Slashdot Mirror
Possible GPL Violation from Compaq UPDATED
An anonymous reader wrote in to say "I was having a look at ThinkGeek's 6 Gb MP3 jukebox, and was interested to see that the software is Linux-based. There's a link at the bottom of the page: download Linux source. Interestingly, this link requires I 'sign' a license agreement with Compaq before downloading the source code. The license, amongst other (scary) things, says:
CUSTOMER acknowledges and agrees that COMPAQ owns all rights,
title and interests in and to the SOFTWARE and all Intellectual Property
Rights therein."
That can't be right, can it? What's going on here? Is it a simple case of Compaq needing reminding about the ground rules concerning Linux distribution? Perhaps they have not made any kernel modifications, and this license is for their application software? " Update: 09/13 05:16 PM by CT : we screwed this one up. The link is somewhat misleading since it says its a link to Linux Source, but its not actually the linux source, its just some code that runs on linux. Stop flaming please. Move along. Nothing to see here.
You need to re-read the GPL. If you use GPL'd code you must make the source open, and available for up to three years, and you can not change the original licence it was released under, especialy claiming it is yours, or that you own it.
at compaq about this. Does anyone know if the device actually runs linux or if this is propriatary software for linux. If it is running linux and someone does know who to email, lets make an open letter and do something about it. Then we can get the community to help back up the GPL, if it doesn't run linux they have the right to license there software how ever they want, after all the GPL is a license.
With the updated story on /. that this is a mistake, that this is just code that runs on linux, and not linux source code itself: shame on /. for not having someone clickthrough the link and investigate this. You know how much headache even a momentary story like this makes for Compaq people on this project as half of /. goes into jihad mode?
--
So, Rob, tell me, did it hurt when you plummeted off the turnip wagon?
I mean jeez. This is the second story today I saw where you guys seem to be just trying to cause a fire-storm. Two links deep we have the press release about the Linux DVD player. (Oh horror of horrors! The project is running LATE! That never happens in the real world.)
Then this. That's quite the Linux distribution they have there. They are right to change the license if their whole distro can be in that 504kb zipfile I downloaded a minute ago.
Don't you guys even make a slight attempt to research your stories before you post them?
Karma be damned.-Joe
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Only it is an awful lot more constructive than yours. If you have an opinion on anything, that is.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Well, I wasn't clear, but I think that the real problem is that it includes other people's code (or at least seems to be). Otherwise, it seems to me that Compaq making you agree to the click-through license would just be dual licensing the code (like Qt and the QPL and GPL). It would be an odd case of dual licensing, but I think that it might hold up. But they can't dual license this code, because its not all theirs. But like you said - it just seems like a glitch on Compaq's side.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
>"We have the right to distribute information any way we choose, despite what the copyright holder says!"
:-)
The GPL *gives* you the right to distribute source code in any way you choose, despite what the copyright holder says.
You CAN'T steal somthing that is GPLd. "Look at my new 3l33t h0t k-rad cr4ack3d w4ar3z LiNuX K3rN3l d00dz!" is just not possible because of the nature of the GPL. Hell, you don't even have to accept the terms if you don't want to. I beleive clause 5 (or maybe another number) simply binds you to the usual copyright laws if you don't like the GPL.
How much more freedom do ya want?
>Company X is distributing software in violation of the GPL! That's wrong! Let's get the bastards!
Yes, Company X is not using the GPL or violating it. So therefore they are denying you the right to distribute source code in any way you choose, despite what the copyright holder says. Instead you have to receive and use the software in the way Compaq chooses.
Try harder next time.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
No no. The source and all our modifications are GPL'd and included. It's just that this package is distributed in our standard 'packaging' and that standard packaging and the form you have to get by to download it contain our 'standard' license. If one read those and presumed that they applied to everything being downloaded or within the package (which they seem to claim), then the wrong message would be received....
Clear?
I commend you for finding an easy way around the e-mail address issue, but I disagree with you about IP addresses being useful for tracking. When was the last time your ISP gave you a static IP address? All Compaq could tell from my IP is that a Mindspring subscriber downloaded their file. To find out anything at all about me via that IP address, they would have to subpoena Mindspring's logs to see who was using it at a given time.
--
This is not my sandwich.
The same reason that First Boobs was modded up as being funny.
Moderators are people.
people can be, and tend to act, stupid.
Stupidity likes stupidity
nerdfarm.org
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
This bit may be a little offtopic, but... This, articles is definately one to remember.. In a good way, despite the fact that it was erroneous... Through many of the posts that are from Trolls on here, a common theme is that Slashdot, and all that compose it's bustling community are a bunch of slavering Zealots, who think only to bash anything that isn't of the 'Pro Linux, anti-microsoft, open it all up' view.. .
While they may get a fair bit of ammo because of the posting of the article in the first place (erroneously), the thing to note is that the most highly rated articles are the ones that actually point out the error and clarify the issue rationally
Unlike many news agencies and distributors of FUD, the editorial staff (CdrTaco himself) concerned quickly got back, and amended the text to admit that there was a big cockup made.
No quiet removal and brush it under the carpet, and pretend it didn't happen.
Maybe it's something they should read, just so they can see that we still consider ourselves not just 'geeks', but wholly human, thus fallible, but with the guts to stand up and admit the error and face the fire.
Just a thought, thought I'd share...
Malk
Ummm, what, they may have made a mistake? That the software is actually under GPL, and the license is erroneous? It *doesn't matter*. Free software is way too important to tolerate mistakes. Flame 'em.
Uh... perhaps they want to make a profit on it? Perhaps it isn't a derived work, perhaps it only *runs on* Linux? No matter. Flame 'em. Commercial software sucks. Only free software is good enough to run on free OSs.
Flame the vendors, flame the reviewers, flame the journalists who have this idiotic idea that free software devotees are a gaggle of flaming geeks. That'll convince them that free software is mature (like its promoters) and worth supporting.
<sigh>
I'm gathering you're not a GPL fan?
You might say that, considering I've been arguing against it for at least a decade, and considering that my karma has gone up and down more than Clinton in the Oval Ofice from arguing it here...
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
...so that he can convince Compaq that since they are using GPL software they will also have to GPL some hardware to him (Alpha cluster most likely).
