Hello,

I am a web hoster. I am currently using Ensim's control panel product. After several request to get the source code to key components of thier software application I decided to review thier licensing status.

They main issue that they have is that they link thier program with GPL code. Here is a snipplet from the GNU gpl-faq

Question: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

Answer: Yes.

Click here for the GPL-FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL) or GPL License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) for the license itself.

The following programs are GPL in Ensim's Webppliance: Proftpd, MySQL, phpMyAdmin just to name a few.

In v 2.x of thier product they linked it with Linux Red Hat 6.2, another GPL program. Making the current version a dirivitive of that license, also GPL.

I tried to work something out with Ensim to allow them to mend their ways without hurting their company or thier industry but they refused. Yesterday I lodged a formal license violation compalint with GNU. It should not be long before the web hosting community has a very strong open sourced GPL control panel option.

Nick Powers

Personally I feel this is BS - they are providing front-end support for their systems and allowing u to control your account through it.

Does this means that you expect Cpanel and Plesk to also become free, cos that ain't gonna happen.

What probably happened is you got a server and you want a control panel, but rather than spend money on one, you try to get one for free. That's how it seems to me.

Could be wrong.

James

Nick, you're confusing "linking" with "including".

Web terminology aside, when software (and the GPL) refer to linking, it's the process of two or more components of compiled code being connected to act as one big peice of code. This process can happen at compile-time(static linking) or run-time(dynamic linking, think .DLL or .so).

Now, I've never used Ensim, but I'm pretty certain they're just including some GPL applications alongside their own product.
There's no GPL violation in doing that.

You'll only have a case if one of their programs is either statically linked or dynamically linked to GPL code (a GPL library or something), or statically linked to an LGPL library.

PS: RedHat isn't a "GPL program", it's an OS distribution based on the linux kernel, with a collection of software, all under a wide variety of licenses.

What happened is that I purchased a product that I thought was copy written but found out that it was bundled with GPL programs.

ANY PROGRAM bundled with GPL programs is by default GPL. I am not saying that it is fair for Ensim to have their program taken away from them... but it is surely not fair for them to violate the GPL.

The issue here is did they violate the GPL? It seems crystal clear that they have. The bundled their product with GPL which is a violation of the GPL if they do not distribute the entire program as GPL.

The license is not vague. It does not protect the right to make commercial software it protects the right of the software not to be copy written. They screwed up when the packaged these items together. Ensim is one file and includes several GPL packages.. Nobody that truly looks at the licensing issues can deny that. How you may personally feel about the results is irrelevant.

Nick Powers

Here is a sniplet from the GPL license

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "

1. Ensim cannot be reasonably considered independent and separate work because if you removed all the GPL code it would not function, for example in thier v 2.x product they bundled it with Linux (GPL) so their is no way it could run without it! And since every version since 2.0 is a dirivite of 2.0 then it is ALL GPL.

2. It is obviously based on the programs. It is the conduit, glue if you will, between these GPL programs. So, the llicensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Have you read the GPL?

Nick Powers

He's right, actually. I hadn't really thought about it.

Is it not so that they are providing the software that they have written and charging for that - and to make life convenient they are distributing their code with GPL'd software. Their code only controls the GPL software, it does not modify the source code of the GPL'd stuff.

Or correct me if I am wrong.

Ensim to become free - if wishes were horses!

BTW - I think Ensim is a great product, if it did get distributed under GPL I would certainly contribute!

Actually you don't have to change the GPL portions of the program. It just has to be bundled with GPL programs, especially if the program cannot be considered as an independent and separate program then it makes the entire program GPL, and since this program will not run without the GPL programs (they bundled it with Linux!) then it is obvious that their entire distribution is GPL.

That is why people use BSD for appliances instead of Linux because the BSD license is commercial friendly and GPL is not. For example, the Nokia IP Firewall is bundled with IPSO OS, a derivative of BSD, and Check Point Firewall-1. If they had used Linux instead of BSD it would have forced Check Point Firewall-1 into GPL. Apparently Check Point did their homework and Ensim did not.

If they would have started out by making all the GPL programs a prerequisite rather than bundling it with their product they could keep their program proprietary.

Actually they had not broken the GPL until they refused my request for the complete source code. But, alas, now they have.

Nick Powers

Hmmm.. This is interesting. I cannot comment any further as I am not an expert on GPL or Law. But it is interesting. However - I cant see the boys at Ensim releasing their source code just like that. I know I wouldnt, not after spending so much time on it.

