Homebrew Ok, about GPL stuff. Please explain

[DeadlyFoez]

Let me start by saying that this is not intended to become a flame thread or to continue arguing about anything that is not what I created this thread asking.

The situation is XFlaks NUSAD.

My question is, since omega and megazig are saying the the source to xflaks app needs to be released, it makes me wonder. His app does not include any modules or libraries that are released under GPL. But instead his app uses shell commands to invoke other apps. Those other apps do use the libraries or modules that other people have written.

So, since I do not fully know, this is why I am asking so I dont seem "ignorant". But would the case be that he has to include the source for those apps that uses the libraries and modules? If he includes the source for those apps, would he still have to provide the source for his own app?

By my logic that I see right now is that he should not have to provide the source for his app, but only for those smaller apps that actually do the real stuff. But I'm not so informed on this type of stuff so that why I might as well ask.

And what about this scenario, what if he made available the download for his app, but then for all the other apps that his app uses he just provides links of to where people can download them. Would he still have to provide the source for his app since nothing that has any GPL is being bundled with his app?

NUSAD is just a batch file that has been converted to an executable. Of course with normal batch files the batch file is it's own source and microsoft doesn't make people openly share their batch file source code (correct me if I'm wrong).

So please discuss, and please no flaming, or off topic stuff. Thank you.

 

[Omega191]

Except that he's using GPLed libraries (Which were based on Wii.py). And he released it under the GPL. There's nothing to discuss here.

 

[qwertymodo]

The whole discussion hinges on the definition of a derivative work under the GPL. To quote directly from v2 of the GPL under which LibWiiSharp is licensed:

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

Libraries, whether linked at runtime or compile-time, render an application which uses them as a derivative work under the GPL. In this case, because NUSAD links to LibWiiSharp, it is considered a derivative work under the GPL. Therefore, it must adhere to the license which requires derivative works to be released under a license compatible with the GPL, or the GPL itself.

So, by definition, NUSAD must be licensed under the GPL and release their source.

Also, technically, XFlak must also provide the LibWiiSharp source used IN THE SAME MANNER as the binary and source releases of NUSAD itself in order to make sure that anyone who downloads the source has a compatible version of LibWiiSharp available. Because of the way it's being distributed, that basically means that all relevant source needs to be provided in the same .zip file as the binaries. Even if you want to argue the definition of derivative work further, XFlak is already violating the GPL by not including the source of LibWiiSharp in the release.

Come to think of it, XFlak must also include the source of all of the GPL'ed cIOS modules included as well.

Alternatively, the source files could be packaged separately, uploaded to the same webhost, and linked from the release post.

Realize that I am going on 3rd party information as to the nature of the application, so I may be mistaken. As DeadlyFoez already stated, please no flaming. This is meant to be informative.

 

[qwertymodo]

Also, from Article 10 of the GPL:

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

From the heated discussion taking place I am assuming that this did not happen.

 

[qwertymodo]

Ok, ignore the previous posts. I misunderstood how the application functioned.

Bottom line: XFlak is violating the GPL. However, he can satisfy the requirements of the GPL without having to release his own source code. In order to do that, ALL GPL binaries must also include the exact source for that version of the binary. This includes GPL applications, libraries, and cIOS modules.

 

[DeadlyFoez]

Thank you qwertymodo. That was the type of answer I was looking for.

So really if anything, xflak might be better off not putting his batch file into an executable anyways then.

What about this, if XFlak has a function in his app to extract all source files into one directory if the user wants them. Basically so it's not a hidden function like it currently is. Or would he still have to have the sources available in another form because of people that have linux or mac and can't run his app?

I really wish XFlak could come in here and shut me up at anytime that I might be giving any type of false info, or tell me to stop drawing more attention to him (i'm sure he hates it). I'm certainly only saying things to the best of my knowledge.

Ok, ignore the previous posts. I misunderstood how the application functioned.

Bottom line: XFlak is violating the GPL. However, he can satisfy the requirements of the GPL without having to release his own source code. In order to do that, ALL GPL binaries must also include the exact source for that version of the binary. This includes GPL applications, libraries, and cIOS modules.

About the cIOS modules. I think the way it works is by downloading an official IOS and the using diff patching... and from my understanding thats similar to IPS patching. Since he's not executing any code related to the creation of the cIOS by normal installers, would he still need to provide source code for the installers?

That actually makes another question. His app can download cIOS installers. Does he need to provide the source for them when the user makes the app download them?

