Topic: SME Server ( Clone ? )

[MarsWalker]

Hi,
I just found the SME Server branded.
http://www.kirux.net/images/stories/kuadra-features.pdf.

Just my $0.2.

MarsWalker - Very Newbie (almost unborned) Linux User.

[Quail_Linux]

Hi,
I just found the SME Server branded.
http://www.kirux.net/images/stories/kuadra-features.pdf.

Just my $0.2.

MarsWalker - Very Newbie (almost unborned) Linux User.

Hi All,

I just had a look at the pdf, and some of the screenshots look alot like the contribs SME server.

well that is my 2 cents worth too

[arthurhanlon]

Hi there,

This, from the looks of things, does not hide the fact that it is indeed SME Server but a rather heavily customised version included as a whole package along with hardware.

The fact that they have copyrighted the server manager is a bit over the top in my opinion.

What do others think?

Arthur

[CharlieBrady]

The fact that they have copyrighted the server manager is a bit over the top in my opinion.

Not just over the top, but in fact illegal.

[arthurhanlon]

I thought so but wasn't sure so didn't want to say outright.

Out of curiosity, what course of action can be taken against these people to enforce your own copyrights?

Arthur

[jfarschman]

Arthur,

  This is sad.  I just gave it a careful look and the guy hs done extensive work to improve the the functionality.  But he is not sharing:

  * SATA Drives
  * Enhanced Monitoring (graphs)
  * CRM System
  * Instant Messaging
  * Etc...

  Two things torqe me.  

  1.  They have removed the copyright notices.  
      No Redhat, no Mitel, nothing.
  2.  They've done some good work enhancing functionality,
      but they do not share it.

  Look... if you want to resell Open Source (GPL) software you can do it... and you can brand it, but you need to follow the laws.  Give people credit.  What a jerk.

[jackl]

Hi All

The contact email address  for this domain is:
modria_99@yahoo.com
So you can direct you're complaints directly to them.
The sata drive I don't believe is running on stable SME more probably on 6.5RC or SME7 Alpha.x but I could be wrong. Charlie Brady would know how feasible this would be eg recompliled kernal?.  
But the main crime here is the removal of copyright notices. As far as I know you can rebrand SME but you must leave any copyright notices and acknowledgments intact and leave the end user a copy of the installed system.

Regards,
Jack.

[gregswallow]

whois for domain-kirux.net:

   Kirux Technology Solutions Inc.
   Lonnie Johnson
   18484 Preston Rd
   Dallas, TX 75252
   US
   Phone: +1.4698280616
   Fax..: +1.9728019534
   Email: Info@kirux.net

[dhardy]

I have just posted on the 'problems forum' over there asking whether his product is GPL software:

http://www.kirux.net/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=57&func=view&id=3&catid=4

The text is reproduced below 'in case something happens to break the link':
++++++++
Is the Kuadra SME Server GPL software? - 2005/05/16 19:52
Hi there,

There has been much discussion about the Kuadra SME Server over at http://www.contribs.org

The consensus seems to be that you have broken the terms of the GPL by removing copyright notices and by failing to publish the source code for the changes you have made.

Is this true, and if so, what are you going to do about it?

There have been many companies that have chosen to break the GPL and then forced to settle and comply by the legal action taken by http://www.gpl-violations.org and others.

It does sound to many of us from contribs (although I don't pretend to be here on their behalf) that many of the improvements you have made would greatly benefit the community release of SME Server - and under the GPL, surely these need to be published back to the community as sourcecode?

I'm sure that it has not been your intention to break the terms of the GPL and put yourself in the legal firing line and feel that there is an opportunity here for you to turn this situation around to the benefit of all.

Perhaps you would care to comment on these matters, either publicly here or in the general discussion forum over at http://www.contribs.org

Regards

David Hardy.

++++++++

Will I get a worthwhile response?

David.

[jfarschman]

David,

  I hope you get a response.  Your tone was reasonable.

[simnux]

You misunderstand the GPL. He is only required to provide source to those whom he provides his modified version of the software. If you do not enter into an agreement with him whereby you obtain his system with his mods, then he is under no obligation to provide source to you.

Stripping legitimate copyrights and claiming his own copyright for code he did not write, now that is indeed illegal.

[ontargetbill]

Hi folks,
I'm new and am enjoying sme server as a learning tool.

While I was researching a linux email server solution I
found these folks.

http://www.linuxon.com

It appears to me that they too are selling sme server repackaged.

Travisty..
ontargetbill

[dhardy]

I guess,

IANAL - I'm just trying to engage the guy in debate and see what shakes out, without using the blunt tactic of grabbing him by the nuts first (to be sure I get his attention)

Who knows, he may reply with a good reason why there are no copyrights attributed to Mitel and elsewhere in 'his' stuff and not be interested in being part of this community - he's more likely to be interested in us if we are approachable than if we yell and point excitedly.

Besides, the only other comment in his forums was a 'spoiler' pointing back here.

But, getting back to the point, does he have to release his GPL source to the public? I'm not sure I agree with you having read this:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

I think its a little ambiguous either way, I still find myself erring on the side of, yes I think he does rather than no, only to the people who bought it from him.

As before, IANAL, and the copyright issue does seem altogether more clear cut .... I'm interested in seeing whether he replies and how he views his position re the GPL and copyrights.

As for the Linuxon guys, I don't know - they seem to have done less customisation, although the copyrights seemed not to be visible in the screen shots (although the GPL was).

Regards

David.

[gregswallow]

If you do not enter into an agreement with him whereby you obtain his system with his mods, then he is under no obligation to provide source to you.

I dont think so.  Have a look at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
...Selling it surely constitutes "release the modified version to the public in some way".

I emailed the company as well and suggested the developer contribute to SME rather than their own version.  Illegal copyright removal aside, it looks like they've integrated some good features.

I'm sure Mitel will take care of the legal issues, since they are the copyright holder, it is solely their right to make it an issue:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower

[simnux]

If you do not enter into an agreement with him whereby you obtain his system with his mods, then he is under no obligation to provide source to you.

I dont think so.  Have a look at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
...Selling it surely constitutes "release the modified version to the public in some way".

Yeah, I've been through all of this, multiple times. IANAL either, but I do work with several very good ones who do nothing but deal with these issues. When you deal with Linux servers in the tens of thousands, you have to have a good legal team that is well versed in the GPL.

The point is, he's not making his modifications publically available. They are not posted for download by anyone and everyone. Rather, he is offering them for sale (which the GPL allows.) As the GPL requires only that you offer to make source available to those to whom you make your modifications available, then it is only his paying customers to whom he has an obligation.

He might not even be in trouble on the copyright issue, provided the source copyrights remain in place. He cannot claim a copyright on the original work, but he can certainly claim a copyright on his own modifications. On that question even the attorneys I know are divided at first glance.

Anyway, if he (whomever "he" is, probably someone reading this <grin>) declines to participate here and the people here think his work is good enough to use, then all you have to do is buy a system, request the source, and work the mods back into the SME Server distro. Perfectly legal.