ICO source code to be released? http://astrange.ithinksw.net/ico/ Interesting! I'd sure like to see it. :nod:
I wouldn't jump the gun. Specific performance isn't easily ordered by any court. Do you have any similar precedence to support a possible release? I believe this sums up the author's intent. The court would find similarly most probably. 1) You can do whatever you like with this source file -> whatever includes commercial purposes,as the very word of "whatever" embraces all possibilities, however remote 2) I would prefer -> To prefer is an optional request. It is not a condition to be met in exchange for a license.
If the source file was released under the GPL, the GPL would apply. If the author released it under the GPL, then the author's intent is that the GPL would govern. -hl718
This is erroneous. The author seems to have adopted the GPL license yet has modified it (the license) with a preference clause. Sort of like Table A for companies in the UK. The GPL license, being a general license is the foundation, but the specific and unique intent of the author is further expressed by his own words - cementing the open relationship between himself and the end-user based on an honorary system, which modifies the legally binding GPL license on the point of modification and redistribution (see "whatever") As a general point of Law, when there is a standard form contract or document, it is the personalized (or as we say , tailored) modifications that set it apart and make it tailored to the needs and wishes of the author, as expressed and understood by the reasonable man. Imagine buying a console and adding stickers to it. The stickers are evidence that you have applied your personal taste and opinion to the console following the appropriate intent, as opposed to the simple and generic form it had when you unpacked it.
I cry BS. Saying a big company like Sony using an open source code with or without knowledge of breaking the GPL just causes tons of linux kiddies to jump the gun and grobble.
Barc0de: I think that you might be missing the intention of the "whatever" statement. In the context of the rest of the file, specifically the preceding GPL governance clause which begins the source file, the "whatever" clause is merely indicating the changes can be made to the source file without additional credit or comment n the derivative work. The intent, and how I could see a court's interpretation going, is that the GPL still affects the work.
If you've ever worked for a tech company that generates any amount of code you would realize: 1) How much of a pain in the ass it is to audit code 2) How easy it is for unaudited code to slip through 3) How often stuff like this happens (it just usually goes unnoticed) -hl718
Well, this has happened several times - for instance on Linksys routers (forcing them to release the code), and a few other times I can't really remember.
this is the reason why we don't use some libs we would love to use in our code. I have had to reject lots of great things that could had speed up our development process thanks to their licenses. =/
Barc0de, we all know you study law, but read up a bit on this shit before quoting your texts. Open Source licenses are just that. To sum up: if you use open source code in a project, you're project becomes just that. Buffalo, a somewhat large Japanese computer peripherals manufacturer, was forced to release the source code for the OS on board many of their external hard drives for the exact same thing. What happened? Well, let's just say that particular brand of external HDD & NAS device is easy to put your own fully functional version of Linux on. EDIT: Just read antipasta's post. So, they can cry all they want (some open source renegade they outsourced the monkey work could've put it in there) but the precedence has been set. There's a release for each region as well. Wonder how that works.
So, you're telling me that there have been cases of GPL in combination with a "gloss clause" to allow free and unchecked use and the courts still held it as prohibited to distribute/use?
Yes. "Doing whatever you like" w/ source code is the essence of Open Source. It doesn't trump the GPL, as per hl's statement.
The Linksys issue is the most well known example of an unknowing GPL violation (the code was originally used by a Broadcom subcontractor who was creating tools for Broadcom chipsets, then passed to Linksys as part of the Broadcom solution, used in the Linksys products and then acquired by Cicso when it purchased Linksys). Even though all parties pretty much agreed that there was no knowing intent to violate the GPL, the simple fact is that none of the companies involved did a code audit at any time in the chain and the code was used. Because ignorance is not a valid excuse for breaking a license, the terms of the GPL were in force and Cisco published the source code. All it took was for a single programmer at a contract coding house to save some time and use GPL'ed code in his work. Because it was an integral part of the firmware and impossible to separate all the corredponding code also fell under the GPL and had to be published. The end result was a massive increase in the quality and feature sets of consumer routers. Similar cases have happened in Europe, so this is not a USA only thing. While there is a great temptation to try and claim that the GPL doesn't apply no company that makes its living in software wants to go down that road. Because if a company could get a court to say that the GPL didn't apply simply because it didn't understand the terms then the same would have to apply to end users who claimed not to understand the terms of their software licenses. -hl718
