GPL/LGPL

[Dave Grothe]

Sorry, Charlie.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work
not based on the Program with the Program (or
with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring
the other work under the scope of this License.

and

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
distribute the Program except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However, parties who have received
copies, or rights, from you under this License
will not have their licenses terminated so long
as such parties remain in full compliance.

So you have no right to revoke the terms and
conditions of the GPL. And my mere aggregation
of these files is in full compliance. Steve and
others can speak for themselves.

-- Dave

Dave,
./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h
Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock Š The reasonable man adapts himself to the Š
http://www.openss7.org/ Š trying to adapt the world to himself. Š
Š Therefore all progress depends on the Š
Š unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw Š

[Dave Grothe]

Based on Brian's "grep" e-mail, it appears that he believes that
the GPL modules are not "mere aggregations" into the LiS
tarball.

Files that compile into the "Library" (whether optionally or not)
cannot be considered mere aggregation.

There are two drivers which use any of the 27 header files listed
in another e-mail. These are timod and tirdwr, written by Ole
Hsugaard. As I see it, they utilize LiS to provide a TLI
interface rather than being a part of LiS itself. As the
timod documentation states, "there is no TLI Provider code
within LiS". The fact that LiS compiles and runs without
these two drivers further indicates that to me.

Also please note that timod and tirdwr are separately compiled
loadable modules and are not linked in with the streams.o STREAMS
executive. Ditto for LDL.

They are in full compliance with the GPL and Brian has no right to
revoke the license.

-- Dave

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Dave,

Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/

--brian

Post by Dave Grothe
Sorry, Charlie.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License.
and
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
long as such parties remain in full compliance.
So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
and others can speak for themselves.
-- Dave
Dave,
./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h
Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
¦
¦
[1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
himself. ¦
¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
¦
¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
¦
References
1. http://www.openss7.org/

[Dave Grothe]

Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?

First, you are the original violator of the GPL
since you conveyed these files to me and did not
accompany them with a copy of the GPL, or request
that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS
distribution. So it would be fair to argue that
you have waived your rights to this requirement.

Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by
simply adding a copy of the full GPL in a file
included with the LiS distribution.

Third, there is a clause in the license notice in
the files themselves that render this requirement suspect.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass
Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

In other words, you make provision in your notice
that the recipient may not have received a copy
of the license and what to do about it if he/she
did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)

All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to
remove OpenSS7 code from the LiS
distribution. There is nothing of use to me
within LiS that uses any of it anyway.

-- Dave

Dave,
Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
--brian

Post by Dave Grothe
Sorry, Charlie.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License.
and
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
long as such parties remain in full compliance.
So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
and others can speak for themselves.
-- Dave
Dave,
./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h
Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock Š The reasonable man adapts himself to the
Š
Š
[1]http://www.openss7.org/ Š trying to adapt the world to
himself. Š
Š Therefore all progress depends on the Š
Š unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw Š
References
1. http://www.openss7.org/

--
Brian F. G. Bidulock Š The reasonable man adapts himself to the Š
http://www.openss7.org/ Š trying to adapt the world to himself. Š
Š Therefore all progress depends on the Š
Š unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw Š

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Dave,

Post by Dave Grothe
Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?

(I was, and am still, on vacation.)

Post by Dave Grothe
First, you are the original violator of the GPL since you conveyed
these files to me and did not accompany them with a copy of the GPL,
or request that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS distribution. So
it would be fair to argue that you have waived your rights to this
requirement.

I didn't waive anything. It is your obligation under the GPL (Section 1) to
include a copy of the license, regardless of whether you were given one or
not.

Post by Dave Grothe
Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by simply adding a copy of
the full GPL in a file included with the LiS distribution.

Except that your rights to distribute these files under the license has
already terminated. You will need the permission of the copyright holder if
you want them reinstated.

