Slashdot Mirror
Abit Violating The GPL?
petard writes: "I just learned about Abit's GNU/Linux distribution, Gentus. According to this discussion, it seems that Abit has not seen fit to release source code to their modifications of various GPL'd utilities. Even worse, it appears that they've slightly modified BP6Mon (from redseb at GoUPiL) and released it binary-only and under the "Abit License"! " Allright, everyone turn off the flames and concentrate on making sure that they are in fact distributing in binary-form-only GPLd code. We need a good contact point @abit to send a polite reminder. If you can't be polite, you won't help anything.
Well...I think far too many companies are abusing the GPL ...using it as a marketing tool, while not actually considering what it actually means. Could there be a class action law-suit in the works....??? ;)
Whatever happened with Quake Lives and Carmack? Did they withdraw the project?
If there are source RPMs are in the ISO, then Abit has satisfied the GPL.
They don't have to post the code to a website. They don't have to e-mail the code to anybody. They don't have to wipe your ass.
Corporations can play by the GPL rules and not "get it" or be "community friendly". These things are not mutually exclusive.
This gave me a bad feeling. How many authors of GPL software really understand the GPL? Not many. (How many authors have gone spouting-off about the GPL without reading it entirely?)
You just need one person to buy the media, perhaps as part of a mobo package, and republish the code.
Fellow geeks: listen to your boiling blood and follow your heart. Make illegal copies of Katz's book and post them on the internet, everywhere. After all, we own part of what is contained in that book.
Jon Katz, I damn you. If you ever find yourself down on your luck, don't expect to get receive pity from us again. You used this community to rebuild your pathetic career, and look what you give us in return.
You soaked up the blood of those bullet riddled corpses with the pages of that book. You stole the cries of all maligned geeks in this world. You'll make your quick buck, and you'll think you're content, but I promise you that those unresting spirits will haunt you for the rest of your days.
Jon Katz, raper and pillager of the very souls he claims to defend.
You are a monster.
Anyway, the GPL only applies in the US. Taiwan, AFAIK, IANAL has NO intellectual property laws whatsoever, so in fact ABIT can do whatever they like and there is nothing (apart from sending in the marines) that the US can do about it.
Kind of interesting that. US law only applies in the US. Is that SO hard to understand ?
and don't even get me started on the unenforcability of the GPL/
Story looks pretty strait to me. I looked, and I see no source available, nor any mention of any source being available.
Heck, there isn't even a source rpm in sight for *anything* in their distro.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
To my knowledge, no loopholes where found, and you can freely get the source to CPhack and continue to develop and modify it to your hearts content.
;-P
I also find it funny that your taking the defence of 'People need to make money' when their distro is quite simply RH 6.1 with a few visual changes to some of the Gnome utilities to make it look more branded..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Err, to my knowledge, no one will buy their distro. They're distributing it with their motherboards..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Have you ever thought of going into advertising?
They allow people to _GET_ the source... you don't have to privide source with binaries.
No, you don't. But you do have to provide source upon request--referring to someone else who's providing it does not count.
> It is the nature of the GPL to coercively steal others' work. It is not immoral to resist immorality.
Ok, I'll bite. (I know, I shouldn't, but I'm not doing anything other than waiting for the latest n-MB download of debian packages to complete)
It is the nature of the GPL to offer people strong incentives to free their work in the sense of the GPL, by allowing them to then combine it with other existing GPLed software.
If you wish to have nothing to do with GPLed code, then the GPL will have nothing to do with you.
I won't even touch the implicit rejection you make of the stance the GNU project takes that open code is more moral than closed code. That way lies unending recursive holy wars.
This isn't the place for screaming at JonKatz. If you want to make your petty little rants, take the matter up with him personally (his e-mail address is public, after all).
And you know what? I think I'm going to counter-rant. If only because maybe I just might be able to convince you just how inappropriate this troll is.
