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

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.

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.

---

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.

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 ++

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".