BeOS Boo-Boo: Violating The GPL -- Updated

Bruce Perens writes "Be is violating the GPL on my software. While it's something they can easily fix, it's a good example of why people need to keep track of where the software they are using came from, and what license is applied to it. We've got the full story over on Technocrat.net." Updated 23:15GMT by timothy: Thanks to reader Eugenia Loli, who wrote: "Andrew Kimpton from Be, was on the phone with Bruce Perens earlier, and Be is clearing up the issue once and for good! Please read the important update."

Comments

How do you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the proof that's shown is that they have some functions that use the same name and the same functionality as some code released under GNU. How do you know they didn't reimplement it?

Since you don't have access to the source, you really don't know, do you?

Is there actually any proof that I missed that says conclusively whether they've violated the license or reimplemented code?

Re:How do you know?

[Matts]

Have you checked out TECHNOCRAT.NET

How can we? You use Zope. Telnets get through, pings get through. The only damn thing that won't go through is HTTP. Perhaps you should investigate a more scale-able solution? ;-)

Re:How do you know?

[Bruce Perens]

My copyright string is embedded in their software, with my name in it.

Again showing that Licensing Is Important...

[Christopher B. Brown]

There will probably be some drive-by flamings about BSD licenses being "obviously superior," although what that would do would probably just be to aggravate people like Bruce Perens that prefer to retain some control over the use of their code.

The crucial point is that Licensing is Important. You fail to read the license at significant peril. That's even true for BSD-like licenses.

This is becomng a habit

[Forge]

This is the second time that BE has been caught violatng the GPL "by accient". I suspect that if debian went throgh the whole BEOS and audited it with a decompiler they wold find a few more violatons. It's not that BE is evil or even particularly careless. It's just that it's damnd hard to keep track of which license governs hich pice of software. especialy when you borow so heavly from the GNU/Linux codebase.

Re:A question first...

[Bruce Perens]

The library can't be linked with proprietary components. That's the first problem. The distribution of the .o files, and the library itself, didn't come with the requisite written notice about the source being available. So, yes, if they put the notice there, they'd be legal, but since they distribute the object. via FTP, they'd probably have to distribute the source that way too.

Re:A question first...

[Darchmare]

Um, what innovations of the open-source community?

Seriously, this is 100% not a troll. From what I've seen, the open-source community usually seems content with reimplementing features from other operating systems (often superior to the software they are copying).

But innovation? Not really. People throw that term around far too loosely. Seriously - What major open-source innovation has Be capitalized on?


- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

Re:Hooray for the GPL

[howardjp]

I theory eventually linux will surpass BSD in this area. Bigger user base and more competent developers with the source code and developers who will listen will always equal a better product.

This assumes that Linux's developers are more competent. But let's compare TCP/IP stacks of say, FreeBSD and Linux. Well, FreeBSD blows Linux out of the water. Let's compare virtual memory. FreeBSD virtual memory is simply incredible which why big sites run FreeBSD. NetBSD's new UVM is quite interesting and I wish I had time to look into it further. Linux's VM contains nothing insightful or even intelligent. Let's look at the file systems. Traditional Unix file systems included in the BSDs and SVR4s are rock solid. Are you using EXT2FS? I hope someone doesn't pull the plug on you, it probably won't come back.

A question first...

[SgtPepper]

Be is distributing it in object-code form, without source, as if it were one of their proprietary components.

Correct me if i'm wrong ( and I'm sure someone will :) ), isn't this allowed under the GPL as long as you make the source AVAILABLE? Now of course if they don't mention that it contains GPLed software and the GPLed parts are, by rights, available in the original source form, then they might be violating the GPL. And yes, it might be breaking the spirit of the GPL, but is it breaking the letter?

Just a thought. Other then that, i do hope BeOS rectifies what you view as a mistake, since has the authour of said software it should be your choice on how it's used. ( then again some will argue that the GPL takes that away, *sigh* let the holy wars commence )

SgtPepper

Re:A question first...

[orpheus]

I have read many discussions of this passage, by people whose opinions I respect. However, I am not quite sure I accept the 'viral' interpretation of this condition, and alas, the courts have not ruled on it.

I respectfully submit my objections for comment.

*IF* I linked a proprietary program to a GPL library, *and* I were hauled into court, I think it would be relatively easy to demonstrate that my whole program didn't fall under GPL.

