webferret

[Christopher Chan]

Florian Diesch wrote:
> Christopher Chan <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> writes:
>
>   
>> Florian Diesch wrote:
>>     
>>> Christopher Chan <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> writes:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Florian Diesch wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Florian Diesch wrote:
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Graham Todd <grahamtodd2 at googlemail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:25:23 -0400
>>>>>>>> Jay Daniels <tux at myt60.net> uttered these words:
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Your next favorite java app:  http://tinyurl.com/6a3by
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> The blurb says:
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Not surprisingly, BlogBridge is also Open Source.
>>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> ...but Blogbridge is **NOT** free software (as defined by gnu.org)
>>>>>>>> since you will have to sign up to a restrictive licensing agreement.
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> They offer you to use it under GPL as well. And I guess their own
>>>>>>> license is illegal as the program includes GPL software.
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> If it does pull in GPL code, 
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I didn't check that, but I can't think of any other explanation for
>>>>> this kind of dual-license.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> If it is YOUR code, you can license it anyway you like. Eg: I can 
>>>> license it to you under GPL and to Tom under some other license where he 
>>>> is allowed to distribute changes without releasing the source code 
>>>> changes at all. What is your problem if I license it to you under GPL 
>>>> and to Tom under something else? It is NONE of your business what I do 
>>>> with MY code.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> If your code uses code that is licensed to you under GPL you are not
>>> allowed to release your code under any other license.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Pal, please make things clear...one does not license one's own code. If 
>> you suspect they are infringing on somebody else's code, then you have 
>> to prove that they are using GPL code not of their own creation.
>>     
>
> Over here I'm allowed to just guess things ;-)
>
> But yes, the tar Archive includes (in lib/aelfred2.jar) code from
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/jaxp> with a copy of the GPL.
>
>
>   
Then they do not have complete ownership of the code. Too bad.


>   
>>> As it doesn't make much sense to distribute software under GPL and a
>>> much more restrictive license that doesn't give any benefits to the
>>> user I suspect that they are using GPL'ed code and try to get away
>>> with this dual-licensing.
>>>
>>>       
>> Have you heard of MySQL? That is dual-licensed. Have you heard of qt? 
>> That was dual-licensed and might still be even though qt 4.5 is now 
>> available under LGPL. Restrictive? No benefits? How about being able to 
>> use your code, modify it and only have to provide binaries when 
>> distributing (whether by selling sublicenses or what not) and no source 
>> code to you or others while under license to you?
>>     
>
> The BlogBridge EULA doesn't allow to distribute or modify the
> code. Which benefits over the GPL do you see in the BlogBridge EULA?
>
>   

I could care less about that if it was all their code. But since they 
are using GPL software mixed in with their own stuff, they might make a 
suitable lab rat for a court case. Inform the FSF or Electronic Frontier 
or whoever.