GPL/LGPL sources

I know that libSDL is LGPL and you guys include libstdc++ and libgnu_s which are both GPL plus the linking exception.

IANAL, but I believe that you are suppost to offer some way to obtain the exact sources that you guys used when building those binaries (including all config and makefiles generated by the configure/autoconf scripts). I myself got in some heat over it, so its good to point out All the other libraries are released on BSD like licences it looks like so everything else looks good.

Zac

ohh by the way, this is Zac from the Mono project GO MONO IS SL 2.0!

Finally someone with a head. I also had bad feelings with this mix of open source. But you are right, sources should be published. LGPL only means that proprietary software can link to it without being free software itself.

I have reported the issues to gpl-violations.org. Maybe that helps to resolve this.

Vinci

Any company that incorporates or links to (L)GPL projects only has to publish source code if they CHANGED the original distribution. This publish does not have to be done on the Internet. They just have to make it available. By request, for instance, through a mail-order with a CD delivery to your home address.

For those (L)GPL projects not changed in the process of generating the binary-closed-source item, they just have, at most, to state version, in case there are ABI/API changes in other versions that make the binary package picky on what it links to.

On my part, I have sucessfully replaced every bundled library by ones compiled by myself with 3 exceptions. Note that I have only tryed "replacing" against the most recent version available, I didn't try to work out older versions to find compatibilities. The ones I failed to replace were libboost_regex_gcc, libxmlrpc and libGLU. But maybe I could have done it if I knew what versions to replace with. Or even maybe my distro is applying patches over the standard library package, making that version oncompatible with the closed-source SL binary.

I usually try to avoid conflict, but Vinci is someone that really has a very bad attitude and seems to be going overboard too many times.

It's the "fanatic open source everything or die" guys like you that make companies not want to support Linux. Because they will then just have people complaining that "Linux is not supported, I have to use Wine". Better than people abuse-reporting them without even being completely correct on their actions... Have you diplomatically tried to know if there were any GPL modified packages in the process? To know the version of each (L)GPL package used?

Furthermore... You are not forced to use this client. Although you can abuse-report any REAL (L)GPL violation even if you do not use the product, many other statements you do here are unnecessary and may jeopardize the whole Linux effort.

What I fear is that LL sees how much PITA "some of these Linux guys can be" and just kills off the whole SL Linux Client effort. After all, those that really want to play, use Wine. Those that were just around because there was a Linux client are few and not that big money-generators. And no more talk about Open Sourcing the product.

While now we have a Linux Client (that serves some people) and a promisse to (L)GPL some code (that will serve very few people), with attitudes and problems like these, we may get into a situation where we get no Linux Client and no (L)GPL code... Will that be better? Even if no "GPL Violations" are done that way?

Think about your actions consequences before letting your too-big mouth destroy everything in your path...

I'm blunt. I'm disgusted...

I can be mistaken, but linking with g++ does not violate the GPL unless you modified the library itself and do not publish the source code. The source for libstd++ itself is available on the internet, so I don't see any problem with that.

If it really were that way then all web-based solutions running on apache with php would have to open their sources, or proprietary video cutting software linking in a ton of libraries, which most like is not the case.

Otherwise ... good shot at ruining the fun for us, should anything arise out of this that will make LL drop Linux altogether.

Agreed, both Zi and Blogmul.

Abuse of the GPL for gain is one thing; utilizing the (L)GPL to make services available is something VERY different.

Even IF LL was violating the spirit or letter of the (L)GPL, there are ways of assisting in order to get the situation cleaner. Playing Policeman is not one of them.

As Zi has pointed out, this is not even VAGUELY the case here! LL is very much using the (L)GPL effectively to increase the power of (L)GPL licensed software! I think this is FANTASTIC!

Vinci, you have done a lot of work to support the Linux Users Group. But this is not it

I guess this was aimed at Vinci rather than Kick Madonna? If so, I agree wholeheartedly. This kind of zealotry and mindless abuse-reporting without even understanding the details of the case is really harmful to the Linux community and how we are viewed..

I mean it is really stupid. Kick was sensibly warning about the possibility of a licensing issue (requiring the publication of any modified GPL source code) so that it could get fixed, and then Vinci jumps on the case and makes completely unfounded GPL-abuse report. This is just ridiculous IMHO.

Come on guys, it's just a game, and from what I have seen, LL have shown extremely good faith with respect to their development of the Linux client. If you don't like the fact it's closed source (at the moment) quit whining and bog off! The fact you need to use closed source gfx drivers makes the whole argument ludicrous anyway..

