[Solved] GPL Violation! [released]

Question

25

[Solved] GPL Violation! [released]

asked 2017-06-11 01:35:27 +0200

V10lator
1045 ●41 ●61 ●59

updated 2017-07-03 07:30:07 +0200

There are still no sources for Sailfish OS 2.1 available. I already asked on IRC. As I didn't got a reply there I also wrote a letter (tracking Nr. RC 2899 9618 2DE - date of sending April 18 2017) which was successfully delivered at April 25 2017 but you also never replied.

As this is a violation of the GPL I ask you again, this time in public, to give out the sources for SailfishOS 2.1. If you won't do that until July 12 2017 I'm going to inform http://gpl-violations.org and license-violation@gnu.org

edit retag flag offensive reopen delete

The question has been closed for the following reason "released in a software update" by nthn
close date 2017-06-13 22:19:11.333961

Comments

6

Why you so serious? Add a question to https://together.jolla.com/question/54157/sailfishos-open-source-collaboration-meeting-planning/ and ask for sources jolla guys directly next week.

coderus ( 2017-06-11 02:02:12 +0200 )edit

16

@coderus: it appears (s)he went through the proper channels of requesting the sources. There should be no need to use another one (i.e. IRC, or this forum). I'd be pissed too.

Fuzzillogic ( 2017-06-11 03:45:22 +0200 )edit

9

@coderus Cause I really need the sources but (since stskeeps left the company?) nobody seems to care anymore.

V10lator ( 2017-06-11 04:00:33 +0200 )edit

9

@V10lator: A GPL violation is a serious issue! I think it would help if you would make your question here more clear. Which sources exactly don't they publish? "Sailfish OS 2.1" is not a single package, and a lot of what it consists of isn't even GPL - so the GPL couldn't be violated. From some comment below I assume it's about their kernel adaptation only. Pls specify what you mean exactly, that will help your case.

ossi1967 ( 2017-06-11 10:23:03 +0200 )edit

10

@coderus: I tend to agree with Fuzzilogic and V10lator. If its really a piece of GPLed software, the sources should be available without asking. If they are not, going through some obscure IRC meeting that hardly ever produces any output but "xx will look into this". A letter or mail is the professional way to handle this.

ossi1967 ( 2017-06-11 10:37:35 +0200 )edit

Why you so serious? Add a question to https://together.jolla.com/question/54157/sailfishos-open-source-collaboration-meeting-planning/ and ask for sources jolla guys directly next week.
coderus ( 2017-06-11 02:02:12 +0200 )edit
@coderus: it appears (s)he went through the proper channels of requesting the sources. There should be no need to use another one (i.e. IRC, or this forum). I'd be pissed too.
Fuzzillogic ( 2017-06-11 03:45:22 +0200 )edit
@coderus Cause I really need the sources but (since stskeeps left the company?) nobody seems to care anymore.
V10lator ( 2017-06-11 04:00:33 +0200 )edit
@V10lator: A GPL violation is a serious issue! I think it would help if you would make your question here more clear. Which sources exactly don't they publish? "Sailfish OS 2.1" is not a single package, and a lot of what it consists of isn't even GPL - so the GPL couldn't be violated. From some comment below I assume it's about their kernel adaptation only. Pls specify what you mean exactly, that will help your case.
ossi1967 ( 2017-06-11 10:23:03 +0200 )edit
@coderus: I tend to agree with Fuzzilogic and V10lator. If its really a piece of GPLed software, the sources should be available without asking. If they are not, going through some obscure IRC meeting that hardly ever produces any output but "xx will look into this". A letter or mail is the professional way to handle this.
ossi1967 ( 2017-06-11 10:37:35 +0200 )edit

Accepted Answer

37

answered 2017-06-12 11:14:46 +0200

larstiq
551 ●4 ●5 ●6

updated 2017-06-13 19:24:46 +0200

I don't know atm what happened to your letters, I'll look into that. As to the actual 2.1.0 sources, expect them early this week.

