[horde] Use of the HORDE product : GNU/GPL conformity case ?

[Bernard TREMBLAY]

Le 26/10/2012 10:26, Jan Schneider a écrit :
> 
> Zitat von Bernard TREMBLAY <bty-opendev.horde at trebly.net>:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>>     Do the fact, that a provider of internet services to use your product
>> as one of the goodies into a pack, but this with the suppression of some
>> important functions as "transmit" email without any change of help file
>> nor version number (i.e. 3.3.5 modified... restricted...), is according
>> to GNU/GPL license in your opinion ?
>>     In my opinion not : this non conformity with original product
>> functionalities, can be confused by user with a bad achievement of the
>> product or with bugs. Then the time lost by the user of the modified
>> version with restrictions, which can be followed by errors done into his
>> own specifications (using HORDE product knowledge in conformity with
>> version number) transmitted to his own clients can create damages to the
>> client and to the "name" of HORDE , is it not true ? GNU/GPL does not
>> mean do "what you want" with our sources".
> 
> It depends. Does he distribute the modified software, or does he only
> offer it as a service. As a service he can modify the code like he
> wants, limiting features to his users etc.
> If he distributes or even sells the modified Horde version as a part of
> his product, he can still do so, but has to disclose the modified source
> code to the public.
> 
> IANAL

Hi,

OK. This confirms to me that me are fully GNU/GPL without application
complements thoughts.
He simply offers as a service, and says that he has not changed anything
to the product (3.3.5).
In fact the use of transmit mail from filters is not operational (see
farther).

But, such complements, as I discuss here "oblige provider of service to
inform the next level of changes made", could be, as for the text of the
laws and contract, what is named in French "Décret d'application d'une
loi" translated (Google as) "Enforcement Decree of Law", supplemented by
some rules for which I am fighting because of the reasons I explain in
my header message and develop here in the application meaning and reasons.

In this :
When the functions are restricted even by changes in code or
installation restrictions,
1- the version number should need to be a little altered (see farther
suggestion)
2- the provider (service or distribution) must create a link (could be a
parameter in GNU/GPL products : text to display into a popup or url)
which would describe the changes or restrictions.

Generally when there is a distribution of a GNU/GPL product they are
enhancements so this is practically always done, the author describe
what his provided by his enhanced version  but versus this is quite
never done when it is a free service which is provided.

The free service offered around a main commercial service, always adds a
value to the main one to make his integration. Often there is an
automated install process, the product is not listed into the user
directory etc. The limit between free service and distribution is so
thin in this case (continuous cases between simple download as a mirror
and integration into a commercial product or services).

So I fight to oblige these free services providers of GNU/GPL products
to deliver a product with all the functionalities operational and, if
not, have to redact the restrictions done.

Practically this could be done, for example, by adding to version number
a keyword or simply a letter.
Details : [i.e. 3.3.5.F(ull) 3.3.5.r(estricted) 3.3.5.a(dd-ons)
3.3.5.p(arametered). Some Combinations of the codes can be done as in
the "3.3.5.rp" sample]

The rule is too to be applied when :
1- parameters of the product can modify access to various functions and
particularly implement restrictions without changing the code
2- the corresponding parameters can't be accessed by the common user

As comment to my mail header, a sample of trick and deception :

1- I have been tricked because a service provider who offers HORDE as a
service but not full functionalities (The filters cannot transmit
mails). You can understand that in this case that many functions (most
of groupware) can't be operational (simply defined as useful functionality)

2- As I have just said to a client, after looking at the HORDE version
number, it is possible to... as a standard, my client has been upset
when I had to explain to him that we had to implement new mailbox on
another server... because it was not "true ?"
3- Anybody will recognize that it is not possible to test each function
on a standard known product before saying "this function will be
available"...

So this case leads to a real deception case, into the context of the use
of "HORDE" reference and "NAME". It can be very difficult to explain the
nature of the problem and the trick to some clients and it is not normal
that the consultant and/or opensource developer should be shown as the
responsible of such situations (which seems to be frequent).
The provider confirms that he has made no change but at the same time
says "the webmails are just setup for consultation ans sending mails"
and at the question which version of HORDE do you provide he answers :
3.3.5... !!!

For my own, I use, install, develop opensource into opensource teams and
make enhancements or changes for particular applications.
I always indicate into the header of footer "Application using .....
product GNU/GPL version :.... changes done in code and configured
parameters".
Into code I always add references to changes done.

I think that we have to setup rules to avoid such situations.

The incompetent or cheaters should be put out of harm's way.

Best regards

Trebly