{"thread":{"id":"27093","subject":"Re: Gitbox","startedAt":"2011-04-13T22:23:49Z","lastAt":"2011-04-15T19:21:38Z","messageCount":10,"participants":["Joshua Juran","Randal L. Schwartz","Chris Perkins","Martin Langhoff","Victor Engmark","Tim Smith"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"165785","messageId":"4238CC86-13A5-4DB8-B8B2-BC3AA2F2DA5E@gmail.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"BANLkTikfCDm-5Yde=2Cm-ROc1dcMwopvOg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Joshua Juran","fromEmail":"jjuran@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-04-13T22:23:49Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-13T22:23:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jjuran@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Daniel Searles wrote:\n\n> I apologize for the empty email. My SMTP server is having problems. \n> That is why I'm going to use this email address to write to the list.\n\nGah, stop doing that! :-)\n\n> I feel that gitbox and perhaps other commercial tools for git are in \n> violation of the GPL simply since they rely on git in order to be \n> useful. Take git away from gitbox and it serves no purpose. The \n> thread in the following link goes into depth with regards to a \n> program relying on code that is under a GPL license. The conclusion \n> made in the thread may be due to an older version of the GPL. Could \n> it be that gitbox isn't in violation of the GPL since git uses GPL \n> version 2.0 exclusively?\n>\n> http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL\n\n\nMy shell scripts that call git are also useless without Git. Am I not \nallowed to distribute my scripts under non-GPL terms? (And what about \na script that calls the nonexistent blort utility, and then someone \nwrites blort and distributes it under the GPL?) As I understand it, \nthe GPL (and the thread you mention) address linking, not utility.\n\nRMS seemed to win this debate by arguing that his position was better \nfor the community. I have colleagues who understand that Git is the \nbest VCS available but are concerned about having to train users who \nare used to IDEs. I've used a couple open source Git viewers and \nwould hesitate to recommend them. The option to use GitBox makes \nadoption of Git more likely in this case.\n\nCVS is a GNU project. Did FSF go after proprietary cvs wrappers?\n\nJosh\n"},{"id":"165793","messageId":"4DA654D4.5040104@medialab.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4238CC86-13A5-4DB8-B8B2-BC3AA2F2DA5E@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Chris Perkins","fromEmail":"cperkins@medialab.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T01:58:44Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T01:58:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"cperkins@medialab.com","avatar":null},"body":"Let's look at this at a slighty different way. Let's say someone writes\na GUI wrapper for Git, bundles it with Git, and then offers for sale a\nnew proprietary SVC system. They list off all the wonderful features\nthat it has. On the back page of their website is a small 'Licenses'\ndisclosure and the source code to Git comes with the download buried in\na subdirectory. None of the users realize the software is using Git.\n\nIs that a violation of the GPL? I would say that it absolutely is. A\nproprietary software is being built atop the hard labor of the GPL\nauthored software. Hundreds contributed to the Open Source effort, one\nprofits by burying their work in his with the minimal effort.\n\nSo, I guess the question is, how is that scenario different than Gitbox?\nI guess Gitbox doesn't present itself as something else, but code-wise\nit is no different. Without the Git binary there is no Gitbox.\n\n\n(Randal L Schwartz writes):\n>And it's also about readline.a, which *has* to be linked into a binary\n>to make it work. None of the git code is being *linked* in.\n\nThe GPL doesn't mention .a files versus .o versus .so. _Linked_ is not\nthe issue. The issue is one work being _based_ on another, and the word\n_based_ is the one that appears in the GPL, including the section you\nquoted.\n\nSection 2 b) of GPL 2 plainly states that any work based on a GPL\nlicensed product must be distributed free of charge and be GPL:\n\n 2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,\n that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program\n or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to\n all third parties under the terms of this License.\n\nAnd the closing explanation of the GPL 2 says the same in even more\nfrank and plain language. These are the last three lines. 'your program'\nrefers to the program being placed under GPL (ie Git), they are written\nto someone considering releasing software under the GPL:\n\n This General Public License does not permit incorporating your\n program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine\n library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking\n proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want\n to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this\n License.\n\n\n\n(Joshua Juran writes):\n> My shell scripts that call git are also useless without Git. Am I not\n> allowed to distribute my scripts under non-GPL terms? \n\nI don't know the answer to this. Maybe they must be distributed as GPL.\n\n\n(Joshua Juran writes):\n> CVS is a GNU project. Did FSF go after proprietary cvs wrappers?