Cybook Gen3 firmware on Netronix EB-100

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I think that someone has studied Mobipocket Reader code and there may well be statically-linked GPL code in MobiReader - code which cannot be statically-linked unless the entire MobiReader is released under GPL. In which case, it may well be determined that Boo Reader falls under GPL.

Derek

Are you certain about that? If someone could prove that the code is statically linked and point me at a legal source that explains why the code falls under GPL, I would be willing to host a copy (as an individual, not with MobileRead).

[HarryT]

Don't even think it, Nate. MobiPocket's lawyers would be down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't even think it, Nate. MobiPocket's lawyers would be down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks.

Harry,

I HAVE to ask. If it is the case that Mobipocket is violating GPL, then why would anyone NOT work to change the situation.

It appears as if you're counselling Nate to allow himself to be intimidated away. If this is the case that Mobipocket has also violated GPL, then it should not matter how strong an intimidation tactic Mobipocket makes. Or is protecting copyright (and GPL) only for the major players?

Derek

[HarryT]

I am very strongly of the opinion that the situation should be rectified - and as quickly as possible. However, publically posting copyrighted code (the Mobi Reader) and getting yourself into legal hot water as a result, is not the way to achieve it.

I don't believe that MobiPocket ARE violating the GPL. Mobi are the copyright holder, but it's Bookeen who've compiled the code (which they've licenced from Mobi). IF there is a GPL violation (and I don't know if there is or not), I would guess that it's down to Bookeen, not MobiPocket.

[Nate the great]

If what Derek said is true, and Bookeen did indeed screw up and release the code under GPL, then I can host a copy and distribute it. I will not be intimidated.

P.S. Before I would even consider doing it, I want to see a clear and obvious argumnet that it is legal.

[HarryT]

Ask Alex just how "zealous" Mobi's lawyers are, Nate - please, I urge you to. I think it all happened before you became an editor, but we had some SERIOUSLY bad experiences with them.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If what Derek said is true, and Bookeen did indeed screw up and release the code under GPL, then I can host a copy and distribute it. I will not be intimidated.

P.S. Before I would even consider doing it, I want to see a clear and obvious argumnet that it is legal.

Truly.

As I mentioned in passing, I *think* this is the case. Not having looked deeply into the files myself, I'm taking the words of others. And - IANAL. So while I agree with the idea of hosting/posting the code, I *also* believe that it's best to determine - for sure - that either Mobipocket or Bookeen inadvertently messed up.

Derek

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Are you certain about that? If someone could prove that the code is statically linked and point me at a legal source that explains why the code falls under GPL, I would be willing to host a copy (as an individual, not with MobileRead).

It doesn't fall under GPL until the distributor says so.

Bookeen's reader statically (!) links at least to the following GPL/LGPL libraries:

glibc/iconv - LGPL
libgcj - LGPL with the exception that linking to it does not force other code to be released - so ok
MuPDF - GPL

I mailed the MuPDF redarding the legality of use of his work in Bookeen reader, but did not get the answer yet.

If you need some proof, you may just unpack the firmware, and run a strings(1) on it, it will dump lots of strings which may be identified as related to the corresponding open-source products.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

I mailed the MuPDF redarding the legality of use of his work in Bookeen reader, but did not get the answer yet.

The MuPDF library is AFPL-licensed according to the readme of the project.

The Aladdin Free Public License, abbreviated AFPL, is a license written by L. Peter Deutsch for his Ghostscript PostScript language interpreter. It was derived from the GNU General Public License, but differs on two key points:

* The source code must be included with any software distribution.
* The software may not be sold, including any fees involved with distribution.

Deutsch chose to include a commercial restriction in the AFPL based on his observation of people including Ghostscript in commercial products without full license compliance.

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by TadW

The MuPDF library is AFPL-licensed according to the readme of the project.

Oh. Here it says about GPL: http://ccxvii.net/apparition/

Heh, AFPL restrictions are quite harsh

"This License is not an Open Source license"

"Distribution of the Program or any work based on the Program by a commercial organization to any third party is prohibited if any payment is made in connection with such distribution"

"If you have modified the Program, you must cause the Work to carry prominent notices stating that you have modified the Program's files and the date of any change."

"If you distribute any written or printed material at all with the Work, such material must include either a written copy of this License, or a prominent written indication that the Work is covered by this License and written instructions for printing and/or displaying the copy of the License on the distribution medium"

[TadW]

Yeah, saw that too on the ccxvii homepage. Seems like he wasn't sure under what license to put the code. But usually I take what's written in the source code readme for granted

Btw, here is an interesting related article on GPL v3 (from Slashdot today):

http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnolo...=1202421869652

Under prior versions of the GPL, it was generally accepted that open source and proprietary software could peacefully coexist so long as the proprietary software interacted with open source only through defined interfaces. Under the new version of the GPL, the proprietary characteristics of software that step into the ring with open source software are knocked out, unless the proprietary components are "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the [open source] work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program." Losing proprietary rights can be significant because those rights are frequently essential for any company seeking to profit from differentiated high-tech products.

[tompe]

So the question is if Bookeen has licensed MuPDF. If not the case seems pretty clear.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by tompe

So the question is if Bookeen has licensed MuPDF. If not the case seems pretty clear.

And there is the question of other code/libraries that might have been embedded in the code. And we are only talking about the ebook reader software, not the other parts of the firmware (os, gui, etc.).

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I think that someone has studied Mobipocket Reader code and there may well be statically-linked GPL code in MobiReader - code which cannot be statically-linked unless the entire MobiReader is released under GPL. In which case, it may well be determined that Boo Reader falls under GPL.

Derek

Are you sure this was true in version 2 of GPL? Linux does not release under Version 3.

Dale

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Are you sure this was true in version 2 of GPL? Linux does not release under Version 3.

Since the main point of GPL is that you have to distribute the source code if you statically link to a gpl:ed library why should it not be true? One of the difference with version 2 and 3 is that for 2 you do not have to provide the program to install the software on a device.