EventGhost

Not seeing the source code anywhere? Should be included in downloads area. If you do not include the source you are breaking the GPL. Am I missing it?

http://www.eventghost.org/svn/

The program install basicly the source code (all the.py files in the directory). For quick test you can simply modify the files and restart the executable.

Oh, ok thanks.

redux wrote:Not seeing the source code anywhere? Should be included in downloads area. If you do not include the source you are breaking the GPL. Am I missing it?

As a first time poster you should always read the stickies in the forum you are posting to.

Even a simple search for "source code" would have revealed where to look at.

And before you are accusing a copyright holder of breaking the copyright of his own code, you should first get some basics about copyright and especially the GPL in detail. Starting with half knowledge about the GPL is always a bad idea.

Banned account for two weeks because of perkiness.

Bitmonster wrote:Banned account for two weeks because of perkiness.

That was a joke, right?

jsonnabend wrote:That was a joke, right?

Nope

Bartman wrote:

jsonnabend wrote:That was a joke, right?

Nope

Sad.

FWIW, I believe that licensing software under the GPL and then refusing to make the source available constitutes breach of contract. I understand that that's not what happened here (the source code is and always has been available, as far as I can tell), but Bitmonster's reply is legally off the mark.

- Jeff

jsonnabend wrote:I understand that that's not what happened here (the source code is and always has been available, as far as I can tell), but Bitmonster's reply is legally off the mark.

If something is covered by the GPL, only the copyright holder can sue somebody of breaking the license.
And a copyright holder can never sue itself for breaking the copyright. At least not in every legal system I'm aware of.

So lets assume EG wouldn't be covered by the GPL, because there was never ever released any source code. Then we can talk about a "false assertion" that might be existent. But this is not "breaking the GPL". Something like this would be a completely different beast.

And somebody misapprehend the GPL completely, if he believes the GPL forces somebody to supply a direct link for the source code. Everybody can decide on his own if he makes the sources only available on demand through email or deliver a CD/DVD/Floppy on demand and he can even charge you for this service.

...

I could write much more about the obvious missing knowledge that is shining through this, oh, so studiously first time poster. But it gets boring.

I understand the frustration, Bitmonster. I might suggest a bit of leniency, though, as it's easy to misconstrue someone's tone in postings.

If something is covered by the GPL, only the copyright holder can sue somebody of breaking the license.

Well, not exactly. By releasing your code under GPL (or any other license), you arguably enter into an enforceable contract with licensees. If you don't adhere to the license terms on your end, you might be considered to be in breach. It's possible that a user could sue for breach of the license agreement in that case. That's different from suing for copyright infringement based on a user's breach of the license.

Anyway, that's my $.02. I'm an attorney in the U.S. who specializes in this type of law (IP and technology law), so it's a subject near and dear to my heart.

- Jeff