Re: Legal Status of VCG
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 09:29 +0100, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to inform you, that the current source of your VCG
> package is based on illegal code. James Michael DuPont started
> a GNUVcg project on the GNU Savannah Server:
>
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/vcgdotgnu/
>
> This project was recently shut down by FSF, since he used pirated
> code for his project. He will soon restart the GNUVcg project with
> a proper code base. Therefore I'm asking you to remove the illegal
> package from your servers.
I will assume that you are talking about something similar to the
message you sent to Mr. DuPont[0]. In that case, I would like to point
out a few things:
If you are alleging that Georg Sander does not, in fact, have copyright
on this work, then by continuing distribution to any person with the
jurisdiction of the United States (including Debian) of code that
contains a notice that it is copyrighted by him, you are violating
17 USC 506(c), which reads:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.— Any person who, with fraudulent
intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the
same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with
fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public
distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such
person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
Since this code has been distributed with the copyright notice including
Georg Sander for at least 10 years[1], I would hope that Saarland
University is not so incompetent as to not know for 10 years that it is
distributing code with a false copyright statement (assuming that is the
case).
Additionally, if any person or organization other than Saarland
University contributed code to VCG solely under the GNU General Public
License, version 2, then you would be obligated to distribute it only
under those terms (which include providing source that is unobfuscated).
Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
version 1 or later[2]. Because the code is (at least with the default
makefile) copied into the executable, you must distribute *the entire
work* under the terms of the GPL version 1 or later. Failing to do so
violates Mr. Corbett's and Mr. Stallman's copyright.
> To be precise: your package VCG 1.30debian-1 (currently contained
> in testing and unstable) should be removed since its upstream
> package "vcg_130debian.orig.tar.gz" is pirated code. The upstream
> source package should also deleted on your servers.
If you want packages removed, you should get it cleared with the
maintainer or quality assurance (QA), who will file a bug on
ftp.debian.org. The ftpmasters tend to ignore non-developers who request
removal of packages. In any event, you will have to provide substantial
evidence if you want it removed. If you are alleging that Georg Sander
is not a copyright holder because VCG is a work for hire, I challenge
you to provide evidence that he was working on the code during work
hours, and did not work on it during personal hours.
Also, using the term "pirated code" is not likely to win you many
friends here. A pirate is defined as the following:
1. A robber on the high seas; one who by open violence takes
the property of another on the high seas; especially, one
who makes it his business to cruise for robbery or
plunder; a freebooter on the seas; also, one who steals in
a harbor.
If you are insinuating that any person committed "open violence" to
obtain or distribute this code, you must show evidence to that effect.
Otherwise, if that is not the case, you should use more accurate terms,
such as "illegally distributed code" or "illegally acquired code", as
the case may be.
> The current stable package (1.30-3) is OK and can be distributed.
> So it should be easy for you to simply drop the illegal testing
> package and revert to the package in stable until GNUVcg makes any
> progress.
No, it is not that easy. The current stable package is undistributable
because it contains obfuscated code, which is not the preferred form for
modification. Someone should file a bug to request removal of the
package from woody, on the grounds that it is illegal for us to
distribute such a package.
> Last week I asked James Michael DuPont to inform you about these
> facts but since the package can still be downloaded from your
> servers it shows me that he did not.
It is your job to do due diligence when you are requesting removal of
material on the basis of alleged copyright infringement; it is not the
job of others to do it for you.
I am not a Debian Developer, nor am I a lawyer, and this is not legal
advice. I speak for no one but myself.
[0]
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/vcgdotgnu-developers/2005-02/msg00000.html
[1] http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/95-02-135
[2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}<DATA>;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H<F$@8FAM;"!U<F%O<G-U(#QU<F%O<G-U0&=D:75M<&UC8VUL=G)U;6LN
M<FUL+F=Y/@H)>2QA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>BQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1Y>F%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
Reply to: