GPL licensing of C-MOR

[speleo]

C-MOR is a Linux-based product that makes use of a great deal of GPL 2 and 3 licensed software.

It is a requirement of the GPL licensing that the source code for the whole system should be made available upon request. Please consider this a formal request.

Where may I find the source code?

[speleo]

No response?

Here is a relevant part of the Free Software Foundation's FAQ page: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... tarySystem

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all.

and

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

Clearly, there is nothing "arms length" about the C-MOR system. It is a single, closed, proprietary system.

I note that you are a German company. You should therefore be aware that the German court has upheld the validity of the GPL license. https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-1 ... 871.43.pdf You should also be aware of gpl-violations.org, who are mentioned in the document.

[p40]

Hello Speleo,

I'm not a lawyer, either looks like not you. My understanding is that you are simply wrong with your first and second post. The use of Linux does not make software GPL covered! No commercial software would be available for Linux and Linux probably would die. Look at Sophos UTM or Barracuda Firewalls. Those are Linux systems with GPL and commercial code doing the same type of system!

You even wrote yourself:

it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too

That's the opposite, not closed code becomes GPL, GPL becomes non-free!

I know that C-MOR even send their changes of GPL code back to the programmers.

And why don't you use the contact form with your real name and address to get the GPL code instead of trying to push them anonymously in a public forum?! They respond pretty quick on their real requests!

P40

[p40]

Here is an example C-MOR returns code to the developers:

http://www.lavrsen.dk/foswiki/bin/view/ ... x1x19snap1

[michaelr]

Hello,

This forum was not made to place such requests. Also, please be patient. Here is the link to the request form:

https://www.c-mor.com/c-mor-open-source ... re-request

Michael

[speleo]

Hello p40,

The quote you criticize comes from the Free Software Foundation's FAQ, which you appear not to have read. Here it is again, in full:

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. I have no permission to use that software except what the GPL gives me. Can I do this? (#GPLInProprietarySystem)
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

The questions is: I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system.

The answer is: You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.

That seems quite clear to me.

Regarding the posting of the bug fix to motion, the motion program is covered by a GPL license and it is a requirement of GPL that any change be made available to the public once it is incorporated into C-MOR. Passing the bug fix back to the developers was the sensible route to take to fulfill that licensing requirement..

Another requirement of GPL is that each copy should contain a copy of the GPL license. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... SourceFile

Why should I put a license notice in each source file? (#NoticeInSourceFile)
You should put a notice at the start of each source file, stating what license it carries, in order to avoid risk of the code's getting disconnected from its license. If your repository's README says that source file is under the GNU GPL, what happens if someone copies that file to another program? That other context may not show what the file's license is. It may appear to have some other license, or no license at all (which would make the code nonfree).

If C-MOR is not covered by GPL, the company should simply say that it is not covered. If it is covered by GPL, the company should make good on its obligations. Moving the matter offline will only serve to obscure this question.