I could use one of those new-fangled iPaqs myself. I hear they ported Windows to that thing now.
Sarkazmo is the assumed identity of a long-time
This is most likely some form of boilerplate contract language that COMPAQ's lawyers told their web-publishing department to release all "to be distributed free"-type software under.
The programmer who released the GPL code probably just put it up on a server controlled by a dept. that does this as part of their release process.
It's quite unlikely that this is an intentional challenge to the GPL or other freeware licenses.
Point it out to them, and I'm sure they'll clean it up.
Got Rhinos?
" If you have any problems with this site, please send mail to the Compaq Corporate Research Downloads Team."
Simple isn't it?
Malk-a-mite
It just happens to use Linux as its core, but the actual internals may very well be proprietary. (The file manager, MP3 decoder, etc.) If these bits are in fact Compaq-proprietary, they're permitted to use whatever license they please (including the ugly abomination they're using here). The GPL would only cover the Linux kernel itself in this case, and I think we all know where to get that. I'm willing to bet that either:
Let's not always leap to conclusions, summoning dark demons, creatures of unmitigated hatred, and RMS, every time something like this happens. More often than not, it's just legitimate misunderstanding.
It's not quite a violation, since they wrote the software themselves- but the license that they make you agree to on the site is incompatible with the actual software license...
Here's a link to a mirror to the official sources:
http://members.xoom.com/svartal f/winjukebox_v_1_0.zip
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
.tar.gz is equivalent of a solid archive ZIP (like RAR); a .tar.gz would be almost exactly the same size as a .tar.zip (probably about 100 bytes smaller due to the additional header info in a .ZIP file)
-- Sig (120 chars) --
Your friendly neighborhood mIRC scripter.
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
My understanding was that the doubt was where to draw the line between
`normal' use of headers and substantive quoting that should be covered
by the GPL. That there is an exemption for normal use of headers I
thought was not in doubt, since there is a clearly worded paragraph by
the copyright holder to this effect.
I'll take advantage of this /. article to ask if there are any other PJB100 users out there that would like to collaborate on the Linux project?
... I can't be the only geek with a couple of PJB100's ... so if there's anyone out there that wants to hook up to chat about them, drop me an email (See email, shift-2)...
I've tried hard to find any 'communities' (lists, forums, etc) for other PJB100 users, but I can't seem to find any that are populated
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
First of all, there is no GPL violation - if you bother to check the software, they are requiring you to agree to a license for THEIR own software - now, call me old fashioned, but I was under the impression that they were allowed to impose whatever licenses they want on their own software.
There is no GPL code in the code they are shipping.
Point 2, why the fsck did you not even bother to go about this the correct way - namely ASK COMPAQ (assuming you were too incompetant to be able to check the actual source code yourself)?
For crying out loud, when is slashdot going to wake up and stop posting shite like this thread? This is a NONH story, brought about because the submitter was to lazy / stupid to check it out first, and ditto slashdot.
*sigh*
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Something about ZIP, there's some overhead somewhere because .tar.gz's almost invariably end up being smaller than .zip's.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
up for access...
I think the flamers out there will now be very disappointed
that there is one less thing to flame at...
As various people have noted, shooting first and
asking questions later isn't a way to win friends
and influence people...
- Jim Gettys
wise-up.
There is no GPL infringement, just Rob being to stupid and lazy to check his facts.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Carbon Monoxide can kill you without warning. I would stick around.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
so if I wanted real news for nerds, where would I go?
ArsTechnica has some of the best articles. They are similar to slashdot in that they post links to other cool geeky things, but they also generate a lot of their own content (well written, geeky articles). In addition, they are not as biased towards one OS over another. They cover Linux, BeOS, MacOS, and Windows.
It's news for geeks, minus the paranoia, propaganda, and pandering to Linux zealots.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
> A simple e-mail to Compaq legal oughta do the trick; it's only a minor error.
I'm resentful of the fact that an e-mail to their legal department is even necessary.
Why?
Because the (nameless) company I work for has done the EXACT same thing, in spite of my own internal objections! As far as they were concerned, the 'wrapper' license doesn't mean what it clearly claims it means, the 'sub' license was burried in there and 'over-rides' the wrapper license, and so that was that. (Go figure, the glove is on the other hand and they interpret it in whatever way is convenient.)
Good luck getting anything done about it.
someone moderate this boy up, he's onto something... i also like that site he reffed, geekpress.com.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Could be that all software, downloadable through their site, is given a boilerplate popup license, and the people who put it online aren't aware or don't care what the real license is. Doesn't sound like they are trying to undermine the GPL.
Is this source possibly just for software to transfer files to the device? Does the device actually run Linux internally?
I think if you gently remind them that they're not allowed to make the claims they do on the link that they'll correct the whole mixup.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Are you imagining voices that don't exist? Are you responding to invisible straw men?
Try here.
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
You need to re-read my post. I've released quite a bit of software under the GPL, I believe I know what I'm talking about.
I said "are they using GPLed code in their product?"
As far as I have seen, they are not. They wrote a piece of software themselves and licensed it themselves. No distribution involved.
Now, if their download INCLUDES something other than their application, it should be mentioned that that is NOT under their license, only their application is.
The download page implies that it includes ONLY their application software and nothing else (ie, Linux distro).
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
But all the noise on Slashdot and elsewhere ought to have by now created some awareness among developers who work at places like Compaq, but still they continue to fail to uphold the GPL. Maybe if they sensed the GPL had some more teeth they might.
1. Anything posted by Slashdot editors that could be cleared up by a phone call to the company will instead be posted without any reservations whatsoever.
2. Any sort of "cause" that could be taken up with a petition of Slashdot viewers, such as disapproval of Amazon.com's patents, is instead posted without reservation. A very helpful, "What do you guys think?" should be tacked onto the article summary by the editor.
3. If you are posting an article about a product or company doing something with Linux, do not post the article under "Linux." Instead, spread it around to the various other subjects, so that everyone must read about it even if they don't want to read about Linux.
Rinse, repeat.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They can't claim the license to Linux, but it's possible to claim the license to any software that they did to make the player work under Linux.
Just because any piece of software runs under a GPL system doesn't mean that that software itself is GPL.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
The license page at http:/ /crl.research.compaq.com/downloads/register.cgi?do wnload=Linux+Jukebox now shows a copy of the GNU General Public License.
