Slashdot Mirror
Sun Finds & Exploits Hole in the GPL *Update*
chrisd writes "Sun is shipping binaries (no source code for you!) of some of Donald Beckers work, saying in their defense that "It says that anyone using its kit is responsible for ensuring that how it's used doesn't violate licenses, and that's not Sun's problem."" Update: 09/15 11:30 PM by CT :The article is somewhat confusing here: this is essentially a cross compiler, and Sun isn't distributing anything in violation of the GPL, and if they used their compiler to distribute binary drivers, that wouldn't violate the GPL either, assuming that they distributed the original driver source code as well.
for not making a big deal of the code that Be took from him for BeOS.
It is true that Sun's product is analogous to a compiler. The issue is that they are distributing it to device driver manufacturers knowing that they can use it to build binary-only drivers that violate the GPL.
How is this different from distributing DeCSS knowing that people *might* use it to decode DVDs and copy them to another format?
Providing people with tools to circumvent copyright restrictions is a violation of the DMCA, right? So can't Becker use the DMCA to protect his code?
This driver kit is clearly trying to "circumvent the intended copyright protection" of the GPL.
GNU should sue, and have some judge prevent Sun from printing the driver kit on T-shirts.
Yeah, but the lifetime of an average Sun is astronomical.
Many of us that buy Sun products do so for their support. The reason that the GNOME Foundation was interesting was because it strongly implied that Sun would be fully supporting GNOME on Solaris from now on.
What this seems to be is some sort of sleight of hand. Without someone willing to take the support responsibility for these drivers, they are moot from the point of view of a Sun customer. Nevermind the whole quagmire of non-sun hardware. If you so much as install non-sun RAM, Sun support will so quickly pass the buck there will a sonic boom.
So, even well supported 3rd party drivers are not that impressive to those that bother to buy Suns or Solaris for what they're valueable for.
All this move does is potentially piss off many of us Unix enthusiasts that just happen to be Linux enthusiasts.
I don't understand this. Solaris 8 (released about 6 months ago) has IPv6. Unsupported IPv6 kernel modules (free download, binary only) have been available for Solaris 2.6 and 7 at least two years ago. Sun's IPv6 TCP stack is stable and has been tested for years. Why would they want to integrate Linux TCP stack?
its hashing binaries; which in itself is not a violation, but repeat after me: "under the GPL, companies can't release modified binaries without releasing the exact source to it."
If a Solaris device driver is released with Linux/x86 source, its a violation. They must release the source to the Solaris driver bits, which they don't have when they use this, because it only converts the binary.
Agreed, Sun isn't in the wrong, but no company can legally use their tool to release a production driver licensed under the GPL.
what Sun's reaction would be if someone wrote a tool to convert Solaris/x86 binary drivers to Linux drivers.
Yeah. Too bad Be paid him a good chunk of money to license the drivers after he made a stink about it. With enough negative press maybe he can cut an even better deal with Sun.
I still think it's a crock that dynamically loaded GPL'd binaries (for example, gnu ls) don't taint the proprietary libc and kernel they run under, but dynamically loaded drivers do.
-- Brian
Huh? I don't get how Sun's kit is any worse than e.g. Napster. It's all in how you use it, right? Just because SOME people MIGHT use it to abuse the GPL doesn't mean Sun should withdraw it. Or is this just another example of double standards in the free software world?
Ok, I've read the article and some of the posts here on /.
2 conclusions:
- those linuxgram folks are clueless and probably dishonest
- Becker is an arrogant asshole who clearly doesn't grasp open source
Sun never asked his permission to convert them to Solaris binaries...
But Becker knows one thing - he wants Sun to stop peddling the kit, which he says includes "explicit instructions on taking a copyrighted work and converting it to unlicensed use with the Solaris operating system."
What a jerk!
If you want anyone who uses your code to suck your dick or give you money (is there any significant difference?), then you release it under a closed source license, not the GPL. The GPL is about writing better code, it's about the pleasure and pride of seeing your code used by many. It's about free software. Nobody needs to thank you for this. It's better if they do but you must be prepared to see people just take it. And expecting users to ask you for permission is blantantly against the spirit of the GPL.
When you release under the GPL, you allow user to do whatever they want with the code, provided:
- that the source comes along with it - the status of which is not clear in the article, so I assume that Sun is ok with that.
- that any derived work becomes GPL - and under no circumstances could Sun's kit (more or less a compiler) be considered as derived from GPL code.
All in all,it appears that Becker is an arrogant, self-conscious kid. I'm afraid that the open source movement is increasingly populated by religious fanatics. Those guys see GPL as a tool for power and totally forgot (or chose to ignore) the real message: freedom.
Donald, if you don't want others to use your code freely, get a job in Redmond.
Just my 2c.
- I will fight for the right to be right - Bowie, 1971
"unlicensed use with the Solaris operating system"...
Bzzt. No, thanks for playing, but the only activity that would be unlicensed would be the distribution of a converted binary. AFAIR, the
GPL has no restrictions on actual use.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
I'm sorry, but I did not enjoy working on Sun hardware. Give me a slightly expensive PC any day. At least if something fails, it's relativly cheap to replace.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Lets see here - better yet, lets do the math.
1) Sun sells UNIX
2) UNIX users more often than not are using FSF-based software
3) Alot of UNIX users use Sun for their primary OS.
Way to boost system sales McNealy!
No matter, I think I'm going to collect a copy of WABI and break out the burner, hand it out to people on the street outside the local CS dept at one of our colleges.
It'll be worth the $50 to prove a point.
That's right.
And, in this case, Sun is the user of that code.
So where's their responsibility now?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
>IMO, nothing wrong has been done, unless Sun is distributing a binary
:)
>copy of the drivers without the source included
And once put in these terms, the objection becomes taht the sun software
*can* be used by someone who is going to commit a violation . . . which,
iirc, has come up around here in a different context
hawk
I am an attorney, but this is nto legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
:)
.]]
> In my opinion, and I'm not an attorney,
But I am, and you're correct (though we have, err, radically different opinions on the GPL
If Sun is only distributing the source of the drivers, they're safe. If they're distributing drivers as binaries, but include the source to those but not to the tools, they're safe.
[note: this doesn't mean it's a good move on Sun's part; there's a basic biting the hand that feeds you problem here . .
If sun truly beleives that there's no problem here, why did they move the code to a password protected area?
Second, has anyone contacted Bruce Perens and asked him to intervene?
Tsk, tsk- RTFA!
From the article:
A gaping hole has been discovered in the GNU General Public License (GPL), the legal document at the heart of open source, and dear Sun has driven a Mack truck named Solaris x86 straight through it.
At least that's how open source demigod Bruce Perens assesses the situation and he's the primary author of the "Open Source Definition," the philosophical basis of the open source movement.
That's the first two paragraphs of the article.
This is what IMHO Donald Becker wants. If someone wants to distribute Solaris with his drivers, then Solaris would need to be compatible with the GPL.
(Free source code, etc...)
Otherwise he would have chosen the LGPL. The LGPL does not infect other code. LGPL'd code can be linked to any proprietary code and this is ok. The proprietary code can stay proprietary. Only if you change the LGPL'd code you need to distribute those changes.
Bruce Perens position was allways that you can allways dynamically link with GPL'd code without infecting your proprietary code.
The RMS opinion on that is that that is a GPL violation.
It all depends on who you ask. My bet is that the GPL will be bugfixed. It is not in our interrest that anyone can make GLP'd code a plugin/module/library for his proprietary SW.
The LGPL is the licence for that.
florian nierhaus
Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Chris DiBona
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
>Ever used a Sun? They're nice boxes. Nice doesn't come cheap.
Their low end boxes aren't cheap either and they aren't worth the money. I have a Sun U10 on my desk and it certainly wasn't worth the money it cost. Only buy Sun if you really need Solaris, otherwise there are much better alternatives.
I'm interpeting this as a tool that takes a driver, and allows it to run under Solaris. How could this *possibly* break the GPL? Dynamically loaded drivers are peices of software, NOT part of the kernel. I can't imagine how someone could think that this, at least as descibed, breaks the GPL.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Exactly. And as long as they distribute the tool, not the drivers, they're all set. Even if they distribute the drivers, all they need do is, include the original driver source.. ;-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
But Bruce.. My question here would be, *WHAT'S WRONG* with what they're doing? Aren't drivers no more then loadable libraries? Why are peoples pants in a knot about it?
Basically, why are you concerned with what they are doing? They're not stealing the drivers and claiming them for their own. They're simply providing a way for them to run somewhere else. People don;t get in an uproar when someone ports vi to windows, or anything else to an alternate environment.
I guess I don;t get what the concern is all about. The fact that Sun is using Linux kernel things for their own OS, doesn't that merely reenforce the quality of the code?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
All they have to do to comply with the GPL is point the users to a location where the source is available, and ensure it is indeed available. And yes, they can do that without permission.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
But if you get down that low, a driver interacts with the OS in no more of a way then an app integrates with the OS and the standard C library. If I call syslog, or klog, do I now need to GPL my software? Definitions of these things can be blurry, so I understand the confusion, but in the end, it's all the same. Just becouse something interacts with something doesn;t mean it's part of the application or system. Seems simple enough.. Cars require tires, but are tires part of the car? Heck no.. ;-P Does a 'tire adapter' make the tire part of the car? Once again, hell no..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
They didn't modify the source at all. It's simply compiled to a binary, and the binary is wrapped.. ;-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yea, so all it needs is to have a link somewhere in the docs that says you can download the source at 'x.y.com/source'. I betcha if you look, the URL is in there somewhere.. ;-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
No, no, no.
:^)
You didn't read what you posted carefully enough. Go back, read it again. It simply states you *must* cause any work derive from the Program or any part thereof to be licensed under the License(GPL). That's why Sun's committed a violation. They need to either do what you suggest they've already done, or stop their distribution.
I used to see this bit used as an argument against (the formerly non-GPL) Qt. That was a good argument, too, except that it's wrong. It only pertains to a program released under this License or to code derived from the Program already under this License. True, the argument was also that the QPL wasn't GPL compatible, but, c'mon, Troll Tech had given their *permission* in their FAQ.
Of course, this is a dead issue even though RMS won't let it drop.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
And, quite frankly, our big public stink will make Sun either settle or pull the product...
...and the loophole will still be there. And it won't get fixed.
Why? Well, my God, fixing the GPL could weaken its position!
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
You are correct, O Great One.
:^)
That's why I wanted to put forth that question in a public forum; I wasn't entirely sure. I'm glad to be wrong
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
The article leaves much to be desired, and even states that the tool in question has been pulled.
How then are we to even prove/disprove the claims here?
What does it do? Is it just a cross-compiler? If none of the source is modified, then where's the violation????
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Another question.
If Sun distributed binaries, no source, it's still not clear, because of the following?
Was the source modified in any way?
If the answer is "no" then we've got people just being pissy hoping to prevent Sun from innovating. Quite frankly, if you can get enough people to yell "Wolf!" long enough, eventually someone will believe it, and some action will need to be taken.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
AFAIK all this does is converts binaries for one OS to binaries for another OS. No source modified, therefore no need to distribute modifications. You can get the source from several sites.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
/*If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
*/
This is offtopic, but as you may know, RMS is still persuing possible KDE GPL violations. I'm still of the opinion that KDE software is reasonably separate works from Qt.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
You'd need proof that Sun has made *modifications to the source and are refusing to distribute said modifications* to prove they were violating the GPL.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Worse yet, since there's no clear violation.
1. There's no proof Sun's hiding source modifications.
2. If the tool itself modifies the source, then use the tool to modify the source, and you've got it. (Bingo.)
By hashing it out in a public forum, it's possible to give Sun a bad image without having any real proof of wrongdoing, and possible forcing Sun to pull a perfectly legal program.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Sun can claim that the object code in question is noncommercial i.e. only an example of the capabilities and simply provide a name of a source for the code in question. This is permitted by the GPL.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Wrong.
The Ford/Firestone debate is the wrong way to go with this. The tool in question (AFAIK) allows object code compiled for Linux to be *converted* to object code for use on Solaris. AFAIK it's not used to convert source code. If it did, you could have the source code pretty much immediately.
Ford willfully used Firestones not rated for the vehicle it shipped with.
What Sun is doing is equivalent to a hypothetical case of, say, Remington building sniper rifles. It's not illegal, but it may be morally wrong and has the capability of doing illegal things. What Ford did was criminally negligent.
Move over. It's my turn to throw up.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Uh, it's already there.
Read the document. You have to. Not in so many words, but it's there.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
"Frowned on" is a lot different than "refused".
If it's source you want, it's source you'll get, or else, provided the software really is GPL.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
>but since the Linux kernel is not a FSF project (the FSF requires that copyright be assigned to the FSF)
:^)
Wha...? You mean, despite the fact that they nearly *require* people to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
What about the fact that the drivers are a derived work of the kernel? The COPYING file that comes with the kernel states that using the headers in a user-level program aren't a derived work, true, but surely there's a problem with Bruce's argument.
Surely some sort of code within the kernel has to be used in writing the driver. I cannot say with authority since I have never written a kernel driver. But I'm hoping that this post will spur someone to respond to this issue.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I can go to sunfreeware.com and download a precomiled version of just about any "opensource" software package. Yes, binaries that have been ported/precompiled for *gasp* Solaris.
How is that project different from this utility?
What this does is allow for better hardware support under Solaris. I fail to see how that is a bad thing or in violation of the letter or spirit of the GPL.
- ------------
-----------------------------------------------
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
Note also that, since it's a derivative work, any code of Sun's which appears in it must be distributed...which might involve the source of their entire package.
(Certainly overstating a bit, but it's an interesting thought)....
...that the problem is not that Sun is distributing drivers without distributing their source, but rather that Sun is using GPL'ed drivers without distributing the source for the Solaris OS?
I'm not sure this is a problem that needs to be fixed. I always understood the GPL as meaning that if I integrate GPL'ed code into a program in a way that isn't transparently separable from my new code, then I must GPL my new code along with the GPL'ed older code. But, if my code is transparently separable, like header files or object files, even if they are all compiled into a single binary, then I need only distribute the source for changes I have made to files that were already under GPL. I always thought the idea was that you could use GPL'ed code in your non-open projects, as long as the GPL'ed part is transparently separable and distributed whith the program.
Now, I don't see why a device driver's code would be integrated into Sun's source tree in a non-transparent way. It almost certainly resides in separate files, and is either loaded seperately at compile time or at run time. How, then, would this be a GPL violation, even if Sun changed their kernel to make it compatible with formerly Linux drivers?
If I wrote a program (hypothetically) that turned Linux device drivers into Windows device drivers, I couldn't turn around and sue Microsoft for not GPL'ing their source. I fail to see how this is different.
From the GPL license:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
I would imagine that program modules that are shipped in separate files constitute "identifiable sections." Furthermore, shipping separately doesn't mean on separate CD's, or else Red Hat would have to GPL all the non-GPL'ed programs that ship on their Linux CD's. Yes, if Sun took GPL'ed code (like the TCP/IP stack) and stuffed it into their monolithic kernal binary, that would strike me as a violation, but any part that can be optionally used would seem to me to be a separate work, and rightly so.
you can no longer download this program at all anymore.
And I quote:
How Do I Get the Network Driver Porting Kit?
The Network Driver Porting Kit is not currently available to download. Please check back periodically for availability.
The original source code for any of those driver binaries can be found thousands of sites all across the 'Net.
I'm not at all sure how relevant this is to the discussion, but I should point out that according the the GPL, the distributor of a binary built from GPLed source must make the source available as well. Pointing to someone else who makes the source available doesn't cut it. I can't just sling Linux kernels around and say "you can get the source at kernel.org"; I have to make that source available myself.
Light up the GNU Signal!
Get Richard Stallman on the GNU Phone!
He's sure to want to write an article demanding that Sun beg forgiveness for their misdeads.
It's not that the Sun tool performs changes that's the problem; it's that they're including GPL'd programs and saying "try it on this!". It would be as if Tom wrote a program to copy DVD's onto CD's, but along with the tool, he included a copy of The Matrix and said "try it on this!"
It would have been really helpful if the poster of this article had actually said what piece of software Sun was distributing. For those who haven't read the article, it seems to be a pieve of software that converts Linux driver binaries to Solaris/x86 ones (note that this only seems to work for drivers). The software itself is, I believe, proprietary (but does not use any GPL'd code itself).
This isn't a GPL breach, in letter or in spirit. The author of the article is correct: it is the responsibility of driver porters to ensure that their drivers don't violate licenses, not Sun's. In the case of GPL'd drivers, they do this by providing the sources, which they must do for the Linux drivers. Since the Sun toolkit seems to be little more than a recompiler (less than that, actually; more like a relinker) it hasn't actually modified the source any more than a compiler does.
Maybe I'm wrong about the software's nature; I'd appreciate corrections if that is the case. But it looks like a lot of people are blowing this out of proportion. Sun is not violating the GPL. It has created software which could, theoretically, be used as an aid in GPL violation, but isn't intended for that purpose (rather like Napster and DeCSS can be used in violating more restrictive, and some might say unethical, licenses but are not intended for that purpose).
I'll admit, this looks a bit fishy. But I support Napster and DeCSS; because of that I can't cry out against this driver converter without being a hypocrite.
----------
Sun isn't using any GPL'd code in a product, they're releasing a product that takes GPL'd code and modifies it such that their products can make use of it. It's not necessarily very nice, but nice means squat.
In order to close this loophole the GPL would have to be modified such that GPL'd works can't be used on closed source systems. If that were too happen then it would also close the possibilities to things like porting GPL'd file utilities to Windows.
In actual fact anybody who makes use of the tool, other than for personal use, is violating the GPL though. Source code has to be available for any derivitave works, and the GPL itself is written to not allow exceptions be made. What this means is that if your company has Solaris X86 boxes and purchases hardware that makes use of these translated drivers you are in violation of the GPL since there is some translation done to the source code and that code isn't made available to your clients.
Wouldn't there need to be some wrapper in the form of source code around the linux kernel driver in order to make it work with Solaris? What I mean is that there would need to some means to translate hooks between the Solaris kernel and the linux driver. In that case wouldn't the resulting object could be considered a derived work?
If so, wouldn't it be legal to produce the object code but in violation of the GPL to distribute it since you can't distribute the source?
It seems to me like this would be similar to taking something such as a closed source Windows driver, making binary modifications, and releasing it to the public. Even if the end user agreements on Windows allowed me to make binary modifications (which I don't think they do, I'm not sure though, don't have Windows anyplace) I still couldn't distribute the results of the modification.
Sun must ship source for GPL'd drivers if they distribute object code for those drivers. I still fail to see the loophole.
Now, if Sun itself is distributing object code derived from GPL software, they have an obligation to follow the GPL with regard to distributing source. It is also unclear whether or not they are doing this. If they are not, then they are in clear violation of the GPL, and I don't see where Bruce sees the gray area. (And, FWIW, they should have asked RMS about this, not Bruce.)
So, in essence, from what we know: 1) the idea of compiling source intended for Linux into a Solaris object code is not objectionable nor a violation of the GPL even if the compiler is not GPL'd; and 2) if Sun uses GPL'd code in their compiler, they must include the source. So on #1, Becker is wrong, and on #2, Perens is wrong. If Sun indeed is using GPL'd code and not including source, then they need to be taken to task. Otherwise, they are not doing anything to violate the GPL.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I did talk with RMS. He said he'd fix it in GPL 3. That's all he said. Today, he had Eben Moglen, who is a lawyer, write me.
Bruce Perens.
Here is the relevant part of the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
In my opinion, and I'm not an attorney, this means that you must distribute the driver source, but not the source to Solaris.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The intent of the exception was so that people could run Emacs on SunOS before there was a free OS. Now, we have free OS and the exception applies to OS code too, things that provide services to the proprietary operating system rather than just using the operating system's services. IMO that's not what was intended, and when I contacted Richard he said he'd get it fixed in GPL 3. I took that as agreement that it wasn't what he intended.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Distribution of Linux drivers without source is a separate issue due to an exception that Linus makes to the GPL for that case. See the license that comes with the kernel.
Distribution of drivers without source that are linked into a GPL operating system would indeed be a violation of the current GPL version 2, for any OS that doesn't have the same sort of exception to the GPL as the one Linus wrote for Linux.
The question is: when you link a Linux driver into an operating system, is the result a derived work of both components? If so, the GPL can restrict that linking under copyright law. If not, you'd have to fall back on contract law, which the GPL currently does not do.
The intent is not to restrict distributing GPLed user-mode programs that run on other operating systems. However, one need not allow every sort of creation of derivative work, for example copying Linux device drivers into proprietary operating systems.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Another avenue, which the GPL doesn't try to use, is contract law. You can require an exchange of rights in a contract that would cover linking.
Why a double-standard? It's the way it's used. The GPL restrictions work to keep software free. Most people's restrictions work to do the exact opposite.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Not well. The only case was Nintendo vs. Goloob games. Goloob made some device that gave you special powers, invulnerability, etc. in Nintendo games. Nintendo asserted that Goloob's device created a derived work. The opinion in this case was not conclusive.
Let me ask this: If I have a program that makes a call to, e.g. execlp("someprogram", {"someprogram", "filename"}); Does that make my program a derivative of someprogram?
No. And that is a problem where the GPL is concerned because with CORBA you can server-ize any program and use that to circumvent the GPL. It is argued that this might not stand because you could show a court that server-izing was a device explicitly used to circumvent the copyright.
Regarding whether or not MS holds a copyright on every program that links agains MS libraries, they do something even worse. They don't license those libraries and their own executables for use on an operating system that is not a Microsoft product.
My goal is to keep free software free. If it turns out that all of the free software I write is used as a subroutine library for any proprietary software that cares to pick it up, what incentive would I have to write free software?
