, It's been brought to our attention that there is a company selling software called Digital Fashion Pro, which in actuality is just Inkscape with some templates thrown in, and a price tag in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. It appears they neither mention that the software is open source under the GPL, nor make offers of source code for download, which is a GPL violation. In order to establish legal proof of the violation, Conservancy needs to verify the lack of source offer, and to do that they need to examine a purchased copy of the software. Their policy is to ask the infringed project (i.e. us) to foot the bill for that copy. If it is found that the company is in fact in violation, they will be asked (or legally required) to repay this amount. They may also be required to pay legal fees, and to come into compliance with the GPL. The price of the software has varied during the time of observation. Currently it is on sale for $200, but I've seen it offered at $500 and even $1500. Please see below for the Conservancy's estimation of the likely best/typical/worst case resolution of this. Bryce On 04/08/2015 04:33 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote: Before we get too far into this, can I ask a basic question? What is the best/likely/worst outcomes we should expect from engaging with them on this? Probably the best outcome would be for us to find that they already include a fully-compliant source release of Digital Fashion Pro along with the product itself, and that they are willing to update their advertising to make it clear that Digital Fashion Pro is a modified version of Inkscape (assuming that lack of clarity is one of the current issues). Even better would be for them to release Digital Fashion Pro and its source code at no charge, but I don't think this is likely given that it seems to be a main revenue stream so I wouldn't consider it a possible outcome really. Another good outcome would be that, though they didn't ship source initially, they give us a source candidate when we first contact them and it happens to be compliant, so we charge them for our time and they pay us. They might even agree to allow us to write a Conservancy blog post praising them for coming into compliance, though usually companies don't since they don't like people knowing that they weren't in compliance to begin with. But if we did get that, perhaps by giving them a discount on what we charge them for our time checking their source, it would be very helpful in deterring future violators and encouraging compliance generally, as people would see Conservancy is reasonable and willing to work with violators to amicably resolve issues without public shaming. The worst outcome would be that we spend a lot of resources on this issue and it drags on for a year or more and they're unwilling to budge so we have to file a lawsuit and we eventually have to agree to a settlement that offers only the minimum compliance required by the GPL. That minimum compliance might not resolve the trademark issues, which we could try to resolve some other way (through a separate action, possibly also including a lawsuit). Minimum compliance would in practice likely involve them providing source only to people who have purchased Digital Fashion Pro and who have asked for source. Also, we may have to keep chasing them as they may then release new versions that are not compliant. Note that we very rarely file lawsuits to achieve compliance - this is a worst-case scenario. A likely outcome is that we buy Digital Fashion Pro, find that it doesn't include source code or an offer for source code, and then when we ask for source, they initially claim they don't need to send us any, but eventually they capitulate and send us some source code they think corresponds to the Digital Fashion Pro binaries they ship. We will probably need to go back and forth with them a few times when it doesn't build correctly, but we will likely reach a point where they have provided all the source to us. We'll ask them to include an offer for source with their product, which they'll do, and provide source on a CD or similar to anyone who's bought the product and asks for source. This who process would probably take 6 months to a year. I hesitate somewhat to say this is a likely outcome, but given the information I have so far (see below), it's difficult to provide a more accurate assessment. Another possible outcome is that they agree
