12 ms·

Lego violates GPL by keep Blender-based BrickLink Studio source closed (2021)

672 points by app4soft 4y ago

justinclift 4y ago
Page seems to be offline (hugged to death?), and archive.today seems to be non-functional at the moment too. This (2021) version of the page is shows up on the Wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.blender.org/t/on-what-version-of-cycles-is-bricklink-stud-ios-eyesight-renderer-based/17566 http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.bl... Not sure how much has changed since then.
- app4soft 4y ago
  > This (2021) Yes, its posted in 2021. I just added (2021) into title.
i_am_jl 4y ago
Do they? Is Lego not compliant until someone asks for the source code and they refuse?
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  They also have to provide the GPL license file with their software, which most GPL violators choose not to do. I can't check the software at the moment but if they provide the license file(s) and offer a way to get the source then there's nothing wrong, really.
  - codethief 4y ago
    > I can't check the software at the moment but if they provide the license file(s) and offer a way to get the source then there's nothing wrong, really. Notably, it would either need to be a written offer according to GPL2[0], > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, …and GPL3[1], > b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. …or, if the distribution medium is not physical, the source code would have to be provided in the same way as the original object code / binary: > d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. So, for instance, one would expect a "download source" link on https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/download.page https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/download.page but I don't see one. [0]: https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
- LamaOfRuin 4y ago
  They could be in violation on any distribution if they do not include the required notices of relevant licenses and the end-user's rights.
  - PurpleRamen 4y ago
    On the BrickLink Studio-Site they mention the License for ffmpeg and have a download-link for it. So I assume they are generally cool with these things.
    - toyg 4y ago
      Or, the ffmpeg folks detected and got in touch, so it was corrected. Blender folks might have to do the same.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Just downloaded their provided installers for both mac and win, then emailed their customer support ('customersupport@bricklink.com') to enquire about it's license, open source status, and if there's somewhere to download the source code. Received the automated "we got your message, we'll get to you when we can" style message. Lets see what they say. :)
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Initial response received today: Good Afternoon Justin, Thanks for reaching out to BrickLink, I would be happy to take a look into this for you! I, myself, do not have the knowledge base to answer this. This has been reported to my team and I will reach back out once I am presented with an answer for you. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Toby BrickLink Customer Support So, more waiting...
- belorn 4y ago
  No, the license has multiple requirements before that, including giving users a copy of the license and a written offer for source code. Lego is only compliant if they follow the conditions of the license. The first condition include this: "... and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.". Do Lego do this? What I can find is this page which does not include a copy of the GPL or a link to it: https://studiohelp.bricklink.com/hc/en-us/articles/6606313426711-Studio-Software-License-Agreement https://studiohelp.bricklink.com/hc/en-us/articles/660631342...
  - phkahler 4y ago
    That is an interesting point. How many GPL licensed projects don't follow this themselves? It might be different for the originator to not include the license and just state it on their website, but any fork or redistributor would need to provide a copy of the license to be in compliance. IMHO the best way to ensure compliance is to include full source and the license file with every download. IMHO2 this might be why Apple doesn't want GPL in their app store. One could claim Apple is redistributing it and not in full compliance depending how the developer handles these things.
  - i_am_jl 4y ago
    >Do Lego do this? Yep. It's in the install directory under /Licenses/Licenses.docx, Appendix B, provided with the Program as required.
    - belorn 4y ago
      Could you expand on that comment. Do they include attribution to the authors (as they have in blenders license) and all notices that refer to the license? In general, in order to be in compliance they also need to: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. And either accompany source code along with executable, or a written offer for source code. Including a copy of the GPL is a nice first step. Do they follow the remaining conditions?
- Karellen 4y ago
  Blender is licensed under GPL 2-or-later https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt According to that license: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [...] 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) 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; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) If the GPL license notices are not kept intact, if a copy of the GPL is not provided with the software, and if the source code - or an offer of the source code - is not provided with the software, then they are not currently compliant with the terms of the GPL.
a2800276 4y ago
Don't go too overboard.. It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation. I suggest being allowed to call them just Legos instead of "Lego™ style plastic building blocks" would be appropriate punishment.
- jollyllama 4y ago
  Didn't Bricklink make the Studio software prior to Lego's 2019 acquisition? That doesn't completely justify Lego, but I think it is another bit of relevant nuance to the situation.
  - sigwinch28 4y ago
    > That doesn't completely justify Lego Unless Bricklink actively hid it during acquisition it doesn't justify Lego at all.
  - a2800276 4y ago
