PostFrontal Forum
PostFrontal Forum
PF Home | International_Forum | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


 All Forums
 LK8000 International Support
 General Support
 XCsoar copyright violations
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Coolwind
Moderator

Italy
8957 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  12:13:39  Show Profile  Visit Coolwind's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Many of you remember the times Max Kellermann has been writing here and around about copyright violations of LK, or when he was shouting to be an author of LK (false), or many other circumstances. Normally I ignore him, but it seems we cannot ignore now the fact that he is distributing at his name on android market the xcsoar software which is using some of our translations (copyright by respective authors) some of my code and probably other's also, without printing the copyright authors anywhere. Not even on the web site.

It is a real shame that people will read XCsoar by Max Kellermann, while he constantly use other's work.
It will be interesting to know what other "distributors" think about copyright violations.

D-2402
Pulcino

Germany
26 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  13:28:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Paolo,

most people, including myself, deeply respect and value both you and your teams' efforts on LK8000 as well as Max' and his fellow's efforts relative to xcsoar. I think both packages are the best one can use for gliding.

I don't know about the others here but I can say for myself that I am pretty fed up with that little war going on between you an Max. I have posted the same (on a similar occasion) on the German speaking gliding forum (forum.segelflug.de).

It's perfectly ok for you and Max to have that quarrel and to plague each other with copyright issues most of the rest of us here may not even understand, let alone judge. My suggestion, though, is for you and Max to have that quarrel carried out privately and not in front of us here.

Both of you are severely damaging your reputation of being grand software developers for the gliding community through those public flame wars.

regards
Torsten

Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. AT&T is a modem test command.
Go to Top of Page

Coolwind
Moderator

Italy
8957 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  13:55:30  Show Profile  Visit Coolwind's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Thanks Torsten, I appreciate your words. Unfortunately, I have to deal with the fact that he has set up also a web page against me, and I have enough. The message above was written in advance to some actions I shall take in next weeks, most probably. But apart for this, so far I have always been only replying to their messages, and avoid any provocation.
I have attempted a couple of weeks ago to contact Max Kellermann to try and solve this dispute privately, but got no answer from him despite what he writes on his blog. That's all about it.
Go to Top of Page

_Turbo_
Pulcino

50 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  14:31:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Paolo,

I know I'm acutally banned, but please have a look at http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/AUTHORS and please rethink the term "without printing the copyright authors anywhere". The AUTHORS file is even included in the executable when you click on "Credits" in the "Info" menu.

Turbo
Go to Top of Page

Coolwind
Moderator

Italy
8957 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  15:22:02  Show Profile  Visit Coolwind's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Thats not what I call printing the authors, by hiding them in a lost file and not in the main web site. This is not nor ethical nor reasonable to me. You print the authors where people expect to find them. People is downloading your application from the web, and there you must show the copyrights, clearly, just like we do.
Go to Top of Page

_Turbo_
Pulcino

50 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  15:45:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As I said, the file is embedded in the application but I will put a link on the website too in the next days. Thanks for the suggestion.
Go to Top of Page

Coolwind
Moderator

Italy
8957 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  16:02:05  Show Profile  Visit Coolwind's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Fine for me. We do have the same on our website.
Go to Top of Page

modellbobby
Aquilotto

323 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  19:12:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thorsten, please have a look at maxk blog. Its really no fun anymore
Go to Top of Page

staylo
Pulcino

49 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  19:41:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Paolo,

The list of authors is also published in the manual, which is linked on the front page. As I've previously mentioned on this forum ( http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4875&whichpage=3 ), please contact any of the XCSoar developers if anyone is missed from the authors list.

Please note that many open source projects do not display the authors names prominently on their websites. The list of contributors in GPL projects is often very long, and due the collaborative nature of the projects the list is often regarded more as a legal necessity rather than to give kudos.
Go to Top of Page

Coolwind
Moderator

Italy
8957 Posts

Posted - 29/07/2011 :  20:21:15  Show Profile  Visit Coolwind's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Well Simon, a web site has a lot of space for a link to a text page with authors.
Currently no author (not even you) is mentioned, and it looks like a gap.

Concerning Kellermann, this man today in his blog has added the announce that LK8000 is illegal even now. He forgets to note that XCSoar has been illegal for 4 years not distributing the DLL for OLC validation (which I never got in source).

I will be forced to spend some time and create a page on LK8000.it with some explanation about him, which is a loss of time and totally useless because he will never learn.

Anyway, according to Max Kellermann, XCSoar 6 is ILLEGAL.
Android market should stop distributing it, by its own author admission!

Call it a clever move!





