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

Fri Oct 26 14:06:09 UTC 2012

It might not be a violation of the GPL, but it could still be a violation
of the Horde trademark to use the name "Horde" on a crippled version of the
product.  But it all depends on the terms of Horde LLC's licensing of its
mark.

Mozilla restricts to a certain extent when the Firefox name can be applied
to a browser based on its source code. Only unmodified distributions of
official stable release's can be called Firefox.  If you modify it or if
you distribute a beta, you can't call it Firefox or use the Firefox icon or
other Firefox artwork.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Bernard TREMBLAY <
bty-opendev.horde at trebly.net> wrote:

> 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
> --
> Horde mailing list
> Frequently Asked Questions: http://horde.org/faq/
> To unsubscribe, mail: horde-unsubscribe at lists.horde.org
>
>