    I honestly have no idea. But the title suggests malice on the side of Lego, while it links to a forum discussion with an off the cuff remark that a library is GPL. Nothing about trying to get an unwilling company to comply or similar as I was expecting. Folks here seem to be contacting the bricklink team already for clarification, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Feels to me like open sourcing would be a win for them, provided they don't link to any other code containing proprietary licenses.
  - ben7799 4y ago
    It would have been Lego's responsibility during due diligence to do a software inventory of Bricklink and determine if there were liabilities around software licenses. It is a very common thing to do. Startups cut corners and don't get attention cause they don't have a lot of money. But get bought out by a multi-billion dollar company and it gets noticed.
  - miniwark 4y ago
    One the Official Lego help page about the now retired Lego Digital Designer, they recommend to use BrickLink Studio studio instead: https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_device_guides/apps_video_games_device_guides/about-lego-digital-designer-kA009000001dcdmCAA https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_dev...
wunderland 4y ago
It's worth noting that there have been some high-profile cases of legal action being taken against GPL violators, such as the BusyBox lawsuit in 2007, which resulted in a settlement requiring the defendant to comply with the GPL and pay damages. However, many GPL violations are resolved through non-legal means, such as negotiating a license agreement or reaching a settlement outside of court. But likely this will just cause minor reputational damage among HN-types and have no real consequences.
- zoobab 4y ago
  I was maintaining a uClinux router distro back in 2003, one of the router in our list ended up in court for the first legal case for GPL violation in Germany: https://isl3893.sourceforge.net/ https://isl3893.sourceforge.net/ "17 apr 2004 - GPL testing in court by the Netfilter/Iptables team, due to refuse to give source code of the Sitecom WL-122 (isl3893 based!). In the same time, some source code has appeared on the webserver of Sitecom."
- judge2020 4y ago
  > However, many GPL violations are resolved through non-legal means, such as negotiating a license agreement or reaching a settlement outside of court. Have any actually been decided by the court?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwwwaway69 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
- bacchusracine 4y ago
  >many GPL violations are resolved through non-legal means, such as negotiating a license agreement or reaching a settlement outside of court. And IMHO this is killing the license. Companies are doing the calculations and determining that by the time they get caught they can just negotiate at best and at worst just ignore it and drag things out until it realistically no longer matters. Without teeth no one will follow their obligations.
robg 4y ago
Been wanting to get my kids into this as they get older, I’d expect Lego to do better.
- frognumber 4y ago
  I recommend Engino. It's like Lego, but much better. Lego is shit these days; most kids use them as 3D jigsaw puzzles with instructions. The creativity is gone. The blocks are designed to build a Star Wars this or a Marvel that, and not generic like when we were kids. On the other hand, a $20 Engino set lets you build almost anything, including complex mechanical linkages of the type Lego always wanted from Technics but never quite figured out how to do right. I spent around $100, so I can build really big and complex things and never run out of pieces. That's like 5 Lego sets. Only downside of Engino is lack of decent programming environment, but an HN parent should be able to integrate a Micro:bit easily enough, which then eats Lego for breakfast.
  - philips 4y ago
    Engino looks interesting for older kids. But I think that Lego compatible stuff would be way more fun with younger kids. I have been involved in the Lego MOC and Alt Build community recently via rebrickable.com and I disagree that the creativity is gone. Also, tools like webrick.com make it possible to build stuff without paying the Lego markup. I really think that the Lego system is something the whole world owns at this point due to patents being expired and it should be that way.
    - frognumber 4y ago
      I'm not sure where the breakpoint for "younger" and "older" is, but I've done Engino with kids as young as 2nd grade, but they do need help pulling pieces apart sometimes. By 4th or 5th grade, it's ideal. One of the things elementary school kids like about it is that it's possible to build big things. Younger than Engino, and I like normal blocks (wooden or foam) and Magnatiles. I wasn't familiar with webrick. That's something to perhaps explore at some point.
osamagirl69 4y ago
The link seems to be down, but from what I can gather this is linking to a forum post from 2021 where a user (possibly working on bricklink?) was asking for help. Presumably there was a more recent post since then, but I can't find it. If anyone has a copy of the more recent posts it would help the conversation. edit: it seems that the blender team noticed that bricklink is using some GPLed code from the blender project (notably, bf_blenlib) http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.blender.org/t/on-what-version-of-cycles-is-bricklink-stud-ios-eyesight-renderer-based/17566 http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.bl...
- toyg 4y ago
  Uh, the post says "they clearly lifted the GPL licensed bf_blenlib".
monkellipse 4y ago
I try generally not to be the vindictive type… but Lego being SUCH HAWKS and sticklers when it comes to brand protection, I can’t help but root for them getting skewered for this. I doubt much will really come of it, though.
fwlr 4y ago
For the people who can’t see the page - I don’t have it open anymore, but it was someone asking for help to figure out what version of certain libraries was used in the BrickLink studio software, since some flags they expected to work weren’t working. Another user replied that they did some digging into the decompiled source and found which version it was, but they also found strings from that source that matched GPL-licensed libraries (including at least one that user had written himself, because he recognized hardcoded filepaths to locations on his own machine he had used when developing the library).