Post by Dave Grothe
Third, there is a clause in the license notice in the files themselves
that render this requirement suspect.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with
this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass
Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
In other words, you make provision in your notice that the recipient
may not have received a copy of the license and what to do about it if
he/she did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)

Yes, someone might have violated the license by not including one as you have.

Post by Dave Grothe
All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to remove OpenSS7 code
from the LiS distribution. There is nothing of use to me within LiS
that uses any of it anyway.
-- Dave

Yes, please remove the files from your website (including the strinet package
on your site in which they are contained). (But, I think that I already asked
you to do this.)

--brian

Post by Dave Grothe

./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h

[Dave Grothe]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Post by Dave Grothe
All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to remove OpenSS7 code
from the LiS distribution. There is nothing of use to me within LiS
that uses any of it anyway.
-- Dave

Yes, please remove the files from your website (including the strinet package
on your site in which they are contained). (But, I think that I already asked
you to do this.)

Will do. But I have to ask you this about
strinet. I got that from you. So are you
distributing GPL code without a copy of the GPL
as a sort of time bomb? That is, if strinet
lacks a copy of the GPL it is because you failed
to distribute it that way in the first place. So
why should that affect my, or anyone's, rights to redistribute that package?

-- Dave

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
--brian

Post by Dave Grothe

./include/tihdr.h
./include/timod.h
./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h
./include/sys/tpi.h
./include/sys/xti.h
./include/sys/xti_inet.h
./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
./include/sys/xti_xti.h
./include/sys/xti_ip.h
./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
./include/sys/xti_udp.h
./include/xti/config.h
./include/xti/tihdr.h
./include/xti/timod.h
./include/xti/xti_atm.h
./include/xti/xti.h
./include/xti/xti_inet.h
./include/xti/xti_ip.h
./include/xti/xti_local.h
./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
./include/xti/xti_osi.h
./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
./include/xti/xti_udp.h
./include/xti.h
./include/xti_inet.h

--
Brian F. G. Bidulock Š The reasonable man adapts himself to the Š
http://www.openss7.org/ Š trying to adapt the world to himself. Š
Š Therefore all progress depends on the Š
Š unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw Š

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Steve,

I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
these files under the GPL has terminated.

It was your prerogative not to download the license. It's at the
ftp root and (now) within the LiS directory.

Too late. Your license to distribute the files terminated when you
attempted to distribute them without a copy of the license. If you
wish to now distribute them with a copy of the license, you will need
the permission of the copyright holder.

--brian

[Steve Schefter]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
these files under the GPL has terminated.

It was your prerogative not to download the license. It's at the
ftp root and (now) within the LiS directory.

Too late. Your license to distribute the files terminated when you
attempted to distribute them without a copy of the license. If you
wish to now distribute them with a copy of the license, you will need
the permission of the copyright holder.

No point in us getting into a debate about what does and does not
constitute "along with the program" as worded in the license.
Neither of us are lawyers.

I believe that having it on our ftpsite, at the root, is suitable
for the various GPL components you will find beneath it and we have
therefore not violated the licence in the past or now. You appear
to believe multiple copies within the ftpsite are required. We will
have to agree to disagree. If you wish to convince me otherwise,
have your lawyer give me a call.

Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: [phone] x26
The Software Group Limited fax: [phone]
642 Welham Road, email: ***@wanware.com
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Steve,

I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
these files under the GPL has terminated.

--brian

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated.

Incorrect. We include the GPL and LGPL licenses on the CD with
our product. As GPL also applies to some of our Perl scripts, this
is a more appropriate place to put it than the LiS tarball.
Regards,
Steve

[Steve Schefter]

I downloaded LiS-2.19.0.tgz from your website and do not have a copy of
the GPL. Therefore it is a GPL violation and your rights to distribtute
these files under the GPL has terminated.

It was your prerogative not to download the license. It's at the
ftp root and (now) within the LiS directory.

Steve

[Steve Schefter]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated.

