[mantisbt-dev] MantisBT - Possible GPL License Violation

Discussion:

Paul Richards

2016-06-20 22:41:07 UTC

Hello,

I have been in discussion with the GPL/FSF licensing team for the last week
regarding a recent commit to mantisbt.

The following files were added to the open source mantisbt project which is
GPL licensed:

1)
<https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace-elements.min.js>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace-elements.min.js

2) <https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace-extra.min.js>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace-extra.min.js

3) <https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace.min.js>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace.min.js

4) <https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace.min.css>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace.min.css

5) <https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace-ie.min.css>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace-ie.min.css

6) <https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace-rtl.min.css>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace-rtl.min.css

These files are licensed under a commercial license (
<https://wrapbootstrap.com/theme/ace-responsive-admin-template-WB0B30DGR>
https://wrapbootstrap.com/theme/ace-responsive-admin-template-WB0B30DGR )
for which a fee may be payable by the end user.

The license options are available at
<http://support.wrapbootstrap.com/knowledge_base/topics/usage-licenses>
http://support.wrapbootstrap.com/knowledge_base/topics/usage-licenses.

Item 6 of the licenses state that "If the item was created using materials
which are the subject of a GNU General Public License (GPL), your use of the
item is subject to the terms of the GPL in place of the foregoing conditions
(to the extent the GPL applies)."

A copy of the GPL license is available at
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html>
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.

My understanding and suggested by the <mailto:***@fsf.org>
***@fsf.org team (although they are not lawyers) is that would be a
violation of the GPL to add these files in this way.

The advice received from their team in instances like this was to have a
look at <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html>
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html, and reach out to the GPL
project, and try to resolve the issue within the community. If that fails,
their advice is to contact <http://softwarefreedom.org/>
http://softwarefreedom.org/ who may offer free legal services to open
developers.

My reason for a number of years for contributing to the MantisBT project was
it was an open source project, and the original authors when i joined had
said would not make money from the project. From a personal point of view, I
did not want to spend my time to aid a commercial company, so that was an
important goal.

Whilst I've been doing some research into the situation, badfiles asked the
question of
<https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/795#discussion_r67747346>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/795#discussion_r67747346 . The
reply from syncguru seems to confirm that the files listed in lines 1-6
above, which I believed were from the commercial licensed ace admin
template, are indeed from the commercial template, as indicated at
<https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/795#discussion_r67768649>
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/795#discussion_r67768649

He states:

"1- Mantishub has extended license

2- Admin themes are very good fit for bug-tracker app. Ace was top seller
back then when this effort started (around May 2014)

3- We have full source code control. Also the author is reachable on
twitter."

This would seem to confirm that the code is indeed commercial, and equally
that the license is owned by a separate commercial company "Mantishub".

My questions to the FSF and their responses suggested that the first step is
to reach out in a friendly manner and explain the problem - hopefully the
above achieve this.

They then suggest proposing a solution, and that if that fails the next step
should be contacting the Software Freedom Law Center, which provides
pro-bono legal services to developers of Free, Libre, and Open Source
Software ( <http://softwarefreedom.org/> http://softwarefreedom.org/).

I'd like to firstly provide the option for the developers of the mantisbt
project to provide an explanation if I've misunderstood anything in the GPL
in relation to this, but having asked various linux licensing groups/people
over the last week, I suspect this is unlikely.

In terms of workable solutions, I see two options:

a) The files listed in 1-6 above (and there are a couple of extra files
which i've not yet evaluated) are removed from the mantisbt project.

b) Any contributions that I (and any other contributor that feels the same)
have made to the mantisbt project are removed, such that they no longer have
any code in the project.

At this stage, I'm going to await other responses, and do nothing else apart
from send this email and reply as appropriately.

I've been informed of the following: "However if you and others have GPL'd
contributions in the project then you have the legal power to enforce the
terms of the software and refuse to let anyone distribute your code linked
to proprietary/non-free software."

On that basis, and in case users read this and are concerned - I'd like to
make clear that at this point, that the released versions of mantisBT only
contain GPL compatible code, and therefore there is no issues with
distribution of that code. The code i'm emailing about only exists in the
github repository.

Thanks

Paul

Thomas Charron

2016-06-21 02:35:07 UTC

Permalink

I'm not sure where there is a violation here. And your pointing to the
GPL v3, when mantis is v2.

Commercial companies are welcome to dual license their products without
issue. Also, as the owner of said license has not signed over his rights
to his software to the fsf, they have no standing. The violations list is
an open list that anyone can join, I used to be on it.

So to summarize, what's your point?

