Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On 04/27/2014 05:12 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:02:26PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Since I have worked with the FSFE since 2006, I am quite >> familiar with the GPLv2 and AGPLv3 but am very far from being an expert. >> >> It would also be very useful to have information for developers. In >> particular, where I personally am unsure (please excuse me if these >> topics are already covered): >> >> 1. Exactly who has the right to bring a lawsuit for copyright violation? > Given that you seem to be asking about this specifically in the > context of Bacula, I find your uncertainty about this interesting. Out > of curiosity, is it your view that the AGPLv3 license on Bacula is > coming from you, or coming from FSFE? Please keep in mind that I am a free software developer since 1998 and not a lawyer ... More detail on my original question: - What I understand is that only a copyright holder can initiate a lawsuit, but the law is much more complicated than at first view. You don't need to answer, but here is an idea of where I was going, which to me from a legal point of view gets very interesting ... - What happens if there are multiple copyright holders? (I believe any can file a lawsuit but only for code for which they have a copyright). - If some copyright holders have an exclusive copyright and some have a non-exclusive copyright, who can initiate a lawsuit? (I believe that only exclusive copyright holders can initiate a lawsuit). In response to your question: My view about Bacula is that the Free Software Foundation has exclusive copyright on "all" the Bacula community source code, and it is marked so in the LICENSE file that comes with the source code. The exceptions are: there are files used in Bacula that are licensed under less restrictive licenses such as the 3 clause BSD, but these are the minority, and one file contains a Bacula Systems copyright (inadvertently and now fixed) but is licensed under the AGPLv3 so there is no issue with this file. I also believe that I (Kern Sibbald) hold a non-exclusive copyright on "all" the Bacula community source code. I cannot speak for the Free Software Foundation Europe, but my understanding based on the Fiduciary License Agreement I signed with them in 2006 and the agreement they signed with myself and Bacula Systems, is that they also agree that I have a non-exclusive copyright on the Bacula community source code. It is very important to me what the Free Software Foundation Europe thinks, because for me they are the "main copyright holder" for the Bacula community source code. However I refer you to what they have written: http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html and the agreement itself, which is mentioned and linked to in the above document: http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement-2013.pdf Hopefully this answers your question. Best regards, Kern
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:02:26PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Since I have worked with the FSFE since 2006, I am quite > familiar with the GPLv2 and AGPLv3 but am very far from being an expert. > > It would also be very useful to have information for developers. In > particular, where I personally am unsure (please excuse me if these > topics are already covered): > > 1. Exactly who has the right to bring a lawsuit for copyright violation? Given that you seem to be asking about this specifically in the context of Bacula, I find your uncertainty about this interesting. Out of curiosity, is it your view that the AGPLv3 license on Bacula is coming from you, or coming from FSFE? - RF
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On 04/26/2014 05:09 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> For the curious: >> APCUPSD (a free software project to integrate APC (American Power >> Company) UPSes (Unterruptible Power Supplies) as a Linux Daemon >> (service)). In short a free software project. > ... not to be confused with CUPSD which is a *printing* service. > which is what i thought you were talking about :) > >> FLA (Fiduciary License Agreement) project of the Free Software >> Foundation where they maintain the copyright for free software projects. > a link to a page on the FSFs web site would clarify further and save > you the effort as well. Agreed. Below is the link to the Free Software Foundation Europe's Fiduciary License Agreement (FLA) program. http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.en.html The following link provides information about Bacula (my free software backup program) and the FLA that the Bacula project is using. It also discusses an agreement with the open-core company, Bacula Systems SA (founded by myself and other free software believers). http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html I understand that some of you may "hate" open-core companies. Nevertheless, the above agreement, which is certainly unusual and maybe unique, in my opinion situates Bacula Systems SA somewhere between a free software company and a "normal" open-core company and thus is positive for the free software movement. Best regards, Kern
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On 26 Apr 2014, at 08:44, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > APCUPSD (a free software project to integrate APC (American Power > Company) UPSes (Unterruptible Power Supplies) as a Linux Daemon > (service)). In short a free software project. And very good it is too! Neil Neil Brown [email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