\n\nI don't know, but I doubt they did. And it is a good point that failure\nto defend a copyright can often be argued in court as tacit disavowal of\nthat copyright.\n\n\n\n\nChris\n"},{"id":"165792","messageId":"86vcyhegk6.fsf@red.stonehenge.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA654D4.5040104@medialab.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Randal L. Schwartz","fromEmail":"merlyn@stonehenge.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T02:02:17Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T02:02:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"merlyn@stonehenge.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/dc528d210743ff0333e6213f9ee7b33b23f1b7bc1f3c5a8c2d819074ecd7ab19?d=mp&s=160"},"body":">>>>> \"Chris\" == Chris Perkins writes:\n\nChris> Is that a violation of the GPL? I would say that it absolutely\nChris> is.\n\nWhich part, then? Name chapter and verse.\n\nMaybe the spirit, as you see it. But which letter?\n\nBut if the GPL is to be treated as a legally enforceable document, \"live\nby the sword, and die by the sword\". GPL-desk-pounders can't have it\nboth ways.\n\n(This is also why it's not \"GNU/Linux\"... if RMS had wanted that, it\nshould have been written into the license. He forgot, so the rest is\nhistory. It's just Linux, dammit.)\n\n-- \nRandal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095\n \nSmalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.\nSee http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion\n"},{"id":"165794","messageId":"4DA65BB6.5080909@medialab.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA654D4.5040104@medialab.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Chris Perkins","fromEmail":"cperkins@medialab.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T02:28:06Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T02:28:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"cperkins@medialab.com","avatar":null},"body":"On 4/13/11 11:02 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:\n>>>>>> \"Chris\" == Chris Perkins writes:\n>\n> Chris> Is that a violation of the GPL? I would say that it absolutely\n> Chris> is.\n>\n> Which part, then? Name chapter and verse.\n\nSection 2 b). I quoted it in whole in my email:\n\n 2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,\n that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program\n or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to\n all third parties under the terms of this License.\n\nand the last paragraph in the \"how to\" section is even more frank.\n\n\n> But if the GPL is to be treated as a legally enforceable document, \"live\n> by the sword, and die by the sword\". GPL-desk-pounders can't have it\n> both ways.\n\nI'm not a GPL-desk-pounder. I write commercial software for a living.\nBut I take the efforts I put into my software very seriously. If I were\nto release software as free software under a license like the GPL I\nwould not appreciate someone attempting to profit off my hard work by\nputting a bow on it and selling it as their own.\n\nDon't get me wrong. I don't see Gitbox as just a 'bow' atop Git.\nFrankly, the type of wrapping that Gitbox is doing seems perfectly\nreasonable to me. Gitbox is providing real value to users, it's not\ndisguising or hiding Git and it's not pretending to be provide the work\nof Git as its own and it isn't trying to pretend to be anything that it\nisn't.\n\nHowever, that said, I still think it's a violation of the GPL. That\nlicense lays it out very clearly without much room for interpretation.\nYou can't make commercial works based on GPL licensed software. Without\nGit there is no Gitbox. End of story.\n\nI'm not a lawyer, were I then perhaps I'd know solidly one way or other.\n I'm not the author nor one of the contributors to Git. Were I then\nperhaps I might feel differently about Gitbox being 'perfectly reasonable'.\n\nBut I will add this, some on our team would very much like to\nincorporate Git into one of our own upcoming commercial products.\nCode-wise in the same manner as Gitbox has done. But we aren't going to\ndo this, because the GPL license for Git clearly states that we cannot.\n\nChris\n"},{"id":"165795","messageId":"86r595ef31.fsf@red.stonehenge.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA65BB6.5080909@medialab.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Randal L. Schwartz","fromEmail":"merlyn@stonehenge.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T02:34:10Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T02:34:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"merlyn@stonehenge.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/dc528d210743ff0333e6213f9ee7b33b23f1b7bc1f3c5a8c2d819074ecd7ab19?d=mp&s=160"},"body":">>>>> \"Chris\" == Chris Perkins writes:\n\n>> Which part, then? Name chapter and verse.\n\nChris> Section 2 b). I quoted it in whole in my email:\n\nChris> 2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,\nChris> that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program\nChris> or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to\nChris> all third parties under the terms of this License.\n\nBroken pre-condition. See the beginning of 2:\n\n 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of\n it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute\n such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided\n that you also meet all of these conditions:\n\nGitbox is not *modifying*, or creating a work *based on the Program*.