Yes, my rant went to Vinci's imprudent abuse report and the possible impact on the SL Linux project as a whole. I'm sorry not having quoted properly, I was a little overreacting myself, I guess.

Well, let's hope this will not destroy the foundation we started to build together with the Lindens. Communication and support for the Linux client have been steadily improving recently, and I'm very happy about that. Please, do not ruin it!

If there really licencing issues, let's try to sort them out like mature people and not like kids stomping our feet and throwing stones to get what we want.

Thats exactly right. They have to provide a WRITTEN OFFER of any GPL source code used to build any GPL binaries that they distribute.

(edited as I hadn't had enough coffee and wasnt quite correct)

Sorry guys you all have no idea. You all do not read licenses but think you can just talk. read this:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html
Paragraph 4:
""
You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you 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.
""
Its that simple: They have agreed to specific licensing terms that they do not fulfill right now. They use free software to their own benefit but don't even tell people that they use GPL software!

So most of you think its Ok for them to apply rules to us about not reengineering but themselves not following the rules of open source software?

So if you want to join the discussion please first read and try to understand the licenses and than argue. There is no use in attacking me personally.

My view is that Linden Labs makes money and they do use free software, but not under the terms that they should. So here they need to make changes in their distribution. The file licenses.txt is just a joke - you can not apply this text file to any specific part of the archive.

If they do not we will force them to do so. Thats not different what they will do to any of us if we do not apply and respect their rules.

Abusing free software should not be taken half-heartedly. Free software is the core we build uppon. Any abuse that will not be tracd, like the guys of gpl-violations.org do will hurt Linux and may result in many companies and programmers not getting respect and money that they deserve.

We already had some cases where programmers had to sop their work, although many companies sold this software.

My intend is to raise awareness of those abuses because this will make it a lot easier for developers to make their living and it also shows what can be done with free software.

If you think we should not bother you are direspecting all those developers who invested time into making this free software better. This is really a shame for Linux users.

Vinci

If we know that SDL, and the G++ libraries can be replaced with system versions. Then Linden Labs removing those 3 files from thier distribution would remove the licensing problem correct?

You would also possibly break compatibility with distributions that do strange things with library loading. I'm imagining source-based distros that might decide to name their libraries strangely (this occasionally happens in gentoo with binary packages that link against non-included libraries) or any distro with an unusual way of linking shared libraries.

The rest of this post is aimed at Vinci and other like-minded individuals.

Here's the thing. LL is trying to make a client that runs on Linux. They're using open source libraries without modification, including them only for compatibility.

So, what's the big bloody deal? No one is reporting:

S2Games:
darkside@navi /opt/savage/libs $ ls
libSDL-1.2.so.0 libfmod-3.63.so libmd5.so.0 libssl.so.0.9.7
libcrypto.so.0.9.6 libfmod.so libpng.so.2 libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3
libcrypto.so.0.9.7 libfreetype.so.6 libpng.so.3
libcurl.so.2 libglib-2.0.so.0 libssl.so.0.9.6

or Id Software:
darkside@navi /opt/doom3 $ ls *.so*
libstdc++.so.5
libgcc_s.so.1

or Epic Games:
darkside@navi /opt/unreal-tournament/System $ ls lib*.so*
libSDL-1.1.so.0 libmikmod.so.2 libopenal-0.0.so

or the United States Army:
darkside@navi /opt/americas-army/System $ ls *.so*
libSDL-1.2.so.0 libgmp.so openal.so

for GPL violations, are they? Because as far as I can tell, none of those include the source code with the distribution.

So, do you want these games to be native in Linux, or do you want to give companies the headache of making sure they include source code, which is freely available on the Internet and thus already accessible to the user, with their distributions?

Or, in other words, do you want to enforce the spirit of Free Software, or the letter of it? Which rings of freedom here?

That's incorrect. It doesn't matter if you changed it or not. If you supply a binary. you must supply the sources. That simple.

AFAIK, they have to make the sources available only. The internet IS the medium on which I got this software! And it IS a usual and acceptable medium on which I keep my source code and binaries that I am currently not using

Since these sources are freely available on the internet, and only the binaries are supplied (also on the internet by the way), as has been said, for compatibility, this would appear to be OK.

Had the sources been modified, LL should then supply the sources, unconditionally.