Yes, it's true that the comments are owned by the posters. But by putting them here, we've made them public (Slashdot should consider clarifying this). Rather like the BSD license, in a way; we own the comments, but anyone can see and use them so long as proper credit is maintained. Katz had the right to do what he did, both with the e-mails he recieved (as letters written to him, he does own them) and the posts. Depending on your point of view, he may have had the responsibility to do what he did, and I believe he sees it this way. And if he does make some money off of it, so what? Considering the good this book has the potential to do, he deserves a reward for it.
Jon Katz used us. He is a thief, but worse than Abit, because we trusted him. We took an outsider into our group of outsiders, and he defiled us.
Really? Explain what was so defiling about what he did. What, did you post something you didn't want made public? That's just stupid; never post something on a public forum that you wouldn't mind every pair of eyes on the face of the planet reading.
You just couldn't stand not getting all the credit for yourself, could you?
But he doesn't. He doesn't take the credit for a single one of those postings. He doesn't give names, but that's for a damn good reason (and one which is quite common practice in this type of journalism; it's called "protecting the innocent.") But he doesn't attribute the letters to himself at all.
You soaked up the blood of those bullet riddled corpses with the pages of that book.
Really? Books aren't that absorbent, you know. Columbine was a terrible tragedy, yes. But there is a greater tragedy going on, one of which Columbine is only a sign. This tragedy is what the book seeks to bring to light, so that even in something as horrible as Columbine, there may be some good.
You stole the cries of all maligned geeks in this world.
One: I hardly think every single geek in the world posted on Slashdot, and certainly they didn't all get into the book.
Two: He did not steal them. We posted those cries to Slashdot so that they may be heard. Katz is trying to make them heard even more far and wide than is possible with Slashdot alone. Is this so terrible?
Jon Katz, raper and pillager of the very souls he claims to defend.
Raper and pillager? Hmmm; I wonder what would happen if I asked a group of rape victims what they thought of this situation. Or even victims of armed robbery. I get the very strong feeling that you'd be rebuffed, probably quite angrily.
You are a monster.
A question for you. A group of oppressed people cries out for help. Who is the monster? Is it the person who makes those cries heard, even though he may recieve some reward for it? Or the one who would keep those cries shut off from the world, locked away where only other oppressed peoples can hear it, thus ensuring that the help they so desperately need will never come?
And if Katz is a monster, then so am I. I did a speech on this very subject last week, using several of the letters sent to Katz in the Hellmouth series (and concluding with Eric Harris' suicide note). I got an A- (highest in the class), and a very long question-and-answer session afterward. I got a reward, just as Katz will; am I so bad? I like to think I might have been able to raise awareness, even if in only one person (or perhaps more; I'll never know for certain). One person who may well teach his children to respect those who are different. One person whose children may then teach their own children to respect those who are different. And I think I touched more than one heart that day. Does a monster do this?
No. A monster would keep the cries of the geeks shut out to all but other geeks (since, let's face it, who else reads this site? We're all geeks, and we're all damn proud of that fact). We can help each other, but together with non-geeks, we could make true progress. This "geek separatism" you seem to proclaim would make you the monster, not me, and not JonKatz.
I've had a BP6 for almost a year now, and while mine has been relatively stable (I don't leave it on all the time), many have not.
/dev/null. They really honestly don't seem to care one iota what people think. And it's a shame too. If the BP6 problems could be fixed it would be a top-notch motherboard.
So... I subscribed to linux-abit mailinglist. Seems a LOT of people have had troubles with the board (many have not as well). So, what to do? Bad board, contact Abit, right?
If there is one constant on the list, it's that mail to Abit goes straigt to
Hello, Abit? Will you EVER respond?
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
I hardly know where to start with this one.
The GPL isn't a US law. It's a software license that applied to ABIT as soon as they distributed a copy on a CD with one of their motherboards.
ABIT sells motherboards to distributors in other countries. Those countries can certainly control the import of ABIT products.
This whole thing has nothing to do with the US or it's laws. Anyway, ABIT is certainly going to do the right thing here. They have made a killing selling to Linux users (among others) and they have no business reason to make money off the software. They are a hardware business.
I bought a BP6 yesterday and last night I was using the RPMs from the CD they provided to upgrade my RedHat 6.1 installation.