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
A very very big difference from the RIAA's opinion!
This is not a HOLE in the GPL, its a RIGHT. The GPL grants users total freedom to do whatever they want with the source for their own reasons. Sun is simply offering a tool FOR USERS TO USE, that converts the source into sun drivers. Just think of it as a retargettable compiler. There is nothing wrong with users doing this with there own source code, and nothing wrong with Sun providing such a tool. It would only be wrong if a person were to distribute these binaries that they made (which no one has yet done). Yes, Donald Becker is mad, but that doesn't mean that a license has been violated. The license is doing what it was meant to do - protecting user freedoms.
Engineering and the Ultimate
What's the problem here?
Is it that the binary might or might not have new code in it introduced by the compiler? If that's the case, the same could be said if, say, Metrowerks distributed the source for these drivers with its compiler. Essentially the GPL under this interpretation forbids shipping binaries of GPL'ed code compiled with a non-GPL compiler. Also, it would mean that any code compiled with a GPL'ed compiler would become GPL'ed if the compiler introduced any foreign code (I don't know if gcc does or not).
I don't think this is a huge concern anyway. The compiler can't pull but so many "dirty tricks" simply because it can't know what the code is supposed to ultimately do. And compilers work at such a low level that the question of what is or isn't "foreign" code with respect to a given set of source is non-trivial, especially with an optimizing compiler.
Is the concern over the fact that Sun isn't shipping the driver source with the driver binaries? Assuming that this is the only concern, does anyone really care? Unless they've changed the source, does it matter to me whether I get the source for tulip.o from Sun or from Donald Becker? More specifically, if I put tulip.o binaries on my FTP site as a convenience for my user-group, am I obligated to distribute tulip.c myself? Is it not enough to say "get the source from the author?" Under a particularly strict reading of the GPL, it would be unacceptable to have tulip.c and tulip.o in the same directory as separate files -- they would have to be zipped together so as to be sure that Section 3 of the GPL could not be breached inadvertently.
Or is Becker just throwing a tantrum because he doesn't like seeing his work used for something outside the scope of his intent (to write a Linux driver)? This is, I hope, a remote possibility, because in itself that attitude defeats the whole point of the GPL, but one that occurs to me to toss out.
-- Old Man Kensey
Does anyone bother reading the articles anymore? Perens is all over it.
What do subatomic particles/quarks have to do with Angels??
http://www.scyld.com/expert/license.html
The software doesn't commit the violation, users that use it do.
:)
Just like Napster, DeCSS, etc.
Its just a tool. lets be consistent here.
The software can be used for legitimate means.
Yes and No, Sun is _DISTRIBUTING_ a binary program for Linux. They do not provide the source. You take that binary run it through their thingamujig and it pops out an x86 solaris binary.The problem is not with the thingamujig, it is with _DISTRIBUTING_ a Linux binary.
But I could be wrong
--fatboy
Except that in all of your cases the companies are using the licences to maintain control over the user/software, and basicly make it so you can only use it in the orig. way (use a copy machine to copy things that you made, not books) whereas the GPL is there so you CANT stop people from doing what ever that want to do with it once it is release.
.mincus
They are trying to take away freedom, and we are trying to maintain freedom.
So it doesnt make any sence to yell hypocryte when the goal of each is completely different.
Im going to die pennyless and insane, trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut.
Section 5 of the GPL makes it clear to me that it is a copyright statement that may be read as an offered agreement. The GPL would therefore depend for enforcement upon copyright law.
:-)
I am interested in this because I am in the process drafting a proposed new Artistic license that has a similar structure. (Albeit more clearly separated out.) The current license is...well let us not discuss that in public.
Thanks,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
This week I noticed that Perl had two BSD copyrights with the advertising clause. (Take a look at the C code SDBM_File is based on.) Until July 1999 when that was dropped, Perl was in violation.
Accidents happen.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Perhaps it'll end in court, where its validity will finally be proven or disproven. Either way, the GPL will become stronger: if valid, by virtue of precedent; if invalid, by virtue of being rewritten to become stronger.
Shame it had to be Sun, though. I always expected some company with a history of backstabbing, money-grubbing bastardry to do it first. Microsoft, for instance.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The problem is that Sun's been tooting their horn quite a bit recently about being part of this free software/open source _community_. People who don't play nice with their neighbours tend to get ostracized from communities surprisingly quickly. I expect that the GNOME Foundation will crucify them over this, for example. I also wouldn't be surprised if Don throws an anti-Sun clause in the next release of any of his drivers.
It might be legal, fair, or whatever, but unless it's nice they chances of success in the long run are pretty low.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Well, if the user is responsible for not violating the licenses, then Sun must be guilty. In this case, since Sun chose to use as examples Becker's eepro and tulip drivers, then Sun must have been guilty of infringing on the GPL. They say the user is responsible for ensuring that their use of the tool does not violate any licenses. In this case, they were the user, they violated a license, so now they have to pay. The tool itself doesn't do that. It allows you to do it, perhaps even encourages you to do it, but preventing them from distributing the tool is the sort of thing we want to avoid, at the risk of looking like hypocrites. It would be most hypocritical of the hacker community to argue in favor of a tool like DeCSS (although to be fair, DeCSS isn't really used for copyright infringement, but people have taken this idea, the DVD-CCA's core argument, at face value and judged it to be wanting), while asking for similar treatment for Sun's driver kit. Yes, admittedly Sun's kit could be used for copyright infringing purposes, but that doesn't mean that it was intended for that. Sun made this issue worse by deliberately choosing an infringing action as its example for use, so making Donald Becker as mad as he is, and tainting the tool by making it look like such actions were the intended use of the tool. Hell, they could have just written an independent driver of their own, even if it would duplicate Becker's or someone else's work and used that as an example, but nooo....
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
So, it's illegal to distribute instructions on how to bypass copyright protection? I suppose Sun will claim they were only trying to use Becker's code on the Solaris operation system, but we all know their real intent was piracy.
We may not like it, but those "instructions" are free speech.
If not, then anybody distributing "converted" GPL software may be unable to comply with the GPL.
..."
The GPL states that: "... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
So as long as this converter from Sun isn't bundled with Solaris, any converted binary must be accompanied by the source code of Sun's converter or a hyperlink to it.
That doesn't seem to make the converter itself illegal.
EJB
You know something? Assume the following happened and imagine the "community response."
Imagine that someone produces a tool that somehow modified VXD and WDM drivers intended for Windows so that they could drive all that hardware on Linux. Do you think people are really going to say:
"Well... since the Microsoft license agreement to driver developers licenses drivers only for use with the Windows kernel we can't use this tool."
Or do you think that they would just say "Fuck the man mirror it with your copy of DeCSS?"
Funny how the "opensource/freedom of information" mob feels no remorse in flagrantly violating choice laws yet comes crying back with this "oh please save us IP law" when they so much as get brushed against by a large company.
Why should anyone care if I can load linux drivers into my Solaris, BSDi, Win32, MacOS kernel? Oooh you're going to lose your precious market share? What happened to producing the best work you could?
~GoRK
I made a perfectly valid point; he who lives by the exploitation of unintended holes in licenses dies by the exploitation of the same. Yet I get troll-rated because I'm exposing the intellectual dishonesty of many elements of the Slashdot audience.
Apparently, principles only matter when they serve your cause.
Are we? Is Sun's tool actually patching or modifying a binary made from GPLed source, or is it a cross-compiler of sorts, substituting in proprietary libraries for GPLed libraries? The article doesn't make it clear -- and I think that'd be the real heart of the matter. If the drivers are binaries, the yes, Sun should deliver the source code for the GPLed ones. If the drivers are source and being compiled for use with Solaris, well they're okay so long as...
It is in violation of the GPL to use GPLed code in your proprietary application.
No, it's a violation to distribute GPLed code in your proprietary application.
Section 0 of the General Public License, version 2:
Jay (=
Hi Donald. Just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for the tulip drivers - I've been using Tulip cards since I started with Linux, and I've never had a problem that couldn't be solved by downloading the latest version. Thanks again for all your work.
Ok. People need to read the article before posting, or read it more closely. The problem isn't that Sun didn't distribute the source to the driver. The problem comes with the fact that GPL'd source can't be linked with non GPL'd code. Solaris, isn't GPL'd. The author of the driver feels that once the kit is used to compile the dirver to a solaris binary, and the Solaris kernel loads the driver, the GPL'd driver is being linked with a non GPL'd program since it is being loaded into the non GPL'd kernel. Sun feels that the source isn't being linked. Sun feels that loading the GPL'd binary driver into the kernel at runtime is just like running a GPL'd application on a non GPL OS, which is of course allowed. I hate to burst all of your bubbles, but Sun didn't do anything illegal here. Even Peren's said the GPL's language allows this, because the drivers are being loaded as modules at runtime. If the writers of the GPL didn't want people to be able to do this, they should have stated it. Remember, in law nothing can be assumed. The language has to say exactly what you mean, not just capture the spirit of what you mean.
I won't even say what a moron you are. Sure I might not be able to spell good, but I still know that what Napster does it 100% then what Sun is doing.
Napster doesn't actually handle or supply anything execpt the service, people are the ones who make it illegal. Then again Sun is just illegal and should be held responsible for what they supplied.
I understand that many people say that Sun is doing nothing wrong, and that if we jump on them then DeCSS is also illegal... But it's a different issue here... DVDs were intended to be kept secreat, but the linux source was always open source.... I think Sun should relase the source, what do they really have to loose? And there is a world to gain!
I doubt this problem can be fixed. The entire premise of the GPL is that a derived work can be subject to its restrictions. Yes, a Linux driver that was converted to Solaris-x86 form is clearly a derived work and subject to the GPL if the original driver was.
The problem I see is that the Solaris operating system has a device driver interface that was developed completely independently of any GPL'd code, which means it's not a derived work. If the driver is linked with the Solaris kernel and distributed, that might be derived work, although it's not 100% clear. Even assuming that a statically-linked kernel is a derived work, it's pretty tenuous to claim that the in-memory copy of a Solaris kernel is a derived work by virtue of having dynamically loaded a GPL'd driver. Moreover, it doesn't matter since that "derived work" (if it can be considered such) is never distributed! The GPL doesn't forbid combinations with proprietary code; it forbids distributing such combinations.
I'm afraid there may be no way to fix this without adding usage restrictions to the GPL, which might be against the spirit of itself! I think the exemption for components distributed with the OS is a red herring here. This problem is more fundamental and intractable.
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
It sounds like Sun wrote a compiler that takes linux driver source code and creates solarix x86 binary drivers... And the author of one of the drivers they demonstrated it with wants them to GPL their kernel because of that? Am i right or wrong here?
If i'm right, then it sounds stupid. The only way someone can make a driver is if they have the source in the first place. And just because the driver is a program that runs inside the kernel, i don't see why the kernel should lose it's copyright protection as a result?
If i'm wrong, correct me, please!
