JStock may be violating the GPL with a closed-source component about jstock HOT 13 OPEN

It's not clear to me how to join the closed-source project in gitlab - I wandered over there, but if it's closed-source ... it's not showing in public projects of course.

The pre-delete version of the engine-code is already too old to build master with e.g. missing org.yccheok.jstock.engine.DispType - is there a binary dependency that can be used ... maybe just mix-in jstock.jar from the current binary dist?

from jstock.

Ok so how can I build the project If I can't get the source for org.yccheok.jstock.engine ??

from jstock.

Hello
Where is it possible to download this closed-source component ?
Thanks

from jstock.

Thanks for input. org.yccheok.jstock.engine is still open source component (Hint: You can look at its history) not long ago. To avoid involving myself into some legal issues, I decide make it as a closed source component.

I'm also not clear whether GPL code can include closed source code. I shall do some research over it...

I may open source "org.yccheok.jstock.engine" again. But, not in the near term.

from jstock.

Please do. I know, at least a case of Austrian insurance institution who violated GPL by not publishing something extending a GPL piece and FSF (Free Software Foundation) took them to court. It may not happen wiith every project, but better not take chances.

from jstock.

@AbelGO The code before closed source can be browsed through here : https://github.com/yccheok/jstock/tree/c8b1e8acced496f60f5aade644b0d4bb845dff54/src/org/yccheok/jstock/engine

from jstock.

We host this closed source in gitlab. You may request to join our closed source project in gitlab.

from jstock.

Yes, this program is in violation of GPL terms. The GPL license is viral so everything that includes GPL code and is being distributed in binary form should be open to study and modifications by means of providing the source code. That said, the repository doesn't include a license file but the source files have the license in their headers. Now it seems that the essential part of the program, the core, is unavailable and violates the user's freedom number 1:

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Quoted from gnu.org, accentuation is mine. Overall, you don't have to be a lawyer to check if you software is in agreement with GPL, just read the aforementioned article and answer to yourself whether your product complies with the four freedoms or not from the user's standpoint. The legal license text only translates these ideas to the legal language but of course, if unsure consult a lawyer.

To avoid involving myself into some legal issues, I decide make it as a closed source component.

This is worrysome. If you've already violated someone's rights it's no use hiding the source. Better to resolve the issue (rewrite questionable parts and such) and make it free again. I really like the program and it's quite sad to find its source in this unusable state. Basically, it's the only one portfolio tracking & techanalysis alive FOSS program I could find. I hope its future will be secured.

from jstock.

This looks like a great app but this closed source binary is worrisome. One of the many beneficial aspects of open source is being able to look what's inside. I'm not going to trust a random app. I don't want my metadata collected/send/sold... Please, please work this out, keep this app open source and you'll have another happy user :)

from jstock.

This is disappointing. I was looking forward to contribute to the project, but if it contains a closed source component, it turns me off. Why does that component must be closed? Is this some form of engine you use in other projects with which you gain a living with? If such is the case, this is respectable and I understand you, but for jStock, it is not very helpful. Can this closed source component be replaced by another open source engine?

from jstock.

Can this closed source component be replaced by another open source engine?

No, because the engine is basically the program itself, the computational core. Replacing it would mean rewriting the project almost from scratch.

from jstock.

Due to complicated legal issue, we decides not to release certain code block.

We should release some binary library, to make the source code build-able.

However, we are pretty much busy with other higher priority thing. Hence, we don't have an estimated timeline on when the binary library will be available.

from jstock.

Such a shame this closed engine problem... I was hoping to fork this project even.. :(

from jstock.