Post by Paul Richards
Hello,
I have been in discussion with the GPL/FSF licensing team for the last
week regarding a recent commit to mantisbt.
The following files were added to the open source mantisbt project which
1) https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace-elements.min.js
2) https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace-extra.min.js
3) https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/js/ace.min.js
4) https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace.min.css
5) https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace-ie.min.css
6) https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/blob/master/css/ace-rtl.min.css
These files are licensed under a commercial license (
https://wrapbootstrap.com/theme/ace-responsive-admin-template-WB0B30DGR )
for which a fee may be payable by the end user.
The license options are available at
http://support.wrapbootstrap.com/knowledge_base/topics/usage-licenses.
Item 6 of the licenses state that "If the item was created using materials
which are the subject of a GNU General Public License (GPL), your use of
the item is subject to the terms of the GPL in place of the foregoing
conditions (to the extent the GPL applies)."
A copy of the GPL license is available at
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.
they are not lawyers) is that would be a violation of the GPL to add these
files in this way.
The advice received from their team in instances like this was to have a
look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html, and reach out to
the GPL project, and try to resolve the issue within the community. If that
fails, their advice is to contact http://softwarefreedom.org/ who may
offer free legal services to open developers.
My reason for a number of years for contributing to the MantisBT project
was it was an open source project, and the original authors when i joined
had said would not make money from the project. From a personal point of
view, I did not want to spend my time to aid a commercial company, so that
was an important goal.
Whilst I've been doing some research into the situation, badfiles asked
the question of
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/795#discussion_r67747346 . The
reply from syncguru seems to confirm that the files listed in lines 1-6
above, which I believed were from the commercial licensed ace admin
template, are indeed from the commercial template, as indicated at
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/795#discussion_r67768649
"1- Mantishub has extended license
2- Admin themes are very good fit for bug-tracker app. Ace was top seller
back then when this effort started (around May 2014)
3- We have full source code control. Also the author is reachable on
twitter."
This would seem to confirm that the code is indeed commercial, and equally
that the license is owned by a separate commercial company "Mantishub".
My questions to the FSF and their responses suggested that the first step
is to reach out in a friendly manner and explain the problem - hopefully
the above achieve this.
They then suggest proposing a solution, and that if that fails the next
step should be contacting the Software Freedom Law Center, which provides
pro-bono legal services to developers of Free, Libre, and Open Source
Software (http://softwarefreedom.org/).
I'd like to firstly provide the option for the developers of the mantisbt
project to provide an explanation if I've misunderstood anything in the GPL
in relation to this, but having asked various linux licensing groups/people
over the last week, I suspect this is unlikely.
a) The files listed in 1-6 above (and there are a couple of extra files
which i've not yet evaluated) are removed from the mantisbt project.
b) Any contributions that I (and any other contributor that feels the
same) have made to the mantisbt project are removed, such that they no
longer have any code in the project.
At this stage, I'm going to await other responses, and do nothing else
apart from send this email and reply as appropriately.
I've been informed of the following: "However if you and others have GPL'd
contributions in the project then you have the legal power to enforce the
terms of the software and refuse to let anyone distribute your code linked
to proprietary/non-free software."
On that basis, and in case users read this and are concerned - I'd like to
make clear that at this point, that the released versions of mantisBT only
contain GPL compatible code, and therefore there is no issues with
distribution of that code. The code i'm emailing about only exists in the
github repository.
Thanks
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev

Robert Munteanu

2016-06-22 08:15:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Thomas Charron
I'm not sure where there is a violation here. And your pointing to the
GPL v3, when mantis is v2.

--
http://robert.muntea.nu/

Paul Richards

2016-06-22 08:25:42 UTC

Permalink

Hi Robert,

As someone that contributed to the original project, my understanding
was that these javascript files could not be added unless they were
also licensed under the GPL, or licensed under a GPL compatible
license - is this correct?
Yes, that is generally the case.
if you and others have GPL'd contributions in the project then
you have the legal power to enforce the terms of the software and refuse
to let anyone distribute your code linked to proprietary/non-free
software.

The advice received (as they are not lawyers) was to reach out to the
project about the inclusion of non-free software in the project, and try to
reach a suitable agreement with the community. If that fails, to contact
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/ and their legal team for further advice.

In this case, the code I've contributed to mantis has been modified to add
a non-free theme - I may or may not now need to purchase a license myself
to continue to use the code.

And just to be clear, can you confirm if your response is an answer from
the team, or just your personal opinion at this stage?

Thanks
Paul

Post by Thomas Charron
I'm not sure where there is a violation here. And your pointing to the
GPL v3, when mantis is v2.

IANAL but I am pretty certain there is no violation here.
Paul, you might want to clarify this, and it would be very useful to
include the specific reasons from your conversation with the
At the moment I see no reason for us to perform any action.
Best,
Robert
--
http://robert.muntea.nu/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev

Thomas Charron

2016-06-22 08:57:46 UTC

Permalink

Post by Paul Richards
Hi Robert,

And, they are, which is what it states. I.e., they are licensed under
GPL when included as GPL.