Just think of the man hours - staff costs, advertising (even on this board). They will not roll over I am sure of it.

That is true. From their initial response I am sure they will try and fight it. It is not up to me to file a case. The GNU would have to do that. What I am trying to do is to open a discussion with the public, since the public is injured party here.

Nick Powers

What I am trying to do is to open a discussion with the public, since the public is injured party here.

OK that is an interesting statement. I personally am a customer of Ensim, however I dont believe I am injured or to put it another way - out of pocket.

Actually - I think most people would gladly spend $200 on a capable CP. Moving aside the technicality of distributing it with GPL'd software, their code is still proprietry.

Now if I was in their position I would certainly think about their distribution methods if what you say is true. However, if it did not come bundled with the GPL's stuff then another option for them would be to distribute their code for the $200 and then have a larger installation instructional document.

Either way. I still think $200 is great value and I would not fell injured by paying it, even if it comes with the GPL's stuff.

I am affraid I am on Ensim's side here.

The public is not injuried, but the spirit of open source/GPL and the copyright of the authors of those GPL components are violated.

Plesk and Cpanel won't be affect by GPL, because they only include/control them. But ensim releases customized version (the ensim rpms) of GPL, so this may be interesting.

Peter

Originally posted by nickp
Hello,


Question: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

Answer: Yes.

Click here for the GPL-FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL) or GPL License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) for the license itself.

The following programs are GPL in Ensim's Webppliance: Proftpd, MySQL, phpMyAdmin just to name a few.

In v 2.x of thier product they linked it with Linux Red Hat 6.2, another GPL program. Making the current version a dirivitive of that license, also GPL.

Nick Powers

First off all I want to point out that under GPL,
if you link against GPL code or combining with GPL code - you program becomse GPL code.
Second, combining the code is fairly flexible, based on GPL FAQ:
"If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. "

So if program A (proprietrary) executes program B (GPL), it doesn't mean that program A becomes GPL. So, this should remove any concerns regarding proFTPd, MySQL...

On the other hand if program A (prop) links with program B (GPL) - then we have an issue. Yet, if you check licenses for most of the RedHat/Linux staff, including glibc, and I believe ALL libraries that distributed with RH, they are not GPL, they are LGPL, which basically permits linking it. It was devised specifically to allow commercial programs to run on GPL systems.

So basically, there is a very slim chance that Ensim violated any license at all. And if they did, then Apache probably did it as well (they are linked agains RH), as well as all other software that runs on linux.

I don't think the main control panel code of ensim would be subjected to GPL, because it is not "linked". However, Ensim is probably under obligation to release the source of all their "customized rpm packages."

Peter

nickp wrote:
ANY PROGRAM bundled with GPL programs is by default GPL.
Well then, someone better tell all the Apache team, the PHP team, the Bind team, and the XFree86 team. Those programs aren't GPL, but have beeen known to be distributed with GPL software.

nickp wrote:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
Read the first sentence of that again. That applies when you modify a work of GPL.
Again, I haven't used Ensim, maybe they are using modified GPL programs for which they aren't releasing the modified source? If they just wrote their own applications to modify config files of GPL software, that does not constitute a "derived" work.

ckpeter wrote:
ensim releases customized version (the ensim rpms) of GPL
Ah, ok, I didn't know that. That might be a problem. :)

They have made changes to the GPL code. Here is a clip from a message that I recevied from Courtney Carr of ensim (ccarr@ensim.com):

"To follow up to your request, of the various packages that Ensim has modified, the following fall under the GPL:

proftpd-1.2.4-ensim2.src.rpm
gettext-0.10.28-7ensim1.src.rpm
phpMyAdmin-2.2.0-ensim4"

CHECK out the key words "Ensim has modified".

That should clear up that issue.

Nick Powers

That should clear up that issue. Yes, but I don't think it's cleared up in the way you were hoping for...

proftpd-1.2.4-ensim2.src.rpm
gettext-0.10.28-7ensim1.src.rpm
phpMyAdmin-2.2.0-ensim4

Those .src.rpm files should have the modified source in them. (The modifications may be in .patch/.diff files)

As for phpMyAdmin, being in php, you can just look at the .php files anyway.

So provided you have access to those files you listed, ...that should clear up that issue.