Incorrect. We include the GPL and LGPL licenses on the CD with
our product. As GPL also applies to some of our Perl scripts, this
is a more appropriate place to put it than the LiS tarball.

Regards,
Steve

[Ole Husgaard]

Hi,

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/

I am the owner of the copyrights in the contributions I have done to
LiS. Some of these contributions are released under the GPL, and some
are released under the LGPL.

I have never given you permission to relicense or redistribute these
works under any other license terms than the GPL respective the LGPL.

Therefore, I would like you to explain your remark above about dual-
licensing this code. I really hope I am misunderstanding something.

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Dave,

[snip]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h

[snip]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.

I wrote the two files not snipped from the list above last millenium,
and contributed them to LiS under the LGPL license. Please explain your
right to prohibit others from redistributing them under the LGPL license.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Ole,

Please see responses to your comments inline...

Post by Ole Husgaard
Hi,

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/

I am the owner of the copyrights in the contributions I have done to
LiS. Some of these contributions are released under the GPL, and some
are released under the LGPL.
I have never given you permission to relicense or redistribute these
works under any other license terms than the GPL respective the LGPL.
Therefore, I would like you to explain your remark above about dual-
licensing this code. I really hope I am misunderstanding something.

I was referring to code that I have authored, released under GPL, and
that was included in the LiS distribution. Not your code.

Take a look at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ if you are interested to
see some of the ramifications of a dual-license model on GPL violations.

Post by Ole Husgaard

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Dave,

[snip]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h

[snip]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.

I wrote the two files not snipped from the list above last millenium,
and contributed them to LiS under the LGPL license. Please explain your
right to prohibit others from redistributing them under the LGPL license.

You should look at the files. The files you wrote were replaced by
files of the same name written by me.

Yes, LiS originally contained some of the files from your (ancient) xti
package. That package didn't work well, was not thread safe, the timod
crashed kernels and was not to spec. So I rewrote the whole thing from
scratch, including those two replacement header files. Parts of it was
released under LGPL (the libxnet XTI library) and parts under GPL (the
timod and tirdwr modules and the inet driver). The problem here is that
my GPL'ed parts were (are) distributed (instead of your files) in the
package without including a copy of the (GPL) license, constituting a
basic GPL violation.

Others were going further to claim that these LiS distributions were
all-LGPL, which was incorrect at best. Not wanting to speak for you (as
there are some GPL components of yours in the distribution), I was only
speaking to my GPL components in the distribution. Your welcome to
complain about yours as well: you have several GPL components in the LiS
distributions that are distributed in violation of the GPL too (the
distribution does not contain a copy of the GPL license).

Dave removed his and that was that. However, there are several other
distributions and redistributions of LiS (from Intel/Dialogic,
Hewlett-Packard, Wanware, IBM and others) that are likely equally in
violation.

But it might be moot: Linux Fast-STREAMS is far superior to LiS in
conformance, performance, production stability, and production kernel
support. LiS pales so much by comparison, it can only be considered
deprecated.

If anyone distributing LiS is concerned, OpenSS7 will offer blanket
licence to redistribute unmodified these files to which it has rights
in exchange for a meager sponsorship of the OpenSS7 open source project.
You'll get the latest and greatest Linux Fast-STREAMS too.

--brian

[Ole Husgaard]

Hi Brian,

As long as you have all the copyrights (or have cleared them with the
copyright holders), you are of course allowed to distribute the code
under any license you like. So if these files are written by you, I see
no problems at all.

I'm sorry if I might have sounded a bit harsh, but for a moment I was
worrying if some of the code I had written was being "dual-licensed"
without my permission. That would have made me really angry.

As for your "license termination" against Dave: This is not that easy
with the GPL and LGPL license, as you would have known if you had asked
a copyright lawyer who know these licenses. It is, however, quite easy
to force somebody to adhere to the terms of the GPL or LGPL under the
copyright law of almost all countries in the world.

Your requirement that the relevant license texts are distributed with
your code is IMHO fair and reasonable.