8 if they're skinny, 4 if they're fat (with apologies to Charles Schulz :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Hmm... so if someone were to do the same thing with a microkernel, where drivers run in their own address space, then everything would be cool? ;-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yes, it is. And it is good logic, and morally justified. If I sell you a spoon, it's not my fault if you gouge your sister's eye out with it. If I sell you a computer that has a "cp" command, it's not my problem that you might use it for piracy.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You comparison to the Ford/Firestone situation is strange. Are you suggesting that Sun's tool can sometimes fail, thereby causing the user to involuntarily violate the GPL?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What seems to be the most stupid thing part of this is that all Sun has to do is release the converted source to be in compliance with the GPL, right? Also, I fail to see why having more people able to look at the source code is a "bad" thing, unless there is some kind of major security hole, and even then, Apache has proven many times over that security through obscurity doesn't work as well as the additional sets of eyes in the OS world.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Sun is ... saying "It says that anyone using its kit is responsible for ensuring that how it's used doesn't violate licenses, and that's not Sun's problem."
When i first read that, i didn't realize that the quote was from the author of the article -- i was shocked, thinking a Sun spokesperson said that.
CmdrTaco: You really should have edited that submission to make it more clear.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Kind of a bummer. This basically comes down to the "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law"
Too bad Sun didn't show more class.
-My 2 pennies...No, wait, I need those, give em back!
I'm on a chair.
Either I really don't understand what's going on, or this really isn't much news. Sounds as if Sun has written a program that converts a Linux device driver from source form, to a Solaris binary. This reminds me most of DeCSS--it's a tool, not a violation in and of itself. You can use it on GPL'd code and distribute only the binary, and thus violate the GPL. You can do that with gcc as well. I don't see the point.
Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.
We don't want them to change their minds about GPL'ing StarOffice in October.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
-- Alastair
whether they are wholly spiritual but exclusive (so maybe one on the head of a pin), or if they can kind of overlap (infinite angels on the head of a pin?
It depends on whether they're fermions or bosons.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
-- Alastair
Now, it's been a long time since I had to build drivers into a Sun operating system (so long that it was probably SunOS rather than Solaris), but AFAIK it does not support dynamic loading of driver modules the way Linux does. (And even if it does, that could be argued as irrelevant -- it's a matter of dynamic vs static linking.)
Now, if Becker's drivers were released under the LGPL, which explicitly allows linking with proprietary code, this would be a non-issue. However, the general intent of the GPL is to not allow such linking, static or dynamic -- although the latter has been argued as insufficiently made clear in the GPL. And there's the problem.
If the drivers are statically linked into a Solaris kernel, then that's pretty clearly a GPL violation. If dynamically loaded, then it may be as Bruce Perens states, violating the spirit of the GPL (vs LGPL). Whether it also violates the letter of the GPL may end up being up to a judge to decide.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
-- Alastair
I think it's only appropriate that Sun should start selling T-shirts with the binary driver printed on it.
This isn't about not distributing source. It is about using GPL'ed software linked with proprietary code, in this case, the Solaris kernel.
You people who are always complaining about the viral properties of the GPL should be rejoicing, I believe.
According to GPL, sun can ship a cross compiler, and let you cross-compile your drivers (including automatic conversion/porting, if such a thing exists) from gpl source and then load them into solaris kernel as modules. So what? This is NO PROBLEM! As long as Sun, or others, aren't shipping the cross-compiled binaries without doing diligence to providing source.. that's fine.
The software doesn't commit the violation, users that use it do.
Just like Napster, DeCSS, etc.
Its just a tool. lets be consistent here.
The software can be used for legitimate means.
(sarcasm)
no - it is the responsibility of the user to ensure that no GPL copyrighted driver is compiled to binary and then shipped without source.
Last I checked, the GPL still permits compiling the source code ;)
I read the summary (which is a maelstrom of bad grammar and phrasing), I read the link (which is almost entirely content-free) and I still don't understand what the hole is supposed to be.
Are Becker's drivers GPL'd?
Did Sun distribute binary versions of those drivers (or derivations thereof) without making source available?
If the answer to either is "no" there is no problem. If the answer to both is "yes" Sun has a legal issue. I still don't see a hole.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Okay, so that's a bad thing to do and probably violates the GPL.
But what I want to know is: What good do examples do if you don't have the source?! Sure, I suppose if this "compiler" "compiles" binary to binary it'd be good to have a binary to "compile", but for an example to be really informative I'd want it to go all the way to source code. I'd want to see that the code written for Linux "ports" unchanged to Solaris.
So, what the hell is Sun saving by NOT throwing the source on the disk? By including it, they'd add value AND make it legal. I just don't get it I guess.
Foo.
I guess I should have said that I understand that the views of /. readers do not necessarily equal the views of the esteemed Mr. Becker, and that I'm not trying to insult Mr. Becker in the least. I highly respect (and appreciate) his work. But the hypocrisy around /. for making a big deal about this is amusing, to say the least.
This is a valid point, and one I admittedly missed the first time I read the article...my commentary regarding the quote from Becker still stands, however.
No, this is a test of the IP schills on /.
Apparently it is also a test of 8th grade comprehension, which many people are failing.
Sun has a tool. It converts Linux x86 driver binaries to Solaris x86 driver binaries. This is not a violation of the GPL.
Sun has shipped, as an example of how to use the tool, two of Becker's drivers, which are GPLed. They have not included the source.
Bruce Perens claims this is a flaw in the GPL. It is certainly against the spirit of the GPL, and until today I would have firmly stated that was a violation.
As someone mentioned above, this is the equivalent of Napster including a Metallica mp3 and a Dr. Dre mp3 as examples of how to use their software.
--
--
E_NOSIG
it's overpriced for what you get, especially considering alot of their hardware is just rebranded (esp media drives).
Well, that pretty much lets out everyone but IBM, since they are the only computer company I know of that also makes disk mechanisms! (I think even HP has finally given up, and DEC/Compaq stopped some time ago.)
Some people here find it fasionable to bash Sun - I've been both a buyer and a seller of their gear, and generally (with a few exceptions) you get what you pay for.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
The scary thing, as I wrote to Bruce above, is that the proposed "fix", GPL3, would have to also prevent the legal distribution of binaries for any operating system (including BSD) distributed under a non-GPL-compatible license. It might even prevent the distribution of binaries without source in all cases.
That, to me, is far scarier than anything Sun *could* do. I'm afraid we are apporaching a point where the GPL may well be the biggest single threat to the contined success of open source software...
There is on harm, and no foul here! Any efforts to make the GPL viral to yet another layer of abstraction will surely result in the whole silly thing being judged unenforceable in court - is that what the FSF really wants?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
So the question that needs to be addressed is: are binary files created from GPL code subject to the same restrictions as the source code? So it's not the source code, and it's not even the binary created from the source code - it's the binary created from the binary, and the violation is not releasing the source to the operating system that uses it.
Difficult question.
No, it's not difficult at all. Despite what Stallman wants, there must be some limit to the "viral conatmination" of a piece of GPL'ed code. To argue otherwise quite simply reduces to the absurd position that "Free" software and commercial software are forever separated by a chasm which can never be crossed in either direction, possibly to the extent that GPL'ed software can only be run on a GPL'ed OS.
It's funny how the "Free" licenses are in reality more restrictive than the "non-Free" licenses, isn't it?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
But remember, Becker doesn't "own" his code anymore - he GPL'ed it. It appears waht he really wants is a new restriction in the GPL that prevents anyone from using his GPL'ed code without his permission, even if they're not breaking the GPL. Somehow I missed that part in the license, mostly because it's not there (yet.)
Guys, lighten up or you'll wind up living down to that Gnazi epithet...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Ah, if only it where Sun's software...and that's the point.
James
They aren't stabbing anyone in the back. Also sun has some nice hardware, sparc kicks x86 ass anyday. Also if your going to use SMP or do large databasing Solaris is the prime choice. there is a reason why Solaris is used as much as it is.
They didn't disregard anything or do anything wrong. Their tool is just a cross-compiler, it's upto the developer to honor the license.
People need to stop knee-jerking and read whats going on first. I've seen a disturbing trend here to post storeis, get a knee-jerk reaction which drives up traffic then a few hours later a retraction or clarification is posted. Makes ya wonder...
As for ethics, when did ethics stop a company? MS has questionable ethics as does Oracle but both are widely used.
this space for rent
Hey look, it's not like anyone (Sun) is hiding the source code. The main principal behind GPL is that no one can horde the source code -- ever. The Sun binary is just a transliteration of the Linux binary. The original source code for any of those driver binaries can be found thousands of sites all across the 'Net.
Sun isn't changing the source code much less adding any features to the source code. Changes like that would have to be distributed.
I don't think this is a hole in anything.
The only thing Sun must do, in my mind, is include a few URL pointers to driver source.
This is a boring sig
I guess the Sun kit is like Napster or DeCSS - it doesn't actually break any copyright or licence itself - it just enables the user to to it (i.e. to create a binary only derivation of a GPL'd work).
Does anyone else find it interesting that the time on the update is 11:30PM? It's currently about...
:)
Actually, I remember Linus saying something about drivers not being considered a derived work. You make calls into the kernel, but are not really LINKING with the kernel. He said that this exception has to be made for closed-source drivers. Closed-source drivers are not illegal, we just don't like to see them.
Anyone else notice that the author of this article seems enthralled with Bruce Perens? I wish people would stop referring to big names in the Free and Open Source movements as 'demigods' or anything like that. We built this movement, we are the people writing the code, some of us have ended up better known, it doesn't make them more than mortals.
Anyway, I'd like to point out that two important perspectives were missing from the article. First, why didn't the author contact the author of the GPL for a comment?? I mean, it's not like RMS is tough to get in touch with. Also, there are well-known lawyers who have expertise in the GPL. Given that the author said this is a legal question, shouldn't he have talked to an expert??
Oh well, I guess quotes from a demigod of Open Source (not Free Software, which the GPL enforces) and the author is enough for that journalist. C'est la vie.
+-------+ between the wish and the thing lies the world - All the Pretty Horses
What is the problem here anyway? It sounds like Sun has just made a good cross-compiler that takes Linux sources and spits out Solaris binaries. How does this violate the GPL? They aren't modifying the source code right?
The problem is that they apparently distributed the software with "example" drivers. And the author cried "foul".
A bit like if Napster had supplied some Metalica mp3's with their software.
Noting that "it can be used to link GPL'd and non-GPL'd code", Open Source Guru RMS condemned the GNU project's 'ld' linker today as a "serious violation of the GPL." Other projects found to be in violation are GCC, the GNU compiler suite; FreeBSD (it uses that evil BSD liscence); and a small dog named Bob.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I would like to see Bruce Perens or RMS post their take on Slashdot.
You don't have to take my word - just read my argument. It maybe that Bruce Perens and Donald Becker are closer to the issue. So? Maybe I know more about the law. (IANAL, but I learned a ton from both my parents, who are). Maybe I just had a clever insight that they missed. Read the arguments and make up your own mind.