Is that freedom in the sense that "only if we like you"?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Sounds like what companies have been saying about IP and the defense there of.
"If we don't take action, they'll think it's ok. So we better sue."
Sure, as Slashdot users we can't sue, but we can flame with the best of them! Right guys?
Sotaku
It's just a shame that you don't fscking bother to CHECK stories for even a grain of truth before posting them.
I suppose that it too much to ask for, is it?
*sigh*
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Linux kernel headers are explicitly exempt from the GPL restrictions. There was a discussion about this recently on the linux-kernel mailing list.
And please please please can we have a separate GPL violation category so I can filter out these stories.
---- SIGFPE
Interesting. And a good idea, really, considering how many programs that run on Linux probably include those headers.
In any event, the research lab licensed the whole package under the GPL anyway, so it's a moot point. I just found it kinda interesting.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Try http://crl.research.compaq.com/downloads/download. cgi/postmaster @127.0.0.1/Linux+Jukebox/winjukebox_v1_0.zip
You can bet that if another company was violating one of compaq's licenses, compaq's lawyers would be in jihad mode before you could blink. By not being aggressive towards companies which violate the GPL, the message sent to companies is that it's okay to violate the GPL and if you're caught all you have to do is comply with it once caught. If any other law were being broken, a simple "okay, I'll stop" would not suffice, and if compaq caught you violating their license I doubt they'd settle for a simple "I'm sorry".
This is absurd on multiple levels.
First of all, no one has proven they are violating the GPL. It looks very doubtful at this point.
Second of all, the first thing Compaq would do is send a cease-and-decist letter. They would not (could not) simply launch a jihad against you without giving you a chance to rectify the mistake (if one was made).
And finally, no law has been broken. We're talking about a possible license violation. I'm afraid that doesn't qualify.
Why in the hell your post was modded to +4 I'll never know.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
--
How long before Slashdot gets shutdown becasue the editors don't do any fact checking? I don't think it would be out of line for Compaq to go after Slashdot because of damage to their good name. Further, Slashdot is also indirectly the cause of any abuse that Compaq employees may have recieved. Also, it is appearant that folks are not taking Slashdot seriously, which is making the signal to noise ratio worse. Throw in the fact that Slashdot is owned by VA Linux (right, that will not impact the editoral content) and the whole thing looks like it has little life left.
The sad thing is, there is no excuse. The principal editors are rich, and work full time on the site. VA Linux has more then a few dollars lying around. Both the time and the money exist to do a little fact checking. Yet they don't. I, for one, am puzzled by this.
I used to be happy to point people to Slashdot. Now, I'm embarassed. Slashdot is becoming a laughing stock. If the editors of Slashdot don't take the site seriously, who will?
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
First of all, most people on high speed connections due have a static IP (even when they are told it is dynamic ... my ADSL IP address hasn't changed in many, many months).
Second of all, an IP address can be used to find the person's general location, what ISP they used, and can usually be linked to other page views on other sites for the same day.
This is the price you pay for surfing the web. A small price, I think.
I hope it's clear how an IP address is much more useful for tracking and gaining info about someone, rather than an easily faked email and name.
Again, all these minor, idiotic privacy flaps are like crying wolf. Pretty soon people will tune this stuff out, and a real problem will not get through.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
Wow, such uninformed panic.
The software in question is just some source code and the USB drivers. It's sample code for writing your own app to talk to the device. No linux distribution. No kernel or kernel mods. There's no GPL violation here at all. In fact, the source code is GPL'd itself.
The point is, they're not supporting linux with jukebox software or an encoder, but they're letting everyone roll their own.
Also, the PJB-100 itself doesn't run linux internally...that would be overkill. But still it's really nice. I got mine last month and listen to it every day. I've got about 50 CDs in it right now.
http://members.xoom.com/svartal f/winjukebox_v_1_0.zip
.tar.gz or .tar.bz take up less space by far!) is revealed to be version 2 of the GPL. The click-through license is due to a clueless suit insisting on putting the thing available for download on that maze of a download site instead of doing something sensible.
The software license upon unpacking the ZIP (why, oh, why, Compaq?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Compaq isn't trying to claim ownership of Linux or anything else it doesn't truly own here.
In addition, the complaint in the posted article, that CUSTOMER acknowledges and agrees that COMPAQ owns all rights, title and interests in and to the SOFTWARE and all Intellectual Property Rights therein, is not unreasonable at all. All it says is that Compaq owns the code and you're not going to claim ownership of it yourself. What's so bad about that?
The code is indeed released under the GPV, as is evident from both the README file and the inclusion of the GPV itself in the archive. The legal agreement you have to click through to get the code is a standard Compaq thing that the lawyers no doubt mandate for every download from Compaq. I doubt strongly that it overrides the GPV itself.
(Disclaimer: I work for Compaq, but I'm 5 layers of management below anyone who's authorized to speak for the company, and I work halfway across the continent from the folks who do the PJB.)
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
It mentions mp3s, a major company, the letters GPL, the word Linux, and the word violation all in the same sentence. It's sad.
It is really the proper venue for discussing any GPL violation. With all due respect to the readers of this page, a large number of them will do nothing more than FLAME compaq into the ground. Public humiliation should be a last resort, especially if you, by your own admission, aren't even sure if it is a GPL violation (that is, what the license is refering to). It is better to have the FSF, or the owner(s) of the copyrighted code quietly contact Compaq and ask them what's up rather than a have THOUSANDS of people with flame throwers contact them.
Grow up, Slashdot. You are in the big leagues now.
Burn Hollywood Burn
has anyone thought to ask compaq about this before launchin into "jihad" mode?
You can bet that if another company was violating one of compaq's licenses, compaq's lawyers would be in jihad mode before you could blink. By not being aggressive towards companies which violate the GPL, the message sent to companies is that it's okay to violate the GPL and if you're caught all you have to do is comply with it once caught. If any other law were being broken, a simple "okay, I'll stop" would not suffice, and if compaq caught you violating their license I doubt they'd settle for a simple "I'm sorry".