Dave, instead of completely stopping to distribute LiS, as I can see
you have done, please add the texts of the LGPL and GPL to the root of
the LiS distribution. If you do this, nothing is stopping you from
adding files from other projects released under the LGPL or GPL (with
due credit, of course). If in doubt, please send me a private mail and
I'll explain the legal implications.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Ole,
Please see responses to your comments inline...

Post by Ole Husgaard
Hi,

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/

I am the owner of the copyrights in the contributions I have done to
LiS. Some of these contributions are released under the GPL, and some
are released under the LGPL.
I have never given you permission to relicense or redistribute these
works under any other license terms than the GPL respective the LGPL.
Therefore, I would like you to explain your remark above about dual-
licensing this code. I really hope I am misunderstanding something.

I was referring to code that I have authored, released under GPL, and
that was included in the LiS distribution. Not your code.
Take a look at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ if you are interested to
see some of the ramifications of a dual-license model on GPL violations.

Post by Ole Husgaard

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Dave,

[snip]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

./include/sys/tihdr.h
./include/sys/timod.h

[snip]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
remove them from your website.

I wrote the two files not snipped from the list above last millenium,
and contributed them to LiS under the LGPL license. Please explain your
right to prohibit others from redistributing them under the LGPL license.

You should look at the files. The files you wrote were replaced by
files of the same name written by me.
Yes, LiS originally contained some of the files from your (ancient) xti
package. That package didn't work well, was not thread safe, the timod
crashed kernels and was not to spec. So I rewrote the whole thing from
scratch, including those two replacement header files. Parts of it was
released under LGPL (the libxnet XTI library) and parts under GPL (the
timod and tirdwr modules and the inet driver). The problem here is that
my GPL'ed parts were (are) distributed (instead of your files) in the
package without including a copy of the (GPL) license, constituting a
basic GPL violation.
Others were going further to claim that these LiS distributions were
all-LGPL, which was incorrect at best. Not wanting to speak for you (as
there are some GPL components of yours in the distribution), I was only
speaking to my GPL components in the distribution. Your welcome to
complain about yours as well: you have several GPL components in the LiS
distributions that are distributed in violation of the GPL too (the
distribution does not contain a copy of the GPL license).
Dave removed his and that was that. However, there are several other
distributions and redistributions of LiS (from Intel/Dialogic,
Hewlett-Packard, Wanware, IBM and others) that are likely equally in
violation.
But it might be moot: Linux Fast-STREAMS is far superior to LiS in
conformance, performance, production stability, and production kernel
support. LiS pales so much by comparison, it can only be considered
deprecated.
If anyone distributing LiS is concerned, OpenSS7 will offer blanket
licence to redistribute unmodified these files to which it has rights
in exchange for a meager sponsorship of the OpenSS7 open source project.
You'll get the latest and greatest Linux Fast-STREAMS too.
--brian

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Ole,

Please see comments inline below...

Post by Ole Husgaard
As for your "license termination" against Dave: This is not that easy
with the GPL and LGPL license, as you would have known if you had asked
a copyright lawyer who know these licenses. It is, however, quite easy
to force somebody to adhere to the terms of the GPL or LGPL under the
copyright law of almost all countries in the world.

Are you a lawyer? I'm not, but this passage reads pretty clear to me:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

Post by Ole Husgaard
Your requirement that the relevant license texts are distributed with
your code is IMHO fair and reasonable.

Not my requirement:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

Post by Ole Husgaard
If in doubt, please send me a private mail and I'll explain the legal
implications.

Again, are you a lawyer? (You seem to be offering legal advise.)
I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me as a bad idea to contemplate
distributing copies of something without the copyright holder's
permission, or, worse, against the copyright holder's wishes.