- app4soft 4y ago
  Archived copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.blender.org/t/on-what-version-of-cycles-is-bricklink-stud-ios-eyesight-renderer-based/17566 http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.bl... From comment #3 in this discussion: > Got bored, did some digging in their binary, they built using some of our our svn libraries (I know it’s our libs since the paths embedded for some of the source files are local to my computer :slight_smile: ) which makes it easy to track down > they ship openimageio 1.7.15 which means the code is likely from somewhere in between 2017-06-04 and 2018-08-27 which is indeed around the 2.79 time frame. > It would have been nice if they kept the code opensource, so it could get all the improvements blender makes easily, but they seemingly chose not to go that way. which is somewhat strange since they clearly lifted the GPL licensed bf_blenlib [1] so the closed source nature of eyesight is odd to say the least. > [1] the executable contains strings like <inline>Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to Blender installation Dir! , Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to first valid drive! Path might be invalid!</inline> and <inline>BLI_dynstr_append text too long or format error.</inline> that can only could have come from bf_blenlib
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Is there precedent for that holding in court? Saying something like "I put this unusual string in my software & it is also in theirs" seems pretty useless from a legal perspective.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
goldfingeroo7 4y ago
From the website... wrtyler: I’ve been writing a lot of new custom colors for Stud.io 52. As such, I use the Blender Cycles Manual a lot for reference. However, the online manuals available for Cycles only go back to version 2.79. I think Eyesight is based on some version of 2.78 because even using the older versions of the manual there are still parameters listed that are not available in Eyesight. So…I’d like to know on which version of Cycles Eyesight is based, and if there is a Cycles manual available for that particular version. RESPONSE : LazyDodo: Got bored, did some digging in their binary, they built using some of our our svn libraries (I know it’s our libs since the paths embedded for some of the source files are local to my computer :slight_smile: ) which makes it easy to track down they ship openimageio 1.7.15 which means the code is likely from somewhere in between 2017-06-04 and 2018-08-27 which is indeed around the 2.79 time frame. It would have been nice if they kept the code opensource, so it could get all the improvements blender makes easily, but they seemingly chose not to go that way. which is somewhat strange since they clearly lifted the GPL licensed bf_blenlib [1] so the closed source nature of eyesight is odd to say the least. [1] the executable contains strings like Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to Blender installation Dir! , Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to first valid drive! Path might be invalid! and BLI_dynstr_append text too long or format error. that can only could have come from bf_blenlib
thrillgore 4y ago
It may be time to get the Conservancy involved.
cuddlyogre 4y ago
This may be answered in the link, but at present, the page is dead. What part of Studio is Blender? I'm very familiar with both Studio and Blender, and this claim surprises me. Studio itself is a Unity app. The parts library is the LDraw library with their own custom parts.
xiphias2 4y ago
I strictly use MIT / BSD style license for contributing because I believe GPL is stopping innovation by stopping refactoring libraries out of programs to be used by other programs, but doesn't really stop companies who don't want to give back source code: they just put things behind a service / different program.
- boberoni 4y ago
  How about Apache-2.0? My mental model is that MIT, BSD, and Apache are permissive, while GPL is copyleft.
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    They are all compatible, so of course it's great as well.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  GPL does not stop refactoring libraries out of programs.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Is there a whistle-blower site that compiles apparent open source license breaches?
1-6 4y ago
Is there a wall of shame for these violations?
- rokejulianlockh 4y ago
  Hopefully.
1-6 4y ago
I think this brings up a bigger question, how much of the internal tooling that's not public facing developed with open-source software?
- rokejulianlockh 4y ago
  Too much, I bet.
buildbot 4y ago
Another Danish company, Phase One (camera maker) uses Linux for their digital backs and did end up playing nice when I asked for their source, for one anecdotal evidence point. They were unaware of GPL and its requirements initially though…
andrewmcwatters 4y ago
The problem is other developers. There are some jerks out here who don't think software licensing is important, and who would have guessed? It's the same people not contributing anything back to the industry. HALF my team at my last full-time job didn't think software licensing was important. They thought services like GitHub Copilot were no big deal. My guess is they violate license requirements on a daily basis. Teach your juniors.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nothingneko 4y ago
Lego doesn't operate BrickLink Studio, it's third party
- miniwark 4y ago
  BrickLink is owned by the Lego group since 2019.
  - nothingneko 4y ago
    I did not know that
bdcravens 4y ago
I can't help but wonder how many of us use Ruby gems, NPM packages, etc that are GPLed?
miniwark 4y ago
For an alternative have a look to LeoCAD: - compatible with the LDraw Standard - work on Windows, Mac & Linux - GPL 2 https://www.leocad.org/ https://www.leocad.org/
rlkf 4y ago
The MindStorms bricks were based on Linux, but they couldn't care to even provide a text-mode uploader for new firmware that worked on Linux. Happy to take from, but not to give back to, the community. Their support didn't even understand the bug reports in the firmware when spoon-fed. No engineering left; just plain money-grab at this point.