-Dave Turner.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
From the article: "Sun's controversial little kit takes open source Linux drivers and converts them into Solaris binaries. "
OK, here's the deal: The kit itself is just a piece of software - it no more "encourages" licens violations than GCC does. But any product of the kit was originally made from some code. Chances are, that code was under copyright and license. So, distributing the modified binary is distributing a derivative work - this is only allowed under the terms of the license the original code was under (in this case, the GPL). So, Sun must distribute the source to Becker's drivers if it distributes binaries of them (for any system).
-Dave Turner.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Sure, if SUN was just providing the (what appears to be) compiler then there would be no issue. If they included the source code to the GPL code they ship as example binaries, there would be no issue. In that case it would be simular to Napster distrubuting an MP3 with permission of the artist or Xerox buying dictionaries to include with their photocopier.
drivers this and drivers that. What's the big deal?
D. Rivers is my name. Don't wear it out.
At leas they didn't kill the Radio Star.
People see the world as they are, not as it is.
As such, if becker's code was distributed as part of Solaris, the distributer would be required to release the source code to Solaris (or not release the driver at all).
Sun, however, is skirting around the edges of the GPL. They're not distributing Becker's code with Solaris, but they're providing the tools for people (esp. hardware distributers) to compile a Linux driver so that it can load into Solaris. VARs who use this to distribute GPLed (as opposed to LGPLed drivers with Solaris would be in strict violation of the GPL -- unless they got the right to GPL the sources to the version of Solaris that they're distribituting it attached to.
This gets into a fuzzy area because distributing GPLed code linked into non-GPLed program is a violation of the spirit of the GPL (and why the LGPL was created -- to give authors a choice of terms). On the other hand, since it is being dynamically linked and could be conceivebly distributed quite separately from the larger OS binary it could be distributed separately from Solaris and not be in strict violation of the GPL... This despite the fact that it's unusable until it is part of the larger binary. (that's where the fuzz starts to seriously step in).
On the other hand, SUN is not (according to the GPL) responsible for enforcing the GPL with third parties that use their tool kits or any GPL source that they use it on (this is separate from the moral responsibility).
The upshot is that SUN is being bad, but not necessarily illegal.
As many ex lawyers are known to have said "The legal system has nothing to do with justice."
------
IANAL (my sister is, but she doesn't talk to me).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
As far as i can see this tool violates the GPL as gcc violates the GPL by targeting executables to various ISA. These tools inform the compatibility of thier apps between Linux and Solaris. The score tool I think converts all the system calls and library routines from linux to Solaris, atleast asmuch as it can. And tells you about stuff that is incompatible.
Am I violating the GPL if look at a piece of GPL C code and translate it bug for bug to PASCAL compile a binary and only distribute it? I think the license applys to the original code and not a derivative of the code.
from the Solaris Developer Connection website.
Solaris--Linux Compatibility Tools
June 21, 1999
Score--Application Compatibility
Overview
The score utility analyzes C and C++ source files to determine what needs to be done to make them compatible with Solaris.
Score provides a quick way to estimate the total effort required, and to identify the compatibility issues in your source files.
Score enables developers to print various reports, depending on the options given. These reports can either estimate the effort required, or give detailed information about the specific changes needed.
How Score Works
The score tool works by parsing C/C++ source code files. In the process, score identifies all function calls and looks them up in an issue database.
Solaris--Linux Compatibility Tools
June 21, 1999
Scriptran - Script Compatibility
Overview
The scriptran utility scans your shell scripts and reports any compatibility issues caused by differences between Linux and Solaris.
Passing shell scripts through the scriptran filter will identify most issues.
How scriptran Works
Scriptran scans Bourne shell scripts looking for calls to system commands. Each command is checked for the following conditions:
Command is unavailable on Solaris.
Command is in a different location and the location is not in the user's path.
Command uses a flag which does not exist on Solaris.
Command uses a flag which has different functionality on Solaris than Linux.
Output of a command is different and is redirected.
Finally we have software and operating systems without BSOD's... now their license has one...
Grz, Aardbeike
First let me say that I agree with other people's comments that this is just a cross compiler.
Also it is intersting to note the simlarities between Sun's argument and Napster's argument. They both "encurage" people to violate copyrights but niether takes responcibility for it. I think the reason we (myself incuded) reacted initialy to the sun news the way we did is because we like free music and we dont like binary only drivers.
Sun has been one of the better companies when it comes to open source software. It would be nice if the porting kit gave the intermediate source code but I dont think this kit violates the letter or the spirit of the GPL.
No, there is a concept that implies fitness for use; cars are sold with the understood assumption that they are fit for their main purpose: driving.
If I bought a Ford and decided that it would make a great fishtank, then I would be doing so on my own responsability, because that is not its primary purpose.
Likewise, I am justified (from a can-take-you-to-court point of view) to assume that the aforementioned spoon isn't laced with arsenic. I am not justified in assuming it sterile enough to perform bypass surgery with.
well, I sharpen it first. Only a hardy fool would try something as foolhardy as bypass surgery with a dull spoon, even if sterile.
Oops, sorry. How does it feel to be cracked by a big company?
Use the BSD license. At least then you don't have to sue them over it.
;) Actually, I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. The GPL isn't exactly a bullet-proof license, and as it gets more popular, events like this are going to become more common.
Just kidding
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
... does not exist, from the sounds of it.
I haven't seen the actual kit, but the way it's described in the article, it contains no binaries of GPL code. All it has is a 'processor', something on a level with, say, Pascal to C converters, except this one converts between system calls and kernel hooks rather than languages. It also contains the code of two GPL'd drivers written by Becker.
All of this is fine. Users can then take this, plus the code for Linux drivers, and create binaries they can use with their Solaris x86. This is also perfectly within the GPL. The only problem is if someone starts distributing one of those binaries without the source code to it.
Not Sun's problem. I mean, saying that this is `inviting infringement of the GPL' is like saying that a compiler does the same, because it allows the creation of binaries. Is my editor also inviting infringement, since I can create derivative works of GPL code, compile them, and distribute them without code?
---
END OF LINE
Class action? The FSF? What legal protections do the GPL and FSF have as legal entities? If the GPL qualifies for full protection under the law, why not just revise the GPL to plug the hole and have the FSF somehow divorce itself from the version of software abused by Sun?
...for people who use its product illegally. Regardless on what side one takes on the "information wants to be free" debate (or "lunacy," depending on one's point of view), it's clear that the facilitating party shouldn't be held responsible.
Sun may not be playing nicely, but it's certainly fair.
The software in question is still free. Sun didn't steal the Tulip and eepro100 drivers out of the mouths of children. Anyone who wants them can still get them.
If my work makes its way into a commerical program, I see it as a success. What incentive would you have to write free software if that is the end result? The same incentive you have now: the ability to charge for support, the publicity, and another notch for your resume.
Sun Microsystems did not infringe on anyone's rights. They merely made a tool that makes a GPL'd driver more versitale.
Parallels could easily be drawn to this and DeCSS. The MPAA's argument is that DeCSS shouldn't be allowed because it promotes the violation of the licenses on DVD programs.
Sounds a lot like "promoting infringement of the GPL," eh? If anything, you all should be thanking Sun. I'm sure they've introduced the drivers in question, and Linux drivers as a whole, to at least a couple Solaris hackers. And they will probably end up contributing.
Play nicely. Noone is hurting your software, or making it "less free." Picking on Sun Microsystems is totally unfair in this scenario.
Remember: Keeping commerical companies from developing a product does nothing to help your software. The only affects it can have would be detrimental due to reduced exposure.
-bugg
The GPL needs an exploitable elastic clause added in which would go something like "all users and distributors of GPL software agree to take all actions necessary to agree with the spirit of the GPL license."
Just like in the Constitution.
There's a little quotation drift going on here.
Money is the root of all evil.
Power (not money) corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There is a difference between evil and corruption.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
mea culpa.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
But Sun doesn't explicitly work towards having people do illegal things. It is just possible, the same way it is possible to do something illegal with IE, Netscape, Mozilla....
So we should prosecute Microsoft, Netscape and others because they make programs that can download illegal stuff ??
Sun should advise people to stay within the GPL for things derived from GPL licensed stuff, but in the end it is the end developer who is responsible for the usage of such derivative works....
But he doesn't tell us how it turned out! This is the kind of religious trivia that is extremely amusing. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "Is the blood of Christ itself God?" Questions that seem stupid at first, but their underpinnings are great examples of metaphysical insight; ie, the angels question revolves around whether angels (and thus, perhaps, God) have a body somewhere and take up space (none on the head of a pin), whether they are wholly spiritual but exclusive (so maybe one on the head of a pin), or if they can kind of overlap (infinite angels on the head of a pin?). I don't want to have to track down the guy's thesis to find out how it resolved!
--
Communication is only possible between equals
I believe the past subjunctive form of be is spelled were.
It sounds like Sun should be forced to delete the actual GPL'ed code source from their kit and be allowed to tell the user where it may be downloaded from (sounds like the DeCss ruling). If Sun does not actually provide the GPL'ed code and only the tools then they will keep their hands clean.
SO, it seems like it really should be the responsibility of the tool's users - who actually do the compiling of GPL code into Solaris binaries - to distribute driver source in their product. Which is their only legal obligation, right?
Here's the part that got me: "Neither Perens nor Becker has suggested how the GPL could, or should, be changed. But Becker knows one thing - he wants Sun to stop peddling the kit, which he says includes 'explicit instructions on taking a copyrighted work and converting it to unlicensed use with the Solaris operating system.' "
Um... how? Does the Sun package say "Okay, now that you've compiled your drivers, zip them up real quick without source and rush it out the door! That'd be weird. Maybe just to play friendly, Sun could include a clause in their instructions about how to keep the output LEGAL under the GPL. Or am I missing the point? It seems like this is the real issue; Sun made a product that's legal, but not nice. Would it kill them to be nice, too?
To me this sounds like the definition of a compiler. Ok, so maybe it does a bunch of additional magic to convert the API's, but nothing to get our panties in a knot over.
Sure, an unscrupulous party could use this to "compile" an open source Linux driver into a Solaris binary, and "forget" to ship the source with it, but the same is true for any compiler. So what's the problem with this? If we attack Sun for this, we should also surrender to the MPAA, because admittedly DeCSS could be used for infringment.
> To his surprise, the kit used the Linux eepro100 and Tulip network drivers as examples. Becker wrote those drivers. Sun never asked his permission to convert them to Solaris binaries.
Again, what's the problem? That's just as if an application developer complainted that sb compiled his app for an Alpha, whereas he had developped it on an Intel. Nobody does the GPL say (or intend) that applications should only be run on the platform that they were developped for. If that was the case, we would be hypocrites for denying the MPAA the right to restrict their movies to the Windows platform (or to a given regions).
> Now Perens has ruled, or should one say opined, that Sun is perfectly within its legal rights -
Just because Bruce says Sun isn't in violation, does that make it so?? Bruce can be wrong sometimes too. He is, afterall, human.