First off, I think its really slick that they include a Linux distribution with their motherboards. People should be really careful about how they talk to Abit about this -- don't flame them or attack them, but be polite about pointing out the issue.
I wanted to recompile their "extra" modules -- the stuff for monitoring system temperatures and stuff, to work with the 2.2.12 kernel that came with RH 6.1. Lack of source was annoying but I ended up just upgrading the kernel too, to the Abit version and everything works great.
I'm not convinced that they're really violating the GPL anyway. I don't get from the GPL that I have to distribute source to a package I'm distributing in binary form if that package consists of third party source code available elsewhere and thirty party source patches, also available elsewhere.
I didn't see anything in their distribution I couldn't get and compile from other places on the net. The only difference seemed to be that the configuration of the software, and the packaging made it convenient to install.
Does this really violate the GPL? Does anyone know of a specific package included in the distribution that consists of patches to GPL'd software where that source and patch aren't available elsewhere?
I think this is an overreaction...
The kernel source is on the CD -- its a completely stock RedHat 6.1 distribution with new kernel sources.
The kernel sources DO include their patches, and work fine.
If you got the RedHat 6.1 SRPMS, and added a few (freely available) patches to them, you'd have the Abit distribution...
So source is available for the whole thing.
This is probably simply due to miscommunication through abit's management. The people who write the software are going to be much more likely to understand the licensing of GPL software. By the time it gets to distribution they simply slap it on a cd and out it goes. Once the proper people are informed the situation will be remedied quickly.
The true question is if they will release their source, or pull it alltogether.
The problems will come when a company modifies GPL'd software and releases it under their own license but denies using GPL'd sources. This could be difficult to prove and will take legal recources.
Hmmm, has anyone thought of what to do in this case?
binder
So far everytime something like this has come up (with a company), the violator has begged off saying "We misunderstood the nature of the GPL" or something like that.
I for one have a hard time believing this. I first encountered the GPL when I was 17 years old, with zero experience with the legalese that licenses are written in. I had no trouble understanding the rights and restrictions carried by the GPL.
I just can't believe that any large corporation could possibly "misunderstand" the language of the GPL.
That leaves 2 possibilities: willful violation or just not bothering to read the damned thing. I can see the braindead types of technically clueless people who run corporations doing this: "Linux? Oh yeah, it's free! We can do whatever we want with it! Those moronic geeks, we'll make millions off of them!"
Maybe I'm just bitter...
--
Posted with Mozilla
That doesn't sound correct. Section 2b of the GPL reads:
The original question was:
Which to me clearly fits into this category and must be GPLed. This is why the LGPL exists, so that programs or libraries designed to be linked to (libraries, etcetera) can be linked to by commerical non-GPL software packages.
How far this goes is totally beyond me. If MS Office were to suddenly start calling ispell, I don't think it would apply. As for a hard technical definition of why it wouldn't... I don't know.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
And the evidence that makes this apparent is?
This Business Law in Taiwan page says
and this page on "Steps to Selling in Taiwan" (which appears to be on a US Air Force site - go figure) says:
and here's something that I infer is a translation of the copyright law itself.
Don't forget that this disused lavatory is in a basement where the lights (and the stairs) have gone out.
Isn't that where everyone keeps their important documents?
You guys really take the cake. Here's an entire distribution full of modified GPL software, and you take a "let's be friendly" approach. Be accidentally includes some GPL'd debugging code, which wasn't even usable by applications, and the whole OSS community freaks out.
Abit is a huge company, that presumably has the resources (legal, QA, whatever) to check into this sort of thing. Be is a small company that's struggling to survive in a Microsoft-dominated world (you know, just like Linux was until a year or two ago). Did you mean to suggest that small companies are to be reamed at every opportunity, while large companies are to be given the benefit of the doubt?
- chrish
The source of the distribution is irrelevant if it is being distributed in the US where, coincidentally, US law does apply, and anyone who owns code on that distribution has every right to go after their American affiliate (if such a beast exists) or their American distributors for criminal and civil penalties under US copyright code.