\nSeparate copyrights. The rest of your argument thus falls apart.\n\nChris> However, that said, I still think it's a violation of the GPL. That\nChris> license lays it out very clearly without much room for\nChris> interpretation.\n\nBullcrap. See above. Get your preconditions right, and I'll play along.\n\nChris> You can't make commercial works based on GPL licensed software.\n\nSure you can. RedHat makes money somehow. Don't play the \"we must be\nstarving artists for the cause of GPL\" on me.\n\nChris> But I will add this, some on our team would very much like to\nChris> incorporate Git into one of our own upcoming commercial products.\nChris> Code-wise in the same manner as Gitbox has done. But we aren't going to\nChris> do this, because the GPL license for Git clearly states that we\nChris> cannot.\n\nMaybe you need better lawyers then.\n\n-- \nRandal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095\n \nSmalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.\nSee http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion\n"},{"id":"165796","messageId":"9D7CA8EE-F170-4BBB-80B8-B342E7D1709A@gmail.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA65BB6.5080909@medialab.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Joshua Juran","fromEmail":"jjuran@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T04:59:43Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T04:59:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jjuran@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Chris Perkins wrote:\n\n> You can't make commercial works based on GPL licensed software. \n> Without\n> Git there is no Gitbox. End of story.\n>\n> I'm not a lawyer, were I then perhaps I'd know solidly one way or \n> other.\n\nOr, you could consult a lawyer. Or you could see what Git authors and/ \nor the FSF think about it.\n\n> But I will add this, some on our team would very much like to\n> incorporate Git into one of our own upcoming commercial products.\n\nI imagine some of your users would like that as well.\n\n> Code-wise in the same manner as Gitbox has done.\n\nAs well as ProjectBuilder/Xcode. The same company that released their \nObjective-C compiler front end to GCC under the GPL, demonstrating \nSteve Jobs' willingness to comply with RMS' interpretation of the GPL, \nalso created their own proprietary GUI front end to GCC tools. \nProjectBuilder/Xcode has existed for over two decades, and to my \nknowledge no objection has been lodged. Clearly, there is a critical \ndifference between linking and invoking.\n\n> But we aren't going to\n> do this, because the GPL license for Git clearly states that we \n> cannot.\n\nThen you may lose some of your users to competitors who more \naccurately interpret the GPL and are clear what rights they've been \ngranted.\n\nJosh\n"},{"id":"165810","messageId":"BANLkTim-fKZr2Y3FCjJJV4yoXQKOoeoyLg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA654D4.5040104@medialab.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T13:55:47Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T13:55:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Chris Perkins wrote:\n> Let's look at this at a slighty different way. Let's say someone writes\n> a GUI wrapper for Git, bundles it with Git, and then offers for sale a\n> new proprietary SVC system. They list off all the wonderful features\n> that it has.  On the back page of their website is a small 'Licenses'\n> disclosure and the source code to Git comes with the download buried in\n> a subdirectory.  None of the users realize the software is using Git.\n>\n> Is that a violation of the GPL? I would say that it absolutely is.\n\nIt absolutely is not. Lots of companies do this, and it is perfectly\nkosher -- either bundle the src somewhere or offer a link to download\nthe source somewhere.\n\nWhile IANAL, and specifically not _your_ lawyer, I have been in this\nfield for >10 years, and studied law @ masters level on software\nlicensing. You are reading the GPL wrong, and you're not aware of\nwidespread industry practices around it.\n\nAnyone who is curious about this gitbox thing, and interested in\n*facts* instead of fiction, could advance our knowledge with a simple\nprocedure:\n\n - Download the \"free\" version (or payfor the paid version!). It's a\nzipfile, no need to hurt any Macs.\n\n - See if it includes the src or a link to download the src -- it will\nprobably be in a corner of the documentation or license. Maybe there's\nan offer to provide the src in a different way, but a download link is\nthe usual trick.\n\n - Does the link work? Can you effectively get the src?\n\n - Does the src match the binaries you got?\n\ncheers,\n\n\n\nm\n-- \n martin.langhoff@gmail.com\n martin@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC\n - ask interesting questions\n - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first\n - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff\n"},{"id":"165811","messageId":"4DA7016F.5070308@terreactive.ch","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"32803572.1897.1302789371873.JavaMail.trustmail@mail1.terreactive.ch","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Victor Engmark","fromEmail":"victor.engmark@terreactive.ch","sentAt":"2011-04-14T14:15:11Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T14:15:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"victor.engmark@terreactive.ch","avatar":null},"body":"On 04/14/2011 03:55 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:\n> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Chris Perkins wrote:\n>> Let's look at this at a slighty different way. Let's say someone writes\n>> a GUI wrapper for Git, bundles it with Git, and then offers for sale a\n>> new proprietary SVC system. They list off all the wonderful features\n>> that it has. On the back page of their website is a small 'Licenses'\n>> disclosure and the source code to Git comes with the download buried in\n>> a subdirectory. None of the users realize the software is using Git.