To address the subject line first.
1) If you ask a mailing list for legal advice instead of a lawyer,
you're an idiot.
2) A lawyer's default answer to this form of question is "No,
don't do that."
3) Penalties are higher for knowingly violating copyrights and patents.
4) It's better to ask a lawyer questions like "We made a legal mistake,
how do we get out of it with the least pain?" or "We stumbled across an
abuse of in the legal process, how do we go about stopping this abuse?"
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:21:56PM -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> >I just think that the
> >money I give will partialy go back to the community...
> Exactly my point, Mehdi, it is no longer going back to the community.
> It's going to a corporation not too different from Vmware, but the code
> was, dare I say, 85% written by the open source developers who didn't
> get paid.
To have a leg to stand on you would need to
1) Show that the open source contributing developers did not release the
rights to their contributions to Xensource.
2) Show that Xensource has failed to provide the source of those contributions
and their modifications to those contributions to their customers.
(Meaning if it went into Xen Express, it's available to anyone that downloaded
Xen Express that requests the source, if it went into Xen Enterprise, it's
available to anyone that paid for Xen Enterprise and requests the source).
If the contributing developers released the rights to their contributions
to Xensource, you can pound sand.
If you did not partake of Xensource's products, you can pound sand.
From a pragmatic viewpoint it's lower overhead and less hassle for a
company that provides value add to a GPLed source base to provide that
source to the public at large and to quickly release those modifications
to the GPLed source base that was released to the public.
It took a while for the commercial Linux distros to clue in on this
matter. It has taken quite a bit of groundwork to bring this clue to
Intel and AMD/ATI and VMWare. It will probably take time to
introduce this clue to Citrix.
You have provided no evidence that Xensource/Citrix is not honoring
GPLv2 to the letter.
You have provided no evidence that you have expended the resources
to have Xensource/Citrix honor GPLv2's intent.
(IE buy a license to their product, request the source, make it available
to the public).
It's unclear if you have discussed with Xensource/Citrix that they
appear to not be honoring the intent of GPLv2 and that has caused them
to lose your business and what Xensource/Citrix's response was.
Morally the whole situation is questionable.
Aesthetically the situation sucks.
Pragmatically, have you considered writing letters to the editor as
< elfick> willg: you can't use dell to beat people, it wouldn't stand up
to the strain... much like attacking a tank with a wiffle bat
Xen-users mailing list