Remember Gentus Linux os ALPHA software... This was posted over at HardOCP Thanks Kyle, Infact 99% of the source code of Gentus Linux is included in the directory "/REDHAT/RPMS/" of the CD tile. If you install Gentus with the "everything" option or select "kernel source" with custom option, the code will be on your hard drive. The source code is also availble in "/usr/scr/linux/kernel/". The only part that is not released yet it the ABIT PerMon Toolset code. We are discussing now when and how to release it. Thanks, Jeremy ABIT
That darn Slashdot is so cool... Hey did you pay the phone *(#(Q%$#$ NO CARRIER
The Gentus distribution is basically RedHat with a few tweaks and utils thrown in. So if you have, or can get RedHat-6.1 you have the gentus source code. The other utils are also available....
/usr/src/linux/.
From the Gentus Linux homepage tech support FAQs:
http://www.gentus.com/faq_a06.html
They do not have available for download a separate iso image for a source CD. That is because ALL the source is available elsewhere. I don't think this violates GPL. While they do not specifically supply all of the source for everything on their distro... they DO tell you where you can get it for next to nothing. All the tweaks they do to commonly available source is in
"Don't sweat the technique."
The ISO is mounted here - ftp://ftp.kando.hu/pub/CDROM-Images-mounted/gentus /gentus.iso/
The filesystem tree is a standard Red Hat CD, and RedHat/RPMs has only the binary RPMs. No Source.
---
There are some message boards on the site, and one of the threads is about GPL issues. Someone from Abit has replied, and said:
t ml)
(http://www.gentus.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000214.h
==============
hi,
I am in no way representative of Abit on this subject of Gentus. However, your concern has being understood, and thanks for voicing your opinion.
I will try my best to pass on the message to the management.
regards,
Tim
---
1) /RedHat/RPMS contains only the binary installation RPMs. There may be one RPM named "kernel-source" but that's it.
2) Saying "oh, company B has the source, go get it from them" hardly seems like fulfilling the terms of the GPL. It's certainly against the spirit, if not the letter, of the license. Why is it Red Hat's responsibility to provide source for the Abit distro?
3) They have actually modified many of the packages, so pointing to Red Hat for source information is just plain wrong. The source for these packages is certainly not there.
---
Well, that's a rather cynical point of view... I'd like to think that /. readers and editors learned a thing or two from the Be/Perens experience, and are handling this differently.
Just because Abit is huge doesn't mean that you shouldn't take the time to gather facts, and compose a thoughtful response.
---
I think they meant that ABIT ships some sort of hardware driver that is a modification of the kernel source but only provides that part as a binary. So the "stock" kernel source is there, but ABIT's modifications are binary-only.
That's important, then if you don't like their statement, you can do what you want, is up to you...
It would be great if someone sets an Open Letter for them (if this gets confirmed) and then millons sign it...
(Personally, I think that the Open Source Community looks bad when a company, that's interested somehow in Linux and Open Source Software in general, gets tons of flame mail and trolling...I preffer Open Letters)
If it's true, it doesn't surprise me. We will see many things like this happen in the future. Some people in the "corporate" world just want to take adventage in other's people work. Who knows how many commercial projects are now using parts of GPL'd code?
Like rats, for every single rat you see, there's ten more hiding.
Wow... this is great timing... I've just purchased an Abit BP6 board. I've been wondering if I should use the Gentus distrobution. It has optimized UDMA 66 IDE drivers, but by using it I get locked in to using that exact distro. Because no one has found the source, I can't upgrade my kernel. Apparently, Mandrake has built in support for the BP6's IDE controller. Also, the 2.3.99 kernel has support for it, too. There are patches for the 2.2.x kernels available @ http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hedr ick/ to get the UDMA/66 IDE controller to work.
/and/ use their optimized drivers.
I really hope Abit releases the sources. It would be great to actually pick my distrobution
nope, I checked it out just for you. The sources to some of the programs are not there. They are not anywhere.
Nope. They don't have to include the source with their distribution at all. The non-commercial clause only 3c.
3b says they satisfy the requirement if they...
