[Java-collab] Re: [XxxJUMP-users] Re: OpenSource Closed source.... confused...

[andrea antonello]

Hi Stefan,
I agree with you.

After several problems in the past, I am pretty sure that:

1) the copyright holder can close the source, change the license, burn
the code were possible
2)  the copyright holder not make a GPL released code reversible, i.e.
what has been released until a license change has to be open and
should also be retrivable from the same location of the binary
application (if I recall correctly).

Nice link about the plugin issues, I was searching for that, thanks.

Ciao
Andrea



On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Stefan Steiniger <sstein at geo.uzh.ch> wrote:
> mhm.. yes
>
> a) I agree, VividSolution can sell/dual license JUMP code.
>
> However:
> b) the point that EziLink uses any JUMP version (based on the original one)
> they have to open the sources, no matter what.
>
> c) if it is a plugin - the code source of the "plugin" (the plugin class at
> least) needs to be released as well as it is GPL (and not LGPL)[1]. This
> means: we can look into the plugin code and see if they added their
> functionality by using a second separate library (i.e. their own stuff under
> their own license) that does not involve any JUMP functionality.
>
> I think I will post this to the java-collab list (or any OSGEO list) to get
> some more oppinions on that. To me it seems like the "EziLink" provider has
> violated the GPL license conditions and he needs now to show if he has or
> not.
>
> Depending on the responses I may write an email to the EziLink guys and ask
> for clarification and JUMP-plugin source code next week.
>
> cheers
> Stefan
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] to my understanding the GPL is not applicable to the whole JUMP
> plugin/extension if it uses code from a second library that is completely
> independent of the original JUMP code. That is - only the plugin class needs
> to be under JUMP as it uses JUMP functions.
> see:
>
> . http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins (and
> following)
> . http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
>
> edgar.soldin at web.de wrote:
>>
>> I have to disagree .. as vivid solution own the copyright on jump they can
>> _also_ sell it closed or reuse it in closed software ...
>> this is completely independent of any open source distribution as well ..
>>
>> regards ede
>> --
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> For me it looks like that all versions of JUMP and EFS Jump Plug-in 1.0.2
>>> are definitely under GPLv2. I cannot say anything about eziLink, but if
>>> it
>>> should have been built on top of JUMP and EFS Plug-in code then it has to
>>> be of GPL version 2 (or higher) as well.
>>>
>>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mars,
>>>> Are you looking for the esf-plugin for EziLink, or the esf-plugin for
>>>> Jump.  In the former case, I have no particular reason to believe it's
>>>> open source, but I've found no specific information about it.  The
>>>> latter plugin is available at
>>>> http://www.vividsolutions.com/JUMP/plugins.htm and is indeed GPLv2.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Leslie
>>>> Geospatial Software Architect
>>>> LISAsoft
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Ph: +61 2 8570 5000 Fax: +61 2 8570 5099 Mob: +61
>>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf 19-21 Pirrama Rd Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> LISAsoft is part of the A2end Group of Companies
>>>> http://www.ardec.com.au
>>>> http://www.lisasoft.com
>>>> http://www.terrapages.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mars wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have formally requested the source code for the esf-plugin that
>>>>> Vivid Solutions Inc. uses in their EziLink application, but have been
>>>>> told that I(we) have no rights towards that code as it is a plugin.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am soooo confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty green at this whole GPL thing, and do not understand the
>>>>> logic nor the rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> On one hand, an ESF-Plugin was developed for the British Columbia
>>>>> Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management under an OpenSource
>>>>> License GNU GPLv2, contracted to Vivid Solutions Inc. and on the other
>>>>> hand Vivid Solutions Inc. is telling I have no rights to use the ESF-
>>>>> Plugin because it is a plugin for EziLink. and falls under it's Copy
>>>>> Right Licence which states:
>>>>>
>>>>> COPY RESTRICTIONS.  The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is owned by the LICENSORS,
>>>>> and is protected by
>>>>> copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Unauthorized
>>>>> copying or use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT,
>>>>> including any portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that has been modified,
>>>>> merged, or included with other
>>>>> software, or of the written materials, is expressly forbidden.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been told by Vivid Solutions Inc. that I have no rights to use
>>>>> the esf-(plugin) even though it carries a GPLv2 separate from JUMP's
>>>>> GPLv2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further what I do not understand is that under the above copy
>>>>> restrictions, I would be liable if I used JUMP v 1.1.2 as this is the
>>>>> same version of JUMP that is inside EziLink even though it too carries
>>>>> a GPLv2.
>>>>>
>>>>> My head is spinning since it was my intentions to use JUMP v1.1.2
>>>>> under GPLv2 and the ESF-(Plugin) under GPLv2.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am completely confused, and I some how doubt this was the intentions
>>>>> of the sponsors of JUMP and ESF-(plugin).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean that any code that resembles the JUMP code in OpenJUMP
>>>>> is liable under this copy right restriction as OpenJUMP is a
>>>>> modification of the original JUMP v 1.1.2?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point I don't even want to touch JUMP for fear of Liable!
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks group, for any clarity as Vivid Solutions Inc. is not offering
>>>>> me any, except citing restrictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> mars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Java-collab mailing list
> Java-collab at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/java-collab
>