Source code repository on github

[AlanOfTheBerg]

You can also tweak iOS pref files too. I'm not sure how often the files may be overwritten by a download from the server, though.

[AlanOfTheBerg]

if so...how? since 3.x. I can't manage to make the line

Code: Select all

GPS.Show GPS: no

"functional" if changed to yes.
Same applies to changing the ID numbers of Hazards shown in the client .

Being able to change prefs is different than the client actually using the prefs. They could have internalized those settings for good reasons. Sorry to be picky, but there is a difference in what you're asking could be done vs. the effect of doing it.

[AlanOfTheBerg]

Is the Waze 3 client GPL? I thought that totally changed with v3 because of the terms of the voice recognition and text-to-speech engines they have licensed. The About screen in v3 doesn't mention GPL.

[bgodette]

They haven't. It wasn't a complete rewrite. Its still based on code from Ehud's roadmap for linux. If it contains even a single line of GPL code it MUST be GPL itself and as above, must be released immediately or hosted on something like github.

Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk

That's assuming there were any outside (of Waze) contributors that did not agree to a re-licensing. Use of LGPL libraries (pretty much all of them) does not confer GPL status to code you wrote that uses said libraries. The code Ehud wrote is still Ehud's code, which he's free to license or transfer as he sees fit.

The GPL (v2 or v3) does not prevent you from forking your own work and licensing as you see fit. It does however prevent you from forking someone else's work, without their consent, and licensing it as you see fit, and from revoking availability of code as it existed while under a GPL license. This is why the code for the v2, and earlier, clients are still available. That said, an argument could be made for making the last v2.4.* code bases available instead of what's actually available, which is a bit older IIRC.

[bgodette]

Yes but if you use GPL code you can't modify it and have it closed source.

Only applies to using *other people's* code. If it's your own code you can use whatever license(s) you wish.

It's all my phone's fault for using Tapatalk.

[bgodette]

Maybe it would be better to come clean, than have problems with GNU GPL or FSF.

What problems? Again there's no prohibition against relicensing *your own code*. You can also purchase/transfer copyright and relicense.

It's all my phone's fault for using Tapatalk.

[bgodette]

What problems? Again there's no prohibition against relicensing *your own code*. You can also purchase/transfer copyright and relicense.

Waze client is based on Israeli fork of RoadMap routing application (http://sourceforge.net/projects/roadmap/) originally developed by Pascal Martin as GNU GPL (derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Genera ... e#Copyleft

You really are being dense, but ok:
(c) Copyright Pascal Martin, 2003, 2005
(c) Copyright Latchesar Ionkov, 2003
(c) Copyright Stephen Woodbridge, 2004
(c) Copyright Ehud Shabtai, 2005
(c) Copyright Paul Fox, 2006, 2007, 2008
(c) Copyright Danny Backx, 2007, 2008
Look who's in there.
Oh that's right. You can *fork your own code*. The GPL also does NOT prevent, preclude, prohibit, exclude, deny or otherwise disallow you from purchasing copyright from the original authors and closing the source.

It does however prevent you from pulling access to the code as it existed at the time the license was changed. Since we don't know when Ehud/Waze decided to relicense *his own code*, we have no idea if that part is in compliance or not for 2.4.x clients, but we do know it does not apply to 3.x clients.

[bgodette]

You really are being dense...

Are the public insults really necessary?

Are the public insinuations that there's code theft after it's been explained many times really necessary?

[bgodette]

Are the public insults really necessary?

Are the public insinuations that there's code theft after it's been explained many times really necessary?

This is straw man. I didn't know that someone wrote about a code theft.

vvvvv

I took the trouble, unlike you, to find similar or identical function calls, similar directory structure used in time of compiling in dynamically linked shared object library of Waze GPL and closed-source clients and expressed a doubt.

e.g. insinuating code theft. You continue to ignore the fact that relicensing is allowed to willfully perpetuate this insinuation.

[bgodette]

e.g. insinuating code theft. You continue to ignore the fact that relicensing is allowed to willfully perpetuate this insinuation.

This is argumentum ad hominem. Again I remind you if you have better information just present it. It's more constructive than continue writing something I never wrote and even never meant.

No you did as your intent is clear. You've presented nothing but speculation and accusation. It is up to YOU to support YOUR claims, and you have not done so.

Regards relicensing, it seems you you totally forgot the "infectiousness" of GPL.

You seem to have a mistaken belief about how the GPL works in regards to *your own code*. It specifically allows you to relicense at will *your own code* regardless of it having been previously under the GPL.

If you want a use a GPL code in closed source project, you must ask and relicense every piece of code, every patch, from every developer who worked on it before.

You finally acknowledged one of the points I brought up as to why there is no problem.