I'm a pfSense user, and I'm getting more and more into Git.
After setting up my Github.com account, I just realized that Gitorious.com offers something similar, and is also an open source project itself! I should have realized this earlier, as pfSense is using a self-hosted gitorious install for their RCS sub-domain.
Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, there appears to be two big problems.
They are using the Gitorious logo on all the pages. The Gitorious logo is CC Attribution licensed.
They also removed the "Powered by Gitorious" logo / link. While that's not specifically a requirement per the Affero GPL License - pfSense is required to provide a link to the source.
It disappointing to see an open source project infringing upon another open source project license. Hopefully they will fix this soon, or explain why they aren't subject to the terms of the Gitorious licenses.
UPDATE: I should have thought twice about writing that last sentence because the pfSense crew have really done a superb job with their project and are definitely committed to open source. True to form, Scott Ullrich (who I believe is the pfSense project leader) read this post and explained how the situation came to be and some plans to honor the Affero GPL.
I really wish the Affero GPL had a better name, but in my opinion its the best license out there for web applications that would benefit from global collaboration - I use it for most of the web applications I develop.
Hello,
First of all, you really should have contacted us before posting this.
Second of all, you really should do your homework before posting these kinds of rants.
Third, "The Gitorious logo is owned by Shortcut AS and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Norway License."
Fourth, we have not distributed the code in question and the changes we have made are basically turning off features such as "Create new project" by removing the link from the code.
I will be happy to furnish the code for anyone that really thinks they need it, just contact me at above address.
Cheers
PS:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your reply comments. I did not mean for my post to sound like a rant (I'm a huge fan of pfSense), and I did do my homework regarding the licenses.
Gitorious uses the Affero GPL, which is different than the regular GPL - specifically with respect to software as a service.
The CC Attribution license requires that licensees to attribute the copyright owner, but I didn't see anywhere on your website that you do so.
- Albert
Right, I believe that's why they chose the Affero GPL instead of the regular GPL.
On closer inspection you are correct.
I still wish you would have contacted us prior to posting a blog post.
Another member of our team configured our Gitorious server for us which we are very grateful for.
I will strip the logs and our server specific settings and get the code posted and the (C) for the logo put back in. Thank you.
I hope you don't think this blog post reflects poorly on pfSense at all. As I said in the post and my first reply, I have nothing but respect and appreciation for the pfSense project. Ultimately I think your responsiveness and attention to this matter again shows that the people behind pfSense are on the ball.
At least, I hope this blog post will help others understand the implications of the Affero License. It is substantially different from the regular GPL when it comes to publicly accessible web applications. Or, if someone is searching for Affero GPL information, maybe they'll find our about the awesome pfSense project!! :-)
To clarify what happened with the Logo situation: we are running a very old version of Gitorious that did not contain that text.
Either way I added the text from the most recent version and switched the logo out to the pfsense logo to avoid confusion in the future
We asked Johan Sørensen, the author of Gitorious to comment on the situation.
1) We had the proper attribution to use the logo, though we did change it to our own logo after this post.
2) We didn't remove the "Powered by Gitorious" link, we're using an older version that doesn't have that link. The source changes, just disabling project creation, were already in a clone on gitorious.org added by the developer who made the changes. We added a repository to rcs.pfsense.org with the same code.
https://rcs.pfsense.org/projects/gitorious
We're not required to provide a link to the source per Johan - "the AGPL, like the GPL, doesn't state it has to be an active link somewhere".
So in short, we were already fully in compliance and always have been, and now we're doubly so.
Thanks to Johan for being helpful.
You should check with people/projects/companies before posting things like this in public, as in this case they can turn out to be completely false accusations. And short of Google Alerts telling us about this post, we never would have known about it to rectify the situation had we actually been in violation.
Chris,
I'm glad you found this post and were able to resolve the issue I had with the use of Gitorious on the pfSense website, specifically by adding the source code of Gitorious to the pfSense repositories.
I'm confused by your response though. How were you in compliance with the Affero GPL prior to adding the Gitorious repository?
Albert
The source code has always been in a clone in the gitorious.org repository, the developer who made the changes committed everything there.
http://gitorious.org/gitorious/billm-clone
That would have been fine had the pfsense website "maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source," as specified here:
"d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements."
So instead of cloning the gitorious code to the pfsense website, instructions could have been added to the pfsense website directing users to that gitorious codebase on gitorious.org.