Before I believe *anything* people say they'll have to explain it to me and in great detail, including Bruce.
How many times do we have to go through this...
Napster does have legal uses. Period! Distributing legal mp3's is that reason. It does not matter that it can possibly be used to violate IP laws. If that was the case, then pack up your VCR's, tape recorders, and any other recording device you own.
What? you say these all legal uses?? Well so does Napster! They both have legal and illegal uses and it is up to the user not to violate these laws.
And personally, as long as Sun distributes the source to any drivers it ships with Solaris, then they are perfectly within their right
There is a major lack of content with this. Because of this, using phrases like "Sun exploits the GPL" are going to make the /. population start flaming Sun without hearing their side.
From what I gather, All Sun needs to do is distribute the source code with their binaries and they're all kosher. This "kit" they talk about sounds like any other compiler... source goes in, binary comes out. If Sun distributed their source with the binaries, then nothing would even have been said. In Sun's case it's a bad move for their PR.
"You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
the author of the linked story compared the argument to the religious battles in the 15th century between the Dominicans and Franciscans?
well, it amused me.
on-topic...yea, Sun shouldn't do this. bad sun. whatever...(sorry, I got distracted by the fact that he was waiting for two years to be able to use what he wrote his master's thesis. poor guy, heh)
Moller
The GPL thrives on the delusion that someone who programs for a living (or their bosses, etc) is a monopolistic idiot that can't embrace open source. That's not true; release back the majority of your changes, and if you must, hold on to that 1% that gives you the definite advantage to your competitors.
They are the ones who put it on the net against the license just AS ANY NAPSTER USER puts stuff on the Net.
Recap:
Napster case: User=He who puts stuff on the net
Sun case: Sun put stuff on the net
THEREFORE SUN IS THE USER
You picked the analogy I blew it out of the water, no use crying...
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
If true, would that violate the GPL?
This seems more of the issue than whether or not distributing a program that allows for potentially illegal action violates the GPL.
-----
Which way is it going to be?
Option 1: Copyright should be sufficiently strong that copyright holders can put heavy restrictions on how their property can be used, such as refusing to allow code to be run on non-free operating systems, or, the moral equivalent, Microsoft's EULA forbidding using it under WINE. The two are very similar. If one is justified, then so is the other.
Option 2: Copyright should only allow control over distribution and whether and under what circumstances a derived work can be made. That means disagreeing with RMS that calling a library can violate a license. It also means that circumvention devices like DeCSS should be legal.
Take your pick of the positions, but at least be consistent.
All Sun would have to do to make this unquestionably in the same position as WINE would be to move the functionality from a kit into part of the module loader for the kernel. If Solaris can use drivers built for Linux, where is the derived work? Point to it, show where it is distributed.
Likewise, I am justified (from a can-take-you-to-court point of view) to assume that the aforementioned spoon isn't laced with arsenic. I am not justified in assuming it sterile enough to perform bypass surgery with.
If sterility is your major deciding factor as to whether to use a spoon for bypass surgery, please contact me privately and let me know what hospital you work at so I can avoid it.
just@kidding.com
---CONFLICT!!---
Sure I might not be able to spell good .
Your grammar isn't so hot either.
Sorry, but when you call someone a moron you have to expect it.
---CONFLICT!!---
Maybe this will make more companies consider releasing opensource drivers for Linux. Write a driver for Linux and it works also on Solaris.
"Video bona proboque; deteriora sequor." -- Ovid
So, how fair is Slashdot. IS this a case of a tool that can be used for illegal (or immoral in this case, at it has been shown to be legal), but can also be used for legal (and moral) activities and should be left alone? OR will everyone get up in arms because this isn't against the RIAA ir MPAA or Microsoft, but against the beloved GPL. They aren't resonsible for how their software is used, that's the user's job. They have no control over it. And they have no legal obligation to limit it's used to things that everyone else deems okay. This tool has to stay on the market, because it can be (and actually is) used for legal purposes.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Damn, those guys are old!
----
-- Bandannaman
Bandannarama
I just realized that I forgot to include, in my previous post, and explanation of why I'm discussing linking in the context of this story. The reason is that the poster before me, and I also see Bruce Perens posted in another thread, stated that the GPL violation comes from the fact that you end up linking GPL'ed code (the driver module) with the Solaris x86 kernel which is not GPL'ed. The GPL makes this assertion (I think it's a nasty, and hard to defend legally assertion) that if you link GPL'ed code with something, that something automatically becomes a derivative work. And that is why my previous post is not off-topic. =)
The GPL tries to limit linking based on the assertion that linking creates a derivitave work, and you can limit derivitave works within a copyright permission.
Has this assertian ever been tested in court? Again, I'm all for free software (I'm working on a GPL'ed project right now as a matter of fact), but I really don't like the implications of calling software that links to other software a "derivative" work. Sure, it is dependent upon the other software for some of it's functionality, but part of the purpose of libraries is to create a logical division between two pieces of software. My program is my program, and your library is your library, and your library shouldn't be able to put copyright restrictions on my program. From a practical standpoint, if my program is dependent upon your library, I have to have gotten legal permission from you to distribute your library with my program (or the user has to get it independently, ala all the dynamically linked Motif apps out there that I can't use until I get Lesstif [off-topic: actually, the only Motif app I really use is Netscape, so I just get the statically linked version of that ;-) ]).
Let me ask this: If I have a program that makes a call to, e.g. execlp("someprogram", {"someprogram", "filename"});
Does that make my program a derivative of someprogram? I should think not. But the FSF plays semantic games and differentiates between calling a program with the exec family of functions and linking against a library. In both cases my code remains distinct from your code (unless you want to count the function names that I use in my code as being derivative of the library, but in that case you are just playing semantic games IMHO). I might sound a little irate here, but it is not anti-free software. I just know that a sword can cut its wielder, and a gun can shoot the one who fires it. I do not want to see a precedent for people who hold copyright on a library to be able to say who can and who can't link against it. You can say who can and can't distribute the library, fine. But I hope that if a case of violation-by-linking ever goes to court, I hope that the GPL loses.
Please don't hate me for this. I just think giving copyright holders the power to call programs that link against libraries (or in this case modules) "derivative works" is very, very bad. Does microsoft hold copyright on every program that links against the standard windows libraries? Against DirectX? If the win32 versions of GNU software link against any windows libraries (win32 api anyone?), would that give Microsoft copyright to those versions of the GNU software? No, that's absurd, and so is the claim that linking against your library gives you copyright to my work! (Because if my program is a derivative of yours, that automatically gives you a claim to copyright, doesn't it?) The whole point of libraries is that other people are supposed to write programs that use them.
Second, I would like to say I love the GPL and do not want to see it legally weakened. That is, in fact, the reason I have thought about this. Because if the GPL makes (what a court deems to be) over-broad claims, that would definitely weaken the GPL. So don't flame me ;-)
But, I have been thinking for a long time that the GPL's claim to limit who can and can't link to GPL'd code might be tenuous. It is very easy, when I can point to a program and say "that program's source code contains my source code" to say that that code should therefore be GPL'ed. I can argue though, that a program that links to your library doesn't somehow become one program, it merely uses your code, and remains a separate entity that can be distributed under seperate copyrights. I think that one might find that a court might entertain the idea that linking code doesn't make it a derivative program.
To illustrate, let me argue it this way. Copyright, If I understand it correctly, allows you to specify terms upon which people can obtain a copy of your work, and make copies/derivatives; however, once someone _has_ a copy, I think, you can't really specify how they can use it(there are some exceptions, e.g. public performances, etc; and of course companies try to limit people's usage all the time, so I could be wrong here). So, if I have legally obtained a copy of your source-code, and this source-code is in the form of a library (or module in this case, which is similar), I might (I don't know, IANAL, and as far as I know no court has ever ruled on this) be able to make the case that "my" code (in this case sun's solaris x86 kernel; in the previous sentence, and for a bit following, when I say "my" I am speaking from the hypothetical standpoint of a defendant making a case in a GPL lawsuit) was distributed legally, and that the user got the GPL'ed code legally (assuming the module's/library's source code is included), and that the GPL cannot limit the user from using the two together.
Let's look at this another way: if a commercial software company said that their library X couldn't be linked against program Y, even though I paid for library X and got it legally, and paid for program Y and got it legally, because company Y hadn't paid a fee to the maker of library X, then we on slashdot would all be crying that this library distributor was making a draconian claim to rights that they didn't have: namely the claim that they could control how I used their software after I had gotten it legally. Why do we apply a double-standard to free-software?
And if they do not choose to redistribute the compiled binaries of their modified code, they are not required to release the modifications to the original offer.
Read the details of the license before you accuse people of violating it!
Specifically I refer to this sentence in the GPL " the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program".
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I'm more committed to paying my bills than I am to open source, if Sun's "loophole" is a legitimate exception to the viral nature of the GPL, I say more power to them!
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
As long as the tools to do the conversion are available for free so I can recompile the driver when a newer version is released, the authors have no cause for complaint.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
And you think this is a scoop? That Sun should be burned alive? You fools ...
...
I have been working for several Start Up's in my life. Let me tell you one thing about it: They don't care about the GPL. They take programs, they use it, the MODIFY it and they don't even think about realesing the modifications to the original author.
When someone like me comes on staff and tell them about the license abuse they are doing, they don't give a shit.
Food for though
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
hmm, I guess some laywers found themself a new Item to work on...
maybe I should have become a laywer since they seem to be more in work with IT then I am
Let me get this straight
If NAPSTER makes a conduit to let other people do illigal things THEY get prosecuted
but if SUN does it, it's not their problem
Go figure :)
I think the point was that this sort of thing ("Hole in the GPL!?!") happens practically every week.
------
Maybe I read the article incorrectly, but I think the issue here is not what end-users may do with the kit Sun provides, but what Sun has done. From what I read, it sounds like Sun has provided some "example" drivers (Beckers work), and not provided the source, or gotten Beckers permission to distribute them as such. Then again, maybe I read the article wrong.
BAM!
Wow, Slashdot sure is witty today. Just read those posts. Hillarious! :-)
Uuuh, do I have to say something funny too?
- Steeltoe
Doh!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
So where can I get it?
I'm guessing the problem is that the output, the compiled results, is not doing what the source code was written to do, so the results have been fundamentally changed, but not the source.
Frankly, I don't see the problem. If I wrote a program (driver or otherwise) on Linux, and someone wrote something that takes the output of the compiler (the binary) and somehow runs a filter on it to run on Windows, or Macs, or whatever, and still gave the my source along with it, I wouldn't be complaining.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And they are all correct.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
If they've only made the tool, then I don't see how you can claim they violated the spirit of the GPL anymore than you can say blank audiocassettes violate the spirit of copyright law.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Once you "give away" your code under the GPL, people can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't violate the GPL. It seems Sun hasn't violated the GPL.
I guess what I'm asking is: did Sun actually distribute something GPL'ed without the source? Because if they ACTUALLY did that, I didn't see it mentioned in the article. Or did they simply write a tool that may make it possible to do that?