672 points by app4soft 4y ago

Page seems to be offline (hugged to death?), and archive.today seems to be non-functional at the moment too. This (2021) version of the page is shows up on the Wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.blender.org/t/on-what-version-of-cycles-is-bricklink-stud-ios-eyesight-renderer-based/17566 http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.bl... Not sure how much has changed since then.

app4soft 4y ago
> This (2021) Yes, its posted in 2021. I just added (2021) into title.

i_am_jl 4y ago

Do they? Is Lego not compliant until someone asks for the source code and they refuse?

jeroenhd 4y ago
They also have to provide the GPL license file with their software, which most GPL violators choose not to do. I can't check the software at the moment but if they provide the license file(s) and offer a way to get the source then there's nothing wrong, really.
- codethief 4y ago
  > I can't check the software at the moment but if they provide the license file(s) and offer a way to get the source then there's nothing wrong, really. Notably, it would either need to be a written offer according to GPL2[0], > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, …and GPL3[1], > b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. …or, if the distribution medium is not physical, the source code would have to be provided in the same way as the original object code / binary: > d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. So, for instance, one would expect a "download source" link on https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/download.page https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/download.page but I don't see one. [0]: https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
LamaOfRuin 4y ago
They could be in violation on any distribution if they do not include the required notices of relevant licenses and the end-user's rights.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  On the BrickLink Studio-Site they mention the License for ffmpeg and have a download-link for it. So I assume they are generally cool with these things.
  - toyg 4y ago
    Or, the ffmpeg folks detected and got in touch, so it was corrected. Blender folks might have to do the same.
justinclift 4y ago
Just downloaded their provided installers for both mac and win, then emailed their customer support ('customersupport@bricklink.com') to enquire about it's license, open source status, and if there's somewhere to download the source code. Received the automated "we got your message, we'll get to you when we can" style message. Lets see what they say. :)
- justinclift 4y ago
  Initial response received today: Good Afternoon Justin, Thanks for reaching out to BrickLink, I would be happy to take a look into this for you! I, myself, do not have the knowledge base to answer this. This has been reported to my team and I will reach back out once I am presented with an answer for you. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Toby BrickLink Customer Support So, more waiting...
belorn 4y ago
No, the license has multiple requirements before that, including giving users a copy of the license and a written offer for source code. Lego is only compliant if they follow the conditions of the license. The first condition include this: "... and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.". Do Lego do this? What I can find is this page which does not include a copy of the GPL or a link to it: https://studiohelp.bricklink.com/hc/en-us/articles/6606313426711-Studio-Software-License-Agreement https://studiohelp.bricklink.com/hc/en-us/articles/660631342...
- phkahler 4y ago
  That is an interesting point. How many GPL licensed projects don't follow this themselves? It might be different for the originator to not include the license and just state it on their website, but any fork or redistributor would need to provide a copy of the license to be in compliance. IMHO the best way to ensure compliance is to include full source and the license file with every download. IMHO2 this might be why Apple doesn't want GPL in their app store. One could claim Apple is redistributing it and not in full compliance depending how the developer handles these things.
- i_am_jl 4y ago
  >Do Lego do this? Yep. It's in the install directory under /Licenses/Licenses.docx, Appendix B, provided with the Program as required.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Could you expand on that comment. Do they include attribution to the authors (as they have in blenders license) and all notices that refer to the license? In general, in order to be in compliance they also need to: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. And either accompany source code along with executable, or a written offer for source code. Including a copy of the GPL is a nice first step. Do they follow the remaining conditions?