First off. Ensim does not give you those packages. They give you this:

265022705 Jun 6 10:29 wpinstall-u.sh

One file clearly bundled with all the modified and unmodified GPL.

Now read this (portion of GPL license):

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

Ok for one to make the case of Ensim WEBppliance being reasonably considered independent and separate work you would have to be able to remove it from the GPL and run it without them present. Ensim's WEBppliance cannot run without the GPL programs that Ensim lists as being modified GPL. Also, there are many programs that are GPL that ensim uses, unmodified. This unmodified GPL still counts towards the above clause. Ensim bundled WEBppliance with Linux (GPL) in their 2.x versions. Given that alone, version 2.0 was completly GPL and so are all its diveritives up to the current version. So, without linux how would one argue that WEBppliance could even run, never mind be a independent and separate work. So if someone bundles a dependent work that cannot be separated from the GPL, modified or unmodified, then the licsene applies to the entire work "regardless of who wrote it"(from GPL).

Given the issue of using Linux in thier WEBppliace v 2.0 alone, all subsquent releases have been dirivites of that work and hense all versions from 2.0 are surely GPL "regardless of who wrote it".

With that being the case the argument is not that Ensim has to provide the source code to the modified GPL, though they obviously do, the argument is that all of their code is GPL and they have to release that source code as well. Not only do they have to release the source code they have to pass on their rights (GPL) to everyone they have sold, or given, their distribution to. This includes the right to use and distribute either free or for a fee.

Does that clear it up? Come on.. some people are so worried about Ensim. Ensim is not the damaged party here. I purchased a GPL product from Ensim and they will not provide me with the source code which is violating MY rights!

Nick Powers

I, too, have read the GPL stuff wondering where this would lead us to.

Then I though "How about I ask our corporate lawyer?".

He was busy for a few days then told me that I had misunderstood the whole GPL thing and that there wasn't anything to worry about (we are shipping some GPL code as part of some of our products)

So now, my question is:
-is my lawyer quite lousy, or haven't you asked a lawyer yourself before filing a formal complaint?

-Chris.

Ok, have your GPL handy, I'll try to walk through this a step at a time...

The part of the GPL you keep quoting, the part that starts "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole."... That is from GPL Section 2, and the requirements in question are Section 2 parts a, b, and c.
Those parts are the conditions that must be met when you(or Ensim in this case) "modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it". That applies to GPL works that Ensim has modified. Here, the Programs would be proftpd, gettext, and phpMyAdmin. If they have not given you the source to these, they are required (by Section 3) to at least provide an offer of how you can request the source. If they do not give you the source then (for proftpd, gettext, and phpMyAdmin), then there is a violation of GPL Section 3, for those Programs.

"Ok for one to make the case of Ensim WEBppliance being reasonably considered independent and separate work you would have to be able to remove it from the GPL and run it without them present."
This is not true, and the GPL says as much (Section 0): "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.The act of running the Program is not restricted."
That is to say, anyone/anything is unrestrcted in how it runs the GPL Program.
If some software reports an error message if that Program isn't there, that is ok, that is beyond the scope of the GPL.

Now, most important of all, from the GPL Section 2... What is a work based on the Program?
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program". Again, the Programs being proftpd, gettext, and phpMyAdmin. Anything Ensim wrote or distributed whose code is not a modified copy "of the Program or any portion of it" is not a derived work, or "based on the Program".

With that established, the second most important part, also from the GPL Section 2:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. "
And so, your statement that "ANY PROGRAM bundled with GPL programs is by default GPL" is not correct.

I hope that clarifies things.
Either way, let us know what the GNU organization has to say,
I'd be interested to hear their take on it.

Though not an attorney, I've practiced law pro se for at least 10 years here in the U.S., and so far (knock on wood) have won all of my cases from small claims to federal court, though I've had to appeal some decisions in order to insure a win.

My opinion is that users MAY be able to proceed with damage claims against Ensim (or anyone else) IF users are found to first have a valid prima facia (on its face) case. In Torts (the law of civil damages), the damage arguments (from punitive to inconsequential) might be based on many things. For example, a host could claim that they could have charged less for hosting, made more money, not gone out of business, etc., if they had not had to pay for Ensim, and there are possible legal "bases" that could be considered, as far-fetched as they might sound.

Obviously, proof must be forthcoming. If anyone really thinks they have a valid claim against Ensim, I would suggest starting by researching Nexus or Westlaw's website; and try to find a recent precent and shepardize the "findings of fact" from previous relevant decisions.

