3 ms·
Like other recent complaints about people abusing licences, this doesn't seem so obvious: > If you fork Mayan EDMS into a closed or private respository, stop a
by misnome 14y ago
Like other recent complaints about people abusing licences, this doesn't seem so obvious:
> If you fork Mayan EDMS into a closed or private respository, stop and think about what you are doing because you going about it the wrong way.
Wouldn't his definition of "fork" mean that nobody would be able to check out the source repository to view it?
> Likewise if you fork Mayan EDMS and the first patch you commit is to change the name, stop. It has come to my attention that there are a number of unauthorized forks of Mayan EDMS being offered for download as if the original version was being abandoned
As long as the upstream is attributed, does the GPL3 explicitly prohibit this? If people are not displaying the GPL licence and attribution, that is obviously a violation, but this doesn't necessarily mean that.
> and at least one fork is being sold with a comercial license to add insult to injury.
I don't know enough about the GPL to know if you can "sell" GPL software (with sources and attribution, of course, which these might have)
> These violators have been listed in a new page called GPL violations.
Listing is one thing, but no information on what specifically they have done or whether he has contacted them to request they comply/sent C&D. Removing the development source just seems to be like throwing a tantrum - you are always going to get people who try to abuse GPL, and the only way to avoid it is to fight them, or close the licence (which is complicated if you have accepted user contributions).
- timskinner 14y ago(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a free software enthusiast) > As long as the upstream is attributed, does the GPL3 explicitly prohibit this? If people are not displaying the GPL licence and attribution, that is obviously a violation, but this doesn't necessarily mean that. The GPL doesn't require attribution, merely that you comply with the terms of the GPL, in terms of making sure that any derived works are covered under the GPL. In fact, the GPL is incompatible with some versions of the BSD license because they require attribution. It's quite sensible to rename a project if you fork it so as to not violate the original developers trademark on the name (e.g. debian referring to their build of Firefox as Iceweasel) > I don't know enough about the GPL to know if you can "sell" GPL software (with sources and attribution, of course, which these might have) The GPL has no prohibitions against selling software covered under the GPL, as long as the software is licensed under the GPL and the source is made available. If selling GPL software were a violation of the terms of the GPL then companies like Redhat and Oracle could not sell their commercial distributions of Linux. This is why the FSF is careful to use the term "proprietary software" instead of "commercial software", since there is nothing in the GPL to prevent the software from being commercialized as long as it complies with the license.