1) Write a small program that links a GPL library. [or write your own demo library and GPL it]

2) Write an alternate non-GPL library (same functions, different code) to show that a program simply requires *a* library with the correct functions, not any specific library, and hence not the GPL'ed library in question.

3) Since a calling program can run with any library containing the correct functions, then calling programs are an "identifiable section of that work" that is "not derived from the Program" (capital-P Program, meaning the GPL'd library, quoting the GPL itself) "and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves"

4) Some will argue that my program isn't a 'separate work' if distributed together with the GPL library, but proprietary software can co-exist on the same CD as GPL software, and still be proprietary even if the proprietary software requires the GPL software to run! Corel ships its Linux software with a Linux distro. That Corel software won't run without Linux. Does that make Corel automatically GPL?

In other words: if I ship Fords with Michellin GPL tires, I don't GPL my Fords, because they could also use (in theory) Goodyears. If the Michellin GPL tire had a *patented* feature that my Fords needed, then it would be an entirely different matter, because Goodyear would be precluded from making such tires. Copyrights, unlike patents don't preclude you from "rolling your own".

This is simply a demonstration of principle. I don't actually need to write any more libraries, as long as programs are independent in principle.

Look at the other side: If I have a GPL program that calls a PROPRIETARY library, I obviously have no right to pull that library into GPL -- and there is nothing to keep me from making my program GPL. The library is independent of the program, and can be used in many programs, even if it can't 'run' by itself. Similarly a program could run with an alternate library, and is independent.

Note: some may consider this a bug, but it's there in the language of the GPL. Proprietary licenses for library code apply different restrictions.

Submitted in response to:

It is in condition #2 of the GPL, which reads (in part): "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."

__________

Re:Probably unintentional, but egg on their face

[deeny]

A mirror of the offending archive is available at the following URL: ftp://ftp.be.com/pub/gnu/r5/glibc /libroot-obj.tgz.

You will note, if you look that every single other item in the gnu/r5 tree (see? they knew and they were acting clued) has source. I looked quickly, but it does seem that this was an oversight.

It certainly didn't need to be shouted this loudly. Did Bruce actually contact them privately first or did he just yell to the media?

A single omission does not a clueless company make.

No one screamed this loud when Linuxcare's Bootable Business Card was distributed without source (this omission was corrected, but there was a period of several weeks when it was an issue). When I handed one to RMS, he was polite but firm about it (as he should be), but he didn't post it to a web page and submit it to Slashdot.

_Deirdre

Before you even start

[finkployd]

Before the flames attacking the GPL and how hard it makes life on software engineers come out in full force, let me remind everyone something.

Nobody put a gun to BE's collective head and forced them to use the code that Bruce had writen. They activly went out on the net (I'm assuming) and found it. When someone allows you to use their work under a license, you have a (moral and legal) obligation to read and follow their license agreement. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPLed code, it's that simple, folks.

BEOS decided to use someone else's GLPed code in their program, didn't follow the rules, and is being called on it. I'm sure they will comply and this will be settled quickly.

Finkployd

Re:If it is unintentional....

[finkployd]

One assumption everyone is making is that Bruce submitted this to slashdot. I'm assuming he put it up on his little page, and slashdot picked it up and made it into a story.
We really don't know what happened behind the scenes, Bruce may have e-mail BE, then started a thread on his site to let people know what was going on.

Finkployd

Re:Where's the other half of this story?

[kmcardle]

I'm not saying the issue should be kept hidden, I just thing Bruce missed the chance to take the high road on this one. I don't know all the details, but it seems like this is catching Be off guard.

I'm sure Bruce would even be willing to post their reply right on the same page with his message.
Exactly. Bruce and Be could have worked out the details and posted a message together stating the issues and the resolutions. That way we would have people saying "Bruce and Be are cool people." Instead, we have people jumping up and down shouting "Look what Be did! GPL violation! KILL! KILL! KILL!"

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think you get the idea.

--

Re:Probably unintentional, but egg on their face

[Plasmic]

Another testament to the fact that moderators don't have a clue. I cut-and-pasted the text in my reply directly from the article just to see how it would get moderated, and look at the results:

Moderation Totals:Redundant=3, Informative=2, Total=5.

What does this imply?
2 out of 5 moderators don't read the articles
3 out of 5 moderators do read the articles

Those statistics might not be so disturbing if they only applied to people replying to the article, but these are the people who are actually moderating others' replies? That's pitiful.

