headers
mr | 22 Sep 2008 19:17
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Renato Caldas <seventhguardian <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM, MochaSoft <support <at> mochasoft.dk> wrote:
> As a follow up on Peter Honeder information related
> to rdp for iphone:
>
>
> I have selected today , 22 September 2008
>
> a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place you
>   can download the software). It can take a few hours before
>   all App stores are updated.

It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid
version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the
release and hope that others would forget it.

> b) to continue working on v 2.0. I cannot tell when it is ready, but
>   when it is released, I will also release the protocol part
>   source code on a BSD  license type,
>   as to prevent any misunderstandings.
>   The V 2.0 is a new source code and will have no relation with rdesktop
>   source code.
>
> Thanks for giving advice on the GPL issue
>
> jan frydendal  - Mochasoft
>
>

Actually, I'm not so sure that's the case. If you breach the terms of the licence you loose the right to use and distribute the covered software, I don't know how that applies to previous releases.

It's good that your are acting on the violation however it would be better if you instead chose to support the software that has given you a free ride and you have so far been taking advantage of.

A better solution to simply removing the software would be to actively support the rdesktop project, open up the code changes you made and give back to the community that provided you with a free leg up.

Regards,

Alan
 
 Renato Caldas


Permalink | Reply |
headers
Joseph Heenan | 22 Sep 2008 21:30
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

mr wrote:
>      > a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place you
>      >   can download the software). It can take a few hours before
>      >   all App stores are updated.
> 
>     It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid
>     version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the
>     release and hope that others would forget it.
> 
> Actually, I'm not so sure that's the case. If you breach the terms of 
> the licence you loose the right to use and distribute the covered 
> software, I don't know how that applies to previous releases.

There was no licence that enabled Mochasoft to distribute the earlier 
versions.

Effectively, it is the same action as if I sold copies of windows vista 
I'd made using a dvd writer. (That is, thinking about that same 
situation will give the many of the same answers about how this 
situation can be solved.)

Essentially, it all comes down to an agreement between mochasoft and the 
copyright holder(s). The holders would be free to sue for copyright 
infringement.

The people who bought the software have no right to ask for the source 
code, but I'd imagine would be within their rights to ask for a refund 
on the grounds that mochasoft was not able to legally sell them the 
software. Mochasoft could possibly avoid that be obtaining a legal 
license for the code, or by choosing to release the code.

In cases likes this, I would imagine no one cares enough to do anything, 
especially given the breach has stopped, but that's really entirely up 
to the copyright holder(s).

I believe the FSF policy (and I have no idea if any part of rdesktop is 
owned by the FSF or not) is to press for release of the source code, and 
(if they have had to use a lawyer) payment of their legal fees.

Joseph
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vinz Focker | 22 Sep 2008 23:13
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL
Violations in the Apple App store.

Regarding rdesktop: There is another quite expensive ($11.99)  iPhone
rdp client in the App store which is only available in the US App
store and available since beginning of August and seems to sell
extremely well (judging from the 270+ reviews in the App Store and the
5-star rating !)
I just got the strings from the binary from a NY friend. Guess what
.... rdesktop again.
It even has the "rdesktop" strings inside:
  .rdesktop
  .rdesktop/cache
  %s/.rdesktop/%s

But I'll wait before disclosing the findings or the name. The vendors
should have a tiny chance to fix the issue before google reads the
legal archives ... ;)

Cheers,
Vinz

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Joseph Heenan <joseph <at> heenan.me.uk> wrote:
> mr wrote:
>>
>>     > a) to remove the free and paid version from App Store (only place
>> you
>>     >   can download the software). It can take a few hours before
>>     >   all App stores are updated.
>>
>>    It is my understanding that those who have already bought the paid
>>    version are entitled to the source code. You cannot simply undo the
>>    release and hope that others would forget it.
>>
>> Actually, I'm not so sure that's the case. If you breach the terms of the
>> licence you loose the right to use and distribute the covered software, I
>> don't know how that applies to previous releases.
>
> There was no licence that enabled Mochasoft to distribute the earlier
> versions.
>
> Effectively, it is the same action as if I sold copies of windows vista I'd
> made using a dvd writer. (That is, thinking about that same situation will
> give the many of the same answers about how this situation can be solved.)
>
> Essentially, it all comes down to an agreement between mochasoft and the
> copyright holder(s). The holders would be free to sue for copyright
> infringement.
>
> The people who bought the software have no right to ask for the source code,
> but I'd imagine would be within their rights to ask for a refund on the
> grounds that mochasoft was not able to legally sell them the software.
> Mochasoft could possibly avoid that be obtaining a legal license for the
> code, or by choosing to release the code.
>
> In cases likes this, I would imagine no one cares enough to do anything,
> especially given the breach has stopped, but that's really entirely up to
> the copyright holder(s).
>
> I believe the FSF policy (and I have no idea if any part of rdesktop is
> owned by the FSF or not) is to press for release of the source code, and (if
> they have had to use a lawyer) payment of their legal fees.
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter Honeder | 22 Sep 2008 23:50
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

Vinz Focker wrote:
> MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL
> Violations in the Apple App store.

you are so right, there are many applications based on samba and other 
open source projects.