 

[megazig]

the site that he downloads the cIOS installers from must provide source. he doesn't have to if he's using his app to download them from someone else.

if the code he is injecting is GPL'd then he should have source for that code included. if the patch is just some instruction patches then it can be left out as it didn't come from GPL code

edit:
missed the question about source release.
any of the programs included that are licensed to be open-sourced by GPL must have source provided for anyone downloading the link. anyone not on Windows then couldn't get the source. I'd recommend having one source archive inside for the programs needing it, or a link to the source program archive if you don't want the size to be as large

 

[qwertymodo]

About the cIOS modules, there are .app files in the .zip I downloaded. As I recall, Waninkoko and Hermes both release full replacement modules, as well as patching existing ones. The .app files in the release are full replacement modules which are GPL. He needs the source for those files. Also, I don't recall seeing the .diff files for the patched modules, they would need to be provided as well.

 

[XFlak]

Okay, i'm trying to catch up, so bear with me... I may edit this post a few times, lol

-the DIFF files are included in the SUPPORT Folder, u can't miss it
-is it alright to provide one txt file with the app that has links to where all the different sources can be downloaded. Or do I need to actually gather all the sources and upload them into one package where people can download it?
-since this is just a batch file converted to exe, all it is is a bunch commands to other apps... am I to understand that since this is 'nothing special' (for lack of a better term) that I don't need to provide the source of the batch file, but only the source of the supporting apps/files?


edit: and what about crediting sources? For example, LibWiiSharp is based on Wii.py, do I need to credit the developers of LibWiiSharp, or Wii.py, or both? What if Wii.py was based on someone else's work? Would I need to credit them too? How far back do I need to go when crediting people? FYI, I have no problem giving credit where credit is due, I just want to know the minimum I am required to credit as my credit list is already massive (also note that I even credit a lot of people that I don't have to)

 

[DeadlyFoez]

And since someone already made the comment about making money off GPL apps, was that in reference to linkbucks? If so, is that REALLY worth complaining about since there is not any software being sold at all? Is XFlak going to have to stop with linkbucks to appease everyone? Technically, money is not being made off the software or GPL code, but instead it is being made off the link. I can assure you, the money that is made is really not worthy of having to have a discussion about, but since it was brought up we might as well deal with it.

P.S. Also, as I asked so nicely earlier, please stop posting anything related to this GPL stuff in XFlaks thread. If you know of anyone who has not been given credit for the work that they have done then post it here and those names will be added I'm sure. Xflak's thread is for support and information on updates and not a playground for complaining and off topic discussion. If you dont want to post it in this thread then you can always PM XFlak directly with any issues or suggestions that you have. Thank you.

 

[Zetta_x]

...This app was released since February. It would have cut back so much time what I planned on doing in the future. I just found this app today and within 5 minutes of finding this app it was closed down. While it may have somewhat infringed whatever code of conduct (in my opinion) it was not worth to keep throwing in retarded complaints.

...Everybody every single day breaks rules. Hell I am in a public library typing this up right next to a sign that says resource use only. Is it really a problem to the point where a melodramatic scene must be made? Xflak was clearly ready to make necessary changes, couldn't you have been less persistent and less of a jerk to rectify the issue Omega?

 

[yellowperil]

GPL is there for community.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

If you read the Pre-amble you will understand the concept of what GPL is.
Basically people who release code that is or uses GPL have to provide there code as well.

The code usually is the current released version.

So if you have an app that uses GPL code then in the majority you have to release your whole program, you cannot decide to use part of someones code under GPL, and then decide not to release your code that uses it. This goes against the whole concept of what GPL was created for.
GPL does not mean you cannot sell you program either, again read about what the concept of the whole GPL was for.

Now some people have been caught with their trousers down when it comes to GPL, then sell there code or program on to other people, now you don't have to have a link for people to download the code, all you need to do is give the code when someone asks for it. And then they will fall under the GPL themselves.

Now just changing a few lines of code you still cannot call this program yours, you HAVE TO under the GPL declare the original source of the code and its authors.

Most people will remove such items and not declare original sources, under these terms the person can be prosecuted under the GPL, any gains they have taken, etc (hence MS doing damage control as soon as they found out they had been using GPL code in there proprietary code, instead of revealing it, they discontinued the code and replaced the code with non GPL and paid the original author an undisclosed sum).

Overall GPL is more a way of thinking for a community of coders, not a single individual trying to make money.

 

[XFlak]

So providing the source upon request is acceptable?

What about crediting sources? For example, LibWiiSharp is based on Wii.py, do I need to credit the developers of LibWiiSharp, or Wii.py, or both? What if Wii.py was based on someone else's work? Would I need to credit them too? How far back do I need to go when crediting people? FYI, I have no problem giving credit where credit is due, I just want to know the minimum I am required to credit as my credit list is already massive (also note that I even credit a lot of people that I don't have to)

 

[yellowperil]

Well this is were it gets confusing, you should credit were you got your code from, because in theory it should have had the credits from where they got there code from, etc etc etc. If people follow the rules then there should not be an issue, again you follow the code from where you got it, if they broke the GPL, you will not be so liable as you provided this information to the best of your ability.