That's what it sounds like the article is saying, and unless someone can show otherwise, I don't believe Sun is wrong in what they are doing. It only sounds like some unscrupulous types out there may be able to circumvent the GPL using this tool. In that sense, it's no worse than blank audio cassettes or video tapes.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
...to respect others? Do they not realize that doing things like this are seen by anyone who has eyes and may be punished (economically) for disregard to morality? Here are some companies which should be punished: The Microsoft Empire Napster (no, I don't think napster is a bad thing, or immoral, but censoring users usage of the service based upon language is VERY naughty...) Sun Yahoo/Geocities Amazon.com Ebay.com (at some point there will not be a middleman in internet auctions, they can either be the site that starts this or be the site that dies because of this) ...probably many more, feel free to add some in replies to this!
hobo
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't Sun's abuse of the opensource drivers be goverened by the LGPL instead of the standard GPL? As drivers are small, "non core" programs, they should have been released under the Lesser GPL instead. While Sun used the software in it's closed-source OS without source and recognition, they have effictively broken the Lesser-not "greater" GNU General Public Liscense.
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
But I agree with the sentiment. Every large corporation is money-grubbing. Sun and Oracle are just as bad as Microsoft , and if they were in Microsoft's position, would conduct the same unfair business practices. But since they're not monopolies (yet), they have no qualms about taking cheap shots at Redmond.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
. . .
Those bastards.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
l0N3ly 5KuNk
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
Power corrupts.
Absolute power is kinda neat.
Eric ze Kidder
Another avenue, which the GPL doesn't try to use, is contract law. You can require an exchange of rights in a contract that would cover linking.
That's a shrinkwrap license, and RMS doesn't like shrinkwrap licenses.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Which of the real Bruce Perens are you anyway? There are a half dozen or so that I know of.
This is Bruce Perens. In general, the real thing has a lower UID than imposters.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Even if the barbazfs source was hosted, the GPL requires anyone who distributes binaries of the whole kernel (including the patch) to distribute sources of the whole kernel (including the patch).
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
A GPL exception for "source everyone knows how to get and patch" would be begging to be abused.
<cough>QPL</cough>
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
I can't just sling Linux kernels around and say "you can get the source at kernel.org"; I have to make that source available myself.
But where? Most free web hosting services restrict files to be under 1,024 kilobytes (presumably so they don't incur liability for a warez or MP3z site). How does an individual (read: somebody who doesn't have $$$$$/mo to spend on web hosting) with a cool kernel patch distribute the source of the rest of the kernel?
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Perens has apparently resigned himself to the fact that there is a loophole, and I'm sure it will be spelled out more clearly in an upcoming version of the GPL.
Do we all hate Sun now?
Isn't Sun though directly distrubation binaries that where deverived from GPL source? So if I took say a random 200byte chunk of Linux kernel code, put it in my own kernel, recompiled, burned the source and distrubated only binaries, this is legal?
I read the article, but don't understand exactly what Sun is doing? Redistrubating "ports" of kernel drivers that where orignally released under the GPL?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Why do people do things like this?
Bobby, I was going to wait a little longer before me and your mother had a talk to you about this, but I see the time has come. In this day and age, there is what is known as "bussiness". Bussiness exists for the sole purpose of getting as much money as humanly possiable at all means. This means Bobby, if bussiness could get away at selling you for child labor, they would.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
If you weren't so cynical and jaded you would realize this
*cough*cough* What bathtub form of crank are you smoking? Maybe if would Open your Eyes and look around, you will realize that life isn't all based in your Disney fanstasy land.
When was the last time Microsoft, IBM, AT&T or Exton made any bussiness choice that wasn't based on the bottom dollar?
Sure they give employees sweet benifits, but they don't do it for the "good of it", they do it for the bottom line. If they can keep there employee happy though benifits, they won't have to hire someone new ever 5 months. If there turn over rate is low, they don't lose money from things like training, newbie screw ups, disguntle ex-employees going to other companies in the same field, etc. It is for the bottom dollar, plain and simple.
Oh and they give back to the community, how nice? Oh but you know what, if they have a good public image, they can sell more product, the more products they sell, the more there profits. *cough* bottom dollar again
Sure people can and do (alot actucally) good things, just to do them and not out of selfish reasons. People are general good, and I don't debate that. People are here on this planet to lead a full filling life (atleast that's my theogry) and most see doing "good" as part of the proccess.
But bussiness is there to make money, they hire CEO at a couple million to do nothing but increase profits at all cost, both short and low term. They don't spend millions of dollars on a CEO and huge marketing team to "do good unto others", they hire these people to "increase profits at ALL costs"
It might be a good idea for you to quit you job and/or move away from wherever you live, if your environment is what causes you to have such a dour view of humanity.
Oh, yea this envoirment sucks, it is called the REAL WORLD or since you seem like your from GenX, I will use the world REALITY, so you don't get it confused with that MTV show on TV.
I am cynical and bitter and would probably admit I am also jaded, if I knew what the defination of jaded was
I have been working in business since I was 14 years old (yea this is illegal in the US) and I am 22 years old know and still work in bussiness, so I know a little about how the system works.
And let me tell you, if you don't have extreme power of the company (ie. board member or CEO), than what you think is "good" or "evil" doesn't mean a crap to the people upstairs looking to buy there 4th house. The only thing you can do is quite or accept it. If you quite and get a differant job, it will have the same bull shit.
The next time your at work, walk directly up to the CEO and look him/her in the eyes and tell him/her "I think it would be better for the planet if instead of doing [insert your job function here], I could go down to the homeless shelter and dish out soup and give a hand there for the next 3-4 weeks." Here is a prime example of your fanasty meeting the real world. Oh and standard disclaimer if they fire you.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
As I see it Sun is with in the law, it's not nice but is with in the law. The question I have is would giving out the GPLed source with the Sun bins, maybe even including the conversion program, corect the GPL problem?
Question reality.
C'mon! Wake up!
This is the napster to kernel drivers, the Xerox machine to books. Remember, it's not Napster's problem that users violate copyright with the service. Nor is it Xerox's probolem that people photocopy copyrighted works on machines. We can have it one way or the other. If it's not Napster's fault, and if it's not Xerox's fault. Then Sun cannot possibly be held accountable for what people do with their software.
Remember, it is the responisibility of the user to ensure that no copyrighted source code is converted to binary drivers.
This is a very, very bad PR move if your trying to show how much you embrace the open source community. I'm sure in many folk's eyes at least the OSS community, (if they don't already think so) you've just shown yourself to be no better than our friends up in Redmond.
Pat those legal guys on the back...
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
Thats napsters defense, they can't help 99% of the mp3s it indexs are copyrighted material.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
seriously...If you want to whine and bitch about this, do the adult thing and begin the formal process of rectifying what I'm sure you're all going to decry as a huge travesty..
Let's see Open Source, the FSF, and the GPL zealots put their money where their mouth is.
Napster does have legal uses. Period!
I know it does. But that's not what its primary use is.
Distributing legal mp3's is that reason.
I have nothing against distributing legal mp3's. But napster rarely does this. Napster provides a means to download near CD qulity songs irregardless of whether it is legal or not. Nearly all mp3's distributed through napster are blatent IP violations.
It does not matter that it can possibly be used to violate IP laws.
Your right, it doesn't really matter. But it comes down to the fact that Napsters primary use is the violation of IP.
If that was the case, then pack up your VCR's, tape recorders, and any other recording device you own.
Stupid analogy. A VCR allows you to create a personal use copy. Well within fair use. If you use a VCR to copy and then distibute those copies then your in trouble. But a VCR's primary use is not this. It is bacause of this fact that I side with my.mp3.com and not napster. It is within your fair use rights to maintain a working copy but not to distribute.
They both have legal and illegal uses and it is up to the user not to violate these laws.
Umm. Users are advantageous. Given the chance anyone will dip their hand into the candy dish. You can not expect a user to not take what is free.
I will be the first to admit that I am a blatent IP violator. I download mp3's for my listening pleasure. I do not plan on evaluating such downloads for future purchase. I do not plan on buying any cd's to any songs that I have downloaded. As long as I can download songs and burn them to a CD of my own I might never buy a CD again.
I side with the artists in trying to protect their IP.
If anyone can honestly say that they have not violated anyone's IP rights in any way through the use of napster, I would sure like to hear it.
You just described the BSD license. The GPL is designed to encourage developers to GPL their code, so they can take advantage of other pre-existing GPL code. It's like a virus. That's one of the reasons some people fear it so much. The GPL is written to keep the code as free as possible. This does not mean the developer is free. The code itself is what's protected.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
In other words, Sun's kit assists you in a piece of free software to another platform. Call the cops! There's much sound and fury here, but no real substance. It sounds to me that it's more a matter of somebody getting their knickers twisted about their Free software being used on a closed platform than anything else.
I've decided that these folks at LinuxGram are officially clueless. Take this story (linked from the GPL article), for instance, about KDE and Debian. Among other things, it makes the rather dubious assertions that "[d]espite widespread pressure from the developer community, KDE was left out of... Debian... because of it [sic] wasn't GPL," and that "KDE finally agreed to dual-license Qt".
<trite>Move along, folks, nothing to see here.</trite>
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
You're both wrong, because even Bruce Perens admits that technically Sun are not in violation of the GPL.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Anyway, the 2 posters I was talking to clearly hadn't even read Bruce Perens' statement, let alone were refuting it.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
To quote section 2b of the terms and conditions of the GPL:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
Doug Alcorn
Doug Alcorn
It's the love of money that's the root of all evil.
Jeff
Taking work from open source developer (Donald Becker) and without asking his permission using his work? Would you want a big company like SUN to do this to you? Make money off your work without asking you?? Its time developers realize that SUN doesn't want to help open source, they wanna help themselves and make money. Even if this is not illegal, it will be bad press for SUN.
Leaving aside the legal issues (I seem to be the only slashdotter without an LLD), this is an example of a company embracing open source on paper, but not really believing in it. This is nothing new. I'm always hearing backchannel noises from companies that are officially on the open source bandwagon, but privately hate the idea of giving software away. Even when a product is generating little or no revenue, there's always somebody in the project who doesn't want to give up proprietership.
What exactly does Pius the II have to do with the GPL? The editor's note at the end of the article confused more then anything else. How exactly is worshipping Christ's blood like breaking the GPL?
I'll be the first to agree that what Sun did was wrong, but that doesn't make it illegal. It's been a long time (i.e. forever) since legality and morality were one in the same; Sun just happened to find a loophole to exploit. :-)
Obviously this needs to be corrected, but that doesn't change the fact that Sun was well within their rights to do this. They violated the spirit, rahter than the letter of the law.
What they should do is GPL their whole product, distribute their source and all. That ought to solve it, right?
-Space for rent
If they are not redistributing the source code for the module, then they are not acting within the bounds of the GPL, by my reading of the document. As I undestand the GPL, it says that to redistribute derived works you must redistribute the source. If some of the header files required to build the version modified for Solaris are not freely distributable, Sun is perhaps in a grey area.
