7 ms·

Yes. I take license violation very seriously. Imagine if Apple was violating a Microsoft license in this way. They'd be sued in a heart beat. Companies need to

Yes. I take license violation very seriously. Imagine if Apple was violating a Microsoft license in this way. They'd be sued in a heart beat. Companies need to realize the (L)GPL is serious. It's not something you can just ignore because it's convenient.

msbarnett 15y ago
But surely openness is a spectrum, and if they've released versions in the past, and they claim they will be releasing this one, then that still counts as being "open"?
- rimantas 15y ago
  Anything related to Apple is always a good source for some sensationalist piece.
  - Hov 15y ago
    Wait, how is someone stating facts sensationalist?
- Macha 15y ago
  But the conditions of the (L)GPL is that they are _required_ to do so when they release the source at the same time. Releasing it later is more open than not releasing it, but it's still not allowed with the (L)GPL.
- bricestacey 15y ago
  It's not about being "open". Its about following the terms of the license. And I believe the only way to enforce a license is through litigation so a lawsuit should be expected.
rimantas 15y ago
I don't know what situation is now, but Apple used to be the main contributor to Webkit. Who should sue Apple?
- jrockway 15y ago
  The other contributers whose copyrighted code they are distributing illegally.
  - rimantas 15y ago
    Wow. I am pretty sure anyone with this kind of attitude would not work on any project together with guys from Apple.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. Should the original KHTML and the contributors from Google be deprived of the rights that the LGPL gives them, simply because Apple "owns" the project? If Apple wants to own Webkit, then answer is simple: require a copyright assignment letter with each patch. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want.
      - rimantas 15y ago
        Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. So? I don't get, why this "forked form KHTML" comes up so often, and how is it relevant. Did Apple ever claim to invent Webkit? Not to my knowledge. What I do know, that a few years ago when Google had no Android and no Chrome Apple was already making Webkit the best rendering engine out there. But that's completely besides the point. I just cannot imagine someone working on the same project and ready to sue fellow developer's company just because they did not release the source on the same day. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want. If other comments are right, LGPL does not say they must release the source together with a product.
        jrockway 15y ago
        What I'm saying is that the people who wrote KHTML have copyright over Webkit. They released their code under the LGPL, and its Apple's obligation to honor this license until they remove all the original code or get contributers to sign a copyright assignment form. That's how open source projects work: either all the code is owned by some central entity, or the code is owned by the various contributers. When the code is owned by the contributers, your patch is considered a derivative work (for the purpose of copyright) of the other copyright holders' work, so you have to follow the license. On the flip side, if every patch has documentation saying that the central authority (the FSF, the Apache Foundation, etc.) has copyright, then that central authority can relicense however they want. For example, Emacs is now GPLv3, even though most of the code was written well before the GPLv3 existed. In the case of Webkit, Apple does not require copyright assignment. The code was not originally theirs - their version of Webkit is a fork of KHTML, and so the copyright from KHTML is in force. They have to follow the LGPL, because otherwise they have no legal right to use the code in their products. That's all I'm saying: the question was "who has a legal claim over Webkit", and my answer was "everyone who's contributed". The LGPL allows Apple to keep the rest of their stack that links against Webkit proprietary. However, they have to release their changes to Webkit. Here is the exact wording from the LGPL v2: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
rimantas 15y ago
Just curious, is source code for Webkit used in Honeycomb available?
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Yes. While Google hasn't open sourced much of the Apache licensed bits of Honeycomb, they have posted all of the GPL/LGPL code as required by the licenses: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_thread/thread/b732d8cd82695ce1 http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...
edw 15y ago
If you take license violations very seriously, then I imagine that an audit of your computer would reveal no movies, songs, fonts, or applications that are not properly licensed, right? Is Apple out of compliance with the license? Perhaps. Is this on my list of the ten thousand things I'm most concerned about? No. And as for your assertion about Microsoft suing Apple in a heartbeat over a similar compliance issue, I think you don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't sued anyone over the hundreds of MS patents they claim Linux violates. It took Apple a few years to get around to suing Samsung. In other words, Companies' legal teams are usually subject to adult supervision by their CxOs. They don't just go around suing willy-nilly. Many lawyers see conflicts that lead to lawsuits as failures. Reality is so surprisingly messy.
- FxChiP 15y ago
  If an audit of his computer revealed unlicensed movies, songs, fonts and applications, I (and probably he) would fully expect him to be litigated against -- such discoveries and resulting lawsuits are quite commonplace nowadays, it seems like. That doesn't make it right for anyone, even a large corporation, to violate intellectual property law. To put another way: if I were found to be pirating Mac OS X, Apple would be in the right to sue me for intellectual property violation. If I found them to be using my code outside of the license I provided it to them (and the rest of the world) with, I should be in the right to sue them for intellectual property violation. Is this not correct? (EDIT: fixed problematic grammar)
- daxelrod 15y ago
  Microsoft sued TomTom in 2009 for patent infringement[1]. One aspect of the suit concerned infringement in the implementation of the FAT filesystem in TomTom's Linux-based GPS navigation devices. The two parties eventually settled[2]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues... [2] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-...
  - 15y ago

msbarnett 15y ago

But surely openness is a spectrum, and if they've released versions in the past, and they claim they will be releasing this one, then that still counts as being "open"?

