| |
Who distributes NetSurf? |
| |
nunfetishist (18:05 29/4/2010)
flibble (20:33 29/4/2010)
nunfetishist (20:50 29/4/2010)
flibble (15:57 2/5/2010)
nunfetishist (16:36 2/5/2010)
andypoole (21:37 29/4/2010)
andypoole (21:50 29/4/2010)
VincceH (15:40 30/4/2010)
arawnsley (11:24 30/4/2010)
nunfetishist (11:51 30/4/2010)
arawnsley (13:10 30/4/2010)
nunfetishist (15:43 30/4/2010)
|
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #114175, posted by nunfetishist at 18:05, 29/4/2010 |
 Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
So. Who distributes binary copies of NetSurf (other than NetSurf themselves) without including sources or written offers of sources? Some products to check if you've recently bought something:
APDL: Do they ship it in a bundle of software they might provide on RiscPCs and such they sell? Any of their "PD" CDs?
CJE: Do they still ship it on the A9home? Chris tells me they now bundle sources, too. What about their second-hand RiscPCs and Iyonixes?
R-Comp: Do they ship it with their VirtualAcorn hardware products?
RISCOS Ltd.: Do they ship it bundled in any of their products, or products they resell? (Such as VirtualAcorn, which they sell at shows that VA doesn't turn up to.)
VirtualAcorn: Do they still bundle NetSurf, along with loads of other GPL or LGPLed software?
Is there anybody else? |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #114185, posted by flibble at 20:33, 29/4/2010, in reply to message #114175 |
Posts: 892
|
So. Who distributes binary copies of NetSurf (other than NetSurf themselves) without including sources or written offers of sources? Some products to check if you've recently bought something: I decided to check the license on this, but it seems that Netsurf 2.5 [1] is missing the license_en file mentioned in the Readme.
[1] http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/releases/netsurf-2.5.zip |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #114189, posted by nunfetishist at 20:50, 29/4/2010, in reply to message #114185 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
I decided to check the license on this, but it seems that Netsurf 2.5 [1] is missing the license_en file mentioned in the Readme. Hello, Chris's lovechild > If the 2.5 archive does not include that file is irrelevant, as I'm sure you know. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #114195, posted by andypoole at 21:37, 29/4/2010, in reply to message #114175 |
Posts: 5558
|
VirtualAcorn: Do they still bundle NetSurf, along with loads of other GPL or LGPLed software? I can confirm this one. My copy of VRPC contains NetSurf 1.2, no copy of the license with it, and no sources or offer thereof.
Also included are the various dependencies of NetSurf as follows:
Tinct - Pre-installed, !ReadMe file (which contains the license) not included, despite it stating that (a) any use as part of a commercial product (as VA is) requires written consent from the author (which I can't check whether they did or not), and that the copyright info (ie, the !ReadMe file) should be included in all copies of the software, which it isn't.
IconV - Pre-installed, copy of MIT license not included.
SharedUnixLib - Pre-installed, no copy of "COPYING" file which contains license (and states that it should be included with any distribution)
Just for good measure, the following software is also in VA without the relevant licensing information or sources:
AntiWord - Licensed under GPLv2, no source of offer thereof. License file is actually included with this one.
!SICK - License file included, and states it can not be distributed to a third party (ie, VA's customers) if any payment is made in connection with such distribution, including "payment for some product or service that includes a copy of the program"
!GCC - GPL license included, no sources or offer thereof
!LCC - License file states that you can distribute it providing you only charge for the media, or that the distribution files are mirrored at your website (which VA havnen't done)
!KinoAMP - GPLv2 License included, no sources or offer thereof
That's all I can be bothered to find right now. I could probably keep going all night 
Of course, I can't tell whether or not Aaron actually got permission from the authors to distribute the stuff in VRPC. One would hope so, but the fact that GPL'ed stuff is distributed without the sources or an offer for them is worrying.
Andy. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #114197, posted by andypoole at 21:50, 29/4/2010, in reply to message #114195 |
Posts: 5558
|
Oh, and VA's own "CRIGHT.HTM" file states:
The hard disc directory structure is (c) Copyright 3QD/Virtual Acorn So apparently NetSurf and all the contents of the VA hard disc are now copyright VA. Or maybe they've just copyrighted the idea of putting apps in an "Apps" directory, games in a "Games" directory, etc... 