NOTE: the above is general info, and I have no real opinion on Ensim.

It would not be my place to bring a case. It would be GNU who would have to decide to file.

Originally posted by nickp
It would not be my place to bring a case. It would be GNU who would have to decide to file.

Well, morality is one thing; but legality is quite another. The two rarely sync. You forget, here in the US, where everyone and their brother sues over the silliest things, anything and everything is possible in our courts.

Anyone, GNU or user, can file a case as long as they can meet the following 5 requirements.
1) file the case within the proper jurisdiction
2) file it with the proper court
3) come up with a "legal basis"
4) prove their damages
5) satisfy the statute of limitations requirement for timely filing

... and I'm probably forgetting some other important things off the top of my head. Fortunately, I haven't had to litigate in awhile.

This is my last post on this since this is not a legaltalk forum. :)

The people at MySQl agree with my findings.

I got a response from MySQl's Senior Account Executive, Mr. Kerry Ancheta, this morning. Here is his email:

"Yes, Nick, that is a violation. I have left a message for Courtney to call me but have not heard back."

The Courtney he refrences is Courtney Carr, of Ensim.

It is unclear of the their violation because MySQl requires use use a (C) version if you do not fall under the GPL requirements. So this is most likely a (C) violation but it also goes to prove their GPL violations as well.

Nick Powers

P.s. this was a seperate thread because it seems that it was a (c) violation not a GPL but one poster thought it should be contained in this thread, so here it is.

I changed my mind because I find this thread interesting. :) No need to belabor howto legal remedies though; and I probably shouldn't have gone off-topic into that aspect in the first place.

What I'm curious about is this, and it's more inline with what the thread is about... say, I wrote a program in Perl. Can I not copyright and sell it, though perl is Open Source? Seems like the same situation with Ensim, or is it? IOW, if I can sell a perl program, why can't Ensim sell something that is compiled from Open Source?

Originally posted by chrisb
I changed my mind because I find this thread interesting. :) No need to belabor howto legal remedies though; and I probably shouldn't have gone off-topic into that aspect in the first place.

What I'm curious about is this, and it's more inline with what the thread is about... say, I wrote a program in Perl. Can I not copyright and sell it, though perl is Open Source? Seems like the same situation with Ensim, or is it? IOW, if I can sell a perl program, why can't Ensim sell something that is compiled from Open Source?

Good point.

Originally posted by chrisb
What I'm curious about is this, and it's more inline with what the thread is about... say, I wrote a program in Perl. Can I not copyright and sell it, though perl is Open Source? Seems like the same situation with Ensim, or is it? IOW, if I can sell a perl program, why can't Ensim sell something that is compiled from Open Source?

I think what this thread is supposed to mean is, Ensim took an open source project and compiled it and distrubuted it... Without giving the source code out, as lined out in GPL...


Making your own script is differnt, your aren't modifying Perl to do it, you are making a script that runs WITH perl :D

Sorry to revive this thread, but I just thought of another thing:

If ensim customizes the linux kernel to allow virtual server, should the modification be GPL?

Peter

I'm completely ignorant about control panels and stuff, but what is the difference between say CPanel, H-Sphere, and Ensim?

What makes Ensim so bad?

Can you please search the forum archive? (keeping the thread on topic.....)

Peter

It is on topic... unless the topic changed from Ensim and GPL. My question was wondering why Ensim is under fire when the other control panels have the same features.

I see. I wasn't sure what you mean by "makes ensim so bad".

I think that's because ensim releases customized RPM packages, whereas the other CPs just use the existing packages.

Peter

Originally posted by ckpeter
I see. I wasn't sure what you mean by "makes ensim so bad".

I think that's because ensim releases customized RPM packages, whereas the other CPs just use the existing packages.

Peter

Ah, thanks. ;)

Originally posted by cpals
It is on topic... unless the topic changed from Ensim and GPL. My question was wondering why Ensim is under fire when the other control panels have the same features.


Ensim is altering the source code of the open source problems and not giving the source code with the packages....

Its official, ensim (or at least part of it) is GPL.

This came from an ensim person regarding the kernel patch they have that allows virtual servers.

>Just out of curiosity, since the Linux Kernel is GPL, does that mean
>your patch would also be GPL?
>

Yes, the patches that we've applied are GPL, and the kernel source is included in /usr/src/ as part of the installation.