Post by Paul Richards
In this case, the code I've contributed to mantis has been modified to

add a non-free theme - I may or may not now need to purchase a license
myself to continue to use the code.

Well, since this is email, and we know that you can read..... go read
the part about it being included in GPL code and, granting the GPL license
for inclusion in GPL code.....

Paul Richards

2016-06-22 09:26:42 UTC

Permalink

Post by Thomas Charron

Post by Paul Richards
Hi Robert,

And, they are, which is what it states. I.e., they are licensed under
GPL when included as GPL.

Post by Paul Richards
In this case, the code I've contributed to mantis has been modified to

add a non-free theme - I may or may not now need to purchase a license
myself to continue to use the code.
Well, since this is email, and we know that you can read..... go read
the part about it being included in GPL code and, granting the GPL license
for inclusion in GPL code.....
Thomas, which part?

The license for the admin theme only refers to the GPL once:

If the item was created using materials which are the subject of a GNU
General Public License (GPL), your use of the item is subject to the terms
of the GPL in place of the foregoing conditions (to the extent the GPL
applies)."

In this context, "the item" relates to the theme being purchased. And if
the theme being purchased is under the GPL.

I'm reading that as it is not a grant to license the theme under the GPL.
If the theme was under the GPL, you could use the files from mantis in
another GPL project without ever buying a license from the original theme
author..

Paul

Robert Munteanu

2016-06-22 10:00:05 UTC

Permalink

And just to be clear, can you confirm if your response is an answer from the
team, or just your personal opinion at this stage?

My personal opinion.

--
http://robert.muntea.nu/

Rafik Robeal

2016-06-23 02:43:38 UTC

Permalink

I just posted a PR with details on the extended license along with Ace Theme author's confirmation that MantisBT usage complies with the purchased extended license - Please review:

https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/805

Thanks,
Rafik

On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Robert Munteanu <***@gmail.com<mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Paul Richards <***@mantisforge.org<mailto:***@mantisforge.org>> wrote:
And just to be clear, can you confirm if your response is an answer from the
team, or just your personal opinion at this stage?

My personal opinion.

--
http://robert.muntea.nu/

Rafik Robeal

2016-06-30 17:10:21 UTC

Permalink

Good News:

Ace theme author, Mohsen, has agreed to license the files we are using in MantisBT under GPL. Iâve updated the PR - please review:

https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/805

Thanks
Rafik

On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Rafik Robeal <***@mantishub.net<mailto:***@mantishub.net>> wrote:

I just posted a PR with details on the extended license along with Ace Theme author's confirmation that MantisBT usage complies with the purchased extended license - Please review:

https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/805

Thanks,
Rafik

On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:00 AM, Robert Munteanu <***@gmail.com<mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Paul Richards <***@mantisforge.org<mailto:***@mantisforge.org>> wrote:
And just to be clear, can you confirm if your response is an answer from the
team, or just your personal opinion at this stage?

My personal opinion.
--
http://robert.muntea.nu/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
mantisbt-***@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev

Paul Richards

2016-07-17 17:35:55 UTC

Permalink

Rafik,

Firstly, thank you for acknowledging that the theme files need to be
licensed under the GPL to be included. In terms of that PR, the minified
files are not consider source form. To quote from the information the GPL
provide regarding headers for minified files and the GPL:

As additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7, you
may distribute non-source (e.g., minimized or compacted) forms of
that code without the copy of the GNU GPL normally required by
section 4, provided you include this license notice and a URL
through which recipients can access the Corresponding Source.

As you can see, from the above, it is considered the minimized/compacted
forms of the code are considered as non-source.

Thanks
Paul

Post by Rafik Robeal
Ace theme author, Mohsen, has agreed to license the files we are using in
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/805
Thanks
Rafik
I just posted a PR with details on the extended license along with Ace
Theme author's confirmation that MantisBT usage complies with the purchased
https://github.com/mantisbt/mantisbt/pull/805
Thanks,
Rafik
And just to be clear, can you confirm if your response is an answer from the
team, or just your personal opinion at this stage?
My personal opinion.
--
http://robert.muntea.nu/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
mantisbt-dev mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mantisbt-dev

Paul Richards

2016-07-19 07:39:45 UTC

Permalink

Hello,

Further to my previous emails on the topic, I would like to request that
you cease re-distributing my code under the GPL until the GPL source is
provided, or my code is removed from the project.

Thanks
Paul

Post by Paul Richards
Rafik,
Firstly, thank you for acknowledging that the theme files need to be
licensed under the GPL to be included. In terms of that PR, the minified
files are not consider source form. To quote from the information the GPL
As additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7, you
may distribute non-source (e.g., minimized or compacted) forms of
that code without the copy of the GNU GPL normally required by
section 4, provided you include this license notice and a URL
through which recipients can access the Corresponding Source.
As you can see, from the above, it is considered the minimized/compacted
forms of the code are considered as non-source.
Thanks
Paul