Accompany [the software distribution] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of [the GPL] on a medium customarily used for software interchange....
So, if they didn't include an offer to supply the source, Abit broke the GPL. But, if they make the offer in the future, and attempt to make the offer to those who purchased it before, then I'd say that all would be well.
They can distribute whatever they want, so long as:
./prog --license;
- They allow people to _GET_ the source... you don't have to privide source with binaries.
- That they don't modify the license.
I'd be willing to guess that the executables they changed still has the GPL in them.
As for their license being attached. I'm willing to make a guess that its for their programs and not the GPL'd programs. Besides, I have never heard of anyone knowingly violate the GPL. Its usually some clueby lawyer thinking he's doing his job.
Sorry about the troll rating, I was moderating, and it jumped in by itself.
I'm e-mailing rob.
I'm also posting in the hope that it will just blow my moderation away.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
GPL may or may not be applicable in Taiwan; I have no idea.
However, if they expect to maintain any level of respect in this community, they shouldn't abuse and insult us in this manner.
Their intentions do seem to be to help this (greater Linux) community with their modifications, but their approach is a kind of anti-Robin Hood. They are a rich company stealing from the "poor" (aka non-profit) GPL coding community. Hopefully it is just a temporary breakdown in communications, after all, they are a Taiwanese company therefore not primarily English-literate.
(PS. I'm an ASUS user (P2L97-DS), so it's a technical non-issue for me.)
--The more you know, the less you know.
I really doubt people are just going to stop buying from one of the biggest motherboard makers in the world just because they didn't release some source code. I know it won't stop ME. I don't even want the source code.
Quite a few folks here seem to think that if the source is available somewhere, a redistributer of (unmodified) GPL'd binaries doesn't need to supply or make available the source themselves.
This just isn't so. Read section 3, it's very explicit about that. Only non-commercial redistributers (ie, if I burn a copy of a RedHat CD for a friend) of unmodified binaries are allowed to make the offer of source from a third party -- and then only if that redistributer received such a written offer in the first place.
If the CD I'm copying also came with a CD full of source, and no written offer that the source was on some ftp site (regardless of whether the source really is there or not), then I have to burn a copy of that source CD for my friend too (no written offer, no third-party responsibility).
In effect, the GPL only allows source distribution, with the option of including a precompiled binary as a convenience. (I know, that's not the wording, but that's the effect.)
-- Alastair
Hmmm... the community will not purchase Abit's products if they violate the GPL.
This isn't about boycotting or anything like that. The GPL is designed to prevent slavery and enforce freedom. Abit is enslaving unsuspecting members of the community by not distributing the source for their modifications. This is serious! Someone could unwittingly purchase an Abit board with the included pseudo-distro, and end up locked into Abit's proprietary and subjugating modifications, with all choices stripped from them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Perhaps getting the story straight before posting it might be the correct approach.
FascDot agreeing with Taco?? Can this be?
Yes. It doesn't matter how big the alleged perp is not how bad the alleged crime. The first step is ALWAYS "determine the facts". In this case, we need to determine:
Is the software Abit is distributing GPL'd (vs, say LGPL'd)?
Has that software been modified?
Is it being distributed publicly?
What does Abit say to the above and about the situation in general?
Some of these questions probably already have answers. That's not the point. The point is: Did we ask them BEFORE starting an email "campaign"?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Holy shit, that lasagna bit was funny :)
-S
... at least according to this FAQ. It appears that it is an ISO-only distribution, and that source code is available in /REDHAT/RPMS/. Whether it's the complete source to everything (doubtful), or just to the kernel, or just to the things they have modified, I don't know. Has anyone actually pulled down an ISO and burned a CD?
---
---
"Go Metallica. Die RIAA." -- Linus Torvalds
Just the GPL'd stuff. However, were they were to modify program X, and program X was GPL'd, they must release their modifications under the GPL, (and hence, provide sources).
I don't see how vendors could make a dime. The only people who have legal recourse against Abit are the copyright holders of the software whose license has been violated. I.e. the authors of hdparm or whatever other utilities. Unless RedHat holds the copyright on the utility (I don't think they do), I don't see a lawsuit from them.
