Re: possible GNU licence violation in "Netleverage Thinpoint and/or Universal Desktop" - voilation relates to both rdesktop and CUPS(apple)

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM, buzz <davidbuzz gmail com> wrote:
> Hello All,
> I have come across a piece of software that appears to violate the GPL (and
> possibly the LGPL).
> I am attempting to advise you all, as instructed in the following link:
> If you re not the responsible parties for this in regard to
> rdesktop(matthewm), and CUPS(apple), please forward this to the party yout
> think is responsible for following licence violations up.!
> Thanks,
> David B.
> The software of concern is the Thinpoint aka AppsPoint aka Netpoint aka
> Universal Desktop aka Desktra software, all of these are by Netleverage.
> Please note, I mention all these software titles as it's very difficult to
> differentiate these products, but I will provide precise details on how I
> come to suspect most or all of these:
> The steps I performed to become aware of the possible violation are:
> Using a Mac computer, I visited the netleverage site, and clicked the
> 'products' link.
> I went to the "universal desktop" section, and selected the "online demo"
> tab.
> I followed the instruction there-in to login to the "Thinpoint Desktra
> online demo" with username tptest and password tptest.
> After "trust"-ing the java component of the product to run, it gave me a
> remote windows desktop, and an "application launcher" delivered as an X11
> application.
> I then reviewed the files that it "installed" to my computer as part of this
> client install, and found them in a folder called ".NativeStart" in my
> homefolder.
> One of the files in this folder was a Mach-O bundle i386 file called
> "MacPoint" that is the major cause of concern.    When I run this
> application, it states:
> ./MacPoint
> NetLeverage AppsPoint Linux Desktop client.
> Based on ThinPoint server, rdesktop client, GTK+2, CUPS and RDP.
> Performing a "strings" of this binary identified a number of references to
> rdesktop, windowmanagers, and printing , which supports the statement that
> the above application makes.
> So, in trying to identify the binary, I had to use the titles Universal
> Desktop and Desktra, and the binary itself identified itself as being part
> of AppsPoint and ThinPoint (and Linux, even though I'm on a Mac!), but all
> of these are Netleverage titles, so the entity that appreas to be in
> violation is clear, even if the precise name of the software title is not.
> So, I will now give as much info as I have been able to determine regarding
> answering the questions that the GNU URL above lists:
> Does the distribution contain a copy of the License?
> no, not that I have ben able to determine.
> Does it clearly state which software is covered by the License? Does it say
> anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is covered
> by the License when in fact it is not?
> no, not that I have ben able to determine.
> Is source code included in the distribution?
> no, definitely not.
> Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just
> binaries?
> just binaries, and a couple of shell scripts, one of which is called
> xinitrc, and has this string in it: "# $Id: xinitrc,v 2005/02/24
> 22:35:39 akosut Exp $"
> Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in
> other non-free modules?
> no souce code at all, so its clearly incomplete.
> If there seems to be a real violation, the next thing you need to do is
> record the details carefully:
> the precise name of the product
> see above. I think I would refer to this as "MacPoint"?
> the name of the person or organization distributing it
> NetLeverage Pty Ltd
> Address:
> 17 International Business Centre
> Australian Technology Park, Garden St.
> Eveleigh, NSW, 1430
> Australia
> CEO: Mr Stephen Hasani
> Telephone: (+612) 9209 4446
> Fax: (+612) 9209 4399
> email addresses, postal addresses and phone numbers for how to contact the
> distributor(s)
> see above.
> the exact name of the package whose license is violated
> both rdesktop and  CUPS
> how the license was violated:
> Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included?
> No
> Is the source code completely missing?
> Yes.
> Does the written offer for source, if given, only give a website and/or FTP
> site where to download the source?
> No offer given.
> Is there a copy of the license included in the distribution?
> No.
> Is some of the source available, but not all? If so, what parts are missing?
> None available.
> And finally, I have confirmed that both of these products ( CUPS and
> rdesktop)  are licenced under the GPL, but GTK+2 is not, and thus it's
> licence has not been violated.
> rdesktop License : GNU General Public License (GPL)  (
> )
> extract from CUPS licence info:
> ( )
> The Common UNIX Printing SystemTM, ("CUPSTM"), is provided under the GNU
> General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License
> ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for Apple operating systems and the
> OpenSSL toolkit. ....You must provide source for any changes or additions to
> the software, and all code must be provided under the GPL or LGPL as
> appropriate.....
> Apple Inc. owns CUPS as of February 2007.
> extract from GTK+2 licence info:
> GTK+2 uses the LGPL allowing development of both free and proprietary
> software with GTK+ without any license fees or royalties.

[Please send further replies to legal-list gnome org and not
foundation-list gnome org so as to avoid spamming the entire
foundation membership with this issue.]

Thanks for taking the time to inform us; passing on such information
is exactly the right thing to do and we appreciate your effort.

While the LGPL does allow creation of proprietary software based on
the LGPL-licensed library, creators of such proprietary software are
still required to mention the license, as well as offer a mechanism by
which the library may be modified and the modified library used with
the software (LGPL 2.1 section 6). So assuming the facts as you state
them are correct, there is also a GTK license violation occurring

Any GTK+ copyright holders who wish to discuss the violation
(including enforcement) should contact me off-list or via
legal-list gnome org  The Foundation is not the copyright holder and
so should not initiate any actions by ourselves on our own, but we'd
be happy to assist any concerned GTK copyright holders who want to
contact NetLeverage about the situation. For the public record, I
would recommend that we follow FSF's typical policy in such situations
and start by assuming good faith on their part and contacting them
politely, explaining the terms of the license and how they can come
into compliance.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]