I have previously loaded opera with ALL libraries, cos I had compatibility issues. They were however unmodified LPGL libs, and I did not get the sources. Had I wanted them, opera could have answered my mail with a link to the sources. That would have been enough.

This is my opinion, of how LGPL works in practise.

And since I can get the sources of the libs LL shipped as binaries, simply by typing the lib name in google, I do not think that LL is doing much wrong here.

If I wanted the sources, I would ask LL. And I would get a link to them. But since these are standard anyway, I could get them myself.

Can't REALLY see the point of this discussion. Who is wronging whom here?



However, Kick's point IS valid. Maybe Don or someone will post the respective links to the sources of the libs concerned? Then the sources are included in the exact same way that the binaries are.

So what about knoppix? What about DSL (Damn Small Linux)?

They don't ship with source codes either. But ... if you want them, they must give you access to them. Pretty easy: Just send you a link to the web page where you can download the sources. That's all there is to it.

I have done some reading on libstdc++ and found the following paragraphs in the "Runtime Exception" part of their licence.html file:

Q:  So any program which uses libstdc++ falls under the GPL?
A: No. The special exception permits use of the library in proprietary applications.
[...]
Q: I see.  So, what restrictions *are* there on programs that use the library?
A: None.  We encourage such programs to be released as open source,
   but we won't punish you or sue you if you choose otherwise.

I think this shows pretty clearly that linking against this unmodified library has no licencing issues whatsoever. And - as already stated elsewhere - the source code is available on the internet.

As for libgnu_s I can't check because on my system ldd does not show libgnu_s at all. If that was meant to be libgcc_s, this one is covered by the aforementioned exception as well, AFAICS.

So, as ist stands we have:
No violation of the GPL (runtime exception)
No violation of the LGPL (linking is allowed)
No violation of any other licence (BSD allows for everything)

Now I'm going to try to cool my head off a bit from reading legal statements that are not even written in my first language

why would someone go this far out of their way to raise a problem ?

99 out of 100 people would just quietly mention this to a linden. Why post it on a forum, and even abuse report it out of hand ? Theres no need.

Well nobody suggested that SL itself has to be GPL if it is linking libstdc++. So you are answering to something nobody has written. It is simply so that you have to deliver the sourcecode.

About KNOPPIX source code: You can download the source code from the KNOPPIX web site. This is similar to many distribution where not all CDs do contain source code but the distributions provide it. LL does not provide any source code.

There is not much use to discuss this simple facts. You would not have to heat your head but simply read the obvious. You don't seem to read or think about my arguments anyway?

Vinci is correct. LL is distributing some LGPL software as part of the SL client, so they are supposed to make the sources of that LGPL software available. Adding downloads on secondlife.com would suffice. It would cost them a bit of disk space on their servers, but probably no bandwidth at all, since nobody would use the download links anyway, as everybody who wants the sources of those libraries already has them through other channels. So yes, a violation, but one with no significant real-world consequences.

So far as I know, there are no GPL libraries included in the SL client. Including them would be a serious license violation, as it would require that the entire SL client be made available under the GPL.

libstdc++ is GPL noit LGPL. i don't consider this to be a serious violation. Thas what Zi also found out.

So not serious enough to go running to gpl-violations.org then, phew, thats a relief. Wouldn't want anyone jumping the gun.......

This isn't going to beat microsoft people.... wich is why im still using there product in spite of linux being the best operating system on the planet.... I see an agreement pop up in front of me I hit yes, if it means using a piece of software to acomplish my needs ..... think of me as mister consumer... I know very little more about linux then this it always works and guess what thats enough. A bit of a lengthy learning curve to learn to navigate, but well worth it.... why .... It always works..and thats enough. It has way more programs then I will ever use or need and I still use it for importants stuff why you ask ..... it always works and thats enough . I dont care if an agreement or 2 gets slightly bruised I dont care if people are putting in emence amounts of time in to make the stuff (linux software) they must be getting something out of it or they wouldnt have been doing ing it so well for so long "I remember red hat 5" . Obviously money and time isnt every thing...what do I want.... I WANT the meta verse and every thing in it 128 bit encrypted ..... SECURE. no worry about spy where or what ever new software boogy man some one comes up with.... Problem... it will be a long difficult path between here and there with windows... but it will still get done with windows the best operating system be damned Why "Human beings 101" we dont need perfection .... sufficiency will suffice slathered with a little grace..... most people are more worried about getting the job done, and will forgive alot of the struggles even with MS Windows to see it through.. .... Truth is I would love to see it on linux... but it probably won't happen..... it takes collective leadership for something that big to happen... winers and tattletails are not where ya find leadership. If they are your in trouble...

