Topic: SME Server ( Clone ? )

[balther]

OK I am starting to lose the thread of what we are trying to achive here?

My understanding of the GPL licence is that you have to make available to the comunity the source for the GPL software along with any modifications to the GPL code.  I don't remember anything about making additional programmes etc available, otherwise people like oracle would need to GPL any software that runs on linux.

Assuming that Moses allows people access to any modifications/ bugfixes within the code supplied within SME Server then that is all he has to do.  although if the code os based on alternative versions of things like qmail then the modifications are going to be pointless.

Adding additional modules as far as I can tell would not conflict with the terms of the GPL, nor would they have to be released under the same licence as long as the GPL parts are.

There does however seem to be both an issue with the copyright notices and the crediting of both mitel and contribs.org. Come on moses if you product is what everyone wants why not post a link to contribs.org and give Credit where it's due man, It's bad PR to be seen to be ripping of the OS community even if thats not your intention appearance is everything.

With regards to the direction of this project it seems to me that there are three diferent types of server being developed within one product.  This system is trying to be both a internet facing web/main server, a work group server and a firewall.  These three functions require very different resources and priorities, maybe there needs to be a decision what type of server you are trying to create or maybe you need two or three versions.

This all reminds me of Smoothwall and the problems with IPCorp amoung others.  Smoothwalls system was simular to this one, but that didn't stop Smoothwall themselves producing a both a free and a commercial extended version of the product. If fact that's the business model I'm hoping to use for a system I'm developing.

[garret]

I think one of the flaws of the GPL license is that there is no way really to enforce it.

It's as enforecable as any other license.

[FSCITADMIN]

Hi
I’ve been following these posts on the subject of O.S., thievery, these are my thoughts and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone with my choice of words.
My thoughts are as follows. Is there any reason that a class action suit could not be brought against the people/companies that blatantly use O.S., purport it as their own, and sell it? It would seem to me that if there was a profit from this that the copy write holder could bring suit against those parties, and then contribute the funds recovered to the O.S community to pay for bandwidth and other expenses.
The majority of Contribs members seem to be for the betterment of the end product, to me in my simple mind seems to be for the betterment of the majority. Perhaps those that use the O.S. in their development of commercial programs would contribute voluntarily a percentage of the profit say 15% back to the community that has voluntarily provided the means for them to produce a product that is being sold for profit.

[kiruxadmin]

....

[FSCITADMIN]

I don’t believe that I used the word “Clone” in my statement nor was any mention made of the Kirux distribution Kuadra Enterprise Server in my post. I am sorry that it was felt that I was pointing a finger so to speak at your product. I have this to say.
However in your last post you did mention and I quote “Also, the Mitel copyrights and some other branding, that some people are mentioned were removed by the development team with the release 6.5 in order to make the SME generic.”
That really confuses me because if the Kirux distribution Kuadra Enterprise Server was never remotely connected with SME then why would you have to remove anything in the 1st place?
My question is would your product even exist if it were not for O.S. and the folks that have worked so hard to have developed the SME platform?
I do not plan on adding to this particular post again as I do not wish to have a case of alligator mouth and hummingbird butt.
I hope that everyone can reach a satisfactory solution to the issue and go on with the development of the SME server which has helped so many people and non profits that cannot afford to buy hardware no mater how cheap or have decided to recycle old machines and give them new purpose.
Everyone have a blessed day and remember “Keep your words soft and sweet as you may have to eat them later.”

[kiruxadmin]

....

[FSCITADMIN]

I believe that the administrator of Contribs will tell me when I have made such an error.    I also believe that I live in the U.S.A and I can state my thoughts as long as I do no harm. I do not wish to get into a arguement over something that was never said.
I wish you well, and hope that you get this resolved.
Good luck and have a wonderful blessed day.

[CharlieBrady]

Please stop the accusations. The Kirux distribution Kuadra Enterprise Server is NOT a clone of the SME Server.

It is, however, a derivative work, as defined by copyright law. You may only distribute such derivative work in compliance with the license you have been granted.

In the case of the GPL, this means at least that you must provide source code to your customers, who may then share it freely. Most GPL developers short circuit this process, and demonstrate their good faith, by making source code publicly available.

Also, the Mitel copyrights and some other branding, that some people are mentioned were removed by the development team with the release 6.5 in order to make the SME generic.

Have you sought advice about the legality of removing or altering copyright notices on code to which you do not hold the copyright? It's certainly extremely impolite, and I expect it is also illegal.

[kiruxadmin]

....

[gregswallow]

The Kirux Kuadra ES is an independent distribution with its own features and capabilities.

