Hello, It looks like the company behind OpenX is abusing the GPL license. They started with a GPL product but now, the following warning can be seen when someone wants to download the GPL version of OpeX: They started with a GPL product but now they applied patches to it and those patches have not been release back to the community. OpenX is only ready for high volume ad serving on the Hosted Edition. The GPL edition is not good for that task. Also they don't give you access to the GPL code unless you agree to fill in a form. In other words the access to the code is restricted by this form. This is also illegal. What can we do at this point. What organization can take measures against these people? If GPL is not enforced then it will remain just a simple collection of beautiful words. Regards, Razvan
Legally, I'm not aware of anything that could 'force' a company to hand over source code if they didn't want to - whether or not there are versions of it available elsewhere under GPL license. I'm also not sure how solid a case you could build for demanding they release the source of any patches too, because they could claim 'its a different product', and thus not subject to the terms of the original GPL license. If they are the original suppliers of the project, there's nothing to stop them claiming that they have created something new - after all, the main point of GPL was to ensure that if YOU download a GPL source, and use / modify it, YOU have responsibilities, not the original creator of the code. Your responsibilities spring from what they have done for you. If they have taken mods submitted by the developing community at large, or course, that's a different matter, although I'd guess that as usual, it's a question of 'burden of proof'. Frankly, if it's true GPL, just get it from somewhere else.
From what I know all patches made to a GPL product must be released to the public. Since you use a GPL product you must also contribute back. Isn't that a core feature of a GPL license? About "another product". I guess that they can use this defense but they have never stated that the closed source version is another product. They are saying that it is the SAME product but that it is optimized for intensive usage. The patches that "optimize" are not released to the public. Isn't that illegal?
so... when do you release the patch? As soon as you write it? After it's been tested? After verification? And what's a patch? A new comment in the code? One line? 2? 2000????? No idea. Why not ask them. Bleating about it on here probably won't do any good. It's not like anyone is reading this except lil ol u & me