Update 2017-07-13: and here they are, http://releases.sailfishos.org/sources/2.1.0.11/

edit flag offensive delete publish link

Comments

4

Thank you for looking into that. :)

V10lator ( 2017-06-12 12:14:04 +0200 )edit

Thanks for the timely response!

nthn ( 2017-06-12 14:39:21 +0200 )edit

Thank you in advance!

martonmiklos ( 2017-06-12 22:19:32 +0200 )edit

Answer 2

35

answered 2017-06-12 11:28:24 +0200

veskuh

9003 ●74 ●80 ●83

My aplogies on the delay. Sometimes our team is just overworked and things get overlooked. We have received the letter and we are committed to following the license terms and releasing sources.

edit flag offensive delete publish link

Answer 3

-6

answered 2017-06-11 03:36:03 +0200

Renault
245 ●7 ●10 ●16

Jolla has to send source code of Sailfish OS only to customers (and not a public availability) and only piece of software under GPL licence is concerned (kernel patch have to be sent, but not Jolla's applications).

So, what do you want exactly?

edit flag offensive delete publish link

Comments

8

I am a customer (owning a Jolla 1 and a Jolla C).

Here's the letter I sended them:

Hello,
I need the source codes for SailfishOS 2.1.0.11 including the kernel sources / adaptions.
At the time of writing these codes wheren‘t available at http://releases.sailfishos.org/sources/ .
That said I‘m requesting you to send me the codes to:

-- SNIPPED--

Greetings,
-- SNIPPED--

Also if you look over at openrepos you'll see that I'm compiling and distributing kernel modules for their harware. I'm stuck with that since months cause they refuse to give the sources.

//EDIT: Maybe also worth to say: Back in time they even handled EA sources to me before publishing them but now there's only silence.

V10lator ( 2017-06-11 03:53:45 +0200 )edit

4

There might be huge delays; keep in mind they still are a start-up and have to be extremelly focussed. Btw out of curiosity, what did you compile the kernel modules for?

tortoisedoc ( 2017-06-11 19:49:36 +0200 )edit

1

Filesystem adaptations for example which I was always gladly using when I could but I never hold back a new Update for them. Sadly this is us losing those special treats from V10lator like f2fs filesystems etc.

MoritzJT ( 2017-06-11 21:04:34 +0200 )edit

1

@MoritzJT The f2fs kernel module is included in 2.1.0.11. In fact all my FS modules are included except exfat.

V10lator ( 2017-06-11 21:15:09 +0200 )edit

2

2.1.0 kernel is the same as 2.0.5.

lpr ( 2017-06-11 22:38:48 +0200 )edit

Answer 4

-6

answered 2017-06-12 11:40:44 +0200

hoschi

4140 ●53 ●78 ●78

http://www.ttyhoney.com/

updated 2017-06-12 11:45:09 +0200

Please define GPL-Violation? The GPL is a very complicated written piece of paper, it is hard to comprehend and a lot of people think it could be written more plainly. Especially, are you talking about GPL or LGPL, MIT or similiar? In case of LGPL and similiar you can calm down. Download the library-source from the upstream project, this enable you already to reuse a dynamically-linked executable or relink a statically-linked executable (in the later case the project must provide the object-files, but not the sources!). In the case of GPL(without L) they have to send you the sources, no matter what.

Despite that:
https://together.jolla.com/question/156449/more-sourcecode-will-be-released/

Sailfish OS never fullfilled it promises and is currently not FLOSS by common sense.

edit flag offensive delete publish link

Comments

6

I don't know why this question comes up that much but to answer it one more time: SailfishOS is basically a GNU/Linux distribution. That means there's a lot of GPL software involved (the Linux kernel being the most prominent example). Normally they publish the sources at http://releases.sailfishos.org/sources/ but this time (2.1.0.11) they overlooked it.

Anyway, they already answered before you: https://together.jolla.com/question/162828/action-needed-gpl-violation/?answer=162861#post-id-162861

V10lator ( 2017-06-12 12:38:18 +0200 )edit

1

I know that, this is not new for me. But it is not fully FLOSS, basically large parts are not FLOSS. Mostly Silicia and the self written stuff :(

hoschi ( 2017-06-12 16:00:38 +0200 )edit

[Solved] GPL Violation! [released]

The question has been closed for the following reason "released in a software update" by nthn
close date 2017-06-13 22:19:11.333961

Comments

4 Answers

Comments

Comments

Comments

Question tools

Stats

[Solved] GPL Violation! [released]

The question has been closed for the following reason "released in a software update" by nthn close date 2017-06-13 22:19:11.333961

Comments

4 Answers

Comments

Comments

Comments

Question tools

Public thread

Stats

The question has been closed for the following reason "released in a software update" by nthn
close date 2017-06-13 22:19:11.333961