ellos han modificado el codigo fuente, pero no han redistribuido el codigo fuente. es como si tu te coges APACHE y lo modificas INTERNAMENTE para ponerlo como server web de tu pagina. si, tu pagina corre apache, una version tuneada por ti, y NO ESTAS OBLIGADO A REDISTRIBUIRLA, NI A DAR EL CODIGO FUENTE. son boquetes en la GPL y GPL2.

si no quereis que os pasen esas cosas, pasaos a GPL3, que entience dar servicio como obra derivada ‘en pocas palabras’ y tendrian que haber redistribuido el codigo. lastimosamente YA no podeis hacer nada, puesto que hicieron el fork de una version antigua que era GPL2, asi que ellos derivaron de GPL2.

Es más sencillo. Han modificado un programa GPL? Sí? Pues deben compartir sus modificaciones con el resto de la comunidad del producto GPL. Como si es un servicio o un producto.

Yo, como usuario de mybooo, y dado que es GPL (pues por muy pequeña que sea la porción de eyeOS, usa partes GPL por lo que debe ser liberado como GPL), debo poder tener acceso al código. Eso mimso mismo dice la licencia con las cuatro libertades.

Lo que están diciendo ahora, y dado que han re-puesto los copirights y cabeceras GPL, es “Soy GPL pero NO distribuyo el código”. Eso es claramente una rotura de la licencia GPL.

En fin, estoy dececpcionado con su respuesta. Todo lo que tienen que hacer es liberar el código para que el resto de usuarios de eyeOS 0.9 puedan disfrutar de sus mejoras y dejar de discutir. Por mucho que solo usaran un 1% de eyeOS (que tendría que verlo porque creo que es más, pero en fin, que lo liberen y miramos si es tan pequeña la porción), ya usan algo, y por lo tanto, deben cumplir con la licencia, cosa que ahora no hacen.

Gracias por publicarlo

We are totally transparent with our sources and we have never intended nor thought of stealing the codes of EyeOS.

We confirm on the other hand that we have used a small part of EyeOS for developing MyBooo. We have found a small part, again a small part only, of EyeOS code useful to use hence we had integrated it to our system rather than re-developing the same. We were also encouraged that our project is compatible to them in case of any future partnership (which has been largely breached because of false accusations of our open source vision).

We would like to extend our deep apologies to EyeOS to have felt “cheated” but again this was never our intention. The site is still under development, it has only been a week since we have started to put it online and for BETA testing hence private access, through invitation only, if I may reiterate.

Nevertheless, we esteem that the minimum action that should have been done is to get in contact with us directly instead of propagating false rumor without confronting us first.

For all those who have tested MyBooo and EyeOS, they can certainly see the difference between the two systems. Let me give me some examples myself; file management; general look and feel, right click possibility, window systems, drag and drop option etc. To come up with this big difference, we have developed and redeveloped the modules and add big innovations that we own. With all the codes that we created for MyBooo, only 5% is identical to EyeOS. I don’t think this can be considered stolen codes.

Having explained our part, we would like to emphasize that we opposed this method of critizing our hard work. This is difficult to accept especially coming from this community pretending to be the open source when hard to admit is using disgracefully Microsoft itself.

We are profoundly disgraced by the way some developers of this community dishonor our work. We have never received any mail asking us for explanation of any sort. These “developers” prefer to attack us through Web instead of contacting us directly. This is a clear sign of uncertainly of accusations, which we will never tolerate.

For your information, the principles The (GPL) objective is not to extort work from developers but to enhance technologies. All this through sharing the development workload but also permitting to keep the private code (Fork principle). This should lead in creation of market around the technology and propose commercial offers. When these “developers” pretend to attack us of breaching the open license source and have distributed us the codes, we asked them to make sure they understand what GPL means before accusing us or anyone for that matter. Again, let me reiterate that MyBooo is also in GPL….

When we are accused of suppressing a copyright, we would like to remind everyone that there is clearly a big difference between compression_____ of JavaScript and stealing a program.

We have not sold out our codes hence we need not need to redistribute our sources. We do not wish to be totally open source since there is already one existing EyeOS. They do it well. We also believe that it is important in the WebOS market to also have the Fork commercial that will serve as the open source.

If the developers of EyeOS cannot comprehend this approach, they need to change the license to state that modifications should be automatically required to be re-allocated. This is not the case at this time with the GPL that they are currently using.

Lynxoft and MyBooo have always been loyal to open source but with allegations such as this one, we are profoundly disappointed. Despite all this, we will continue to enhance the open source solution, as we believe in this mode of development.

For Information: Lynxoft is the first training ground enterprise Open Source in France. Our own developers are actve members of KDE and Mandriva community. We therefore are very much aware of the rules and benefits of Open Source.

PS : We would like to thank RoundCube and Dojo who understands our approach and let us enhance their vision instead of accusing us of stealers.

Instead of a long speech, I invite you to test MyBooo and EyeOS for you to know the difference!

¿El código JavaScript no lo distribuyen? No deja de ser un trabajo derivado, y están distribuyendo aunque sea partes de él.

¿Qué pasa en estos casos? ¿Un agujero en la GPLv2?