So now, Compaq can do one of two things:
- Change the license to agree with GPL
- Change the software to avoid GPL license
Seeing as how Compaq is a Big Company , they may not be inclined to follow option 1. Corel was a different matter. They positioned themselves as a Linux distributor.If Compaq decided to go route 2, then could they not switch to a BSD variant where they have more licensing control?
I've been curious up to now about all the companies building product around Linux, when the GPL would require they make the source available , except for the documented pieces that aren't touch by the GPL worm. Business does not actually like giving away anything that might be a competitive advantage.
So, my question on long term consequences, could it not be possible that the GPL could infact drive businesses away from using Linux and more toward one of the BSD's?
Just wondering.
The problem here, I think, is that the link to the download page says "Download Linux Source", not "Download Linux Jukebox Source". This might very well have been the case why the article was posted on /. in the first case...
HEY! Is this some marketing thing? Did Compaq post this to /. to get attention??!
It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
I agree with what your saying of ArsTechnica...
Subnote however it's Linux "ADVOCATE"...
A Zealot is the person advocating something your not intrested in..
(It's a dead give-away of bies when you call someone a zealot... it means both sides are extreamly bies)
Advocates are annoying creatures at times...
But you'll never hear the term "Free speach Zealot"....
I don't actually exist.
This can be a good or a bad thing depending on context. Sometimes repetition adds emphasis - a protest march is simply a group of people all doing the same thing - surely it wouldn't be better is only one person marched?
The repetition here should, at the risk of labouring the point, get the message home to the editors of /. that readers are getting a little fed up with provocative but unchecked articles being pumped out. It is, after all, "News" and not "Scandal" on the masthead.
Lately, slashdot has become a gossip center for half-truths and propaganda for Mac/Linux zealots.
The editorial policy has been slipping for the past six months or so.
--- Speaking only for myself,
We do.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
What I like is the fact I can't reverse-engineer the source code.
I can see it now:
Okay guys I've left you alone with this source code. Without reverse engineering it into pseudocode, try to find out what it does.
Fear is a useful tool.
/. rage machine.
One of the great things about having a huge community of zealots is the fear it can inspire. Yeah, we jump the gun, we flame the innocent, sometimes we nuke the wrong target... but in the end we are a huge powerful
People will think twice about coming after one of us...
The downside is just the same... people may worry about agitating the great rage machine.
It has its pro's and it has its con's... but when joe blow can't afford a high priced lawyer like the competition...its a handy little bastard.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
There is at least some GPL code involved.
Yeah, I'd say so; the whole package is GPL'd. The only problem here is the extra license, which is default boilerplate people have to click through before any download. It would probably be easier just for the devel group to offer the package outside of Compaq's regular download system. No big deal, really; just the kind of bumps you get when a company that normally deals in proprietary software tries to join the open source world.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
No, the device does NOT run Linux at all.
.zip file you download, you'll see that the actual license on all the above is GPL.
:)
What you get in the download is a kernel module (which, according to Linus does NOT have to be GPL'd) and some userland code to upload files to the PJBOX, get the table-of-contents from it, etc.
All of that is completely within the terms Linus has said are acceptable even if Compaq had a completely bizarre license on it...
But to make this even more silly, once you undo the
Yes, the kernel module includes source, the API library, the demo software... all include source and ALL are GPL'd.
The only thing that is broken is that Compaq's silly web page will show you their weird license agreement for -anything- you download even if it's not really the proper license.
I've asked their webmaster to please fix that and not scare people, but it's hardly a crime and it's hardly a GPL violation: it's just "we had this download cgi thing and used it without checking to see if it really fit the license".
-b.,
waiting for his pjbox to show up.
You are one sick bastard.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
"Please take a moment to send us some information about yourself. A personalized Linux Jukebox download URL will be sent to your email address. You will be shown - and must indicate acceptance of - license terms before downloading any software."
... this Agreement to duplicate and use SOFTWARE solely for internal, non-commercial, research purposes". They limit the right to distribution to the "CUSTOMER's own internal, non-commercial, research purposes". Research would include determining a GPL violation, and thus some one could download the code. They could then use the downloaded source to verfiy a GPL violation, and then copy segments and distribute segments proving the violation.
A personalized URL? Does this mean they are tracking the downloads in some special way. Why would they need a personalized URL?
From the Liscence:
"1.1 SOFTWARE shall mean the computer program in binary form, and any associated information, that you are about to download."
IANAL, but given the definition of software, couldn't you assume that this is not refering to the source code? It specifically says binary form. I wouldn't throw the source code into the cluase "and any associated information, that you are about to download", but that is just me. Maybe this is just splitting hairs.
You might also want to notice they limit the use of what you download to "2.1
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
There is (currently) no possible way to verify age over the internet.
There do exist some ways for a person to verify that some piece of information belongs to someone over a certain age. But how would you prove that the person keying in the information is the owner of that piece of information. For example if you require enough information to request a credit bureau report, how do you know that ten year old junior isn't just putting in dad's info?
Or for that matter, how do you know dad isn't putting in junior's info?
Another possibility is teleconferencing with the intended user holding a valid photo id up to the camera, but in the days of iMacs being bundled with at home movie editors anyone that has a screen cam can easily fake just about anything that is required for id.
Until the wide spread implentation of biometric devices what you are asking for is impossible. (And even then, fingerprint scanners might very well work with a finger that's been removed from its owner.)
/. is not the place for this kind of thing. Both posters and /. should know this by now- /. is an 800-lb gorilla, with strength and manners to match. Oddly enough, it also has about the effectiveness of an 800-lb gorilla when trying to explain things to lawyers- the lawyers laugh, sic their guards on the gorilla, and go on their merry way.
/.).
For this kind of thing, you should drop a note to bruce at technocrat: he knows how to speak lawyer-speak, has lots of experience dealing with it, and has the respect needed to get a foot in the door and begin to solve the problem instead of just screaming and whining (like we tend to do here at
/.- you guys should know better. Posting this kind of stuff here (especially when the original poster has made absolutely no attempt to contact the alleged infringer) does no one any good at all. Get a grip, and when Compaq comes back and says "screw the GPL, yours truly, Compaq" then bring out the masses. Until then, this kind of post does more harm than good.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I wrote a very understanding email to Compaq in May about this. I also sent a copy of the email to gnu@gnu.org. To my knowledge, neither of these parties have done much about it. FSF basically told me "yup, they're wrong. ", then basically told me to pursue it. I don't have the time or the inclination to take on Compaq. So there it sits. Let me say this: The only way this is NOT a violation of the GPL is if they wrote ALL the code in the package, then they can release it under as many licenses as they want. I do not, however think this is the case. I remember looking through one of the source files and seeing that it was a copy-paste of a GPLed file from another author.