Hello, Please find my comments in-line below ... On 04/26/2014 12:46 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have downloaded your pdf and find it very interesting. I have looked >> at the table of contents but not yet read it, which I will do in >> detail. Since I have worked with the FSFE since 2006, I am quite >> familiar with the GPLv2 and AGPLv3 but am very far from being an expert. > Kern: i won´t repeat the entire set of paragraphs here but i am > concerned that you are using a huge number of acronyms without any > kind of reference or context that allows people to understand what > you´re saying. without that ´reference guide´ is it actually > impossible even to deduce the meaning or intent of *entire > paragraphs*, thus throwing - and i am really not messing about here - > the *entire message* that you´ve written - into total confusion and > doubt. > > and this was achieved - quite accidentally - because you assumed that > people would know what these are: > > * APCUPSD > * Bacula > * FLA > * FSFE > > now, as it is your mistake, i am not going to do the work for you of > looking those up: it is your responsibility (now and in future) to > make your communications clear. Thanks for pointing this out, it certainly made my email incomprehensible. Yes, I assumed that everyone on this list understands those acronyms. I am sorry, I will make every effort not to do it again. In light of what you have said I must totally rethink and rewrite my email, so until I do so, there is no need to spend any time on it. Of course, if someone does want to respond on-list of off, I will be happy to continue the discussion. For the curious: APCUPSD (a free software project to integrate APC (American Power Company) UPSes (Unterruptible Power Supplies) as a Linux Daemon (service)). In short a free software project. Bacula (a free software backup and restore program) FLA (Fiduciary License Agreement) project of the Free Software Foundation where they maintain the copyright for free software projects. FSFE (Free Software Foundation Europe) > you will, however, need to make a > decision in this one-off instance, as to how to best continue what > will turn out to be a divided conversation, in at least *three* > separate ways. 1) this meta-conversation 2) an acronym clarification > conversation 3) the original conversation you *wanted* to have, which > can only truly be properly contributed to by those people who, by some > incredible coincidence, luck, or extreme effort on their part, so > desperately wish to follow the conversation or have some other motive > that they go to all the trouble of duplicating the effort of looking > up the above acronyms [now multiply that by 20,000 subscribers, bear > in mind that a *single* google search, due to the distributed nature > of the google search system, results in enough power being consumed > (world-wide) to *boil a kettle*, and you start to appreciate the > enormity of the mistake that you made by *not* including a glossary > that everyone can refer to] Yes thanks for pointing out my BIG error (said with sincerity). > > so, respectfully, i have some suggestions for people: > > if you are tempted to reply in category (1) DO NOT DO IT. DO NOT HIT > SEND. if you are tempted to hit send, return to the beginning of this > sentence and read it again. at least then you will die of old age or > world war three will start and the internet will be disconnected. > > if you are tempted to reply in category (2) and your name is not ¨Kern > Sibbald¨ DO NOT DO IT. DO NOT HIT SEND. > > any other advice i cannot give, because it is dependent on too many > variables. also, it ain´t my mess, and it ain´t my responsibility. > > basically, kern, in future, please assume that nobody knows the > acronyms, use [*1] [*2] after the first occurrence then put a list at > the bottom of the message, with either a short sentence or a URL. > references, basically. just like in scientific articles, as well as > wikipedia. > > this is actually extremely common practice on technical mailing lists, > which makes it even more surprising that it´s not on any mailing list > FAQs that i´ve seen. OK, thanks I "get it" now. > > >> This is actuality, if it is not a topic for discussion on this list, >> please tell me as I do not wish to create useless chatter on your list. > even if it is quotes Bradley´s List quotes - i doubt very much > whether he could legally claim ownership or copyright over the several > thousand email addresses that are on this list: if he tried i for one > would be Having Words with him, i would also definitely like to know > other people´s advice (and experience) on this topic, and as a) you > have raised the matter here b) it would be a significantly reduced > readership on any *other* mailing list *including* ironically one set > up specifically to discuss this and only this issue that
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
Hello, I have downloaded your pdf and find it very interesting. I have looked at the table of contents but not yet read it, which I will do in detail. Since I have worked with the FSFE since 2006, I am quite familiar with the GPLv2 and AGPLv3 but am very far from being an expert. I write to you as an open source software developer (originally APCUPSD, and now since 2000 Bacula -- currently AGPLv3). I suspect that your tutorial might be mostly directed at companies wanting to use GPL code. It would also be very useful to have information for developers. In particular, where I personally am unsure (please excuse me if these topics are already covered): 1. Exactly who has the right to bring a lawsuit for copyright violation? 2. What happens when a developer (holding copyright assignments from all contributors) signs an FLA with say the FSFE (as was my case in 2006)? 3. What happens if this developer subsequently requests and obtains FLAs from all the contributors who signed an FLA with the FSFE? Does he then have a dual license? 4. What is required to cancel or "annul" an FLA? Can it be done by a simple letter or must it be done through a court of law providing the FLA holder does not agree to cancel or annul the FLA? For me these are interesting questions because they touch me personally. To be transparent the above scenario has happened to me with the Bacula project due to the fact that I created a open source company named Bacula Systems to provide professions services for Bacula, but later (when it was failing) converted the company into an open-core company with parts of the code proprietary justified by the fact that I believe that I hold a dual license. This is actuality, if it is not a topic for discussion on this list, please tell me as I do not wish to create useless chatter on your list. Best regards, Kern Sibbald Lausanne, Switzerland On 04/24/2014 09:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >>> Here's a brief list of the main things I ask for on a new enforcement >>> matter: >>> Some of this is already in the tutorial book I've been putting together >>> (see: https://www.gitorious.org/gpl-compliance-tools/tutorial/ ) > Robinson Tryon wrote: >> Is there a