> Regarding rdesktop: There is another quite expensive ($11.99)  iPhone
> rdp client in the App store which is only available in the US App
> store and available since beginning of August and seems to sell
> extremely well (judging from the 270+ reviews in the App Store and the
> 5-star rating !)
> I just got the strings from the binary from a NY friend. Guess what
> ... rdesktop again.
> It even has the "rdesktop" strings inside:
>   .rdesktop
>   .rdesktop/cache
>   %s/.rdesktop/%s

thats really bold, did anyone already contact the company? I wrote them 
an email some minutes ago.

The problem I see is, that there seem to be some people earning pretty 
good money for the work of others. some questions arise:

- What are normal legal aspects of such a situation?
- is it possible for license holders to request compensation for damages 
in this cases?
- is it possible to get compensation of damages from Apple because they 
are earning 30%?
- is Apple also responsible for publishing the source code in this 
cases? (at least they do not have NDAs signed with themselves)

Best regards,
Peter
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Peter Honeder | 28 Oct 2008 22:09
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

Peter Honeder schrieb:
> Vinz Focker wrote:
>> Regarding rdesktop: There is another quite expensive ($11.99)  iPhone
>> rdp client in the App store which is only available in the US App
>> store and available since beginning of August and seems to sell
>> extremely well (judging from the 270+ reviews in the App Store and the
>> 5-star rating !)
>> I just got the strings from the binary from a NY friend. Guess what
>> ... rdesktop again.
>> It even has the "rdesktop" strings inside:
>>   .rdesktop
>>   .rdesktop/cache
>>   %s/.rdesktop/%s
> 
> thats really bold, did anyone already contact the company? I wrote them 
> an email some minutes ago.
> 

this discussion has been quite silent for some weeks now but I can 
provide you some more updated details which should be interesting.

First of all I have successfully received a free (not even postage) copy 
of the full source code of the WinAdmin RDP client. At the time where I 
have received the copy, the developer *maybe* has fulfilled the GPL but 
has definately broken the NDA with Apple regarding the SDK.

This brings me to my second point: Apple updated its NDA to exclude 
released SDK versions, which brings the developer of WinAdmin to a 
better position as he sends out the source code and will not have any 
troubles regarding Apple.

My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am unable 
to solve, is:
does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of 
applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with Apple 
has to be established before someone can on his own successfully build 
and run source code on the device itself?

how does this compare to the fact the Windows users have to buy Windows 
before they can run GPLed applications on their PC? is this the same?

how does it compare to GPL applications built for special or expensive 
hardware, is it not the same to buy special hardware or operating 
systems before beeing able to run a certain GPLed application?

Best regards,
Peter
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hubert Figuiere | 29 Oct 2008 00:45
Gravatar

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 22:09 +0100, Peter Honeder wrote:
> My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am
> unable 
> to solve, is:
> does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of 
> applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with
> Apple 
> has to be established before someone can on his own successfully
> build 
> and run source code on the device itself?

It does not forbid the development, but clearly if the platform
agreements does not allow you to redistribute code for said platform,
then you you'd be violating the GPL if you were distributing GPL based
software for said platform.

Brought differently, the NDA for the platform does not trump the GPL
requirements (nor does any other requirements whatever they are). If the
NDA prevents you from full-filling to the obligations of the GPL, then
don't distribute GPL licensed software.

Off course there is always the case we the orignal distributor of the
code is the sole copryight holder, but then all this discussion would be
moot.

IANAL.

Hub
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Joseph Heenan | 28 Oct 2008 22:46
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

Peter Honeder wrote:

> First of all I have successfully received a free (not even postage) copy 
> of the full source code of the WinAdmin RDP client. At the time where I 
> have received the copy, the developer *maybe* has fulfilled the GPL but 
> has definately broken the NDA with Apple regarding the SDK.
> 
> This brings me to my second point: Apple updated its NDA to exclude 
> released SDK versions, which brings the developer of WinAdmin to a 
> better position as he sends out the source code and will not have any 
> troubles regarding Apple.
> 
> My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am unable 
> to solve, is:
> does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of 
> applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with Apple 
> has to be established before someone can on his own successfully build 
> and run source code on the device itself?