You can never equivocate too much.
Actually I work for said company and I fired of an email to the fellows in the law dept...
The odd thing about thid is with the download comes a copy of the GPL...
Hopefully I'll get a timely response.
If a kid clicks on the "I am over 18" button, that could be termed as fraud on the part of the kid, and the parents are responsible for the kids actions.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I love the way slashdot, in the blink of an eye, can go from:
"They can't take away Napster! We have the right to distribute information any way we choose, despite what the copyright holder says!"
to:
"Company X is distributing software in violation of the GPL! That's wrong! Let's get the bastards!"
True, but if /. were being responsible they'd wait until they got some confirmation from someone that some kind of attempt had been made, and not post the second one. I don't think that is too much to ask.
~luge
P.S. Don't get me wrong- I'm not one of the "/. used to be good now it sucks" crowd. Just that this is really blatantly silly- doesn't achieve the desired goal of getting Compaq to change.
IAAL,BIANLY
To the wonderful folks of /. : Please please please do a little investigating before posting stuff like this! Even the National Enquirer probably calls Brad Pitt once in a while before posting a story about him having a love child with G. W. Bush.
Got Rhinos?
A lot of temporary GPL violations and mistaken impressions of such seem to come from the fact that there's not a standard way to find the required source distribution when you see a product with GPLed code in it. The source fails to appear because there's not someone at the company making sure it's up to date, or the link isn't right, or the web page is unreadable or just hard to navigate. Even if people *offer* the source, it's often hard to actually *get* it. It would be nice if the FSF came up with at least a suggested method for distributing the source.
The other problem I see a lot is sites where you follow a link, and you're not sure what you're getting. "Download Linux source" might give you the source to Linux (under GPL) or the source to a Linux version of a program (proprietary). Sometimes you follow a link expecting to get the program, and you get a generic page telling you where to find mirrors or something. Then other times you're trying to find information about a program, and you get the program itself instead.
I downloaded the source and poked through it a bit.
For one thing, the software itself is GPL'd - a copy is included with the source. For another, one file - cpqpjb.c - #includes several header files in the kernel source. So the software itself is clear.
It simply looks as if the file was made available for download the same way other chunks of Compaq software are offered, and no one remembered the legal boilerplate people have to agree to for most software.
A simple e-mail to Compaq legal oughta do the trick; it's only a minor error.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
So Compaq have violated the GPL (apparently - I'm not a license expert). Is this different from the violation that KDE have been accused of, and if so, do Compaq need to beg forgiveness, and have they forfeited their rights to use the Linux kernel?
There was a discussion, but I thought that it was inconclusive, in as much as there was not universal agreement upon the type of use of kernel headers that you mention.
You can see some of it at kernel traffic. They say:
"This was not the final word, and several people pointed out the while Richard's point might be valid, it still did not change the status of GPLed code. There was no real resolution though... "
Take care,
Daniel
--
Even though I think that it IS a violation of the GPL, I also think its cool they decided that GPL was a good idea to license their software.
Let the big fat corporate guys slowly grow into the movement. This is just a mistake and will be surely fixed soon.......
But if it CompaQ doesnt fix it.....oh boy.... I dont think their "strategic" e-commerce sites will have a good uptime... things fall around and stuff.....
Or maybe there wont be a need for that....maybe fsf will take a crack at them and sue them to the wall.
But lets just wait on them. Their lawyers have to understand that the company went open source and thus has new rules for software downloads.
Stop looking at me.
After seeing what's happened here with the post of this article and previous articles, you have to wonder how Industry's experience with Open Source has been. Is it always going to be the screaming hordes everytime someone makes a mistake? Are the people of Compaq going to say, "We didn't like our experience with the Open Source community. Maybe we shouln't jump right onto this bandwagon just yet. Maybe we shouldn't even work with these guys."
Such a harsh backlash before anyone even notices the problem is going to push makers of proprietary products toward more reluctance to even work with Open Source in the first place.
Just like any group of people, I know that the vocal minority are usually quite embarrassing to the more temperate amongst us. If that's your experience with the representatives of a group, though, what else can you say about it? "They're *probably* nice guys deep down inside? Most of them *probably* are more reasonable?"
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
I load Slashdot today and I see an advertisment for the Compaq MP3 player, and immediately below, I see the equivalent of "COMPAQ VIOLATES THE GPL DIE DIE DIE!(#&!*$" with the punctuation symbols and everything.
Does anyone else find this even somewhat ironic?!
(sigh)
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
The bits from the explosion can stain.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Argh. No more license related stories with headlines starting with "possibly" or "maybe" or ending with question marks. These are getting to be embarrassing for Slashdot in general. Half the time the "violation" is a misinterpretation by some wacked out do-gooder who hates The Man, and the other half of the time things are blown out of proportion. In all cases there's more conjecture and bad information than anything else. These are just like stereotypical local news stories: "Could something in your house kill you without warning? More after this commercial about margarine."
For starters, the Personal Jukebox does not run Linux. It uses a Motorola DSP and some microcode in flash memory.
Furthermore, as it very clearly states on Compaq's site: I'm not sure it gets any clearer than that. The software is not the Linux kernel. The software is not under the GPL. The software doesn't even do anything on it's own! It's an API!
Children, please. Just because something runs under Linux does not mean it must be GPLd! And if you happen to find a statement about a product's software ambiguous, that does not mean they've violated the GPL! It means you need to learn to read better, or ask the product's manufacturer. Not Slashdot.
Could CmdrTaco please update the story posting with the facts rather than just some random hoser crying wolf... for the umpteenth time?
--Vito
What bothers me though is the whole setup: what you do is submit your first and last name, and your e-mail address, and they e-mail you a "personalized Linux Jukebox download URL". How's that for tracking?
Well, it sucks for tracking. Let's see, fake name, freemail address, and you're anonymous.