place where builds of the compliance book are uploaded? It could >> be very helpful to be able to point directly at this type of basic >> checklist, e.g. when someone new shows up to this list with a potential GPL >> violation and asks for our help. > First, it's more than just a compliance book. There's only two sections on > compliance. Most of it is a detailed walk-through of GPL. I've titled it: > "Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial", and > thus it has to cover compliance and enforcement (after all), but not > exclusively those topics. > > Second, there's no auto build process for the LaTeX sources (patches welcome > ;), but I've been keeping a current PDF [0] version on a URL of my personal > website: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/copyleft-book.pdf > > I will make sure that URL is permanently stable and redirects to the "right > place" if there ever is a "right place" in the future. :) > > Finally, the compliance section is written as "advice to would-be violators". > I wrote it originally as a document to help me prepare when I started giving > public talks on the issues of GPL compliance back in the mid-2000s, and it's > been edited heavily by both me and Aaron Williamson since then, but ultimately > it's still just a summary of what I talk about in one-hour presentation > on compliance. > > Thus, the info isn't presented in the best possible way for the average poster > on this list (who are mostly violation reporters/discoverers, not violators). > > I'd thus love a chapter that discussed "advice to violation reporters and > investigators", and as I said, patches/merge-requests welcome under > CC-By-SA-4.0. :) > > > Long term, I want to write a CCS tutorial chapter too. > > When there are major updates, I'll post notice to this list. > > > [0] The HTML build of from LaTeX sources is broken at the moment. tex4ht has > changed a lot since I set it up, and since the LaTeX sources were taken > from nearly a dozen different historical documents that I and others had > written, there isn't consistent use of tex4ht-isms to properly generate > HTML. > > (Man, this thing needs an issue tracker as well now, huh? I'll file a > bug that I need a bug tracker ... ;) > >-- bkuhn >
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Here's a brief list of the main things I ask for on a new enforcement > matter: > > * a copy of the manual (to check to see if an offer for source is > present) > * transcripts of online chats for source requests and/or emails of the > same. > ... > * If not, a camera phone picture or something else from the device's > screen that shows clearly it's running GPL'd software. (e.g., a > good shot of Linux booting is helpful). > .. > Some of this is already in the tutorial book I've been putting together > (see: https://www.gitorious.org/gpl-compliance-tools/tutorial/ ) Is there a place where builds of the compliance book are uploaded? It could be very helpful to be able to point directly at this type of basic checklist, e.g. when someone new shows up to this list with a potential GPL violation and asks for our help. Thanks, --R -- Robinson Tryon LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald Senior QA Bug Wrangler The Document Foundation [email protected]
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
On 23 Apr 2014, at 15:19, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Evening, Bradley > Some of this is already in the tutorial book I've been putting together > (see: https://www.gitorious.org/gpl-compliance-tools/tutorial/ ) > > However, more about reporting and documenting violations is needed in > that. Patches welcome! I shall add it to my list of things to look at — thanks for sharing! All the best, Neil __ Neil Brown [email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: initial violation information collecting (was Re: GPL violation by Renault (R-Link system))
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > Here's a brief list of the main things I ask for on a new enforcement > > matter: > > Some of this is already in the tutorial book I've been putting together > > (see: https://www.gitorious.org/gpl-compliance-tools/tutorial/ ) Robinson Tryon wrote: > Is there a place where builds of the compliance book are uploaded? It could > be very helpful to be able to point directly at this type of basic > checklist, e.g. when someone new shows up to this list with a potential GPL > violation and asks for our help. First, it's more than just a compliance book. There's only two sections on compliance. Most of it is a detailed walk-through of GPL. I've titled it: "Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial", and thus it has to cover compliance and enforcement (after all), but not exclusively those topics. Second, there's no auto build process for the LaTeX sources (patches welcome ;), but I've been keeping a current PDF [0] version on a URL of my personal website: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/copyleft-book.pdf I will make sure that URL is permanently stable and redirects to the "right place" if there ever is a "right place" in the future. :) Finally, the compliance section is written as "advice to would-be violators". I wrote it originally as a document to help me prepare when I started giving public talks on the issues of GPL compliance back in the mid-2000s, and it's been edited heavily by both me and Aaron Williamson since then, but ultimately it's still just a summary of what I talk about in one-hour presentation on compliance. Thus, the info isn't presented in the best possible way for the average poster on this list (who are mostly violation reporters/discoverers, not violators). I'd thus love a chapter that discussed "advice to violation reporters and investigators", and as I said, patches/merge-requests welcome under CC-By-SA-4.0. :) Long term, I want to write a CCS tutorial chapter too. When there are major updates, I'll post notice to this list. [0] The HTML build of from LaTeX sources is broken at the moment. tex4ht has changed a lot since I set it up, and since the LaTeX sources were taken from nearly a dozen different historical documents that I and others had written, there isn't consistent use of tex4ht-isms to properly generate HTML. (Man, this thing needs an issue tracker as well now, huh? I'll file a bug that I need a bug tracker ... ;) -- bkuhn