To me, this seems to be within the letter (and perhaps also the spirit) 
of the GPLv2. It is no different to systems where the only compiler 
available is commercial (which use to be the case for many commercials 
unixes). The GPL specifically mentions that the distributor is not 
required tools that are ordinarily part of the OS, like compilers etc.

I have a feeling the GPLv3 may have a different stance though; mainly in 
it's "anti-tivoization" clause, but I suspect a more detailed study 
would be necessary.

Joseph
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Armijn Hemel | 28 Oct 2008 22:35
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 22:09 +0100, Peter Honeder wrote:
> My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am
> unable 
> to solve, is:
> does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of 
> applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with
> Apple 
> has to be established before someone can on his own successfully
> build 
> and run source code on the device itself?
> 
> how does this compare to the fact the Windows users have to buy
> Windows 
> before they can run GPLed applications on their PC? is this the same?
> 
> how does it compare to GPL applications built for special or
> expensive 
> hardware, is it not the same to buy special hardware or operating 
> systems before beeing able to run a certain GPLed application?

The GPL is purely a distribution license, and developing or running a
GPLed application is not covered by it.

armijn

--

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
armijn <at> uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Thomas Charron | 28 Oct 2008 22:34
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Peter Honeder
<e0126650 <at> student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am unable to
> solve, is:
> does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of applications
> for the iPhone because a development agreement with Apple has to be
> established before someone can on his own successfully build and run source
> code on the device itself?
> how does this compare to the fact the Windows users have to buy Windows
> before they can run GPLed applications on their PC? is this the same?
> how does it compare to GPL applications built for special or expensive
> hardware, is it not the same to buy special hardware or operating systems
> before beeing able to run a certain GPLed application?

  Now THAR'S a ball of wax.  :-D  I know many people defer to the
'Linux Theory' on this sort of thing.  It's acknowledged that the
Linux kernel is GPL, but can run anything, without the license
infecting.  I believe the there is a clear distinction between an
operating system and an application, regardless of the interfaces used
to allow it to function.

  But then again, when using APIs, it can get even funnier.  Look at
Microsoft an the older MFC libraries.  Can a GPLed application really
be distributed that is an MFC application?

--

-- 
-- Thomas
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Joseph Heenan | 23 Sep 2008 00:09
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

Peter Honeder wrote:
> Vinz Focker wrote:
>> MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL
>> Violations in the Apple App store.
> 
> - What are normal legal aspects of such a situation?

I think my previous email covered that.

> - is it possible for license holders to request compensation for damages 
> in this cases?

Yes.

> - is it possible to get compensation of damages from Apple because they 
> are earning 30%?

Unlikely in my opinion. It's really the original developer that is in a 
sticky situation.

> - is Apple also responsible for publishing the source code in this 
> cases? (at least they do not have NDAs signed with themselves)

It seems unlikely. I'd imagine there's some T&C before the developer 
uploads the app where the developer is required to state that they have 
the right to upload the application for sale, and most likely they would 
have to agree to indemnify Apple against any legal action related to the 
app.

I imagine Apple would remove the app once evidence that it wasn't legal 
was provided.

Joseph
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vinz Focker | 23 Sep 2008 00:27
Picon

Re: re : rdesktop and MochaSoft

Yes, Apple seems to be on the safe side.
I've just found a cnet post where an iPhone SDK agreement section was quoted:

-----
"If Your Application includes any FOSS [free and open-source
software], You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing
terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your
Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of
the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."
-----

This means that Apple requires the developer to make sure that no GPL
or similar "FOSS" license can "infect" the stuff they sell through the
app store.

So IMHO this would prevent the existence (in theory as we've learned)
of any GPL-licensed software in the app store !
... at least software developed using the iPhone SDK. (... well is
there another way ?)

Vinz

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Joseph Heenan <joseph <at> heenan.me.uk> wrote:
> Peter Honeder wrote:
>>
>> Vinz Focker wrote:
>>>
>>> MochaSoft's rdesktop port is only the tip of the iceberg wrt GPL
>>> Violations in the Apple App store.
>>
>> - What are normal legal aspects of such a situation?
>
> I think my previous email covered that.
>
>> - is it possible for license holders to request compensation for damages
>> in this cases?
>
> Yes.
>
>> - is it possible to get compensation of damages from Apple because they
>> are earning 30%?
>
> Unlikely in my opinion. It's really the original developer that is in a
> sticky situation.
>
>> - is Apple also responsible for publishing the source code in this cases?
>> (at least they do not have NDAs signed with themselves)
>
> It seems unlikely. I'd imagine there's some T&C before the developer uploads
> the app where the developer is required to state that they have the right to
> upload the application for sale, and most likely they would have to agree to
> indemnify Apple against any legal action related to the app.
>
> I imagine Apple would remove the app once evidence that it wasn't legal was
> provided.
>
> Joseph
>
>
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane