637610 - Possible license violation: Lunascape

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(mozilla.org :: Licensing, task)

Description

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

My informant writes:

I was interested in trying out this web browser (it purports to have 3 browser engines: Chrome's, Firefox's, and IE's). However the licensing terms/conditions appear to not show any mention of the open source nature of Chrome and/or Firefox. It does state that you're not allowed to try to extract, reverse engineer, or otherwise learn about the software as is allowed by the MPL and GPL. However I am not very good with "legaleese" and was hoping you guys could check this browser out and confirm that it does obey all terms/conditions that surround the Gecko engine.

I look forward to your response. I've included the link for your convenience as well as a copy of the license terms/conditions of the full install of the browser.

Location: http://www.lunascape.tv/

[Title]                Lunascape6
[Version]            6.4.2
[Category]            Web browser
[Requirements]        Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, Server 2003, Server 2008
                Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher
[License]             See below
[User]                Individual, corporate
[Redistribution]        Redistribution is prohibited without permission of Lunascape Co., Ltd.
                http://www.lunascape.tv/
[Developer]            Lunascape Corporation
        [e-mail]
[Copyright]            Copyright (C) 2001- by Lunascape Corporation All rights reserved
==============================================================

Gen: these guys seem to be from Japan. Have you come across them?

Gerv

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Attachment: Lunascape EULA, as sent by my informant

Comment 2

[Gen Kanai [:gen]]

Hey Gerv.  I know the Lunascape founder, Hidekazu Kondo, as he and I were both at Sony previously (I didn't know him then though.)

So basically Lunascape doesn't conform with either Chrome or Firefox's EULA?

Comment 3

[Gen Kanai [:gen]]

Hm.  The EULA references Chromium and OpenSSL.  No mention of Mozilla, agreed.

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Webkit is LGPL, so he's probably out of compliance there, although he has the BSD notice used by the code they wrote at Google for Chrome, so he's done that bit (as you say).

If he is taking Mozilla under the MPL, as most people do, he's got a load of notifications and source provision stuff to do (although less than he'd have to do under the GPL), and I can't see any of that.

Gerv

Comment 5

[Gen Kanai [:gen]]

Understood.  Let me bring this to Mozilla Japan and get some feedback before we make any other move.

Comment 6

[Gen Kanai [:gen]]

Mozilla Japan will contact the firm to confirm their license violation and will ask the firm to come into compliance asap.  However the team is terribly busy until after the 4 launch so will require a few weeks of time.

Comment 7

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Gen: do Mozilla Japan have any experience of working on copyright (MPL) compliance?

I ask because our practice is to approach these things in a spirit of collaboration and help, rather than opposition, demands and lawyer-ness. I am sure Mozilla Japan will be appropriately polite, but perhaps it would be good to talk through the approach with the person who will be handling it.

Gerv

Comment 8

[Gen Kanai [:gen]]

Gerv, certainly, the Japan office has handled a number of similar issues both in the copyright and trademark space.  We will certainly approach in the spirit of collaboration and help.  The last thing we want to do is incur fees from outside counsel.

Comment 9

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Gen: ping? Any progress here?

Gerv

Comment 10

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Gen: ping?

Gerv

Comment 11

[Tanner Filip [:tanner]]

Attachment: Slightly different EULA

The EULA changed a bit in the new version, mostly the beginning block of basic info, so here's the new, slightly different version.

Comment 12

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug is marked "jp-critical", but there has been no (documented) action for 6 months. Is anyone working with bugs with that keyword?

Gen: he's your friend; can you give him a call and tell him this is not really acceptable behaviour, particularly given that it's gone on for so long?

Gerv

Comment 13

[Gen Kanai [:gen]]

(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #12)
> Gen: he's your friend; can you give him a call and tell him this is not
> really acceptable behaviour, particularly given that it's gone on for so
> long?
> 

I know him. I would not call him a friend.

Let me see what I can do. It may be more appropriate for the request to come from Mozilla Japan and not myself.

Comment 14

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

I just sent the following to [e-mail]:

Dear Lunascape,

We notice you are shipping a browser using the Gecko engine and other code from Mozilla. We are very happy for projects to use our code - that's why it's open source! - but could you please let us know how and where you are fulfilling your obligations to provide source code as set out in the MPL 2 section 3.2 a)?

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

We have had a report from a user of your browser that they are unable to find where and how you have done this.

Many thanks,

Gervase Markham
(Mozilla)

Comment 15

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

I emailed Lunascape, and received a reply:

"Dear Mr. Gervase,

I am Shingo Nakamura and I am a developer at Lunascape Corporation.
Thank you for your inquiry about MPL comliance of gecko source code.

Lunacsape provide the gecko source code in github.
Please see the following url.

https://github.com/lunascape-corporation/gecko

King regards,
Shingo Nakamura
Lunacape Corporation"

That URL does have a copy of Gecko 3.6.28 source code. I have replied to ask about the security characteristics of their code, given its age.

Gerv

Comment 16

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

There is no license violation here; simply (!) a serious security problem for any users of this browser.

Gerv