Andy. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #114213, posted by arawnsley at 11:24, 30/4/2010, in reply to message #114175 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
Following Rob's comments at a previous show, we now include a written section in our documentation covering this. I believe we agreed the wording at the time. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #114215, posted by nunfetishist at 11:51, 30/4/2010, in reply to message #114213 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
Following Rob's comments at a previous show, we now include a written section in our documentation covering this. I believe we agreed the wording at the time. Fab, thanks for this. One assumes you also keep your own copy of the sources so you can provide them when requested?
We're putting some effort into the next release of NetSurf to make sure this is all a lot easier for people who redistribute NetSurf. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #114217, posted by arawnsley at 13:10, 30/4/2010, in reply to message #114215 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
Thanks Rob. I tend to feel that it is best for users to get the source form the "source", since one of the worst things is for sources to become "2nd hand". Of course, I have no problem with keeping a copy here (and indeed, I do so), but I'd much rather point customers to the original site, so that they are guaranteed the best version.
The way I see it, it is best for users to always get their software "from the source", but with a browser, there's the chicken/egg problem of having to use a browser to get the browser!
Note that I *do* keep the version up to date, to make sure that our users have the current release build (right now, 2.5) as I think it is rather impolite to users (and to Netsurf developers) to ship out-dated versions.
I trust all this is agreeable? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #114220, posted by VincceH at 15:40, 30/4/2010, in reply to message #114197 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
Oh, and VA's own "CRIGHT.HTM" file states:
The hard disc directory structure is (c) Copyright 3QD/Virtual Acorn So apparently NetSurf and all the contents of the VA hard disc are now copyright VA. Or maybe they've just copyrighted the idea of putting apps in an "Apps" directory, games in a "Games" directory, etc...
Not quite - see the comments I've made in other argumentsthreads about the situation with copyright and collections of works. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #114221, posted by nunfetishist at 15:43, 30/4/2010, in reply to message #114217 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
I trust all this is agreeable? If you're keeping sources for the versions you distribute, and you provide a written offer that is valid for three years to your customers to provide that source at no more than cost, then that's fine. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #114241, posted by flibble at 15:57, 2/5/2010, in reply to message #114189 |
Posts: 892
|
I decided to check the license on this, but it seems that Netsurf 2.5 [1] is missing the license_en file mentioned in the Readme. Hello, Chris's lovechild > If the 2.5 archive does not include that file is irrelevant, as I'm sure you know.
I'm aware it's irrelevant, but I wanted to make sure it was GPLv2. Because, if so, there's a third option to shipping sources (3.a) or having a written offer (3.b). Which is that (3.c), if noncommercial [1], you can redistribute under the terms of a written offer that was included in the binary given to you, via the 3.b mechanism.
Whilst this also doesn't cover any previously distributed versions, if the Netsurf team were to include such an offer in future in the ReadMe (for example) it would prevent some of this from being an issue in future (unless someone deliberatly removes the ReadMe).
So perhaps the simplest solution is for Netsurf to include a written offer, VA to update to recent Netsurf and for Aaron to release Virtual Acorn for free
[1] The GPL unfortuanately provides no definition of this term. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #114242, posted by nunfetishist at 16:36, 2/5/2010, in reply to message #114241 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
I'm aware it's irrelevant, but I wanted to make sure it was GPLv2. Because, if so, there's a third option to shipping sources (3.a) or having a written offer (3.b). Which is that (3.c), if noncommercial [1], you can redistribute under the terms of a written offer that was included in the binary given to you, via the 3.b mechanism.
Whilst this also doesn't cover any previously distributed versions, if the Netsurf team were to include such an offer in future in the ReadMe (for example) it would prevent some of this from being an issue in future (unless someone deliberatly removes the ReadMe).
So perhaps the simplest solution is for Netsurf to include a written offer, VA to update to recent Netsurf and for Aaron to release Virtual Acorn for free VA clearly isn't non-commercial, by any reasonable definition, and neither is ROL. (Unless you can somehow define a loss-making enterprise as non-commericial).
And us including a digital written offer with the distribution, that wouldn't excuse the commercial organisations who then redistribute it of any of their requirements at all.
[1] The GPL unfortuanately provides no definition of this term. Nor a great many other things, like "linking", or if a "written offer" needs to be physical. It's a dreadful licence. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