Whose fault is that? The people who make Slashdot suck. (I'll give you a hint, it's not CmdrTaco or Hemos).

Re:No kidding

[dublin]

There are other competing free software licenses out there. It's exactly this sort of behavior from the GPL crowd that tends to make BSD-ish licenses much more attractive (at least to me). As I've said before here, it's the "militant communist" attitude of the "gnazis" that manages to drive as many people away from free software as it attracts. Many factions are (justifiably, I think) nervous about the GPL - events like this don't do much to help. (And the timing is not good, either, with more commercial software companies than ever before weighing the wisdom of freeing thier software assets...)

Geesh, Bruce, if you set out to deter people from reusing/leveraging your software (which is the point of free software, after all) you could scarcely have done a better job...

Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.

Re:Where's the other half of this story?

[barleyguy]

Actually, the GPL is a public license. So the issue is not just between the author and the violator or the license, but also with the public as well.

I think keeping GPL issues as a public forum is a good thing. That way, people remain aware of the issues involved in their rights under the license, and companies are less likely to get away with not observing it.

If Be wants to post a reply, they are free to do so on the Net. I'm sure Bruce would even be willing to post their reply right on the same page with his message.

Re:Source vs. MP3

[Money__]

Re: Funny how everyone gets all uptight if someone copies a bit of source code here or there, but then turns around and fires up Napster or Gnutella without thinking twice.

I have one foot in each field you mention (programer by day, musician by night), and I have to say you couldn't be more right.

A mason respects a solid foundry. A pilot respects a well built plane. Each person respects the work done by others in a related field, but may lack an apreciation for things they don't understand.

Some programers may view music as a series of acoustical waves combined in such a way as to elicit an emotion. Some musicians may view programs as a bunch of buttons on a screen combined in such a way as to get a task done. While both are technicly correct, each fails to see the art in the other, and thus, they lack the respect that prevents copying.
___

Good to see

[randombit]

It's nice to see companies (like Be) using free software as part of their commercial product. Why? Because something that is implemented by free software is, by definition, not implementing a proprietary API. If Microsoft chose to use glibc 2.1 for the next Windows release (which is possible as glibc is LGPL), wouldn't that be good for everyone? MS would finally have a decent CRT (slam), and programmers would have an OPEN, PORTABLE API for programming on Windows. Everyone wins. Same thing for Be.

While I don't particularly like either Windows or BeOS, I do prefer Be as a company. They provide POSIX interfaces, and complete documentation for all their systems (and the source for components that are GPL/LGPL, unless they make a mistake as in this story). And one of their API functions is is_computer_on_fire(). Gotta love that. :)

Re:If it is unintentional....

[TheReverand]

"they have already promised to fix the problem"

Then what example needs to be made? All you seem to have done is whip slashdot into a frenzy that I'm sure will cause more than a few hate mails to arrive in someones inbox at BE. This company would need to be made an example of if they refused to do anything about their violations. Instead you have treated them like children, going and shouting to the rest of the class, "Hey guys hey guys Johnny isn't playing fair!!". This story should NOT have come out the way it did.

-Marc

Flame all you want....I'll Post more

Hmmn?

[jallen02]

Okay this is a very serious issue and I hate to ignore the issue at hand. Bruce if you are out there I admire ya a lot.. But I think you thrive on this sort of thing. Finding any little irksome problem and capitalizing on it etc. I understand this is a avenue of letting us all know about it but why not give Be a chance before you subject them to this type of crowd next time? Hmmn?

Re:Where's the other half of this story?

[Yardley]

Companies who use the goodwill and other benefits of the GPL need to be self-policing. Be does a pretty good job, but some things were missing. By publicizing this, Bruce Perens has provided incentive to other companies to make sure to follow their own license. GPL violations can usually be easily fixed, but any company using the GPL is in the best position to find its own violations. The public does not have time to audit each and every business, so publicizing GPL violations when they occur should lead to better adherence by all. Harsh to Be but better for all. And Be should come out a winner, too. The next article on /. (on this topic) will be about how Be responded in a timely manner and fixed its gpl problems.

The first paragraph of the Bruce Perens' article sums it up:

Be has already contacted me and promised to fix this problem. But I'd like people to be aware of it because it points out what can go wrong when you use other people's software without checking the licenses.