Paul

Plesk is similar?
Only PSA v.2.5.1 RPMs
base/
courier-imap-1.3.12-2psa.rh7.2.i586.rpm 422KB

psa-2.5.1-rh7.2.build020402.18.i586.rpm 3595KB
psa-courier-imap-add-2.5.1-rh7.2.build020402.18.i586.rpm 39KB

psa-locale-2.5.1-rh7.2.build020402.19.noarch.rpm 171KB
psa-proftpd-1.2.4rel-rh7.2.build020402.18.i586.rpm 366KB

psa-proftpd-xinetd-1.2.4rel-rh7.2.build020402.18.i586.rpm 6KB
psa-qmail-1.03-rh7.2.build020402.18.i586.rpm 480KB


opt/fp/
frontpage-5.0-3psa.rh7.2.i586.rpm 11223KB

mod_frontpage-1.6.1-5psa.rh7.2.i586.rpm 28KB

opt/perl/
perl-Apache-ASP-2.29-3psa.noarch.rpm 282KB

perl-Font-AFM-1.18-2psa.noarch.rpm 17KB
perl-FreezeThaw-0.41-2psa.noarch.rpm 16KB

perl-HTML-Format-1.23-2psa.noarch.rpm 21KB
perl-HTML-Tree-3.11-2psa.noarch.rpm 194KB

perl-MLDBM-2.00-2psa.noarch.rpm 17KB
perl-MLDBM-Sync-0.25-1psa.noarch.rpm 17KB



System RPMs required by PSA v.2.5
std.rh-7.2/
apache-1.3.20-16.i386.rpm 532KB

bind-9.1.3-4.i386.rpm 1425KB
bind-utils-9.1.3-4.i386.rpm 803KB
binutils-2.11.90.0.8-9.i386.rpm 1866KB

compat-glibc-6.2-2.1.3.2.i386.rpm 2254KB
db1-1.85-7.i386.rpm 42KB

expat-1.95.1-7.i386.rpm 53KB
gdbm-1.8.0-10.i386.rpm 26KB

glibc-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm 5180KB
glibc-2.2.4-13.i686.rpm 5854KB

libtermcap-2.0.8-28.i386.rpm 11KB
mod_perl-1.24_01-3.i386.rpm 880KB

mod_ssl-2.8.4-9.i386.rpm 6878KB
mysql-3.23.41-1.i386.rpm 4837KB

mysql-devel-3.23.41-1.i386.rpm 462KB
mysql-server-3.23.41-1.i386.rpm 877KB

ntp-4.1.0-4.i386.rpm 1101KB
openssl-0.9.6b-8.i386.rpm 1350KB

openssl095a-0.9.5a-11.i386.rpm 618KB
pam-0.75-14.i386.rpm 730KB

perl-5.6.0-17.i386.rpm 7527KB
perl-DBD-MySQL-1.2216-4.i386.rpm 128KB

perl-DBI-1.18-1.i386.rpm 315KB
perl-Digest-MD5-2.13-1.i386.rpm 33KB

perl-HTML-Parser-3.25-2.i386.rpm 89KB
perl-HTML-Tagset-3.03-3.i386.rpm 13KB

perl-MIME-Base64-2.12-6.i386.rpm 20KB
perl-Storable-0.6.11-6.i386.rpm 34KB

perl-URI-1.12-5.noarch.rpm 94KB
perl-libnet-1.0703-6.noarch.rpm 108KB

perl-libwww-perl-5.53-3.noarch.rpm 250KB
php-4.0.6-12.i386.rpm 1204KB

php-imap-4.0.6-12.i386.rpm 629KB
php-mysql-4.0.6-12.i386.rpm 95KB

shadow-utils-20000902-4.i386.rpm 289KB
sharutils-4.2.1-8.i386.rpm 94KB

stunnel-3.19-1.i386.rpm 66KB
textutils-2.0.14-2.i386.rpm 666KB

webalizer-2.01_06-11.i386.rpm 96KB
zlib-1.1.3-24.i386.rpm 35KB

Notice the "Only PSA v.2.5.1 RPMs" under "base/" only rpms at the beginning. Maybe I am blond to the whole idea, I don't care really care to understand to be honest, they aren't claiming they wrote anything other than the control panel. It works great, I am happy.

If I remember from the GPL... you don't have to bundle the source code with it. But, you must provide the source to any modified GPL programs/libraries upon request or via download.