legal stuff

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

legal stuff

Hans Witvliet
Hi all,

probably this is the wrong place to put this question, but perhaps
someone on this list has dealt with such situation before...

For one of my projects we need a driver for a specific java-card.
The mere fact that we have to pay several tens of thousands to write tis
driver is something that ddoesn't affect my sleep at all.
Something else does. I 've been asking for this diver since november
last year, but the main contracter and the company behind it keep on
postponing it time after time. I have no doubt that they do can deliver
it, they allready produced a working driver for windows and blackberry.

What troubles me, is (besides the delay) the fact that they said that
they need to re-write their software not only for each distro, but even
for each release of any particular distro (ubuntu-9.10, ubuntu-10.4,
SLES11, SLES11SP1)
Somehow this gives me the impression that they hardlink their code
towards anything in that distro.

As most (not all) code in those distro's are released under gpl2, gpl3 i
wonder if they can get away with only delivering binaries. Shouldn't
they also deliver the source, so that we can inspect, and if needed
alter their code? Got the impression that that was the general idea
behind opensource.

Or is the fact that we order it specifically, and that they don't spread
it generally, exclude them from gpl-rules?

hw
_______________________________________________
opensc-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: legal stuff

Martin Paljak-2
Hello,

Maybe you can do with open source software instead?

What kind of functionality do you expect from the java card software (I assume you are purchasing both on-card software as host-side software?)

On Jun 29, 2010, at 10:10 , Hans Witvliet wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> probably this is the wrong place to put this question, but perhaps
> someone on this list has dealt with such situation before...
>
> For one of my projects we need a driver for a specific java-card.
> The mere fact that we have to pay several tens of thousands to write tis
> driver is something that ddoesn't affect my sleep at all.
> Something else does. I 've been asking for this diver since november
> last year, but the main contracter and the company behind it keep on
> postponing it time after time. I have no doubt that they do can deliver
> it, they allready produced a working driver for windows and blackberry.
>
> What troubles me, is (besides the delay) the fact that they said that
> they need to re-write their software not only for each distro, but even
> for each release of any particular distro (ubuntu-9.10, ubuntu-10.4,
> SLES11, SLES11SP1)
> Somehow this gives me the impression that they hardlink their code
> towards anything in that distro.
>
> As most (not all) code in those distro's are released under gpl2, gpl3 i
> wonder if they can get away with only delivering binaries. Shouldn't
> they also deliver the source, so that we can inspect, and if needed
> alter their code? Got the impression that that was the general idea
> behind opensource.
>
> Or is the fact that we order it specifically, and that they don't spread
> it generally, exclude them from gpl-rules?

GPL gives the receiver of the software the right to ask for source code if you think it includes (L)GPL. Only the receiver (you) have the right to ask for the source code.

If you think they are including (statically linking) (L)GPL code and not giving the source... You can ask for help here (especially if you think they include OpenSC related code)

For a similar story, check the posts linked from http://www.opensc-project.org/opensc/ticket/205
--
Martin Paljak
@martinpaljak.net
+3725156495

_______________________________________________
opensc-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: legal stuff

Ludovic Rousseau
In reply to this post by Hans Witvliet
2010/6/29 Hans Witvliet <[hidden email]>:
> Hi all,

Hello,

> probably this is the wrong place to put this question, but perhaps
> someone on this list has dealt with such situation before...
>
> For one of my projects we need a driver for a specific java-card.
> The mere fact that we have to pay several tens of thousands to write tis
> driver is something that ddoesn't affect my sleep at all.
> Something else does. I 've been asking for this diver since november
> last year, but the main contracter and the company behind it keep on
> postponing it time after time. I have no doubt that they do can deliver
> it, they allready produced a working driver for windows and blackberry.

Maybe it is tool late for your specific case but a good solution is to
buy free software only.
Your contractor is writing a specific software for you. You can
request to have the source code under a free software license.
Now that the contract has been signed it is a bit late.

> What troubles me, is (besides the delay) the fact that they said that
> they need to re-write their software not only for each distro, but even
> for each release of any particular distro (ubuntu-9.10, ubuntu-10.4,
> SLES11, SLES11SP1)
> Somehow this gives me the impression that they hardlink their code
> towards anything in that distro.

Or they are gaining time (and/or money) using silly arguments.

Bye

--
 Dr. Ludovic Rousseau
_______________________________________________
opensc-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: legal stuff

Andreas Kuehne-2
In reply to this post by Hans Witvliet
Hi Hans,

there is a special list regarding the different licence issues ( [hidden email] ). Maybe you may post your question there, these guys are very familiar with the legal stuff.

Anyway I would presume that writing code and only linking to GPLd code doesn't 'infect' the code, someone can still distribute under any license he feels comfortable with ...

Btw. I made the same experience with suppliers of crypto drivers : They never deliver in time, bill a fortune and refuse to support linux. And in case they do, it's only an outdated version. And the installation never succeeds .. so, you're not alone ;-)

Greetings

Andreas



----- Original Message ----
From: Hans Witvliet <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 9:10:23 AM
Subject: [opensc-user] legal stuff

Hi all,

probably this is the wrong place to put this question, but perhaps
someone on this list has dealt with such situation before...

For one of my projects we need a driver for a specific java-card.
The mere fact that we have to pay several tens of thousands to write tis
driver is something that ddoesn't affect my sleep at all.
Something else does. I 've been asking for this diver since november
last year, but the main contracter and the company behind it keep on
postponing it time after time. I have no doubt that they do can deliver
it, they allready produced a working driver for windows and blackberry.

What troubles me, is (besides the delay) the fact that they said that
they need to re-write their software not only for each distro, but even
for each release of any particular distro (ubuntu-9.10, ubuntu-10.4,
SLES11, SLES11SP1)
Somehow this gives me the impression that they hardlink their code
towards anything in that distro.

As most (not all) code in those distro's are released under gpl2, gpl3 i
wonder if they can get away with only delivering binaries. Shouldn't
they also deliver the source, so that we can inspect, and if needed
alter their code? Got the impression that that was the general idea
behind opensource.

Or is the fact that we order it specifically, and that they don't spread
it generally, exclude them from gpl-rules?

hw
_______________________________________________
opensc-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-user

_______________________________________________
opensc-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: legal stuff

Hans Witvliet
In reply to this post by Martin Paljak-2
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 11:31 +0300, Martin Paljak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe you can do with open source software instead?
>
As of gouvernement ruling, (any) closed software alternative may only be
used if  clearly indicated that opensource products does not provide the
same functionality. (but is hard to eridicate old behaviour)

> What kind of functionality do you expect from the java card software (I assume you are purchasing both on-card software as host-side software?)
For one project i'm working on, just using the (company) smartcard for authentication during VPN-setup.
Would be nice if i could also use it for disk-decryption, unlocking
screensaver.

For another project the basic office stuff: loging in, document
encryption, email (signing/encryption)


<snip>
>
> GPL gives the receiver of the software the right to ask for source code if you think it includes (L)GPL. Only the receiver (you) have the right to ask for the source code.
>
> If you think they are including (statically linking) (L)GPL code and not giving the source... You can ask for help here (especially if you think they include OpenSC related code)
>
> For a similar story, check the posts linked from http://www.opensc-project.org/opensc/ticket/205

As soon as they deliver, i'll analyse it and come back on it.

hw
_______________________________________________
opensc-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-user