17 ms·
Let's check the some facts. (Conclusions: the author seems right.) The application author claims that, among the others, a "DocuManager" application bundled it
by gioele 14y ago
Let's check the some facts. (Conclusions: the author seems right.)
The application author claims that, among the others, a "DocuManager" application bundled its software and sold it with 1) disclosing that the original software is his "Mayan EDMS" 2) abiding to the licence (GPLv2).
Google tells us that there are two DocuManager applications:
1) http://www.evolusoft.com/documanager.html http://www.evolusoft.com/documanager.html
2) http://documanager.co.uk/ http://documanager.co.uk/
3) http://www.documanager.de/ http://www.documanager.de/
Point 1: Mayan EDMS is not properly credited.
A search for "mayan site:X" did not find anything in any of these sites. The author seems right.
Point 2: GPL terms not respected.
One of the GPL terms deals with the fact that you must distribute the licence text itself or offer a way to do so. The string GPL must, thus, appear somewhere in the site.
The query in this case is "GPL site:X". Site 1 and 3 have no page with the term GPL inside. Site 2 instead seems to talk about a GPL version and a commercial, extended, closed version: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.documanager.de%2Fmagazin%2Fsystemvorstellung_bitfarm_archiv_dms.html&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...
As is for point 1, author is right about point 2 for all these three applications.
We do not know which software the author of Mayam EDMS was referring to when he wrote "DocuManager", but, in any case, none of the three surveyed applications seems to fulfil the licence terms.
- Xylakant 14y agodocumanager.de is a portal that revolves around document management. There seems to be a magazine and an expert exchange/consulting business attached, but it's not a product. So they certainly don't infringe. documanager.co.uk seems to be a windows native application and has the sites copyright tag set to 2005. An unlike candidate for infringement on a django-based python webapp. evolusofts application runs on IIS and Microsoft SQL Server. It provides a twain scanner interface. Also an unlikely candidate - thought it just might be. Still, I don't buy it without another indicator other than the matching name. Conclusion: Your post seems wrong. They simply don't mention Mayan or the GPL since they're not based on a GPL product.
- cube13 14y agoI did a quick google search for the other two infringing products, and I get nothing for "Kratos 0.12.3". The only hit is the original source. MagicDocs does get a hit, but the last time it was updated on download.com was 2005, well before Mayan EDMS even existed.
- Xylakant 14y agoI can confirm that. I can find neither of the alleged violations which makes it harder for me to believe the story. I sympathise with the author, but at the moment I don't buy it in full.
- ircmaxell 14y ago> The query in this case is "GPL site:X". Site 1 and 3 have no page with the term GPL inside. GPL has no requirement that the site make any mention of the license. It says the license must be included with the distribution. So check the download...