Recommended Posts

We understand the requirements of the GPL.

 

I'm sure you understand them, you're just a scumbag who'll need a lawsuit before you comply with them.  Hope you get what's coming to you.

I think you should read more of the forum before making a statement like that.  No lawsuit will occur, as none is needed to force GPL code to be released.  You clearly have not yet gotten to this post http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=19.msg192#msg192 in this same thread.  Your first post certainly seems like you still have a lot to learn.

 

The modified "md" driver GPL source code and required distribution notification files have been available for a very long time and are in fact included with the unRAID product.

There is no source code available for the proprietary parts of unRAID that were not built on top of GPL code. (The management interface and the user-file-system)  

 

Joe L.

Link to comment
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We understand the requirements of the GPL.

 

I'm sure you understand them, you're just a scumbag who'll need a lawsuit before you comply with them.  Hope you get what's coming to you.

 

Holy dead thread revival batman!...

 

As JoeL said above you really need to read through the rest of the thread before you go and make accusations and assumptions.

Link to comment
I think you should read more of the forum before making a statement like that.  No lawsuit will occur, as none is needed to force GPL code to be released.  You clearly have not yet gotten to this post http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=19.msg192#msg192 in this same thread.  Your first post certainly seems like you still have a lot to learn.

 

The modified "md" driver GPL source code and required distribution notification files have been available for a very long time and are in fact included with the unRAID product.

There is no source code available for the proprietary parts of unRAID that were not built on top of GPL code. (The management interface and the user-file-system)  

 

Joe L.

 

GPL compliance mandates more than just throwing up the source somewhere on the web.  The license.txt file is not GPL compliant.

 

Infact if you do a search of "unRAID Server 4.5.zip" for the words General Public License you'll only find references to it in buried directory that has some md source files.  The author makes no attempt to tell users that they can request the source code, etc in license.txt and vaguely refers to "Open Source Software" having it's own licenses that are not included.

 

My statement still stands and I don't care if you delete my account.

 

Link to comment

My intention is not to violate the GPL.  Our product obviously couldn't exist without being built upon GPL code.  Very early on (several years ago), the GPL police spelled out a number of gripes they had which I believe have been addressed.  But here is my objection: why do you immediately resort to personal attacks?  A simple email to me that starts out, "Hey I think you are violating some terms of the GPL..." would be more honorable, agreed?

 

GPL compliance mandates more than just throwing up the source somewhere on the web.

First, the modified source is not even on the "web", this is not a requirement.  Perhaps you can show me in a GPL document the word "mandate"?

 

The license.txt file is not GPL compliant.

How so?  I didn't know "GPL compliancy" applied to a license file.  If you point out to me a document describing what I have to put in my license file I will be more than glad to do it.

 

Infact if you do a search of "unRAID Server 4.5.zip" for the words General Public License you'll only find references to it in buried directory that has some md source files.

How is this not compliant?

 

The author makes no attempt to tell users that they can request the source code, etc in license.txt and vaguely refers to "Open Source Software" having it's own licenses that are not included.

Ok, tell me what I have to do here.

 

My statement still stands and I don't care if you delete my account.

If you are willing to help me close any gaps in our GPL compliancy, then fine, let's do so in a mature discussion.  If no matter what I do you won't be satisfied, then I refuse to waste any more time with you.

 

Link to comment

We understand the requirements of the GPL.

 

I'm sure you understand them, you're just a scumbag who'll need a lawsuit before you comply with them.  Hope you get what's coming to you.

 

Wow, pleasure to meet you too.  This is always the way to make an entrance.  This is purely trolling for crap.  To resurrect a nearly 3 year old thread with such a rude, uneducated post is just stupid.  There are MANY ways to contact Lime-Tech directly.  Everyone else that was trying to enforce GPL seemed to be satisfied with the result (even one of the coders effected) and yet you come in hear calling Tom a scumbag and threatening lawsuits.  Classy,  very classy. 

Link to comment

Agreed, this guy is the sort of truly pathetic troll that gives open source a REALLY bad name. Way back when I was one of the folks calling for compliance on the AVS forum - Tom complied. In fact I even had a developer once upon a time contact me, since I was a licensed user, and ask me for the source that was supplied. Guess what - he was SATISFIED with what he got which I took right off the files LimeTech distributes. It's a real shame that so many people think GPL stands for give me everything I ask for no questions asked and take so very little time to bother to figure out what the REAL requirements are. Sure, it's possible that Tom doesn't fully comply especially if any of the source is GPL3 but really was THIS the way to approach him? Opening up a YEARS old thread with a posting like that?! there are teams of folks and mailing lists that do nothing but look for non-compliant code and you know what - none of them seem to be knocking here. Tom has been reasonable, he has been responsive, and he freely admits what he has used and tells folks what parts he doesn't share code from and why. I really have to laugh at the twits with so little social skills who post crap like this guy did and then somehow expect a reasonable response. Actually no he probably doesn't - most trolls don't. Go away and come back when you've learned some manners and have actually spent some time reading the GPL. Is it any wonder so many companies won't touch GPL code with a ten foot pole?

Link to comment

I have had some dealings with the GPL police myself and my experience was a good one. The problem is you need to be a lawyer to really understand GPL. People who claim GPL knowledge usually insert the word "required" into talks all the time where GPL doesn't actually require all that much.

 

I too, like Limetech, would like to see where GPL has been breached. I believe if it has its done so without mallice and due to a lack of clarity on what are actual requirements of GPL often being smoke and mirrors.

 

Facts not speculation.

 

For instance "GPL compliance mandates more than just throwing up the source somewhere on the web."

 

Correct it doesn't require you to upload it to the web at all. It encourages it but doesn't require it.