Or is the problem that the resulting device driver is seen as part of the os? The OS is clearly not open. Does the resulting assembly become a derived work, and hence be non-redistributable without source. Should it?
It's just another form of compilation. The resulting binaries are still subject to the GPL.
Where's the hole?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
As has always, sadly, been the case, the rules of law and contracts do not have any force of effect outside their own shallow wording. Which means in short, that anyone (SUN) can do anything which is wrong, as a long as there's not a rule against it. Which is bad, for my 2c.
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do" E.Roosevelt
But isn't the orginal code still available? Wouldn't an easy soultion just be to package the orginal code and everything is hunkydorey?
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
By this good and morally justified logic of yours, Ford and Firestone were perfectly entitled to use crap tires on SUVs - hey, they're not responsible if you got hurt by using the car in a vay that made the tires blow (i.e. driving it).
Now excuse me, I have to go throw up.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
The network drivers are not stand-alone executables or libraries. They are sections of code that are part of a larger program ("executable"). The drivers are not "run on" the Solaris system like an executable, but become part of the kernel itself.
The situation becomes clear when stated as: Sun is extracting useful code from the Linux kernel and including it into the Solaris kernel.
The legal test for "derivative work" does not require the inclusion of the original in the distribution. (We can even ignore that Sun did include some Linux kernel code in their kit.) The Sun kit could not have been written without the source code of tulip.c, eepro100.c and the other Linux network drivers. The kit has no value or meaning without the original code, and is thus a derivate work covered by the original copyright and license.
Using this derivative work results in a license conflict. This situation is especially clear, since Sun itself is distributing the kit. They can resolve the license conflict by releasing the Solaris kernel under the GPL.
Going through a six month external release review cycle does make you very careful when selecting the next position.
In 1994 I moved to USRA-CESDIS. USRA usually hosts visiting scientists that are working with NASA. Their home institutions usually want to control any inventions and copyright, so it's possible for people in research positions to retain their own copyright as long as the work product is made available. The GPL is significantly better in the long run than the usual limited benefit the government gets from sponsored research.
One of the benefits of my current position working at Scyld is that we support projects released under GPL. Don't question how I'm able to keep my copyright, question why you haven't applied to work at Scyld or one of the other similar employers!
This situation started over a month ago. RMS was Cc:ed on the email, but since the Linux kernel is not a FSF project (the FSF requires that copyright be assigned to the FSF) they did not want to become directly involved.
Sun restricted access to the porting kit a few days ago, before this story was published.
Bruce Perens has nothing to do with this, beside making rash public statements that the GPL has a loophole that permits any abuse -- statements have little basis in reality.
Hrm.. particular article referenced implies that permission is required or expecting for compiling GPL'd drivers on non-GPL'd OSes with non-GPL'd compilers; also the language used definitely suggests a strong bias against Sun --
i'm tending to think that they're giving Sun more credit actually, as though they had actually found a 'hole' in the license's protection...
There are [I think three issues] that have been mentioned with regards to Sun's kit: most of these refer to "Spirit of the license", well.. for analysis/general purposes there is no "Spirit of the license"; it's either one of the license's rules you agreed to or was not -- this is how anyone can interpret it for purposes of objectivity, in producing a license - you don't try to convey a spirit, you set specific terms that your licensors must stick to or be guilty of Copyright Infringment, and you expect your licensors to follow _ONLY_ the terms spelled out in the license, as that is what you have the best chance of enforcing.
Issue1:
Sun not including the source to their example
modules [tulip.o/whatever] or a way to get them as the license allows -- this would be a definite violation of the GPL, if that's what they're up to.
Issue2:
Including software that compiles or prepares altered source [the compilation] for a sun binary
from source -- the very purpose of the compiler is to generate machine code for the appropriate OS based on some source, the GPL specifically excludes having to GPL the compiler; indeed, then it would be impossible to make binary distributions of GPL'd software compiled with Microsoft compilers, for example).
The GPL doesn't force the entirety of a 'kit' to be licensed under it because one of its components is -- GPL'd software can be distributed with proprietary software, provided the proper sources are included and GPL'd code in the kit isn't a component of the proprietary software.
Hence they need-not license their tool under the GPL.
Issue3:
Linking; the notion that Sun would need to GPL
their kernel to provide GPL'd modules that can dynamically link with it.
The license covers what is being distributed; what is being distributed does not include the kernel -- if a kernel is distributed that contains the module statically linked - then it's clear, the module is part of the kernel.
However; if simply a GPL'd module is distributed -
then linking it dynamically is actually a modification to the kernel while the kernel is in operation rather than at compile-time.
Same deal as applying a patch to the raw kernel [not its source] where the patch is GPL'd but the kernel isn't -- you can distribute the patch or the kernel independently without problems, but not the modified kernel.
In the case of dynamic-loading modules; the modification is done at run-time.
--
The GPL license is very idealistic; it presumes noone tries to violate it, and it presumes everyone should use it and want to use it -- I personally prefer to license my stuff under the BSD license for purposes of OpenSource -- most of the others are either too permissive or too restrictive -- the GPL is too restrictive, prevents true freedom of the code; and the LGPL is too permissive [allows someone else to change your license to the GPL, bah].
Well, at least it wasn't a format-string error or a buffer overflow.. they managed to find a 'real' 'weakness'.
Has CERT been contacted? How many systems out there are running GPL? Have logs of the successful compromises been forwarded to law enforcment?
How many reports of systems compromised have there been so far?
They stopped distribution of the kit.
"The Network Driver Porting Kit is not currently available to download. Please check back periodically for availability."
From what I'm reading I don't see any violation of GPL, nor do I see any loophole. It seems to me that the person distributing only binary Solaris drivers is responsible for the violation of GPL not Sun.
yes, the same logic weapons, drug dealers, and napster use
How come this happens ? How come SUN, who is pretending to embrace our community & our movement by releasing StarOffice under the GPL & getting involved in GNOME could do this ? Should we sit around still watching SUN sneaking a foot thru the GPL w/o us reacting to it ? I used to like Solaris...& SUN hardware. You the f* COM in .COM SUN. Why don't u give us a rest ? Solaris x86 is not that important for you. You don't even sell sparcs with that piece of crap (I guess I'm overreacting a bit here ...). So why the hell did you do that ?
viva FSF! viva GPL!
"He who relieves the poor makes Ahura King"
I know i'm going to get flamed for this, but I'm totally okay with what Sun is doing. RMS and his zealots love to point out 'violations' of the GPL when it is against their rival projects (no reference to the KDE project intened) but when it happens to them it's some huge 'evil' company that wants to exploit people without some sort of consequence. I say if it's legal and right for RMS and family to get at people for 'violating' the GPL and telling them they are forever void in the eyes of the GPL (once again, no reference to the KDE project), then it's legal and right for Sun to be anal about wording too. Hey, it's all words, who's interpretation is correct? Will we see this one in the Supreme Court? Let's hope not... -zerovoid
how do you figure that Sun are limeys?
As far as Sun finding and exploiting a hole in the
GPL, fair is fair, right? I mean how many of Sun's holes have been mercilessly exploited by
users of GNU/Linux ?
And how much market share have they lost to GNU
software?
At the risk of upsetting some people, I'm afraid this isn't a violation of the GPL.
What Sun have is, in effect, a compiler.
They have not used GPL code to create the compiler (have they?), so there is no GPL violation there.
They are not shipping binary-only GPL-based, erm, binaries, so no violation there.
Sun are 100% correct to say that it is up to the people USING the compiler to ensure they don't violtate the GPL (just like it is up to youto ensure you don't violate the GPL when you use gcc or BorlandC++ or...).
I can see the frustration from the p.o.v. of GPL supporters, but as it stands, this ain't a violation.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
As many people have pointed out, its hard to see why Sun's driver converter should be illegal. However, whether this is the case or not, Sun's program might turn out to be as helpful for Linux as it is for Solaris. It will give hardware manufacturers even more incentive to concentrate their driver development efforts towards Linux.
Prepare to mark this as redundant, thinkheaded, stupid, funny, troll and all the others. I dont have time to read the other comments as I'm keen to shut down and install my new dxr3. Anyway, if its up to the person downloading how they use it, that means that It's legal to share copyrighted MP3's on napster, host warez sites, make copies of WinME and burn^H^H^H^H sell them away (providing the customer says he wont use them as any more then frisbees). I hope sun wins this case, the GPL can be patched, but I can share Britney Spears MP3's, DeCSS and Quake 3 (not that'd I'd dream of breaking the law on that, as if its a good game deserves my money) and the RIAA, MPAA and co cant do a thing about it.
again that money corrupts absolutely. We have to keep in mind that Sun is in the business of making money, & that their means of brining foosd to their tables are the programs, apps, and eratta that they produsce. Doesn't make them any less of a bunch of bastards, but it's not concievable that itr was going to happen. --
If the Open Source community forces the issue and proves in court that Sun violated the license agreement, that will prove the legality of license agreements in software. This means that a company could place anything they wish into their license agreement and if you install it on your system, you would be held to it in court.
Now, I agree what Sun did was not in accordance with the license, but I don't think forcing the issue is the answer. I think chastising them without bringing the law in could make some see the light and make the switch to an Open Source OS.
But why is the rum gone?
A quote from Sun's PR team: "Hey, it was askin' for it, it had on a tight loophole!"
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Is the sound of corporations around the world downloading and hoarding as much GPL source as is available under the current license.
Ouch. Perhaps at least the next version of the GPL will be compatible with the current one?
Um, WHAT??? How the fuck am I supposed to make the determination that copyrighted code is in my system once it's been ported and compiled? It's not recognizable anymore!
Your Napster analogy falls flat anyway. The Napster distribution contains no illegal content -- Solaris does, and they simply say that it's your problem to deal with. Chalk up another reason why Sun sucks.
--
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
I don't see a reason why anybody should buy from SUN if they are stabbing geeks in the back. Aren't geeks responsible for some major influence in what items are purchased by companies? Don't be afraid to tell your bus you don't think SUN acts ethically. Also you might want to suggest that a company which disregards such a large community (Open source) will no doubt not having a problem disregarding those who purchase it's items.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Spooon!
-N
Spooon!
-N
The problem with SUN, as I see it
SUN is encouraging hardware developers and driver writers to rely on the vast resources of the open source community to create drivers for Solaris. They are also providing a tool to encourage copyright infringement with existing drivers.
They are also encouraging hardware developers to write Linux drivers instead of Solaris drivers. This is, IMO, a good thing.
The problem with the GPL
This is legal according to the GPL, as long as the driver is loaded at run time. The GPL would have to be changed to disallow runtime linking of kernel level drivers.
A Possible Solution
A possible solution would be to add a 'Driver' Clause' to the kernel drivers that says something like: This work and Derivative works may only be linked with a Kernel licensed under a Free Software License approved by the FSF. Or something. It would probably have to be a little more technical and specific than that.