FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian ISP

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-06-2008, 11:58 PM
Nate Duehr
 
Default Content Filtering

Craig Sanders wrote:

Freely taking lots of people's hard work on Squid and then disrespecting
it and the people working on it to sell a product and trying to act like
the product isn't based on Squid, instead of being open/honest about the
resulting commercial product being a derivative of the original, isn't
taken well by most people in the community, Squid developers, packagers,
users, or otherwise.


ah. ok. so "safesquid" is based on squid, as in a derivative of the
squid source code? are you sure? i didn't realise that. they go to some
length to hide it, and the original claim by "Sean" on this list was
that it wasn't open source but that they have a crippled free version.


Actually, I'm sorry - I have no direct evidence of that. I am making an
assumption, that may be inaccurate.



do they actually offer or provide source code to their customers?


If they ARE based on Squid, they have to by law... of course... but with
what I just sent, who knows?



if not, then they are violating the terms of squid's license (GPL v2 or
later).


Yep.


i've searched the squid mailing lists and can't see any discussion
of safesquid. a few user questions asking about it, but no answers.


Fair enough.


safesquid also seems to be integrated with other GPL-licensed programs
(incl. clamav and mysql). if they distribute them together with
safesquid, then that is more than just an aggregation as mentioned in
clause 2 of the GPLv2 (and clause 5 of the GPLv3), and they are also
violating the license terms of those programs. mysql are particularly
keen on enforcing their license terms.



Definitely. Especially now that they're owned by Oracle, who's created
an empire by heavily protecting their proprietary technology.




this, of course, also applies to squid. if safesquid isn't actually
a derivative of squid (i can't tell for sure, their web site doesn't
say), then it is still bound by the GPL if they distribute it along with
squid....just like mysql & clamav (but even more so), it's too tightly
integrated with squid to be a mere aggregation on the same distribution
media.



Uh-huh... yup.



the GPL Violations people may be able to help with all of that.

http://www.gpl-violations.org/



Wouldn't want to "go there" without proof... hard to get proof, but
maybe some smart folks can tell by the behavior of SmartSquid. Who
knows. Crazier things have happened...




ps: i've got a particular interest in and fondness for squid. i've been
using it for 12+ years, and i was the person who first packaged it for
debian back in 1996.



Cool, thanks for doing that! I've used it on and off for about that
long so I've probably benefited from your work at some point in the
past, or present!



Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 05-06-2008, 11:59 PM
Roberto C. Sánchez
 
Default Content Filtering

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:37:23AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> no, actually, this isn't about linking, it's a separate clause in
> the GPL - if you distribute your work along with a GPL work then the
> *entire* work must be licensed under the GPL *unless* it is a mere
> aggregation on the same distribution media.
>
> i.e. if your work depends upon or integrates closely with the GPL work
> (even without directly linking the code) then it is covered by the GPL
> if distributed together with the GPL code it depends upon.
>
> safesquid's use of clamav, mysql, and/or squid (assuming it isn't
> actually derived from the squid code) means that any combined
> distribution of the programs causes safesquid to fall under the GPL.
>
<SNIP>
>
> see clause 2 of GPLv2 and clause 5 of GPLv3.
>
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications ..."

So, how would me reverse engineering the client protocol to MySQL and
then distributing my application along with MySQL (assuming I comply
with other provisions, such as making the MySQL source available, etc)
require me to GPL my application? I did not modify MySQL in any way?

I guess it boils down to whether figuring out how to interoperate at a
client-server protocol level constitutes a derivative work. I think it
does not and I think that most (if not all) legal jurisdictions see it
that way.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
 
Old 05-07-2008, 12:19 AM
Craig Sanders
 
Default Content Filtering

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> ah. ok. so "safesquid" is based on squid, as in a derivative of the
>> squid source code? are you sure? i didn't realise that. they go to some
>
> Actually, I'm sorry - I have no direct evidence of that. I am making an
> assumption, that may be inaccurate.

this issue has annoyed me enough that i'm going to follow it up and find
out. i'll try asking on one of the squid lists.


> Definitely. Especially now that they're owned by Oracle, who's
> created an empire by heavily protecting their proprietary technology.