--brian

[Steve Schefter]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Post by Ole Husgaard
As for your "license termination" against Dave: This is not that easy
with the GPL and LGPL license, as you would have known if you had asked
a copyright lawyer who know these licenses. It is, however, quite easy
to force somebody to adhere to the terms of the GPL or LGPL under the
copyright law of almost all countries in the world.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

The misunderstanding is that the "terminate" in the above quote
isn't permanent and isn't a result of an expression of an author's
wishes (such as your e-mail notification of termination). For
example, in the Fortinet case, the court imposed an injunction
"banning them from further distribution of their products until
they are in compliance with the GNU GPL conditions". Fortinet
today distributes products using GPL code. The difference is
that they started including a copy of the licence and making
source available.

Regards,
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schefter phone: [phone] x26
The Software Group Limited fax: [phone]
642 Welham Road, email: ***@wanware.com
Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Steve,

IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
what they asked of the German court.

Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
action.)

Perhaps we will get a chance yet to test your legal theories
in Ontario court.

--brian

For example, in the Fortinet case, the court imposed an injunction
"banning them from further distribution of their products until
they are in compliance with the GNU GPL conditions". Fortinet
today distributes products using GPL code. The difference is
that they started including a copy of the licence and making
source available.

[Ole Husgaard]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
what they asked of the German court.

To answer your question: I am not a lawyer, but I know quite a
bit about copyright law.

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
action.)

In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.

US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
due to the infringement.

So a dual-licensed model is not a requirement for being awarded
damages. Those of us who write and distribute software under the
GPL/LGPL only also have ample opportunities. The reason we almost
never see GPL/LGPL infringement cases where damages or compensation
is awarded is that it is easier to stop the infringement when the
case isn't complicated by the question of damages.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Ole,

Post by Ole Husgaard

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
what they asked of the German court.

To answer your question: I am not a lawyer, but I know quite a
bit about copyright law.

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
action.)

In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.
US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
due to the infringement.

I believe that in the US, if the software was registered with
the US copyright office (really just one page) before the
infringement, the holder is entitled to $100,000.00 USD without
showing punitive damages. Other than that, each side bears its
own legal costs (in most states).

In Canada, the applicant's legal costs to bring the action are
also considered damages and are often awarded by the court.

Post by Ole Husgaard
So a dual-licensed model is not a requirement for being awarded
damages. Those of us who write and distribute software under the
GPL/LGPL only also have ample opportunities. The reason we almost
never see GPL/LGPL infringement cases where damages or compensation
is awarded is that it is easier to stop the infringement when the
case isn't complicated by the question of damages.

I agree, it does not appear to be a requirement. In almost all
case shown at gpl-violations.org, although the application only
sought injunction, the violators always seem to have also made a
"contribution" to the authors or project.

So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
license?

--brian

[Ole Husgaard]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock

Post by Ole Husgaard

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Running under a dual-licensed model, I could ask for punitive
damages from lost royalties as well. (Also described at
http://www.gpl-violations.org/ -- the applicant in the Fortinet
action.)

In most countries with copyright laws based on the continental
copyright tradition, the author may ask an infringer for financial
compensation even if the author had no monetary loss.
US copyright law is not based on the continental tradition, and
I am not sure if statutory damages apply if the copyright owner
had no monetary loss. But even if the copyright holder had no
monetary loss, he is entitled to the profits the infringer had
due to the infringement.

I believe that in the US, if the software was registered with
the US copyright office (really just one page) before the
infringement, the holder is entitled to $100,000.00 USD without
showing punitive damages. Other than that, each side bears its
own legal costs (in most states).

For quite some time there has been no requirement to register a
work with the US Copyright Office. Technically such a requirement
is a violation of the Berne Convention. Registration is, however,
useful as proof of ownership if ownership is disputed.

The amount you talk about here has been raised to US$150K, and
applies to willful infringement only. But this is a maximum, and
the court will only award the amount it considers just.

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
license?

