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.

Comments

Wierd, I ran into this last night...

[tgd]

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...

Re:Wierd, I ran into this last night...

[kaphka]

Only if it's code that has been modified.

That's just not true. Excuse the long quote, but it's the best way to answer the question:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it 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 Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Considering all the hype about the GPL on /., you'd think people would at least read it.

Re:Source is available...

[tgd]

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.

You guys take the cake...

[chrish]

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?

Re:You guys take the cake...

[eval]

I agree. I think we should make a lot of noise about this, even before we've gotten all the nitty-gritty details.

I try to be a level-headed person, and don't encourage rampant flaming. However, the Linux community's greatest asset in cases like this is the ability to generate noise and "buzz". Right now, we should be spreading the word that Abit seems to be violating the GPL. Tomorrow, it should that they *are* violating the GPL. And next week, the boycott should start, and we should be in stark-raving-Stallman-ESR mode. Not flaming, but sticking to our ideological guns and using our *significant* weight in the technical community to rein in Abit, and to prevent this from becoming a common occurrence. We need to make it known that if a company violates the GPL, we're going to notice and get mad about it. Otherwise, they'll never learn, and we'll keep going through this time after time, and eventually, they might win.

We don't have the usual tools that Big Companies[tm] do to keep each other semi-honest (lawyers, contracts, hit-men). We need to use what we do have, our brains and mouths.

Re:You guys take the cake...

[scumdamn]

Your overgeneralization is more than unfair. It's offensive.
I read Slashdot every day and I've never flamed a company for GPL violations. It's not my code out there, and these companies aren't violating my license. Remember that everywhere you go 99% of everybody are idiots. Especially on the internet. Here's a little something to think about:

1. Bruce Perens' code was misused last time
2. He spoke to someone at Be, didn't sue, signed a writ of understanding and didn't cause them any financial harm.
3. The news about Abit just came out (AFAIK)
4. Be was not reamed. In fact, there was a big reaction to the fact that Bruce was being unfair to Be and jumping the gun. He seemed to take that criticism well.

Re:Good for them

[Ares]

Although US law does not apply in Taiwan, the distribution may well be in violation of the GPL, and if so, US copyright law applies the moment it arrives on US ground. Put another way, if I were to go to one of the East Asian Piracy markets (Malaysia comes to mind, though Taiwan may be even more of a haven), and purchase several thousand dollars worth of software on CDs for pennies (or less) on the dollar, its fine to possess there. As soon as I get back home, they immediately become illegal to possess.

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.

Looks like it's being discussed already

[Booker]

There are some message boards on the site, and one of the threads is about GPL issues. Someone from Abit has replied, and said:

(http://www.gentus.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000214.ht ml)

==============

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


---

Confusing the issue

[Booker]

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.

---

Perhaps lessons were learned

[Booker]

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.

---

Perfect Timing!

[marvinx]

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.

I really hope Abit releases the sources. It would be great to actually pick my distrobution /and/ use their optimized drivers.

Re:Perfect Timing!

[roman_mir]

Ok, Listen, we have to fight. Take that ABit BP6 board and put make a voodoo doll of it, I mean a voodoo MotherBoard. You have to visualize the enemy (ABit board of directors). You must use long sharp needles. First one goes into the existing ISA slot. This will kill their rudimental toes and the appendix. Use the next needle to scratch the bus, this will paralize their legs. Third needle goes into PCI slot, at this point they should be experiencing burning sensation between their legs. With the next needle go through the BIOS that will stop them from not only violating the GPL and programming Gnu/Linux but also will force them to put their forks into their eyes and their spoons into their noses.

Of-course to perform the ritual you must read and learn by heart the entire black man pages for Caldera and Solaris, also it would be nice to take lessons from such experienced magic performers as /. moderators.

Re:If True.

[_Sprocket_]

Some people in the "corporate" world just want to take adventage in other's people work.

While I feel this is a perfectly true statement, I also fear there is another thing to consider. A misunderstanding. Confusion born of ignorance and not "getting it".

The whole Open Source concept (ie: freedom, not beer) escapes a great deal of people. They seem to waffle at the philisophical, as well as technical, aspects of Open Source. What they focus on instead is software that you can buy cheaply OR download for free. Corporate business types are especially prone to this. The end result? Open Source software is labled as "freeware".

Freeware? Beer! Grab.

Freeware has a whole different "feel" to it - from the old "get what you pay for" mentality to the free lunch crowd. The GPL must cause a great deal of confusion for these folks when they're eventually forced to look over it again.

On a semi-related side note... some of those in the industry do not help matters. SUN, for example, seems to enjoy labeling anything GPL as "freeware". You'd think they know better. In fact, I suspect they do.

I Wonder How many flames they do get...

[dalamar]

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.

Re:Rather than cautioning the flamers...

[WhyteRabbyt]

The story is straight, although possibly a bit premature, since there appears to be a possibility that someone cluefull at Gentus has realised the situation (see the last message on the discussion board page).

Ive already emailed Gentus, a few days ago. Their stance appears to be that supply their modified kernel as a source RPM, they are conforming to the GPL. The way is appears to me from the email Ive had is that someone is confusing supplying the kernel source with the distribution source.

Pax,

White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

Re:Source is available...

[WhyteRabbyt]

Has anyone actually pulled down an ISO and burned a CD?

Yup. It appears to be a bog-standard RedHat 6.1 (Cartman) distro, with certain RPMS replaced by Abit's own versions. In subdirectory /RedHat/RPMS (Yup, unlike LinuxOne, they haven't even sed'd RedHat with Abit in the copyright or anywhere) the following RPMS are Abit-specific

I810X-1.0-3abit.i386.rpm
X11R6-contrib-3.3.6-1abit.i386.rpm
gmc-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
gnome-core-1.0.54-2abit.i386.rpm
gnome-core-devel-1.0.54-2abit.i386.rpm
hdparm-3.5-1abit.i386.rpm
indexhtml-6.1-2abit.noarch.rpm
initscripts-4.70-1abit.i386.rpm
kdesupport-1.1.2-3abit.i386.rpm
kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i586.rpm
kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i686.rpm
kernel-BOOT-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-doc-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-headers-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-ibcs-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-pcmcia-cs-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i586.rpm
kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i686.rpm
kernel-source-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
kernel-utils-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
lilo-0.22-7abit.i386.rpm
linux_logo-3.01-1abit.i386.rpm
mc-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
mcserv-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
redhat-logos-1.1.0-1abit.noarch.rpm
rhl-gsg-6.1en-2abit.noarch.rpm
rhl-ig-6.1en-1abit.noarch.rpm

Pax,

White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

I'm already talking to Gentus 'bout this

[WhyteRabbyt]

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 ++

Proposed Open Letter

[WhyteRabbyt]

The following might do as a starting point for an open Letter to Gentus.

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 here

Pax,

White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

Idea: force the GPL lawsuit?

[frankie]

otherwise there will be a lawsuit that will be THE famous GPL lawsuit, oh yeah.

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?

Well...

[Erik Fish]

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".