Plus this clip from the last paragraph:

...but you don't want to get your company in this position unnecessarily. Be is going to be a lot more careful about this now, and your company should, too...

Using the handy dandy Hex Editor

[logistix]

Revealed that the library in question actually contained the string "Bruce Perens is a weenie!"

Re:If it is unintentional....

[Bruce Perens]

No, I submitted it. It's a warning to others to be more careful.

Thanks

Bruce

The inconsistencies of Open Source Dogma.

[FallLine]

It is fundamentally inconsistent of the Open Source community to claim that:

a) Open source is the best. That it always more bug free than closed source. That it is more innovative than closed source. That it provides better support. etc. etc. etc.

b) Closed source (propietary software) freeloading of Open Source code represents a large and significant threat to the movement.

If Open Source is so great, why worry about propietary efforts? If a company comes along and merely extends Open source software, why should this be a great concern to Open Source advocates? If these advocates are to be believed, there is no way that propietary extension could be better (ultimately). What rational person would pay money for an inferior value? [By value I mean, not only how the software in and of itself performs, but its support, and the extent to which moving to or from it actually benefits the user in real life] So why worry?

It would seem to me that these people, who want to assert both "A" and "B", are either blind followers or they understand on some level that propietary software offers some significant benefit over and above what that same open source effort offers. Bruce Perens is particularly aggregigious here in my opinion. In some ways, I can respect RMS more here (even though I have the least in common with him). I've never heard him purport Open source per se to be the best thing since sliced bread. His objections to propietary software is based on "moral grounds", so he can object to propietary freeloading relatively consistently. This is simply not true of the vast remainder of the Open Source camp.

While it is Perens' right try to stop Be from "freeloading," I think he is wrong. I question his motives. I question his thought process, and I question this slashdot public opinion, which is best described as an avalanche. Furthermore, it seems to me that many (but not all, I realize) Open source zealots want to have their copyrights and burn them too. They want the right to freeload music, but don't want software companies to freeload from them....

I believe Open Source offers some significant advantages to propietary software, but is not black and white. When I see anyone painting with such broadstrokes, I'll question them. If I get flamed, and modded down to -43423 so be it, such is the price for honesty.

Lord Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord Stallman, I await thy orders on when to begin the BEos inquisition. I have several hundrd GNU warriors armed and ready. We have secured yaks to carry us into battle.

Know this, O' Lord Stallman, ye who hath given the world this wondrous tool called GPL, know that we will lay our lives down to protect the integrity of Copyleft. For what kind of man would live in a world where Copyleft was not protected. Show me such a man and I will show you that the Earth is round !!!

Hark, my warriors. Let us rejoice in what we are about to do. May the next battle take us to the BSD infidels. I would love nothing more than to excise that Devil Theo from this world and send him and his fellow savages to Hades !!!

Re:If it is unintentional....

[Otter]

It's a warning to others to be more careful.

The warning I would take away from this is:

So your company is thinking about using the GPL, or GPL'd software? Well, think twice, because if you do anything that could be construed as a violation, even if it's clearly unintentional, it is going to be met with a public smear campaign without first giving you a chance to address it.

I've heard from Be

[Bruce Perens]

I've heard from Be. They will solve the problem. They will be more careful in the future.

There is some software already going to the CD-presser and the retail channel, and I asked their attorney to write a release that will let them continue to distribute that. I will sign it.

I would not have put this in the public eye except that it's something that people have to be more careful about - be sure you know whose software you are using and what license it has - you ignore that at your peril. Thus, I publicized this example.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:I've heard from Be

[ashpool7]

I would not have put this in the public eye except that it's something that people have to be more careful about . . . . . Thus, I publicized this example.

Nobody is denying that it should be publicly advertized that Be messed this up. What slashdotters want to know is why you publicised now instead of later (after you settled it with Be).

Re:I've heard from Be

[ashpool7]

... I ment "settle" as in "resolve the problem".

I think I understand why you posted this now . . . "Be fixes GPL Violation" would attract less readers than "Be Violates GPL". If your intent was to warn GPL developers of danger and alert them to checking licences, etc, then gaining maximum readership was definately obtained.

However, in the process of trying to get everyone to look, you've smeared Be. Yes, you cleaned up by posting that Be is fixing the problem, but you still smeared them.