I think it is a minor and unimportant issue. In all the GPL'ed
code I have released the copyright header at the top of each file
states that the code is under the GPL, and tells you where to
obtain the full text of the GPL.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Ole,

Post by Ole Husgaard

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
So how do you feel about _your_ GPL'ed code (ldl) being
distributed with LiS with not even so much as a copy of the GPL
license?

I think it is a minor and unimportant issue. In all the GPL'ed
code I have released the copyright header at the top of each file
states that the code is under the GPL, and tells you where to
obtain the full text of the GPL.

That is where we differ then. I feel that it is a fundamental
term and condition of the license that a copy of the license be
included.

--brian

[Steve Schefter]

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
IANAL, but in that case, it appears the plantiff got precisely
what they asked of the German court.

We seem to be saying the same thing:

"Fortinet has agreed to provide the source code of the Linux kernel
and other GPL-licensed components to any interested party. The code
is available upon request, for the cost of distribution, from the
Fortinet Web site. The company has also agreed to modify its
licensing agreement to include the GPL licensing terms with all
Fortinet shipments. The settlement agreement also states that no
Fortinet partners are subject to legal action."

Post by Brian F. G. Bidulock
Perhaps we will get a chance yet to test your legal theories
in Ontario court.

My note was in response Ole's thoughts on Dave's ability to put
LiS back on his website if he should choose, even if he hadn't
previously included a copy of the GPL Licence. Nothing to do
with Ontario. Anything to do with Ontario has been hashed out
earlier in the thread.


Steve

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Steve,

Post by Steve Schefter
My note was in response Ole's thoughts on Dave's ability to put

Then perhaps you should have responded to Ole's note instead of
mine.

--brian

[Fco. J. Ballesteros]

Come on, bidulock.
Why don't you let people work?
I prefer to remain silent on this list, since I'm not doing anything with LiS anymore.
Don't you think you are going too far?
Dave did just a great work with LiS.
You are converting this into lawyer madness.
Go write some code.

Nemo

: From: ***@gcom.com
: Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:13:19 -0500
: To: ***@openss7.org
: CC: ***@wanware.com ***@wanware.com ***@wanware.com linux-***@openss7.org
: Subject: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
:
:
: Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?
:
: First, you are the original violator of the GPL
: since you conveyed these files to me and did not
: accompany them with a copy of the GPL, or request
: that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS
: distribution. So it would be fair to argue that
: you have waived your rights to this requirement.
:
: Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by
: simply adding a copy of the full GPL in a file
: included with the LiS distribution.
:
: Third, there is a clause in the license notice in
: the files themselves that render this requirement suspect.
:
: > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
: > this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass
: > Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
:
: In other words, you make provision in your notice
: that the recipient may not have received a copy
: of the license and what to do about it if he/she
: did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)
:
: All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to
: remove OpenSS7 code from the LiS
: distribution. There is nothing of use to me
: within LiS that uses any of it anyway.
:
: -- Dave
:
: At 12:50 PM 9/7/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: >Dave,
: >
: >Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
: >aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
: >you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
: >Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
: >distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
: >the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
: >LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
: >is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
: >files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
: >punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
: >information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
: >
: >--brian
: >
: >On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Sorry, Charlie.
: > > From GNU GPL license version 2:
: > >
: > > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
: > > Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
: > > volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
: > > work under the scope of this License.
: > >
: > > and
: > >
: > > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
: > > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
: > > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
: > > void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
: > > License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
: > > you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
: > > long as such parties remain in full compliance.
: > >
: > > So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
: > > And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
: > > and others can speak for themselves.
: > > -- Dave
: > > At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: > >
: > > Dave,
: > > ./include/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/sys/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tpi.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti/config.h
: > > ./include/xti/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/xti/timod.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_local.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti_inet.h
: > > Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
: > > remove them from your website.
: > > --brian
: > > --
: > > Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
: > > ¦
: > > ***@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in
: > > ¦
: > > [1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
: > > himself. ¦
: > > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
: > > ¦
: > > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
: > > ¦
: > >
: > > References
: > >
: > > 1. http://www.openss7.org/
: >
: >--
: >Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
: >***@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
: >http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
: > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
: > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
:
:

[Fco. J. Ballesteros]

Come on, bidulock.
Why don't you let people work?
I prefer to remain silent on this list, since I'm not doing anything with LiS anymore.
Don't you think you are going too far?
Dave did just a great work with LiS.
You are converting this into lawyer madness.
Go write some code.