rimantas 15y ago
Anything related to Apple is always a good source for some sensationalist piece.
- Hov 15y ago
  Wait, how is someone stating facts sensationalist?
Macha 15y ago
But the conditions of the (L)GPL is that they are _required_ to do so when they release the source at the same time. Releasing it later is more open than not releasing it, but it's still not allowed with the (L)GPL.
bricestacey 15y ago
It's not about being "open". Its about following the terms of the license. And I believe the only way to enforce a license is through litigation so a lawsuit should be expected.

rimantas 15y ago

I don't know what situation is now, but Apple used to be the main contributor to Webkit. Who should sue Apple?

jrockway 15y ago
The other contributers whose copyrighted code they are distributing illegally.
- rimantas 15y ago
  Wow. I am pretty sure anyone with this kind of attitude would not work on any project together with guys from Apple.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. Should the original KHTML and the contributors from Google be deprived of the rights that the LGPL gives them, simply because Apple "owns" the project? If Apple wants to own Webkit, then answer is simple: require a copyright assignment letter with each patch. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want.
    - rimantas 15y ago
      Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. So? I don't get, why this "forked form KHTML" comes up so often, and how is it relevant. Did Apple ever claim to invent Webkit? Not to my knowledge. What I do know, that a few years ago when Google had no Android and no Chrome Apple was already making Webkit the best rendering engine out there. But that's completely besides the point. I just cannot imagine someone working on the same project and ready to sue fellow developer's company just because they did not release the source on the same day. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want. If other comments are right, LGPL does not say they must release the source together with a product.
      - jrockway 15y ago
        What I'm saying is that the people who wrote KHTML have copyright over Webkit. They released their code under the LGPL, and its Apple's obligation to honor this license until they remove all the original code or get contributers to sign a copyright assignment form. That's how open source projects work: either all the code is owned by some central entity, or the code is owned by the various contributers. When the code is owned by the contributers, your patch is considered a derivative work (for the purpose of copyright) of the other copyright holders' work, so you have to follow the license. On the flip side, if every patch has documentation saying that the central authority (the FSF, the Apache Foundation, etc.) has copyright, then that central authority can relicense however they want. For example, Emacs is now GPLv3, even though most of the code was written well before the GPLv3 existed. In the case of Webkit, Apple does not require copyright assignment. The code was not originally theirs - their version of Webkit is a fork of KHTML, and so the copyright from KHTML is in force. They have to follow the LGPL, because otherwise they have no legal right to use the code in their products. That's all I'm saying: the question was "who has a legal claim over Webkit", and my answer was "everyone who's contributed". The LGPL allows Apple to keep the rest of their stack that links against Webkit proprietary. However, they have to release their changes to Webkit. Here is the exact wording from the LGPL v2: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

rimantas 15y ago

Just curious, is source code for Webkit used in Honeycomb available?

georgemcbay 15y ago
Yes. While Google hasn't open sourced much of the Apache licensed bits of Honeycomb, they have posted all of the GPL/LGPL code as required by the licenses: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_thread/thread/b732d8cd82695ce1 http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...

edw 15y ago

If you take license violations very seriously, then I imagine that an audit of your computer would reveal no movies, songs, fonts, or applications that are not properly licensed, right? Is Apple out of compliance with the license? Perhaps. Is this on my list of the ten thousand things I'm most concerned about? No. And as for your assertion about Microsoft suing Apple in a heartbeat over a similar compliance issue, I think you don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't sued anyone over the hundreds of MS patents they claim Linux violates. It took Apple a few years to get around to suing Samsung. In other words, Companies' legal teams are usually subject to adult supervision by their CxOs. They don't just go around suing willy-nilly. Many lawyers see conflicts that lead to lawsuits as failures. Reality is so surprisingly messy.

FxChiP 15y ago
If an audit of his computer revealed unlicensed movies, songs, fonts and applications, I (and probably he) would fully expect him to be litigated against -- such discoveries and resulting lawsuits are quite commonplace nowadays, it seems like. That doesn't make it right for anyone, even a large corporation, to violate intellectual property law. To put another way: if I were found to be pirating Mac OS X, Apple would be in the right to sue me for intellectual property violation. If I found them to be using my code outside of the license I provided it to them (and the rest of the world) with, I should be in the right to sue them for intellectual property violation. Is this not correct? (EDIT: fixed problematic grammar)
daxelrod 15y ago
Microsoft sued TomTom in 2009 for patent infringement[1]. One aspect of the suit concerned infringement in the implementation of the FAT filesystem in TomTom's Linux-based GPS navigation devices. The two parties eventually settled[2]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues... [2] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-...
- 15y ago