Not to mention that a judge would probably slap both parties with huge fines for contempt of court.
On what grounds do you believe the GPL only applies in the U.S.?
The point isn't that the GPL only applies in the US, it's that there are (apparently) no IP laws in Taiwan. The GPL isn't a law, it's a license that lays out the terms you are allowed to distribute software under. All of it's enforcability comes from copyright law. In the absence of copyright law then the license is moot.
But the main point the originator of this subthread missed is that a company doing business in a country is bound by that country's laws throught the process of that business.
Hmmm... the community will not purchase Abit's products if they violate the GPL. Simply put - Abit needs to release the code or noone will buy there stuff. Also this may be an excellent time to do a court test of the GPL - contact Abit - get them to agree to release their code but hold off until the issue has gone to court. Have them put up only a token defense and get a precendent for the GPL set.
Abit - release your source - Many of the community, me included will NOT buy your products if you do not release your source code.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
This deserves a (Score: 8, Funny) or something like that, because you happened to pick what I consider the funniest single sentance out of the first HHGTTG book. Actually, the funniest single sentance of the whole series. I'm not sure what it is about a disused lavatory and a leopard, but it makes me rofl every single time. It must be the sheer randomness of each part, especialy the leopard... I don't know, but Douglas Adams is a genius.
That's the only piece of software ABIT *did* include in their distribution that came with the source. Even if they had neglected that, however, a stock kernel would have worked fine.
I know Abit's behavior seems clueless at best, and arrogant at worst, but really, we (the open-source community) have no direct claim on Abit. We may not like it if they violate the GPL, and_polite_ protests may get the desired efffect, but the fundamental rights that are being violated are those of the author(s): redseb and perhaps Ben Jarvis, from whom he has "'emprunté' une grande partie du code" ('borrowed' a large part of the code).
When someone violates the GPL, as Abit is alleged to have done, what they are doing is distributing copyrighted software without a license (the GPL does not apply, since they are not complying with its terms). The appropriate response is for one or more of the authors to contact the offender and discuss licensing terms.
The author(s) may insist that the GPL be complied with, but they are fully within their rights to grant special terms to their own code, if they think it justified. Of course, all the authors would have to agree to new terms. [This may be possible in this case, since there is only one author (or a small number of them), but would be essentially impossible for something like the Linux kernel.]
The filing cabinet is located at the nearest Galactic public records office, near Alpha-Centuri.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
We all know that some really foolish people are going to take it upon themselves to flame abit. It always amazes me how people who don't have any right to flame do. I believe that maintainers (Or significant contributers) to a software project should be the people with the right and need to contact the offenders. Not some guy who happened to read a news article. I guess it's just mankinds want to cause change.
As someone who's already raised the issue with Abit, it seems there's a bigmisunderstanding on Abit's part. NB: I have comments posted already on the Gentus discussion page mentioned
Ive already formally requested information on obtaining the source code from the two discussion forum moderators, as well as directly through Abit. Both the forum moderators appear to be of the opinion of the fact that since the Gentus ISO includes the Linux kernel source code, they conform to the GPL. I have not had a reply from Abit themselves.
I havent had a chance to check exactly what's in the kernel source RPM they mention, but from the sound of it, its the Hedricks IDE patches pre-applied to a stock kernel.
I was going to clarify further with Gentus, and re-explain the GPL to them before submitting this story to Slashdot, but it looks as though the story is out before Ive had a chance to get more info from Gentus
It would be nice if folk waited a bit longer and behaved rationally in the meantime, so that we can get a sensible answer, without the shit-slinging.
I'm still pursuing it the 'proper way', so can folks be nice, and just make tens of thousands of polite, formal requests for the source, instead of harassing them. Im sure it'll work better in the long term
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
Try sending it to johntsai@www.gentus.com and yakumo@www.gentus.com
snip from here -->
Dear Gentus,
I am writing to you to formally request information on obtaining the source code to the Gentus Linux distribution.