Nemo

: From: ***@gcom.com
: Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:13:19 -0500
: To: ***@openss7.org
: CC: ***@wanware.com ***@wanware.com ***@wanware.com linux-***@openss7.org
: Subject: [Linux-streams] Re: GPL/LGPL
:
:
: Took you awhile to come up with that one, didn't it?
:
: First, you are the original violator of the GPL
: since you conveyed these files to me and did not
: accompany them with a copy of the GPL, or request
: that I add a copy of the GPL to the LiS
: distribution. So it would be fair to argue that
: you have waived your rights to this requirement.
:
: Second, this "violation" is easily remedied by
: simply adding a copy of the full GPL in a file
: included with the LiS distribution.
:
: Third, there is a clause in the license notice in
: the files themselves that render this requirement suspect.
:
: > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
: > this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass
: > Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
:
: In other words, you make provision in your notice
: that the recipient may not have received a copy
: of the license and what to do about it if he/she
: did not. (This is standard GNU recommend language.)
:
: All that notwithstanding I am perfectly happy to
: remove OpenSS7 code from the LiS
: distribution. There is nothing of use to me
: within LiS that uses any of it anyway.
:
: -- Dave
:
: At 12:50 PM 9/7/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: >Dave,
: >
: >Regardless of whether your modified sources are considered simple
: >aggregation (which they cannot), your fundamental gpl-violation is that
: >you did not include a copy of the license per Section 1 of the GPL.
: >Thus your distribution is in violation of the GPL, and your attempt to
: >distribute the files without a copy of the license means that, for you,
: >the license is void and terminates. Anyone else that has redistributed
: >LiS-2.18.0 from your site without including the license, such as Steve,
: >is also in fundamental violation of the GPL and the license to these
: >files was void and terminated. As we follow a dual-licensing model,
: >punitive damages may have resulted from these gpl violations. For more
: >information, see http://www.gpl-violations.org/
: >
: >--brian
: >
: >On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Dave Grothe wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Sorry, Charlie.
: > > From GNU GPL license version 2:
: > >
: > > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
: > > Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
: > > volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
: > > work under the scope of this License.
: > >
: > > and
: > >
: > > You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
: > > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
: > > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
: > > void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
: > > License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
: > > you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
: > > long as such parties remain in full compliance.
: > >
: > > So you have no right to revoke the terms and conditions of the GPL.
: > > And my mere aggregation of these files is in full compliance. Steve
: > > and others can speak for themselves.
: > > -- Dave
: > > At 04:48 PM 8/30/2006, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
: > >
: > > Dave,
: > > ./include/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/sys/timod.h
: > > ./include/sys/tpi.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_xti.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/sys/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti/config.h
: > > ./include/xti/tihdr.h
: > > ./include/xti/timod.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_atm.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_inet.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_ip.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_local.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_mosi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_osi.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_sctp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_tcp.h
: > > ./include/xti/xti_udp.h
: > > ./include/xti.h
: > > ./include/xti_inet.h
: > > Your license to copy and distribute these files is revoked. Please
: > > remove them from your website.
: > > --brian
: > > --
: > > Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the
: > > ¦
: > > ***@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in
: > > ¦
: > > [1]http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to
: > > himself. ¦
: > > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the
: > > ¦
: > > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
: > > ¦
: > >
: > > References
: > >
: > > 1. http://www.openss7.org/
: >
: >--
: >Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
: >***@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦
: >http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦
: > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦
: > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
:
: