8 ms·
Sparrow made downloadable to conform to LGPL
- pizza 14y agoI wonder if the guy that made the Windows version will release his...
- kiyoto 14y agoApparently, what prompted this decision was their use of Tokyo Cabinet and Tokyo Dystopia.
- nickmain 14y agoThis is not the entire source of Sparrow - just the binaries required to relink with the LGPL libraries if you should choose to modify those.
- azakai 14y agoYes, the downloads appear to contain just .a files and other related stuff, not source code of Sparrow itself or of the dependent libraries.
- nicholassmith 14y agoIf you play with LGPL you have to stick to the terms, it's a fair trade off. What I don't get is why Sparrow doesn't OSS it to save some face and allow it to be run under community guidance as they've obviously decided to mothball it. It's not like Google is a stranger to the world of OSS anyway, might salve some annoyed buyers.
- paxcoder 14y ago<quote>If you do not or cannot agree the license[sic], please do not download the files.</quote> Sounds like they're trying to enforce an LGPL-incompatible license on the changes to the LGPL'd libs, and pass it on as complying.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dvdkhlng 14y agoQuite funny they write that they release to conform to LGPL 2.1 part 6.a. But by writing "You may download those files only for your own use. Customer may not redistribute any work based on those files." they are quite clearly in violation of at least LGPL 2.1. part 2.c "You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." and part 10 "[..] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.[..]" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1
- DannyBee 14y agoYou are confusing two completely different sections. Section 2 deals with the Library, that is, the LGPL code. It says this quite clearly "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:..." Section 6 deals with a work that uses the library, and combining it with the library, which is the combined work of the LGPL code + whatever else.
- dvdkhlng 14y agoYou're right, I overlooked how they restricted their license restriction "The following restrictions apply to everything [..] in these downloads, except for the open source pieces. ". Now it starts making sense.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
- hnriot 14y agoI'm not sure why everyone is so gung ho about Sparrow, the reviews haven't been good and my personal experience using it was that it was a very underwhelming product. It doesn't offer the whole set of gmail features, and for anything other than gmail it's even worse. I thought we'd all moved on from thick-client email apps. Admittedly gmail on IOS is awful, but since gmail supports exchange access, it's possible to use the built in email client and get push notifications. Even before Sparrow was acquired, teh reviews were less than stellar. Everyone keeps trying to change email, let's leave it alone, it works fine, its one of the few technologies that has lasted any length of time and still be on top. nntp, gopher, etc all faded away, but pop, smtp, and then imap have flourished and become the de-facto way the world communicates.
- ketralnis 14y ago> I'm not sure why everyone is so gung ho about Sparrow There just aren't enough good email clients. Having another one is good. > I thought we'd all moved on from thick-client email apps Speak for yourself. I hate using webapps for a number of reasons but email is one of the worst cases for them IMO. > its one of the few technologies that has lasted any length of time and still be on top. nntp, gopher, etc all faded away, but pop, smtp, and then imap have flourished and become the de-facto way the world communicates Sparrow uses those protocols so I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's easy to cherry-pick dead/dying protocols. HTTP and DNS are also ancient protocols that still exist but it's not because of any technical superiority, it's because of having critical mass for adoption.
- rhizome 14y agoThere's no accounting for taste.
- flatline3 14y ago> I thought we'd all moved on from thick-client email apps. No, "we" haven't.
- hnriot 14y agoWe must know different people. I think (aside from the iOS built in email client) I don't know anyone that would even think of using a thick client, except to keep a backup of their gmail. Obviously it sounds like your experience is different, depends on the crowd we hang out with I suppose.
- geofft 14y agoThese are patches to the LGPL'd components they use, not Sparrow itself, right? (The LGPL specifically requires that you only release your modifications to the library, not your own code.) The only interesting things are some images, and some patch files inside lib/ -- nothing appears to be Sparrow's own source code. It looks like they also toss in some compiled versions of Sparrow-proprietary code for debugging reasons, which I _think_ explains their incongruous licensing terms, but they're still strange.
- saurik 14y agoThe LGPL requires you, if you static ally link against such libraries, to release all of the rest of the build environment required to rebuild a working program from changed LGPL components; this involves releasing binary objects.
- alok-g 14y agoDoes it require the entire build environment (as in all the tools used for building) or just the binary objects? In other words, do the build scripts become subjected to the LGPL?
- DannyBee 14y agoNo. The LGPL requires you release them, it does not require you release them under the LGPL.
- ajasmin 14y agoIs that just their changes to the LGPL components or the whole app? My understanding is that if you dynamically link to an LGPL library you're only required to distribute changes to that library not the whole app. Also I don't get these two license clauses. If the point is to conform to the LGPL they can't just add another license on top. Could this be a clumsy excuse for opensourcing Sparrow without having Goolge complain? Also didn't the Apple Store license explicitly prohibit GPL code? Does that include the LGPL as well I can't recall off-hand? Edit: As pointed out in the responses this is really just a bunch of .a files (static libraries), a couple of diffs against the libraries code and a script for linking sparrow together. The page provides little details and I though it was a source release This is apparently a way to conform with the LGPL on a system where dynamic linking is impractical.
