Closing the legal briefcase on Mambo vs. Furthermore copyright dispute

Is it just me?

no, i can't get it either.

greetings, eMBee.

Must have been fixed; I see it.

Everyone seems to forget this. You are only required to release derivative works of a GPL program under the GPL if you distribute the derivative work publicly (ie. by selling it or something). Since Furthermore was only (AFAIK) using the modified code in-house, they are under no obligation to release their modified code under the GPL.

Of course, the fact that Sakic's Furthermore code was different to his Mambo code still stands. But it annoys me when everyone forgets one of the most basic things about GPL. Especially when a large part of an authoritative-sounding article is based on something that is wrong.

< /rant>

The probelm with this is Furthermore's owners are claiming that those 9 lines of code are theirs and no one else could duplicate the exact same functionality any other way.

Furthermore should of done it's due dilliegence since they had or could get the source code from both products instead of opening his big fat mouth.

Of course he talked to Blake Stowell of SCO. What else should one expect.

1) Where are there any facts about whether the code is different or not? Since half of the code in question has not been released, how can they be compared to make that determination.

2) As I read the claim, it has nothing to do with duplicating the function some other way, but simply that the code they paid for was taken. Again, without both for the comparison, it is hard to settle this.

3) To me, the important issue here is that someone who claims to speak for newsforge bobbles the GPL. Which plays right into the hands of those folks who cry that you can't trust open source. That person should not be allowd to speak for newsforge. The capability for folks to use GPL code for their in-house projects while maintaining their own investment for improvemenst is quite important.