On the massive success of the Nokia Innovators contest at bringing us quality N900 software - Page 10 - maemo.org - Talk

Main Menu
Talk Get Daily Search

Member's Online

On the massive success of the Nokia Innovators contest at bringing us quality N900 software

Page 10 of 14 | Prev | 8 9 10 11 12 | Next | Last

benny1967 | # 91 | 2010-10-22, 20:13 | Report

Originally Posted by Matan View Post

You are mistaken here.

There is no problem with extras - the source is available for download together with the binaries. The extras repository has a source directory and the source for every package (in the free section) is downloadable. Ovi does not have a source repository, and its packages do not include the source, so the only way it can comply with the GPL is by providing a written offer, which as you noted, they do not.

oh come on. assuming fabien gives you the source for his application, too, we have the source packages in extras and fabiens source. no difference there.

source packages don't appear magically; they're not shown in the application manager. you have to know that they're there and search for them. (extras has a non-free section, too. not everything you download from extras needs to be free software.)
a respective notice in the about-box is helpful. fabien at least gives users a hint... those who know what the gpl is and what it means. other applications lack such information. so how are they better?

The Following User Says Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post:
Wikiwide

fnordianslip | # 92 | 2010-10-22, 20:24 | Report

The issue I'm curious about isn't anything Fabien has done or not done. The point is that Ovi is distributing GPL'd binaries without offering a means to get the source, which is AFAIK not kosher.

The Following User Says Thank You to fnordianslip For This Useful Post:
Wikiwide

danramos | # 93 | 2010-10-22, 20:34 | Report

Originally Posted by fnordianslip View Post

The issue I'm curious about isn't anything Fabien has done or not done. The point is that Ovi is distributing GPL'd binaries without offering a means to get the source, which is AFAIK not kosher.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
j.s, Wikiwide

Wikiwide | # 94 | 2010-10-23, 00:02 | Report

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

oh come on. assuming fabien gives you the source for his application, too, we have the source packages in extras and fabiens source. no difference there.

Maybe, Fabien will send source only to people who (EDIT: --bought the binary and-- buying the binary isn't necessary) specifically requested source. He has right to do so.

While source from extras is available to everybody, without requesting it from the developer.

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

source packages don't appear magically; they're not shown in the application manager. you have to know that they're there and search for them.

It's a shortcoming of application manager. With command line, it's equally easy to install an application and to get its source.

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

(extras has a non-free section, too. not everything you download from extras needs to be free software.)

I know. Batterygraph is non-free, for instance.

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

a respective notice in the about-box is helpful. fabien at least gives users a hint... those who know what the gpl is and what it means.

Yes, stating license in About is a good practice.

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

other applications lack such information. so how are they better?

QStarDict (free),
mstopwatch (free),
Sudoku Solver (???),
Simple Qt Editor (free),
phototranslator (free),
orrery (free),
FM Radio (free),
case (free),
PeQersi (free),
Faster Application Manager (free),
MyPaint (free),
Pen Pen (free),
mbarcode (free),
Front View (non-free),
metre (???),
modrana (free),
location test (non-free)
don't seem to state their licenses clearly either.

Irreco, swappolube, Stellarium, ShipsRolling state clearly their GPL license.

Yes, majority of applications don't state the license clearly. But it doesn't prevent you from getting the source, if you want to.

Last edited by Wikiwide; 2010-10-23 at 04:39. Reason: EDIT: buying the binary isn't necessary; any third party can request source code of GPL software, if the source code is distributed separately from binaries

Matan | # 95 | 2010-10-23, 00:10 | Report

Originally Posted by Wikiwide View Post

Maybe, Fabien will send source only to people who bought the binary and specifically requested source. He has right to do so.

If he is not the sole copyright holder, and it is GPL, then it is not his right to do so.

If he chose not to provide source with the binary, then he needs to provide source to any third party, not only to people who bought the binary. It is stated very clearly in the license, so I don't understand why you claim otherwise.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Matan For This Useful Post:
Wikiwide, ysss

Texrat | # 96 | 2010-10-23, 00:13 | Report

Originally Posted by Flandry View Post

It's 100% realistic to expect a council member to get around to reading the Community forum of t.m.o. This is actually how we were told to communicate with you, so perhaps you should come to an agreement amongst yourselves on that point.

Yes, BUT not to embed a request in a thread. Post it in Ask the Council, or start a new thread with an obvious subject.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
danramos, Jaffa

Wikiwide | # 97 | 2010-10-23, 00:42 | Report

Originally Posted by Matan View Post

If he is not the sole copyright holder, and it is GPL, then it is not his right to do so.

If he chose not to provide source with the binary, then he needs to provide source to any third party, not only to people who bought the binary.

Reading Wikipedia, I don't see where he needs to provide source to any third party, not only to people who bought the binary.

The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. The second section of version 2 and the fifth section of version 3 also require giving "all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program". Version 3 of the license allows making the source code available in additional ways in fulfillment of the seventh section. These include downloading source code from an adjacent network server or by peer-to-peer transmission, provided that is how the compiled code was available and there are "clear directions" on where to find the source code.

Originally Posted by Matan View Post

It is stated very clearly in the license, so I don't understand why you claim otherwise.

Could you give me the quote, please? Most likely, I'm inattentive, but I haven't noticed it anywhere.

The Following User Says Thank You to Wikiwide For This Useful Post:
danramos

geneven | # 98 | 2010-10-23, 01:36 | Report

Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post

Someone would need to raise the issue with the council, perhaps by emailing council@maemo.org. We don't magically appear in threads which mention our name.

Right, and the default state of the council must be oblivion if they aren't aware of this issue.

But now that Stellarium is available in the store, I guess all is solved! Thanks to the council for its concern; it probably pulled some strings in order to make this happen. Or maybe the benefits of lying fallow have been demonstrated.

j.s | # 99 | 2010-10-23, 01:37 | Report

Originally Posted by danramos View Post

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/

Which, IIRC, has had some success in convincing GPL violators to comply with the GPL. There is also
http://gpl-violations.org/ which has had quite a few successes.

The Following User Says Thank You to j.s For This Useful Post:
danramos

javispedro | # 100 | 2010-10-23, 02:12 | Report

Originally Posted by Wikiwide View Post

Could you give me the quote, please? Most likely, I'm inattentive, but I haven't noticed it anywhere.

The relevant part of the license is:

Originally Posted by

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Emphasis mine. That should answer your question..

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post:
lma, Wikiwide

Page 10 of 14 | Prev | 8 9 10 11 12 | Next | Last

vBulletin® Version 3.8.8