- ksherlock 14y agoA lot of people think LGPL means "library", but that's wrong. If you use an LGPL component, the end user must be able to replace the LGPL component. With a dynamically linked library, no problem. In sparrow's case, they apparently used used static linking. Since end users still have the right to replace that LGPL component, sparrow needs to supply their intermediate (.o) files so end users can re-link with a modified LGPL component.
- dvdkhlng 14y ago"the end user must be able to replace the LGPL component" seems to be too one-sided IMO. The user must be able to get the source, modify it, and make his modified version work with any (proprietary) application that chose to use the LGPLed code as a component. For that to be possible the proprietary application's authors must distribute their software with clear documentation stating which LGPLed components were used and provide source code and build scripts to rebuild these parts and relink them with the rest of their application. They also have to give you all the rights under the LGPL to further distribute and use any of their modifications to the LGPLed code for any purpose (not limited to use with their application).
- 14y ago
- malkia 14y agoHow were they able to use LGPL on the iOS? Okay to put in less licensing, more technical-wise way: As far as I know on the iOS dynamic linking is possible, but not allowed (I could be wrong). For my pet projects (luajit on the ios) I'm using it without problems, but I don't plan on publishing anything. So back to the licensing - LGPL is about dynamic linking...
- ars 14y agoWhy can't you use LGPL with static linking? The LGPL license specifically mentions both: "Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules...."
- malkia 14y agoMaybe we are reading different licenses (I much prefer BSD or MIT, or even public domain myself - like sqlite/zlib). But according to this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version. It's possible that I'm posting something out of context, or that the Tokyo Cabinet authors have changed their permission. Another thing is that whatever was submitted by the Sparrow folks - was precompiled .a static libraries and some frameworks - not source code changes. Well there were few diff files, and that was it.
- ars 14y agoSorry, copied from the wrong place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Licen... says: "Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided." But with no citation. From reading on it, the consensus is that if your wrote your code such that it was possible to replace the LGPL part with a different (API compatible) library, and all you would need is a recompile then it's legal. But if your code is written such that the LGPL parts can not be replaced then it's not.
- alpb 14y agoDirectly launching Sparrow.app in the zip causes crash (maybe because I already have, I don't know why). Anyone else observed this? Anyone else managed to build a bundle from .sh file?
- _coeus 14y agoEdit the Build-mac.sh file at the top to /applications/xcode.app, I was able to build after that.
- alpb 14y agoI already fixed that but ld couldn't link -lcrypto, I believe it is about libssl which should be present by default. What's size of your produced .app package? The one I purchased is around ~48mb.
- shellox 14y agoHave you fixed it? I have the same problem and I'm still looking for a solution. EDIT: got it; -dynamiclib -isysroot $xcodepath/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk \ to -dynamiclib -isysroot $xcodepath/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.7.sdk \
- metamorfos 14y agoI couldn't get it to build at all, since it can't find ` -lcrypto`...bugging...
- franzus 14y agoHave you installed the XCode command line tools? Also have you updated to a recent (4.4+) XCode version?
- metamorfos 14y agoI believe I have xcode 4.3, time to snatch the new one I suppose! Thanks
- alok-g 14y agoPossibly a naive question: These LGPL clauses say the binaries for the work that uses the library must be released with the modified source code of the library itself. Does that imply that people would be free to use binaries (and thus the product)? Am asking for the general case, not specifically for Sparrow.
- asdfaoeu 14y agoThey only have to distribute these binaries to people who already brought the product. My guess as to why it is public ally accessible is that due to selling it through the app store they can't tell who actually brought it and the amount of people who can compile this, would pirate it, couldn't pirate from somewhere else and would have brought it if they couldn't pirate it is pretty minimal.
- smackfu 14y agoPresumably this came out of the Google due diligence before purchase.
- ajross 14y agoAlmost certainly true. I doubt the Sparrow developers were deliberately misusing the libraries (which LGPL code was used, btw?). It's just that packaging and shipping a relinkable binary was way, way down the priority list and they probably just never got around to it. But for a big corporation with an established IP policy, that's a big no-no.
- seppo0010 14y agoplcrashreporter, gdata-objectivec-client and tokyodystopia are the patches released.
- jvoorhis 14y agoThat's exactly right. I was part of a similar audit at a past company during their exit. We essentially had to inventory the license of every Rails plugin, script, etc. we had ever used.
- rdg 14y agoYeah, they open sourced like... two files...
- TheGateKeeper 14y ago> Customer may not redistribute any work based on those files Well it's a good thing I'm not a customer!
- zobzu 14y ago"Customer may not redistribute modificatin to source code" "customer may not reverse engineer" oh joy.
- metamorfos 14y agoIs it only me but my Sparrow.app (that I built from source) has ads in it?!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]