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

Mark Leslie mrk.leslie at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 19:11:57 EDT 2008 

>From what I recall, the source doesn't need to be provided from the same
location or in the same package as the binary, but if it is not, the
binary package must contain instructions on retrieving the source that
are valid for some number of years > 1 (defined in the license somewhere).

-- 
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


andrea antonello wrote:
> 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
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Java-collab mailing list
> Java-collab at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/java-collab
>

More information about the Java-collab mailing list