Mysql was bought by Sun, actually, not Oracle.

Oracle bought the InnoDB engine. prompting mysql to work on their
Falcon transactional db engine....which i don't really expect to see
in production use for at least two years.

(don't see the point in either, myself....if you need a free real
db, use postgres. if a toy db is good enough, then use mysql's
myisam...using anything but myisam in mysql completely destroys mysql's
only real advantage - raw speed for simple read-only or read-mostly
apps, i.e. mostly SELECT queries with few or no INSERTs or UPDATEs)


>> ps: i've got a particular interest in and fondness for squid. i've been
>> using it for 12+ years, and i was the person who first packaged it for
>> debian back in 1996.
>
> Cool, thanks for doing that! I've used it on and off for about that
> long so I've probably benefited from your work at some point in the
> past, or present!

Miquel van Smoorenburg adopted the package a few months after i uploaded
it - he needed more timely updates than i did...and did a much better
job of tracking the new versions

craig

--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 05-07-2008, 12:36 AM
Roberto C. Sánchez
 
Default Content Filtering

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:19:51AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> (don't see the point in either, myself....if you need a free real
> db, use postgres. if a toy db is good enough, then use mysql's
> myisam...using anything but myisam in mysql completely destroys mysql's
> only real advantage - raw speed for simple read-only or read-mostly
> apps, i.e. mostly SELECT queries with few or no INSERTs or UPDATEs)
>
Heh. I am a big Postgres fan myself. I've heard MySQL described as
"proof that if you remove every feature that makes a database a
database, you can make it go really fast."

The funny thing is that if you look at any decent benchmark, you see
that MySQL's performance only holds for relative small databases.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
 
Old 05-07-2008, 12:36 AM
Craig Sanders
 
Default Content Filtering

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 07:59:26PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:37:23AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > see clause 2 of GPLv2 and clause 5 of GPLv3.
> >
> "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> distribute such modifications ..."

here's clause 2 of GPLv2, with relevant bits highlighted:

---cut here---
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
^^^

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) 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.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it.
^^

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
collective works based on the Program.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

---cut here---


GPLv3 has significantly different wording (and i don't know it anywhere
near as well as i know v2).


> So, how would me reverse engineering the client protocol to MySQL and
> then distributing my application along with MySQL (assuming I comply
> with other provisions, such as making the MySQL source available, etc)
> require me to GPL my application? I did not modify MySQL in any way?

reverse engineering is not relevant to this point.

combined or collective distribution is what is relevant here.


> I guess it boils down to whether figuring out how to interoperate at a
> client-server protocol level constitutes a derivative work. I think it
> does not and I think that most (if not all) legal jurisdictions see it
> that way.

no, it's about distributing a combined work. the act of distributing a
combined work requires the whole combined work to be licensed under the
terms of the GPL (with an exception for mere aggregation), *REGARDLESS*
of if or how the programs are linked together.

standard copyright laws apply. in most (all?) countries with copyright
laws, that means that you can't re-distribute copyrighted works without
the copyright holder's permission. The GPL grants permission to do that
IF AND ONLY IF you follow the terms of the license. if you are unable
or unwilling to follow ALL of the terms, then you are not permitted to
distribute the GPL-ed work at all.


craig

--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 05-07-2008, 05:55 PM
Nate Duehr
 
Default Content Filtering

Craig Sanders wrote:


(don't see the point in either, myself....if you need a free real
db, use postgres. if a toy db is good enough, then use mysql's
myisam...using anything but myisam in mysql completely destroys mysql's
only real advantage - raw speed for simple read-only or read-mostly
apps, i.e. mostly SELECT queries with few or no INSERTs or UPDATEs)


Or (at the risk of someone THINKING I'm anti-free, which I'm not... just
offering alternatives)... if you don't need free, buy Informix. Almost
20 years of development effort, runs as well/better than Oracle, and
still has 1980s prices.


IBM bought them, it's not "going anywhere" but IBM wants to sell DB2
more than they want to sell Informix, so it doesn't get a lot of
"press". It just sits there and runs... and runs... and runs... like
good software should.


Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org