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.
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
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
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>
...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?
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
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. --
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
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
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
The trick is to talk to the right person. It's truly amazing how many people in corproations make mistakes like this every day because despite the press, the concept of OSS or Free S/W(GPL) is totally alien to them.
My corporation has a S/W libary, I'm not sure exactly how legal this whole concept is, they have a lot of MS and Novell S/W in it to loan out, as well as all the apps we support (It's a tech support sweatshop, we outsource for other corps.). Anyway, I asked them what Linux S/W they had and the guy said they hadn't gotten around to ordering it. I told him I'd happily bring in some of the ISO burns that I had of previous versions, as well as some of the BSD Unixes, and he got white as a ghost. Apparently "Burn" and "CD" in the same sentence sends them into fits, and after several tries at explaining why it's ok to copy and redistribute open source, he still didn't get it, and wanted nothing to do with it unless he had a license agreement to send to the home office.
This is probably some of the same, one person or a department who have never had it explained to them like a 6 year old that you're *supposed* to pass the code around, and in the case of the GPL, required to do so if you release new binaries. Just be polite and don't flood their inbox, RMS will probably be on the horn to the right person and everything will be copacetic again.
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."
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
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.
"Jump through hoops"? By asking you to provide some cursory information? Tell me how this violates the GPL?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
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.
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
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
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".
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?
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.
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.
/. 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
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.
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?
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.
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/
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."
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
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...
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
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 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)
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?
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.
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
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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
Now if they or someone else does blatantly and deliberately violate the GPL and/or refuse to rectify any mistake, then we can act.
I am one of the first to complain about unethical corporate behavior. But I also believe that not every corporate action is evil - and that some corporations can, in some cases, be an ally.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
"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!"
- ----------------------
- ----------------------
:-)
Well, I'd agree with the "doesn't even do anything on it's own", the "It's an API!", or even the "not the Linux kernel". However, you've obviously NOT looked into the matter as it is most definitely GPLed:
(From the file, readme.txt, that's inside winjukebox_v_1_0.zip)
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
-----------------------------------------------
Next time, do a little better job of getting the facts before posting...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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."
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.