Actually, your IP address is much better for tracking, and they get that from every request whether you like it or not.
I'm so sick of reading about fake privacy threats.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
Think Geek sells it, after all - if it turns out that this really is a GPL-violation (perhaps we can ask RMS?), will ThinkGeek stop selling it in protest?
--
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Yeah, but... the first thing Compaq's lawyers would do is talk to the violators. Now, they might not talk very nicely (the phrase "cease and desist" comes to mind) but they'd talk. They wouldn't go whining to news.com and wired first- they'd do that only if the license violators didn't say "oops, sorry." The media ia a great way to create a jihad once your initial advance has been spurned (which is occasionally necessary) but it should never, ever be the first option, which is what it looks like it was in this case.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
I just downloaded the file and the readme states :
- ----------------------
- ----------------------
a d.cgi/xxxx@xxxx.com/Linux+Jukebox/winjukeb ox_v1_0.zi
------
Compaq Personal Jukebox
Example Filesystem Code
Copyright (C) 2000 Compaq Computer Corporation
NOTE: The Personal Jukebox is not a Compaq product. It was developed
by Compaq Corporate Research and was licensed to Remote Solution.
You can read a little more about the research effort for the PJB
by visiting: http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/pjb
You can purchase a Personal Jukebox by contacting Remote
Solution, or by visiting the web site at http://www.pjbox.com
-----------------------------------------------
This kit is released under the GNU Public License. There should be
a file 'gpl.txt' containing this license. You can read more about
the GPL by visiting http://www.gnu.org
-----------------------------------------------
This kit contains enough code to communicate with and manipulate the
file system of a PJB-100 Personal Jukebox.
It is not a complete Jukebox Manager application. Instead, it is
an open-source version of some of the library routines used in
the PJB's shipping Jukebox Manager. With this library source,
you can write your own Jukebox Manager for Windows, Linux,
or any other operating system that supports USB.
There are some specifications for the file system in the docs/
directory on this kit.
In particular, check out docs/todo.txt.
We hope you find this useful.
Thanks!
Compaq Corporate Research
-----
To get the file, you have to go through a clickwrap licence at
http://crl.research.compaq.com/downloads/downlo
p
(email address hidden to protect the innocent)
it seems that this clickwrap license is generated by a standard(tm) cgi that is on all files you want to download.
The files are accompanied by a file called gpl.txt containing the text to the gpl version 2
Thus, the Clickwrap licence violates the gpl in the file...
probably the hasty work of a web designer that is more a graphist than a sysadmin...
Check this page: project description at Compaq/Digital
The Jukebox Manager is a program which runs on Linux. It is not Linux. It is proprietary software which uses the Fraunhoeffer MP3 encoder. They can't release the source to the Fraunhoeffer code even if they wanted to.
How many other companies selling MP3 players give you the source code to the example jukebox program with a documented API? I think the jukebox guys are to be commended for being so open, not bashed because they didn't happen to release all of their code under GPL.
*sigh* One of the problems in the Linux community is that there are more than a few trigger-happy people that will jump all over a company for GPL violations, without even downloading the code to verify that it *does* violate the GPL. I downloaded this code a couple months ago. It is Compaq's *own* application. The code I grabbed contained no 3rd party GPL-licensed code. The term "Download Linux Source" indicated that the source for Compaq's app *compiled* on Linux. NOT that it was the Linux Source code. I wish people would verify this stuff before submitting a story to Slashdot and getting the whole community worked up over nothing. Yes, GPL violations do occur and we must watch out for them. On the other hand, you need to *verify* facts before jumping on a company.
We need to start keeping a track record of the Slashdot posters and see which ones are consistently irresponsible. Granted, they could be posting *precisely* to stir up this kind of 'corrective' response and clarification; but, in the long run it makes them look extremely unprofessional. Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me. Maybe having a list of the misleading, unresearched, or flat out wrong news postings would make them reform a bit. Their standards are incredibly poor for such a large and well-read site.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
I thought that the GPL only requires them to make the source available to anyone who has received a binary. And that you can't charge for the source, but you can for the binary. So them putting the source available to people who don't have a binary (read: Haven't bought the device) is really just a courtesy.
That plus, their Linux Jukebox, according to the sign up page, appears to be just a binary, not source code, and it makes no representations of being GPLed. For that matter, if you do a search on the page, or just read every word, the word source doesn't appear at all. It just runs on Linux. At least that's the best i can surmise, since think geek's link seems to be broken...
Is this what other companies have to look forward to when they make products available for Linux?
The FSF does have such a team- Eben Moglen, at Columbia, is the de facto head of it. It's just that people come here first instead of going to the FSF or even (duh!) going to Compag. Had the AC who submitted this gone to the FSF (or had /. referred him there) then maybe the lawyers might have gotten involved and it'd be solved by now... (or not, but at least it'd be on it's way...)
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Xoom changed how they operate (yet again...)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I actually have a copy of the SQL that the editors use to select strorys for posting:
SELECT * FROM articles_queue WHERE hysteria > 10, submiter_karma >= 25, stupidity >= 50
Hope that clears up any confusion
I know this will probably get modded down, but has anyone thought to ask compaq about this before launchin into "jihad" mode?
What is their take on the "situation"?
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
So that would put you somewhere in France, seeing as it's somewhere around half past 10 in the morning here in Planet Earth's Pacific Daylight Time.
Try not to mod this out - I just think it's kind of funny, and I'd like to add a post correcting the time of the update.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Please, let's not have a repeat of the previous incidents like this. Don't start flaming Compaq into the ground before we've heard their side of the story. Can we please give someone the benefit of the doubt, just this once?
There were so many posts here that simply repeated what others posted, nearly verbatim in certain cases ("don't flame Compaq", "why was this posted to /.") that trying to find value in /. threads is beginning to take up too much of my life.
Maybe /. should add a moderating method of indicating "interesting but point already made".
How is this a GPL violation?
So they wrote a piece of software and put their own license on it. It just happens this piece of software is for Linux. Last time I checked, there was no law that stated that EVERY piece of software for Linux had to be GPLed.
I've looked at the page, it's their software, they put their own license on it. Am I missing something here? Are they USING GPLed code in their product?