\n>>\n>> Is that a violation of the GPL? I would say that it absolutely is.\n> \n> It absolutely is not. Lots of companies do this, and it is perfectly\n> kosher -- either bundle the src somewhere or offer a link to download\n> the source somewhere.\n> \n> While IANAL, and specifically not _your_ lawyer, I have been in this\n> field for >10 years, and studied law @ masters level on software\n> licensing. You are reading the GPL wrong, and you're not aware of\n> widespread industry practices around it.\n> \n> Anyone who is curious about this gitbox thing, and interested in\n> *facts* instead of fiction, could advance our knowledge with a simple\n> procedure:\n> \n> - Download the \"free\" version (or payfor the paid version!). It's a\n> zipfile, no need to hurt any Macs.\n> \n> - See if it includes the src or a link to download the src -- it will\n> probably be in a corner of the documentation or license. Maybe there's\n> an offer to provide the src in a different way, but a download link is\n> the usual trick.\n> \n> - Does the link work? Can you effectively get the src?\n> \n> - Does the src match the binaries you got?\n\nExcellent answer; it would be great to know in detail what would be an\neffective (and efficient, if possible) procedure for validating GPL\ncompliance. Something like a cartoon guide to the GPL for developers\nand/or users. I don't even know if my own GPL'ed projects are within the\nletter of the law here.\n\n-- \nVictor\n"},{"id":"165814","messageId":"BANLkTi=n4GiD939v9G3ni4o72gt0L0EQ8w@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA7016F.5070308@terreactive.ch","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-04-14T14:52:07Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-14T14:52:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Victor Engmark\n wrote:\n> Excellent answer; it would be great to know in detail what would be an\n> effective (and efficient, if possible) procedure for validating GPL\n> compliance.\n\nGlad you find it useful. There are some interesting FAQs in FSF's\nwebsite. And http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html\n\n> Something like a cartoon guide\n\nBoth why the lucky stiff and Hunter Thompson would be candidates if\nthey were still around.\n\n\nm\n-- \n martin.langhoff@gmail.com\n martin@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC\n - ask interesting questions\n - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first\n - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff\n"},{"id":"165925","messageId":"98FEC064-DE91-4F66-9BCB-C1BC27B8F4D6@eacceleration.com","threadId":"27093","inReplyTo":"4DA654D4.5040104@medialab.com","subject":"Re: Gitbox","fromName":"Tim Smith","fromEmail":"tzs@eacceleration.com","sentAt":"2011-04-15T19:21:38Z","receivedAt":"2011-04-15T19:21:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tzs@eacceleration.com","avatar":null},"body":"\nWhen GPLv2 talks about works \"based on\" another work, they mean works that are \"derivative works\" under copyright law. This is mentioned explicitly in section 0.\n\nGPLv2 also uses the term \"derived from\", which it does not define and is not a term of copyright law.\n\nCopyright law gives the copyright owner certain exclusive rights. No one else is allowed to do those things without permission from the copyright owner. The GPLv2 (and most other free software licenses) are designed to give you that permission. They serve strictly to remove restrictions, not to add them.\n\nContrast to a typical commercial software EULA, which might grant to you some permissions, but also will try to stop you from doing things that you are normally allowed to do. For instance, copyright law places no limit on the number of backup copies you can make of software you purchase. All that it requires (at least in the US) is that if you transfer ownership of your copy of the software to someone else you either destroy all your backups, or transfer them with the software. The typical EULA will make you agree to only keep one backup copy.\n\nThe FSF is quite clear that they intend the GPLv2 to not be a EULA. It only extends rights to you, it does not take any away. Accordingly, when trying to decide what an undefined term like \"derived from\" means in the context of GPLv2, you should look to copyright law. This makes it clear that they are using \"derived\" from to mean the same thing that copyright law means by a \"derivative work\".\n\nGitbox is not a derivative work of Git. The only thing Gitbox is doing that requires permission from the Git copyright owners is distributing an unmodified copy of Git with Gitbox. As long as Gitbox obeys the GPL by making the corresponding Git source available in a way allowed under GPLv2, they have permission. End of story.\n\nThey tried to clear up some of this confusing in GPLv3:\n\n> To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.\n\n\n\n-- \n--Tim Smith\n"}]}