Karellen 4y ago
Blender is licensed under GPL 2-or-later https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://www.blender.org/about/license/ https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt https://download.blender.org/release/GPL-license.txt According to that license: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. [...] 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) 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; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) If the GPL license notices are not kept intact, if a copy of the GPL is not provided with the software, and if the source code - or an offer of the source code - is not provided with the software, then they are not currently compliant with the terms of the GPL.

a2800276 4y ago

Don't go too overboard.. It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation. I suggest being allowed to call them just Legos instead of "Lego™ style plastic building blocks" would be appropriate punishment.

jollyllama 4y ago
Didn't Bricklink make the Studio software prior to Lego's 2019 acquisition? That doesn't completely justify Lego, but I think it is another bit of relevant nuance to the situation.
- sigwinch28 4y ago
  > That doesn't completely justify Lego Unless Bricklink actively hid it during acquisition it doesn't justify Lego at all.
- a2800276 4y ago
  I honestly have no idea. But the title suggests malice on the side of Lego, while it links to a forum discussion with an off the cuff remark that a library is GPL. Nothing about trying to get an unwilling company to comply or similar as I was expecting. Folks here seem to be contacting the bricklink team already for clarification, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Feels to me like open sourcing would be a win for them, provided they don't link to any other code containing proprietary licenses.
- ben7799 4y ago
  It would have been Lego's responsibility during due diligence to do a software inventory of Bricklink and determine if there were liabilities around software licenses. It is a very common thing to do. Startups cut corners and don't get attention cause they don't have a lot of money. But get bought out by a multi-billion dollar company and it gets noticed.
- miniwark 4y ago
  One the Official Lego help page about the now retired Lego Digital Designer, they recommend to use BrickLink Studio studio instead: https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_device_guides/apps_video_games_device_guides/about-lego-digital-designer-kA009000001dcdmCAA https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/apps_video_games_dev...

wunderland 4y ago

It's worth noting that there have been some high-profile cases of legal action being taken against GPL violators, such as the BusyBox lawsuit in 2007, which resulted in a settlement requiring the defendant to comply with the GPL and pay damages. However, many GPL violations are resolved through non-legal means, such as negotiating a license agreement or reaching a settlement outside of court. But likely this will just cause minor reputational damage among HN-types and have no real consequences.

zoobab 4y ago
I was maintaining a uClinux router distro back in 2003, one of the router in our list ended up in court for the first legal case for GPL violation in Germany: https://isl3893.sourceforge.net/ https://isl3893.sourceforge.net/ "17 apr 2004 - GPL testing in court by the Netfilter/Iptables team, due to refuse to give source code of the Sitecom WL-122 (isl3893 based!). In the same time, some source code has appeared on the webserver of Sitecom."
judge2020 4y ago
> However, many GPL violations are resolved through non-legal means, such as negotiating a license agreement or reaching a settlement outside of court. Have any actually been decided by the court?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwwwaway69 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
bacchusracine 4y ago
>many GPL violations are resolved through non-legal means, such as negotiating a license agreement or reaching a settlement outside of court. And IMHO this is killing the license. Companies are doing the calculations and determining that by the time they get caught they can just negotiate at best and at worst just ignore it and drag things out until it realistically no longer matters. Without teeth no one will follow their obligations.