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
You know, this kind of slapdash, misinformed crap was cute back when The Management here was a bunch of college undergrads running a rumors and argument site out of their rickety group house.
But now that most of you have graduated and are running this as a business, 5 minutes or so of cursory fact-checking might be in order before posting a "story" like this.
Hmmm. Too lazy to check facts. Eager to post inflammatory hearsay. Blind ignorance about some basic technology issues. Isn't that what the Ziff-Davises and CMPs are for? If it were just this once, it wouldn't be a big deal, but this kind of wild inaccuracy now accounts for one in four of the items that make the cut here.
And Rob! You of all people! I expect barn-door-sized editorial gaffes like this from, say Timothy. But you?
The license is bad:
2.2 CUSTOMER agrees not to distribute the SOFTWARE in any form, other than for CUSTOMER's own internal, non-commercial, research purposes.
2.3 CUSTOMER agrees to refrain from and is expressly prohibited from reverse engineering, reverse compilation, disassembly or decomposition of the SOFTWARE.
But if this only applies to software that they completly own there is nothing wrong with it.
The original story indicates that there is incompatibility between copyright (protecting intellectual property) and GPL. In fact GPL is BUILT on copyright. It is the ownership of the copyright to source code under GPL that prevents anyone from violating the GPL. This is in fact what makes it different from public domain.
-Peter
Yes, I know you guys all know this, but somehow it never seems to sink in...
Randall.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
rob,
before posting anything, can you please have jeff look at it first?
thanks,
There is at least some GPL code involved. In the zipfile take a look at the top of usbdrv/cpqpjb.c:
snipSo there is a problem, but I don't know that slashdot is the best place to work it out. Compaq should have at least been contacted first.
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
I would tend to agree. I've had similar experiences beating some book vendors into putting the right label on their CD-ROMs in the back of books. They had boilerplate they had used for years and suddenely finding it didnt work for a project caused them a lot of chaos.
Once it percolated to the right layer the lawyers generated new boilerplate and they now slap that on anything containing other people's software.
But yes they should be more careful
Alan
Are you new here, or somethin'? (just kidding)
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
They probably didn't realize it when the made that clause and just copied it. They're probably not even aware of the implications.
I'd write them a friendly Email, asking about it.
ThinkGeek took the page down temporarily, so I'm not able to see what is fully going on.
The software (Linux Jukebox) seems as if it is Compaq's own software, which they are making the source available to. It is obviously not released under the GPL. It probably links dynamically with the kernel; AFAIK, they are not combining GNU "works" as defined in the GPL with their code.
This is perfectly legal.
Now, if the code was taken from a GNU project, this is a different story.
--
Spindletop Blackbird, the GNU/Linux Cube.
Did any one even investigate this before posting the story?
Did anyone bother to see what was in the download?
Is it modified kernel sources? Modifications of someone elses GPL software?
Nobody knows, this is just someone running off at the mouth because of what they think might be the case not what they know is the case.
Slashdot be an interesting/useful forum if the posters actually did some investigation of the stories instead of jumping to conclusions and posting corrections later.
/tex
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
That is corporate america's first wave of America. They should get a cease and decist order, with threats of further legal action.
Which would be the situation if the roles, corporation vs open source (aka the little guy).
The FSF needs a team of lawyers to support the open source movement, so that it can speak the corporate language. I really don't think they would have to do much more than send out letters, given the value of the public opinion. So there wouldn't be much actual legal (trial) work, more adding your name to the letterhead.
One file #includes Linux kernel headers, so yeah, a bit of Linux code is involved:)
The legal agreement you have to click through to get the code is a standard Compaq thing that the lawyers no doubt mandate for every download from Compaq. I doubt strongly that it overrides the GPV itself.
Figured as much. A minor error, easily corrected.
I'm gathering you're not a GPL fan?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Compaq probably just sticks the agreement page infront of ALL software downloads automatically. So that *any* addition to their SW library, sits behing the agreement screens. There's no sinister attempt to violate GPL here. It's a bug. TELL THEM and they'll likely fix it. No worries. The GPL community needs to quit being so anal.
Speaking of spouting off without getting the facts, you should have read a few posts by people who actually got the source and dug through it.
The software they are "protecting" is, in fact, GPL. It even makes use of Linux (kernel) headers.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Wow. This slashdot has really sunk to record lows with this one. I can't believe the story got posted. Did anybody actually download the thing to see what you actually get? It's a 500k zip file! There is no Linux kernel or anything like that. By "Linux source" they meant "source for our app that will compile on Linux". They wrote the damn thing!!!! It's their code!!! Their code comes with it's own license agreement!
noah
1) an oversight on their part, either by their lawyers or web designers. Working in a company like Compaq, I'm pretty damned sure they have a SOP of "make them click the license agreement before downloading anything" and that the license agreement is completely standardized across the board.
:-)
2) at least they are making the source code available. I can remember quite a few companies that hadn't even done that while openly acknowledging the open source roots of their software.
3) a polite line dropped to someone at Compaq would probably have this corrected; I'm sure many of those "polite lines" will result due to this article.
If it's not an oversight, then yes, (IANAL!) I believe Compaq has some issues with that license.
-- Talonius
My reality check bounced.
what does it really matter that Compaq asks you to agree to an additional SLA ?
..
The software itself is still covered by the GPL.
.
From the blurb on their page it looks like they're talking about downloading/upgrading their own software, (eg. the actual jukebox player type thing, not the Linux kernel etc...) which they can license as they see fit. Nice try though =P
----
Dave
MicrosoftME®? No, Microsoft YOU, buddy! - my boss
- Dave
to the extent that it tries to cover GPLed software. It could never be upheld in court, so don't worry about it. Some property deeds include restrictive covenants that the property can't be sold to blacks or Jews, but it is illegal to enforce such a covenant.
Don't lose sleep over leagally meaningless verbage.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
if you look at all the other software compaq has available for free (as in beer) download, it probably has exactly the same license. someone at compaq who's not familiar with the gpl more than likely added that standard license, not know any better. wouldn't an email to compaq explaining the situation do more good than posting this on slashdot? does every company that makes an honest mistaken need to be dragged into the town square?
So what - how is that news for nerds? How is it something new and cool?