The whole issue of credits is that it will show in the source code and a readme.txt if they have done it correctly. Ideally all source and code for GPL will contain a readme.txt that says this sort of stuff, all you would need to do is provide that text file modified with yours.

Another note, you can specify that if your code is used, that it MUST contain your readme.txt or whatever you call it, if it is used in another project. If this is not followed then they are breaking the GPL license.

Finally, Yes, you don't have to have a link to download the source, you can state that its available on request.

GPL code works well if its done correctly, some don't like it that they may only use some small part of code, but then be forced to release all there code on request due to the GPL, for people like this they really shouldn't be using GPL code in the first place.

Just make it clear in your forced readme.txt file you put all the information you want people to see there, and make it clear it has to be included with the source code and compiled code when someone else uses it.

 

[XFlak]

so just to clarify, according to the GPL, NUSAD would have to credit the authors of libwiisharp (ie. Leathl), but I wouldn't have to credit anyone else who created wii.py (ie. the base for libwiisharp) Leathl already credited the wii.py team in libwiisharp anyways

Since I closed NUSAD, it doesn't REALLY matter, but now I am just curious.

Also, from Article 10 of the GPL:

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

From the heated discussion taking place I am assuming that this did not happen.

I got permission from Leathl, and he got permission from the wii.py team. Hell, Leathl has even made custom mods to his files because I requested them for NUSAD, so obviously he's okay with me using his work.

 

[megazig]

but he didn't have permissions from wii.py for his customs to be distibuted without source from wii.py

again, chain of license. he can't change his license from ours.

 

[yellowperil]

GPL always causes a heated discussion, mainly on those that wont disclose the original source of the GPL, usually these people try and hide this fact and pass the work of as their own.
I don't think you fall into this category. If the source is GPL then you don't require permission, it being released under the GPL automatically gives you permission.

Now including someone else's code that is not under GPL without their permission is a bad move as this will usually make the code you released fall under GPL, thus including their code. If they know its going to be released under GPL and you have made it clear to them this is the case then you should have no problem.

The reason you need to ask permission is based on the fact that their code will fall now under GPL rules under your release of the modified code.

but he didn't have permissions from wii.py for his customs to be distibuted without source from wii.py

Question, is wii.py released as GPL code.
Answer QUOTEWii.py from #Wii.py on EFNet is a GPL licensed Wii library written in and for Python.

If your code is released under GPL no permission is required as this is the point of GPL to share code with the community, the decision is not up to you who can and cannot use this code, if you wanted to do that then the code should not have been released under GPL.

As to the source, as long as he states were he got the code from, and who created it, its his only responsibility to provide his code, as a download or by request. Again this is usually covered in the little readme.txt I mentioned. You cant really demand he lists all the changes he has made if someone wants to do that, then they can download the original and compare it to the modified code. There maybe 10k's worth of changes made, its up to the author of the code to do this or not.

 

[XFlak]

If the source is GPL then you don't require permission, it being released under the GPL automatically gives you permission.

So credit given to wii.py team required? Or just to authors of LibWiiSharp?

Btw, I love that a fellow Greek is the mediator here!

Efxaristo para poli!
(translation: thank you very much!)

 

[XFlak]

As to the source, as long as he states were he got the code from, and who created it, its his only responsibility to provide his code, as a download or by request. Again this is usually covered in the little readme.txt I mentioned. You cant really demand he lists all the changes he has made if someone wants to do that, then they can download the original and compare it to the modified code. There maybe 10k's worth of changes made, its up to the author of the code to do this or not.

so its starting to sound like I was in compliance all along!

just to summarize what I had done initially, is this satisfactory?

-NUSAD source code available upon request (does not include the source of supporting apps)
-Credit given to all those who's code/files I am using directly (not indirectly, like wii.py)

Is this GPL compliant?
If not, which of the following changes would i need to make?

-Give credit to those who's code I am using indirectly (ie. wii.py)
-Provide Links on my page where people can download the source of the supporting apps
-provide a link to the NUSAD source code instead of having it available upon request


I wouldn't have to make the main NUSAD download link include the source right? It's okay to share the files without the source as long as the source is available

Also, near the beginning of this thread, it was suggested that I wouldn't have to share the source of NUSAD itself but just the supporting apps. This is because all NUSAD really does is send batch commands to those apps (all NUSAD is a glorified batch file, lol)

Comments?

 

[Omega191]

You have to give credit to the authors of libwiisharp, but they have to give credit to us, and our license file has to be carried over, so you have to give credit to us.