robg 4y ago

Been wanting to get my kids into this as they get older, I’d expect Lego to do better.

frognumber 4y ago
I recommend Engino. It's like Lego, but much better. Lego is shit these days; most kids use them as 3D jigsaw puzzles with instructions. The creativity is gone. The blocks are designed to build a Star Wars this or a Marvel that, and not generic like when we were kids. On the other hand, a $20 Engino set lets you build almost anything, including complex mechanical linkages of the type Lego always wanted from Technics but never quite figured out how to do right. I spent around $100, so I can build really big and complex things and never run out of pieces. That's like 5 Lego sets. Only downside of Engino is lack of decent programming environment, but an HN parent should be able to integrate a Micro:bit easily enough, which then eats Lego for breakfast.
- philips 4y ago
  Engino looks interesting for older kids. But I think that Lego compatible stuff would be way more fun with younger kids. I have been involved in the Lego MOC and Alt Build community recently via rebrickable.com and I disagree that the creativity is gone. Also, tools like webrick.com make it possible to build stuff without paying the Lego markup. I really think that the Lego system is something the whole world owns at this point due to patents being expired and it should be that way.
  - frognumber 4y ago
    I'm not sure where the breakpoint for "younger" and "older" is, but I've done Engino with kids as young as 2nd grade, but they do need help pulling pieces apart sometimes. By 4th or 5th grade, it's ideal. One of the things elementary school kids like about it is that it's possible to build big things. Younger than Engino, and I like normal blocks (wooden or foam) and Magnatiles. I wasn't familiar with webrick. That's something to perhaps explore at some point.

osamagirl69 4y ago

The link seems to be down, but from what I can gather this is linking to a forum post from 2021 where a user (possibly working on bricklink?) was asking for help. Presumably there was a more recent post since then, but I can't find it. If anyone has a copy of the more recent posts it would help the conversation. edit: it seems that the blender team noticed that bricklink is using some GPLed code from the blender project (notably, bf_blenlib) http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.blender.org/t/on-what-version-of-cycles-is-bricklink-stud-ios-eyesight-renderer-based/17566 http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.bl...

toyg 4y ago
Uh, the post says "they clearly lifted the GPL licensed bf_blenlib".

monkellipse 4y ago

I try generally not to be the vindictive type… but Lego being SUCH HAWKS and sticklers when it comes to brand protection, I can’t help but root for them getting skewered for this. I doubt much will really come of it, though.

fwlr 4y ago

For the people who can’t see the page - I don’t have it open anymore, but it was someone asking for help to figure out what version of certain libraries was used in the BrickLink studio software, since some flags they expected to work weren’t working. Another user replied that they did some digging into the decompiled source and found which version it was, but they also found strings from that source that matched GPL-licensed libraries (including at least one that user had written himself, because he recognized hardcoded filepaths to locations on his own machine he had used when developing the library).

app4soft 4y ago
Archived copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.blender.org/t/on-what-version-of-cycles-is-bricklink-stud-ios-eyesight-renderer-based/17566 http://web.archive.org/web/20210301135016/https://devtalk.bl... From comment #3 in this discussion: > Got bored, did some digging in their binary, they built using some of our our svn libraries (I know it’s our libs since the paths embedded for some of the source files are local to my computer :slight_smile: ) which makes it easy to track down > they ship openimageio 1.7.15 which means the code is likely from somewhere in between 2017-06-04 and 2018-08-27 which is indeed around the 2.79 time frame. > It would have been nice if they kept the code opensource, so it could get all the improvements blender makes easily, but they seemingly chose not to go that way. which is somewhat strange since they clearly lifted the GPL licensed bf_blenlib [1] so the closed source nature of eyesight is odd to say the least. > [1] the executable contains strings like <inline>Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to Blender installation Dir! , Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to first valid drive! Path might be invalid!</inline> and <inline>BLI_dynstr_append text too long or format error.</inline> that can only could have come from bf_blenlib
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Is there precedent for that holding in court? Saying something like "I put this unusual string in my software & it is also in theirs" seems pretty useless from a legal perspective.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