SlimD

Very well put

It has to be simple, and usable.

If Linux can only be used with 1000 pitfalls or complexities, it will not make much progress in the Wide World.

Whether windows sucks or not is irrelevant to most people: it is simple and it works.

I would LOVE linux to work better and be more widely used, 'cos it's better and it's us, not one company.

But if its not FOR us as well as FROM us, linux will struggle. It's getting better, though, and will continue to do so as long as people get it USED - like LL is doing

Linux is for use, not to stop people in their tracks. For that we have SCO and Microsoft (in the latter case, unless you are ON the Microsoft track )

from libSDL.org:

Licensing the Simple DirectMedia Layer library

The Simple DirectMedia Layer library is currently available under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or newer.

SDL's use of the LGPL is twofold:
Allow end users to use custom versions of the library, to support bug fixes and other enhancements.
Allow any improvements made to the library for one project to benefit the community as a whole.

To comply with this license, you must give prominent notice that you use the Simple DirectMedia Layer library, and that it is included under the terms of the LGPL license. You must provide a copy of the LGPL license.
You must also do one of the following:

1) Link with the library as a shared object (e.g. SDL.dll or libSDL.so)

2) Provide the object or source code to your application along with any libraries and custom tools not available with a standard platform development kit. You may also simply provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide these materials upon request to anyone with a legal copy of your application.

If you include the SDL library in object form, you should also make available the source code to the version you provide, including any customizations you have made. If you link to a standard version of the library, simply referring to the SDL website is sufficient.

This is a good and valid point.

I did not find libgnu_s in my SL Libs, but libgcc_s.

For the purists amongst us, under OpenSUSE 10, removing those three libraries makes no difference. SL runs perfectly with the system supplied versions.

I still agree: the fix for LL is not THAT hard; it seems all that is needed is a link pointing to the developer sites, and a mention that thy are being used. At least, for libSDL.so this is true.

And as a PS: GO MONO IS SL 2.0 is DEFINITELY worth quoting

Well it is a serious issue that they do not provide the source code for GPL/LGPL libraries. It is the same issue that we had with Cisco/Linksys.

To make it clear:

1) I did not notify gpl-violations.org because I thought that the SL binary should have been free software!
2) I did notify gpl-violations.org because Linden Labs did not follow the license of GPL and LGPL - they even did not mentioned that they include a GPL library at all.

To give a hint what they should do I woulöd suggest.

A) Include something like a file README.GPL and README.LGPL in the root folder. Those file should contain some information which files and libraries are free software. This also should include a link where Linden Labs makes them available to download
B) At the download page of the Linux client there should be a link to this download place, also.
C) The download page itself should pack the sourcecode avaialbe to download on an extra download page where you can get to from A and B.

I think if they do this we would have resolved this issue. In addition I think it would be a good idea to do this also for some of the other open source licenses. There is a file "licenses.txt" but thats just a joke because you even can not identify which license applies to what files.

There are other issues that were not made public yet ( I go through the list of licenses.txt):

Apache 2.0 license:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
In 4 it says:

a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and

b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and 

From my view the Appendix section only applies to single files because 4a) makes clear that you must "give a copy" this is not the same as a boilerplate notice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cg License: This is a proprietary license. So nvidia should look for themselves if this is correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curl: This seems to be very liberal license. There is soem info on http://curl.haxx.se/legal/licmix.html about mixing libcurl. I don't understand all implications here. But with BSD style license you often do not have to provide copyrigth statements with binaries (but inside source code). So I guess this will be ok.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
expat: I think same as curl. Copyright notice is not necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------f-----------------------------
freetype license: http://freetype.sourceforge.net/FTL.TXT
Here you are forced to tell in the documentation that this license is used. No objections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL license: dont have information about that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ogg/vorbis license: dont know about that one, too
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDL license: this is really GPL license.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OpenSSL license: No need metioning the license, again
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSleay license: dito
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XMLRPC-EPI license: dito
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zlib license: I think this is OK ("The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

It looks like Linden Labs has no idea how to handle all that licenses and libraries. Some notes are not necessary (BSD style licenses) and on some parts the Linux archive lacks to fulfill the license requirements. For the next release I would expect a clearification in the documentation, copies of GPl, LGP, Apache license and also some source code on the web site.

Vinci