Re: [Mldonkey-users] Morpheus binary forms mldonkey derivative

[b8_bavard]

   I see two parts in the GPL: one says that MLdonkey is
free software, ie that you can do whatever you want with it, and the
second says that if you modify and distribute it, you should also
release the code and your modifications.

  For me, the first part is the most important, everybody is free to
use and modify MLdonkey code. For the second part, I don't really
care, unless there is really a big problem. In Morpheus case, they
clearly expressed their wish to contribute to the project (at least
privately to me) by releasing any code they would produce or help to
produce, and didn't hide that they were using MLdonkey (they sent me a
mail before the release, and I have read it in at least one article).
Currently, it seems they use an official version of MLdonkey, whose
sources are available, so I don't see any reason to complain.

  Finally, I think it is a good thing for MLdonkey users in general,
because it makes some publicity for the project, because it will
increase the stability of MLdonkey on Windows (they have a better
knowledge of this system than I have) and because Morpheus will also
contribute by helping us to track and fix bugs for their users.

- b8_toujours_bavard (admin of the project)

>  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