 

"The author makes no attempt to tell users that they can request the source code, "

 

This is a requirement but its not a requirement that it is on the web or even delivered via the web. The author can even post it using snail mail on paper and charge for postage and still be within GPL.

 

Please please like the other that posted before me keep this civil. If Tom so chooses he can comply with GPL specifics and damn everyone who thinks they know what GPL is and dont.

 

I suggest that if someone says "not GPL" again they post a simple refrence to it from the license or ancillary documentation. To many Chinese whispers with what is actually required.

Link to comment

I for one would like Tom to be able to concentrate on UnRaid 5 or getting the new linux kernel in a beta instead of questions about the GPL. Most people don't give a damn or understand it.

 

I'm with you on this. Tom has always been accommodating. It's one of the reasons I suggested not feeding this issue unless the core subject matter is being discussed. If being discussed provide facts & data to support it.

Link to comment

I agreed (and disagree).

 

It is important to fix any GPL issues. Breach of GPL is a bad thing and not responding to notification of GPL breach is just as bad (in legal terms). The problem is most of the claims so far are FUD and not fact.

 

But there is absolutely no reason we cant do all the leg work for Tom by analyzing the actual claims on non compliance.

 

I actually find it quite fun getting to the bottom of these claims so Tom let us do this for you and ignore the thread until one of the regulars PM you with any actual problems.

 

Best of both worlds.

Link to comment

Wouldn't most of these non GPL compliance complaints be mitigated if all the source that is required was simply provided on the website? Why doesn't he just do that anyway? I can't see it breaking the bank to add a few download links. I think it would stop a lot of this discussion and accusing. I can fully understand people getting upset when even though Lime Technology is apparently complying with the GPL, they sure don't make it easy to find that out. I remember the outrage over the Linksys routers that pretty much completely stopped when Linksys provided their router source available for download on their website, and it's still there even though they have moved their routers over to non GPL software.

 

So anyway, I have a serious question for "Tom". Why not simply provide a download link for the source on the website? Which will as a result likely shut up all these self proclaimed GPL police.

Link to comment

under the GPL all source would need to be provided. not just the source to the md driver, but also things like emhttp. because of the way unraid uses a license (rsa, encrypted with a private key, decrypted with a public key to verify serial of flash drive) one could modify the source to generate their own license or remote the need for a license all together

 

i would guess that the license will be moved to something other than GPL soon enough

Link to comment

under the GPL all source would need to be provided. not just the source to the md driver, but also things like emhttp.

The parts of the unRAID product that do not contain GPL code are NOT required in any way to be made public.  It has always been completely legal to run a proprietary program or module along with programs and modules that are GPL on the same computer. 

 

The "md" driver is GPL, originally based on the GPL "md" driver.  The emhttp module and user-file-system module are proprietary. 

You can run the "md" driver without emhttp.  It would not be easy to control the unRAID server and configure it, but it would run.  They are separate programs. 

 

They would not be considered separate programs if they were linked together in a shared address space (this is not the case in unRAID for either emhttp or shfs)

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

The communications to the "md" driver are through the /proc file-system and are not in an binary format.  In fact, it is ascii readable text.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs.

Communicating as it does, as a separate program, "emhttp" would not fall under the GPL.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, with all due respect, "emhttp" and the "user-share-file-system" (shfs) do not fall under the GPL at all.

Link to comment

The source already is available on the website; it's included with every version of unRAID. Anyone who claims to have an issue is trolling or ignorant.

You COMPLETELY missed the point of my post. Besides, it would be nice to get a response from Lime Tech. No one else needs to respond to it as their responses don't mean anything.

Link to comment

Well, the other posts were actually good and informative. Most of the posts I see from BRiT around the forum though are usually very condescending, rude, and short ones that serve to purpose other than to attack others. Whatever dude, I probably shouldn't even bother responding to your posts considering the way you act.

Link to comment

I apologize if the succinctness of my posts come off the wrong way. I always forget that others read emotions into text when there should be none. If I was intending to be condescending, rude, or attacking I'd have added in "or suffer from inferiority complexes or paranoia", but I have not. Text only is a difficult medium to convey those feel-good warm-and-fuzzy emotions as well as my personalty.

 

I view this GPL matter as a simple boolean matter; Limetech is GPL compliant. Your posts and some others' make it sound as if they are not. I was merely stating facts to correct any perceived F.U.D.

 

Once again, I apologize for my succinctness.

Link to comment

OK excellent.

 

I have done some reading and concluded that 50% of everything ever written about GPL is FUD. However so far there are some areas where I have some concerns.

 

Limetech LLC is required by GPL to make available copies of the source code for every released version of unRAID for  3 years after the last issue date of the GPL protected item. This source code should be the entire source code for the item end to end (copyright and non GPL items excluded obviously).

 

Methods of delivery are typically via the web or on request by snail mail CD. This CD and postage can be charged but only at cost.

 

Now this is where it gets annoying. Since Limetech has not included the source in the downloadable (I choose my words very carefully the GPL requires that you take on the source code redistribution of any donor GPL projects. i.e. the kernel and slack code) we can only assume compliance is via CD delivery.

 

Making no judgments I would be surprised if asking for an ancient version of unRAID source compliant with GPL on CD would be easy to produce. There is also nothing to stop someone asking for each version individually or asking every day ad nausium or getting all their friends to ask. This is typically why projects use web based delivery methods as you produce the package once and forget about it.

 

I can say definatively that since I can find no "written offer" to produce these CDs on the website that is small breach of GPL.

 

I am still wading through the documentation so there may be more small issues.

 

Please keep in mind that unRAID is a commercial "for profit" project and all the usual latitudes of effort vs gain and "they are only a small project of a few guys" are not relevant. GPL compliance is a legal and binding requirement for L-LLC to charge for the product.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.