[Mldonkey-users] Morpheus binary forms mldonkey derivative

[Curtis Magyar]

Hello all.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here  (
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/mldonkey-users/2004-01/msg00063.html ),
but I believe morpheus is in fact violating the GPL by not providing
source code.  For example:

The main page ( http://www.morpheus.com ) says:

"Connect to millions of Kazaa, iMesh, eDonkey, Overnet, Grokster,
Gnutella, Limewire, and G2 users to get more results than you've ever
seen before! Download Morpheus 4 now!"

It says nothing of mldonkey, or the GPL.  It makes no distinction
between the mlnet core, and morpheus.  The GPL FAQ says this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

...[snip]...
"A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of
that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must
be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two
reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom
they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that
they make." 
... [snip]...
"If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply
one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about
this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free
status of the GPL-covered software in the collection." ...
... [snip]...

Distributing morpheus and mldonkey in one package called Morpheus.exe
doesn't make any distinction, to the user they are one program.  Anyone
know if it is possible to operate the mldonkey core that ships with
morpheus without touching the proprietary system?  Or if the other
protocols in mlnet can be activated to supersede the edonkey support in
morpheus?

Also, merely distributing a binary of a GPL program requires you to make
the source code available. Its not a precondition that you modify the
code.

Further, they have to provide the source "from the same place" as the
binary, as is covered in the FAQ here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeExtendedBinary
and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient

Have any copyright holders of mldonkey code expressed their views on
this issue yet?  I saw some discussion, but nobody really said anything
about pursuing the matter.  Is it dead?

--
Curtis Magyar
address@hidden