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.
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>
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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."
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 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)
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."
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
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."