goldfingeroo7 4y ago

From the website... wrtyler: I’ve been writing a lot of new custom colors for Stud.io 52. As such, I use the Blender Cycles Manual a lot for reference. However, the online manuals available for Cycles only go back to version 2.79. I think Eyesight is based on some version of 2.78 because even using the older versions of the manual there are still parameters listed that are not available in Eyesight. So…I’d like to know on which version of Cycles Eyesight is based, and if there is a Cycles manual available for that particular version. RESPONSE : LazyDodo: Got bored, did some digging in their binary, they built using some of our our svn libraries (I know it’s our libs since the paths embedded for some of the source files are local to my computer :slight_smile: ) which makes it easy to track down they ship openimageio 1.7.15 which means the code is likely from somewhere in between 2017-06-04 and 2018-08-27 which is indeed around the 2.79 time frame. It would have been nice if they kept the code opensource, so it could get all the improvements blender makes easily, but they seemingly chose not to go that way. which is somewhat strange since they clearly lifted the GPL licensed bf_blenlib [1] so the closed source nature of eyesight is odd to say the least. [1] the executable contains strings like Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to Blender installation Dir! , Error! Could not get the Windows Directory - Defaulting to first valid drive! Path might be invalid! and BLI_dynstr_append text too long or format error. that can only could have come from bf_blenlib

thrillgore 4y ago

It may be time to get the Conservancy involved.

cuddlyogre 4y ago

This may be answered in the link, but at present, the page is dead. What part of Studio is Blender? I'm very familiar with both Studio and Blender, and this claim surprises me. Studio itself is a Unity app. The parts library is the LDraw library with their own custom parts.

xiphias2 4y ago

I strictly use MIT / BSD style license for contributing because I believe GPL is stopping innovation by stopping refactoring libraries out of programs to be used by other programs, but doesn't really stop companies who don't want to give back source code: they just put things behind a service / different program.

boberoni 4y ago
How about Apache-2.0? My mental model is that MIT, BSD, and Apache are permissive, while GPL is copyleft.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  They are all compatible, so of course it's great as well.
seba_dos1 4y ago
GPL does not stop refactoring libraries out of programs.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

Is there a whistle-blower site that compiles apparent open source license breaches?

1-6 4y ago

Is there a wall of shame for these violations?

rokejulianlockh 4y ago
Hopefully.

1-6 4y ago

I think this brings up a bigger question, how much of the internal tooling that's not public facing developed with open-source software?

rokejulianlockh 4y ago
Too much, I bet.

buildbot 4y ago

Another Danish company, Phase One (camera maker) uses Linux for their digital backs and did end up playing nice when I asked for their source, for one anecdotal evidence point. They were unaware of GPL and its requirements initially though…

andrewmcwatters 4y ago

The problem is other developers. There are some jerks out here who don't think software licensing is important, and who would have guessed? It's the same people not contributing anything back to the industry. HALF my team at my last full-time job didn't think software licensing was important. They thought services like GitHub Copilot were no big deal. My guess is they violate license requirements on a daily basis. Teach your juniors.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nothingneko 4y ago

Lego doesn't operate BrickLink Studio, it's third party

miniwark 4y ago
BrickLink is owned by the Lego group since 2019.
- nothingneko 4y ago
  I did not know that

bdcravens 4y ago

I can't help but wonder how many of us use Ruby gems, NPM packages, etc that are GPLed?

miniwark 4y ago

For an alternative have a look to LeoCAD: - compatible with the LDraw Standard - work on Windows, Mac & Linux - GPL 2 https://www.leocad.org/ https://www.leocad.org/

rlkf 4y ago

The MindStorms bricks were based on Linux, but they couldn't care to even provide a text-mode uploader for new firmware that worked on Linux. Happy to take from, but not to give back to, the community. Their support didn't even understand the bug reports in the firmware when spoon-fed. No engineering left; just plain money-grab at this point.