/. would report more on inventions and advances than this bullshit. All the articles lately seem to be "circle the wagons" over this and that. So what?
/., legal battles for Nerds or something like that?
/.'s stuff lately is about legal battles and licensing.
I wish
Hell...Microsoft could come out with the coolest thing and the article would be about how evil it is. Or NewTek could release LightWave for Linux, and the slant would be "it's not open source".
It reminds me very much of every city's evening news - murder, death, rape, arson...and once in a blue moon there is news about how someone helped someone out.
Yes, some of these issues are important, but it is not News for Nerds. Perhaps there should be a different
It really is getting out of hand how much of
>Actually it's easy enough to check for. Living tissues conducts differently than dead tissue, so you run a small current and watch what happens.
Wow... you mean 'Demolition Man' got it wrong but 'Spaceballs: The Movie' got it right?
My faith in the mauve side of the Force has been restored.
:)
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
They always screw you with items in the fine print of things. I recently signed up to a free age verification that was said to be 100% free, even within the fine print.. but it also forwards you info that you have to FURTHER check, and says how another site sponsers the free age check, you therefore must pay them blah blah a month in order to keep it active, but if your smart you can cancel the second site's membership and get away scott free with free agecheck verification. Too many age verifiers though, they should make it a single universal age verification tool.
/* The gun in my mouth looks real and a taste that blew my mind.*/
The update is dated at 9/13 at 05:16 PM. Since it is only 2:03 PM Eastern time on 9/13 as I write this (and I thought Slashdot was edited/dated entirely in the US) I wanted to know what the time zone on the update was.
"Companies that used a boilerplate legal disclaimer and had to bare the wrath of geeks everywhere"
... In the studio today we also have Mike Acapella, the president and CEO of ABC computers. Hi, Mike, welcome to the show.
Jerry: Welcome to today's show. Our first guest, Eric, is a computer geek. Tell us about yourself.
Eric: Hi. I'm really pissed off at ABC Computers because they violated the GPL by forcing people to click on *THREE* buttons in order to download a GPLed piece of software.
Jerry: And this is a problem because?
Eric: Well, everyone knows that if you have to click on more than TWO buttons then you're having to make an expense --- in the form of electricity, energy used, and stuff like that --- in order to obtain the source. Under the GPL, you have to be able to get the source for free as long as you can obtain the product.
Jerry: What do you think should be done?
Eric: I think we have to boycott all ABC products and kill their executives.
Jerry: Don't you think that's a little... over the top?
Eric: Absolutely not! You see, the GPL is the binding code of all geeks. Plus, the story about them violating the GPL ran on Slashdot. That means that it's completely true. Anything that goes on Slashdot about an intentional crime against the geek community, which this obviously is, becomes a call to action for geeks everywhere to take up arms and defend that which we believe in.
Jerry: Uh, okay.
Mike: Hi, Jerry.
Eric: F--- off, you capitalist!
Jerry: Eric, please. Now Mike, I hear that your company has done some "bad" things recently. Would you care to explain?
Mike: Well, we recently developed some products which involve software from the Free Software Foundation. Software coded by the FSF is released under a very liberal license, referred to as the General Public License, or GPL. When we allowed folks to download the code to our software -- which is required when you incorporate GPL products -- we used our default software download pages.
Jerry: I see. Go on.
Mike: It turns out that our standard download webpages require the user to click on three successive buttons in order to download the software. We didn't realize this was in violation of the GPL -- we were just putting the web page together and didn't think much of it. It's not like we purposely put three buttons there to inconvenience users.
Eric: That's total bullsh--. They put them there to show the power they have over the people! They're using their monopolistic powers over the people who use, develop and learn from the programs!
Mike: Uh. Yeah, that's it. If it makes you feel any better, we're making the download page so that you only need to click on one button.
Eric: Too late! You've already damaged the free software community as it is! We've declared war on you and will never purchase another one of your products.
Mike: But you guys never purchased our products to begin with. Big companies that don't care about politics buy from us.
Eric: Well, uh, we'll tell those companies to stop buying from you!
(Fist fight ensues, Steve breaks it up)
I hate the trolls that say "Open source, closed minds" but this article really makes that phrase seem true. Get over it, guys.
-Chris
(The name Eric was chosen because of the cult of erics, not because of ESR)
so if I wanted real news for nerds, where would I go?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Ie. If they provided both Linux and some proprietary stuff, Linux still falls under the GPL but their stuff becomes "free" since it isn't covered by any other contract.
Of course contract stuff gives me a headache so I could very easily be wrong. Someone clear this up?
The GPL is going to be continually spindled, folded, and mutilated by big corporations. Did you read that suck.com article that was posted here recently? If you're so concerned about shit like this, get a lawyer and send them a cease and desist note...grow the fuck up and take adult measures to deal with this shit...
Okay, so it's a DEVICE that runs Linux and the software download is an actual Linux distribution aimed at the device?
I was under the impression that this was a piece of software that ran on it, completely seperate from the kernel.
In that case, I agree with the fact that it's probably a template for web-based downloads. A friendly letter will probably straighten this out. All you crazy bastards don't go off and fire off flames, although I know a bunch of you are going to do it anyway.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
I would assume that the (lazy and uninformed) Web designer for Compaq was told to add this, knows nothing about Linux or the GPL, and, as it was company assigned, used the std. form that they use for their own usual downloads.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained, perfectly easily, by stupidity.
mark
If I were you I'd have emailed them and asked about it beforehand rather than posting it to /. of all places. Chances are it's a genuine mistake from people that are used to slapping standard disclaimers and license agreements over things they do rather than a case of malicious GPL violation.
But now that it's been posted to /. Compaq are sure to be flamed into oblivion by knee-jerk GPL fanatics led by Bruce Perens. Whilst GPL violations need to be sorted out, a single polite letter is a far superior way to deal with this than a thousand angry emails. And it doesn't make the Linux community look like a bunch of die-hard zealots with the emotional maturity of a 15 year old, which is always a turn off to companies looking to move into open source and free software.
Two gets you five the broken license was a miscommunication between a management drone and a legal department drone.
What bothers me though is the whole setup: what you do is submit your first and last name, and your e-mail address, and they e-mail you a "personalized Linux Jukebox download URL". How's that for tracking?
--
This is not my sandwich.