Since the entire distribution, including the kernel, utilities and other software, is derived from work released under the GPL, I believe I am entitled to request the availability of the source code for all the supplied software, not just the kernel. There appear to be several RPM's included in the Gentus distribution which are Abit-modified versions of previously GPL'd code. I am particularly interested in the source code for these modifications.
It also concerns me that at least one RPM appears to have been derived from a GPL'd product, but has had its license changed to an Abit-specific copyright. As you should be aware, changing the license of code derived from the GPL actually breached the GPL. I would thus also request you to clarify the situation with regard to AbitPermon and its derivation from BP6Mon.
Thank you
-- to herePax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
Come on guys! This is supposed to be a parody. Cut me some slack and laugh. My true view is that if they haven't released the source, I hope it is just on oversight. Otherwise the powers that be in the OpenSource comnuity should *gently* remind them either come up with their source code or scrap the project.
I understand the parody works better with the proper score, but don't destroy my Karma. I was just trying to make people laugh.
People keep speculating about this bold event, when the GPL will finally be tested in court. Which makes me think -- why wait?
I realize there are some potentially criminal issues here about collusion, and abuse of the legal system. But... it might be a really GOOD thing if some small company would violate the GPL in a deep and egregious fashion. The FSF and /. would politely ask them to stop, and they would refuse. So it goes to court, and the FSF fields a strong legal team. Unfortunately the small company can't afford a really hotshot lawyer. They do "their best" to defend a case, but in the end they lose.
Result: the GPL is affirmed to have legal standing in a US court decision, setting a precedent that holds weight for all future cases.
Thoughts?
If the way ABIT translates their motherboard manuals into english is any indication of how they code, they are probably doing us a favor. Sometimes not sharing IS better.
Do you always base your ideas on software on what other people think of it?
If you do, I (and a lot of my friends) don't like SuSe. Will you be reformatting your harddrive now?
I have not used Gentus, in fact, I didn't even know it existed until know. But I think it is a great gesture to include a GNU/Linux distribution with hardware. Even if it's "crap".
It will probably bring the existance of GNU/Linux (or GNU/Linux outside of Redhat) and Open Source in general, to the attention of many people. I'd say this is a good thing.
Perhaps the source has been made available in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet located in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".
It depends greatly on how the various parts of the larger product fit together.
One could call a Linux distro one large software product. In that case, it is quite possible to add programs to the distro which do not need to be covered by the GPL. On the other hand, adding a new terminal driver to Emacs would need to be GPLed.
Note carefully the clause about independent and separate works in section 2. This is where you can quickly get yourself in trouble, as using a library means your work is not independent of that library.
So, a separately-invokable program linked only against LGPL (or other non-GPL) code would be a separate work, and would not need to be GPLed.
I'm sure there's been discussion on binary-only Linux kernel modules, and I don't see how they can be considered separate works.
Yes, ABIT gave us a lovely motherboard and we should thank them for it but you are obviously spewing flamebait for another America!=World debate.
On what grounds do you believe the GPL only applies in the U.S.? Do you believe any company can release any GPL software they like (modified or not) by any means they choose so long as they are not American?
Anyway I think it's debatable that U.S. law applies in the U.S. and for an argument I supply one young Cuban boy and one manufacturer of bloatware containing a OS and a browser.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
They just don't see the implications. It is not always meant to steal others'work. We just have to warn them, but I'm ready as another one to give 100$ to the FSF to sue people not respecting the GPL after warning.
When I checked out Gentus' homepage, I noticed that the font they had picked didn't look right under Netscape on Linux. Looking at the http://www.gentus.com/ source, I see why: they picked a Windows font and the whole thing was made using FrontPage! Something smells very fishy... -dsb
Yes, paradox is correct, the code has to be out there, somewhere and it is time for Molder and Skully to start searching for it. Maybe what they will find will amaze them or amuse them but it for sure will prove the point paradox tried to make.
On the other hand, who exactly will be suing Abit?
How is it done properly and who the plaintiffs are, who pays the money, etc?
Now that VA Linux and RH share value has gone down alot, will they support this cause? Or are there other ways?
anyone?