My thoughts on the matter is that you could have gotten away with a minimal loss of readership if you hadn't smeared them in the first place (posting after word from Be).

I notice Technocrat now has an updated headline on the article to reduce Be smear. I find it very odd. First it's "BeOS Boo-Boo: Violating the GPL" and now it's "BeOS Boo-Boo: GPL violated, They'll Fix It". The first title sounds like you want to roast Be on a spit and the second sounds like a informational post.

To the critical reader, this looks like you smeared Be to further your point and now you want to clean up and and forget you smeared them. It looks like you're trying to manuplate the fact that you originally smeared them.

Thats a Boo-Boo.

I'm not intentionally trying to smear you here, I'm just pointing out whats going on. If more data is forthcoming . . . I'll post a followup. :)

Re:No kidding

[Bruce Perens]

OK, you have a point. I could have handled it more gently.

Bruce

Re:If it is unintentional....

[deeny]

...wouldn't community relations have been better served by a private email to the Be engineers?

Bingo. A lot of the Be folk are just as much friends of open source as anyone. The choice to work at a proprietary OS company is something that I *can* understand, even if Bruce and RMS can't. Be's offices have a vitality and energy (not to mention a whole bunch of old hardware) that I haven't seen often.

I don't see why Bruce had to draw attention to what he already believes is a simple, honest mistake. It would have been more professional to deal with it privately and only make it a community issue if Be ignored him or refused to fix the problem.

I agree. I doubt they would have ignored him or refused to fix the problem, but I'd be willing to bet that they may re-engineer it not to use his code.

_Deirdre

No kidding

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

To sum up:

1) Be made mistake.
2) You found the mistake and
a) posted it on your news site
b) posted it on another news site known for it's hasty reactions
c) THEN contacted BeOS to get more information
3) Someone questioned whether you ought to contact Be
4) You claimed you "made it clear" that you had contacted Be
5) When someone notes that you didn't "make it clear" you admit you hadn't mentioned that when you posted the story

I think the REAL point here is that you haven't read the Advocacy-HOWTO.

Free Software is about love (i.e. sharing) or, at worst, tough love (I'll play nice with you if you play nice with me). All you've done is instill fear in current and future GPL users. They'll be careful all right--careful to avoid the GPL.
--

Where's the other half of this story?

[kmcardle]

Wouldn't it have been better to work this out with Be in private and then post it on the net?

You have every right to protect your rights, and I encourage you to do so, but you don't have to knock Be down to do it. Both of you could have come out looking better if this was resolved before it was common public knowledge.
--

Affirmation of Open Source Commandments?

[sugarman]

So, a month ago, when Be had a small user base, and of those not a lot where looking in depth at what was contained in all the libs (okay, at least I wasn't, not sure about all the others).

Now, Free Be has had 700,000+ downloads, many of them Linux users who are trying the OS for the first time, and some inconsistencies come to light. So as the OSS zelaots preach: "With many eyes, all bugs are shallow."

I imagine that Bruce is correct: this was likely unintentional. I also imagine that there may be more instances of this withing Be's libs. I mean, iut is a versatile, Posix compliant OS, so there could be a number of other apps being used in the same way.

I guess a more thorough audit of what actually is included in BeOS may be necessary, at least by someone who knows what to look for. I'm sure that whatever conflicts arise could be corrected in short order, but I'd hate to see my fave OS get caught up in licensing hell.

Violation of GPL

[awk2]

I've just spoken with Bruce Perens, and acknowledged that we at Be have indeed 'boo-booed' with our use of Electric Fence in libroot.so.

We're working to remove Electric Fence from libroot.so and to place it in a statically linked library that can be linked against when-ever needed (typically for debugging). We'll then also distribute the full-source to the static library.

Our plan is to complete this by the end of the week and to update the downloadable package from free.be.com and also to include the updates in future revisions of BeOS Pro.

Andrew Kimpton
Be Inc.

If it is unintentional....

[DanaL]

...wouldn't community relations have been better served by a private email to the Be engineers?

As has happened in similar cases (I'm thinking Corel's gafs), Be will probably recieve a LOT of angry/nasty/rude email from some of the more fanatic GPL/Linux advocates.

I don't see why Bruce had to draw attention to what he already believes is a simple, honest mistake. It would have been more professional to deal with it privately and only make it a community issue if Be ignored him or refused to fix the problem.

Dana