Blah blah blah.  We don't care Moses.  Go advertise your commercial product elsewhere.  I think you've been asked a few times to stop that.  If you want to write up how your product is different form SME server, do it on your own website.

I'm sure you are concerned with this thread because if you search for kirux server on google, this thread comes up #5 & #6.  Well, too bad.  You'll have to live with the bad publicity you're getting here - it is your own doing.

[arthurhanlon]

ALL the copyrights of the software included in the Kirux Kuadra ES distribution are intact. Kirux Technology Solutions are in full compliance with ALL the licenses of the sofware included in the distribution.

Well, this is not strictly true. If you take a look at page 8 of you "user-kuadra-features.pdf" document, you'll find that this is indeed the SME server panel but customised to suit your needs. I do not see any reference to Mitel, SME or contribs on that screenshot yet you say copyrights are intact?

This thread is getting tiresome now as I'm sure many of you will agree. Moses, all that is being asked of you is that you join in the development of SME or at least make the code that you've developed available to  them.

It is very apparent that you did not develop this product from the ground up and it's an expansion and redevelopment of the SME server provided here at Contribs. You can dress it up how you like by changing the installer, mail server and other bits but without the original SME Server you would indeed not have a product at all short of actually building a new one.

Please, I point no fingers and please excuse my rants but all I see here is a separated Linux community and this is, in my opinion, the main weakness of Linux as has been mentioned on this thread before. You display talent in the customisation of SME server and the guys here at Contribs are doing great work. Join together to create something strong enough to rival commercial solutions out there.

Arthur

[u27g8mdm]

I think one of the flaws of the GPL license is that there is no way really to enforce it.

It's as enforecable as any other license.

Commercial license, well, lawsuits and lawsuits.
GPL license, well, forums ?

[u27g8mdm]

ALL the copyrights of the software included in the Kirux Kuadra ES distribution are intact. Kirux Technology Solutions are in full compliance with ALL the licenses of the sofware included in the distribution.

Hmm....I believe that you did not build the software from ground up, did you ?

One of the most obvious, is the ClamAV antivirus module, It is indeed open source. http://www.clamav.net/

So is Postfix MTA. http://www.postfix.org/

So is Amavis New. http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/

So is SpamAssassin. http://spamassassin.apache.org/

So is Squid. http://www.squid-cache.org/ and SquidGuard Content Filter. http://www.squidguard.org/copyright/

So is Apache. http://www.apache.org/licenses/

So is MySQL. http://www.mysql.com/

So is the Linux Kernel.

No offense, but how is Kirux ES in full compliance with ALL the licenses ?

[u27g8mdm]

Please stop the accusations. The Kirux distribution Kuadra Enterprise Server is NOT a clone of the SME Server. A clone is an exact copy. The Kuadra ES may share the same look and feel but all the major components are completely different.

Did you code all the major components yourself or are they works or reworks of others ?

The Kuadra ES uses different Installer, Operating System, Mail Server, Mail MTA, Virus Scanner among other major components that are not found in any SME Server version.

Assuming that what you are saying is true, then is the different Installer, Operating System, Mail Server, Mail MTA, Virus Scanner among other major components that are not found in any SME Server version all writen completely by you or your staff or are they works/reworks of others ?

The Kuadra ES uses different directory structure and is NOT compatible with any version of the SME Server.We use some GPL contribs, that we modified to suit our need and we keep their copyrigth notices.

Some or most ?

If you understood the GPL License, it just dont mean "keeping their copyright notices"....if it was that way, then all GPL code could easily be made commerical.

Seriously, Moses, I really think that you should reconsider your stance on this. I am no expert on GPL licenses and such, perhaps someone with more experience could enlighten us on GPL and it's oddities.

[pfloor]

I have been watching this thread since it's start.  We can all do something about this and I will tell you how.

As soon as his website is back up, go there and look for as many GPL and/or copyright violations etc. that you can find.

I have found several just in his pdf flier that he is always posting as some of it's content was taken from Mitel's copyrighted manual.  He also uses the copyrighted names "i-bay" and "information bay", I'm sure Mitel would be quite interested in this.

Next thing is to email the respective companies/organizations and point out the possible violations and let him fight it over with them.  There are a few big (and some comercial) ones out there like Mitel, KDE, iFax/hylafax, etc that will be interested in what they discover.

Quit argueing with him about it.  He thinks he is in the right and we can't change him.  Let the big boys tell him where the bear does his business.

We embrace our open source community and try to protect the GPL ourselves but sometimes we just have to call in the heavy weights (they have lawyers too).

JMHO.