You can't handle the truth.
You say that they thought that only the KERNEL was a GPL thingy. That is very queer (odd, whatever).
/Any/ company should know what it can expect from its market. That's why company presidents always have such a nice flat-screen display with all kinds of bar diagrams on it on their desk. In order to get even the /minimum/ control over what the h*ll you're planning to do, you should first research your product and its market /in depth/. But Abid must have done very very minimal research, making such a mistake.
/will/, when faced with the facts, distribute their sources. So there would be no problem for us, otherwise there will be a lawsuit that will be THE famous GPL lawsuit, oh yeah. But I expect no problems.
/our side/. But Abid thought that they had a mostly propietary product. They could have altered the code in such a way that it handles a lot of things that Abid wanted to keep propietary (like special drivers etc.?). Now they're faced with opening the source. I hope they will survive it, because they don't really seem to understand the open source market. They could drown in it, and the fact that they HAVE to distribute their changes, could be a disaster for them.
Imagine, you start a company and start doing losts-a-things with Linux. (I don't really know WHAT Abid is doing with it.)
Now, what happens: Abid
That is, on
Off course, I hope they'll live, and that we will all live happily ever after, but it could be a hard punish for their (really silly!) GPL ignorance.
If this will be a battlefield:
One of the repliers said that he was willing to donate $100 to GNU for the court battle. This reminded me of what a friend of mine told me about the Pokemon hype:
"imagine that Nintendo would spread the word: 'if you find a BLACK pokemon card, you'll have to commit suicide.', and then some time later, put the black cards on the marked. It would be a mass suicide amongst the pokemon-freaks!"
That is exactly the same as what is applied here. All those that have until now only PROFITED from Free Software, could be found well willing to donate that $100 (that you'd otherwise have long spend on your software) for this court battle, if only one person suggested.
But as I said, I hope everyone will just live. And I do fully agree with Whyte Rabbyt's "Pax" greet. I just wanted to say that I have hope for the times when there will be really dark clouds coming from Mordor.
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
My BP6 has been running great since last september. Its been ultra stable even when overclocking. More stable than my old p200 with a DFI mobo.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
My friend bought an Abit dual-cpu motherboard, and runs the Gentus distribution. He recompiled his kernel this week. How did he do that without the source, hmmmm?
I think people are not looking into this before they talk.
GNU OCTAL http://www.gnu.org/software/octal
I reacently picked up a coppy of MaximumLinux magazine that included two distro disks. I was suprised to read the licence agrement in the back of the mgazine. It forbid the copying of the disks or any portion of them. In other words it forbids the redistrobution of the GPLed software on the disks, and if I change any of the GPLed source code I cannot distribute the changes. Smells like a violation to me.
Perhaps this is a good way for open source vendors to make some real money. RedHat (or whoever) could now sue abit, and get a hefty settlement...now when microsoft steals code, then the real money comes in.
perl -e "print(pack('H37','4d65726b7572795a40676e7572642e6e6574'))"
Although I agree that GPL should be vigorously enforced, if you look at the messageboards at www.bp6.com you will see that Gentus == crap, and nobody uses it. I really can't imagine what Abit was thinking when they released this linpoop distro. Personally I enjoy running SUSE 6.3 on my bp6, which ran perfectly right out of the box.
love is just extroverted narcissism
It seems that an observing employee has already responded to the string, stating he'd get management on it. And one of the original coders has already threatened to sue. :)
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
Yep, it looks like a non-issue. Can someone with an ISO of the Gentus distribution verify that the source is available as the FAQ says?
Here's the text from the Gentus Linux FAQ;
Question: Where is source code? (Last update: 21/Apr/2000)Answer: The source code of Gentus Linux is included in the directory "/REDHAT/RPMS/" of the CD tile. If you installed Gentus with "everything" option or select "kernel source" with custom option, the source code is also availble in "/usr/scr/linux/kernel/".
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
What if a company uses software released under the GPL as part of a larger software product, and does not modify the GPL'ed stuff at all? Are they then compelled to release the source for their entire software product or just the GPL'ed software that they used?