Edited by - Coolwind on 29/07/2011 20:48:08
Go to Top of Page

staylo
Pulcino

49 Posts

Posted - 31/07/2011 :  23:19:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A list of authors on the website is a good idea, and I think Tobias (Turbo) has effectively volunteered to do this. But people may follow direct links to the software and never see the webpage, and it can be difficult to tell who authored earlier versions. For this reason I think it's also useful to keep the list of authors included with the software files up to date. :)

If you make a request to Rob Dunning or one of the developers who distributed GRecord.dll, he should be able to provide you with the source. During 6.0's development Rob merged the DLL's code into the XCSoar executable as LoggerGRecord.cpp : http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Logger/LoggerGRecord.cpp

I try and stay clear of legal matters so I'm not the best person to consult about the GPL, but as I understand it the GPL effectively acts as a waiver to some aspects of copyright laws concerning software. In practical terms, it appears to me in cases where the GPL has been violated it's only the copyright holder who has any real legal power. In the case of GRecord.dll, it was a file distributed with a GPL application (XCSoar) without the source published on any public source repository, website etc. I'm guessing in legal terms it would be difficult to argue this was a GPL violation and subsequent copyright infringement unless someone had requested the source code and had it denied. The first person to make such a request appears to have been Max in February 2010:

http://xcsoar.1045713.n5.nabble.com/GRecord-dll-source-code-td2650084.html

The next reference I can find is when you were preparing to release LK8000's source code in September 2010:
http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4222&whichpage=1

In retrospect there's a clear misunderstanding there. In that thread Max states:

'Distributing GRecord.dll without source code has never been legal. Fortunately, we could solve that problem.'

But immediately continues 'XCSoar 6.0 doesn't need that file anymore.'

For the rest of the thread this is misinterpreted as meaning that removing GRecord.dll from XCSoar was the solution to the legality issue, when in fact the solution was the release of the source code for that file. The statement that XCSoar 6.0 no longer needed that file was incidental.

In a later email conversation on the xcsoar mailing lists (xcsoar-user and then immediately continued on xcsoar-devel), Mat and you ask where the code for this file can be obtained:

http://xcsoar.1045713.n5.nabble.com/GRecordDLL-DLL-sources-td3337721.html
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Xcsoar-user--GRecordDLL.DLL-sources-td30652987.html

Max states that he believes he's already sent you a link to the source code, but you could not find it. He states that because he has never distributed the DLL he's under no obligation to request the source code from those who have distributed the file on your behalf.

Working only from what's publically available, I have a feeling the legal position here would be that because you didn't request the source for the DLL from those who were obligated to provide it (the individuals that originally distributed it), there's no evidence that you were refused it. Because of this, I think it'd be difficult to argue that there was a GPL violation and a copyright infringement, especially since Max requested the source code directly from the authors and claims to have received it.

In the case of XCSoar 6.x on the Android Market the GRecord.DLL file no longer exists and all of the source code is unquestionably available, so I don't think there would be any question of illegality.

The circumstances with LK8000 are different, so I think the legal situation may be too. If Max's interpretation of that section of the GPL (He links to https://github.com/LK8000/LK8000/blob/master/GPL.TXT section 4) is correct, you may be more secure from a legal standpoint if you can get the licence holders of the code you forked from to relicence the code to you again, renewing the GPLv2 terms. (I assume that's what's needed, it's not explicitly stated as far as I can see.)

As ever, it's if (or given the number of users both projects have, perhaps 'when') money is involved that things may get interesting.

On the subject of money, please note that I think the only reason XCSoar is distributed on the Android market under Max's name is that he'd already paid a fee of 25USD to be able to distribute his own application on the market ('BlueNMEA'). To my knowledge he's not asked any of the XCSoar developers to contribute towards this (or any other) cost.

The last two posts in one of the threads I linked to earlier in this post, http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4222&whichpage=4 also act as a response to your first statement about Max's claims to be an LK8000 author.
Go to Top of Page

Coolwind
Moderator

Italy
8957 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2011 :  00:27:23  Show Profile  Visit Coolwind's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Simon, let's give it a break please. This is ridicolous.
The only real issue, here, is that I could sue Max Kellermann for a bunch of real reasons that have nothing to do with copyrights but with diffamation.

I never got the source code of those dll. You all got the source code of LK (and you also did use them, together with lkmaps, language translations etc.).
If LK is illegal, then XCSoar is even more illegal right now, as an interpretation.
There are a lot of interpretations about that old GPL 2 licence.
The "individuals" that originally distributed were the same that are distributing xcsoar right now. But I am not going to push this further, it is a complete loss of time.

Concerning money: I only consider expenses, because I am covering all costs here and I dont want a donate button anywhere. 25 dollars are nothing , compared. Go on the lk8000 page and find the names of people that made the software. If someone is missing, I add it. The "hall of fame" is there, while xcsoar is probably the only software with web pages without credits.

If - as you say - money gets involved, all developers will benefit of it.
I don't have a feeling on how many people is now using our or your software. (*)
If xcsoar wants to charge their users (is this what you are talking about?) then I do understand why a free software like LK8000 would be a problem, but it is also too late.

LK will not charge people, in any case.
We might put a donate button, though, for special circumstances. So far, 0.000 cents were charged or donated. I say 0.0000.


(*) I mean, people really using the software, since the download is free of charge and I myself did download xcsoar 3 years ago and never used it. Then, most pilots are not technicians, so it happens that a friend is installing one copy on many friend's devices.




Edited by - Coolwind on 01/08/2011 00:32:34
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
Jump To:
PostFrontal Forum © PostFrontal - La community del Volo a Vela Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.23 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000

Suggerimenti dello staff:

                                         

Note legali (italiano):
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy
Legal notice (english):
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy

PostFrontal S.A.S. di Giuliano Golfieri & c. - P.I. 05264240960