Slashdot Mirror
Sony Violating GPL?
hub writes "One of the pilot-link main developers states on Advogato and on his site that Sony is violating GPL by distributing binary only version of POSE that has been customized for their Clie (their new Palm compatible device)."
Just like you won't see an article about John Doe murdering Jane Doe back in Alabama, but you'll see a piece about a meat company murdering someone to turn it into profit.
that is correct, the "GPLing community" doesn't have the balls to sue.
1) it takes money
2) it takes effort
3) it takes the chance that the GPL will be found to be bogus.
4) you have to be an author of the infringed upon code.
99.99% of the GPL Whiners fail on one of these 4 points.
Look at the Virgin webplayer. 10,000 GPL violating units shipped, and no MENTION of any kind of legal action.
Aw crap, bring on the parade of geeks trying to K-whore all the 'Funny' mod points they can....
Don't be silly.
This is the equivalent of going up to a GM assembly worker and asking him "So, what do you think of GM's new cars".
He says "Boy, they suck and ought to be recalled".
What weight do you think that carries?
Exactly. None.
So now they're a Sony employee commenting on the Clio. What weight do you think that carries?
Exactly.
There was no business relationship between the two men on the plane. Just two people having a converstion.
There was no implication that he was speaking on behalf of Sony, or that he even had the authority to speak on behalf of Sony. Hence he can't be considered an agent.
looked into the legal concept of an `agent` under UK law and found that the poster is incorrect?
Why are the people who disagree with the poster obliged to provide proof for their opinions, but the person who made the assertion in the first place is not?
I long for the day when a lawyer will post on slashdot and say, "IANAP, but here's what is meant by the object oriented programming paradigm, what is wrong with it, and my ideas for fixing it." Or, "IANAP, but Perl sucks and here are ten reason why no reasonable person would use it." Or, "IANAP, but here is why if you're developing in anything but Java, you're wasting your time..."
~~~
Furthermore, I don't know what the heck you've been reading, but Apple embarked on enabling Open Source sofware on their machines long before it was "in" for companies, like Dell, do so. MkLinux, openCVS development of Darwin, etc. ARE contributions.
So please separate Apple from this show of "abusers." While you may not -believe-, observe, and agree that Apple does give back code, Apple is not abusing anything. The BSD philosophy is not the GPL philosophy. Frankly, the BSD philosophy is simply different than the GPL philosophy, and they each have their place.
Next, you'll be claiming OS X is Linux. Jeesh.
It's these kind of employees who cause the problems for the company in the first place.
I have had personal experience of this as an employee of another large multinational, where a highly-placed employee (only by way of extreme bootlicking and not technical merit, I fear) would take the stance of "We'll put the source on the end of a wet piece of string, on a server in
Obviously, this doesn't cut it.
Anonymous to avoid corporate rebuttal...
How on earth is it reasonable to assume that a software developer is responsible for representing his employer in legal matters?
Section (5) grants exclusive authority to obtain, modify, et al., any GPL'd code to those who agree to the GPL's terms. Sony, by using GPL'd code, agrees to the GPL's terms. And so they may not licence their modification under any terms but the GPL.
So even if Sony released the source, should they do so under any terms other than the GPL's, they'd be breaking the GPL.
I'm no expert. Don't take my word for it.
Anon. Cowherd
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I was only answering the original poster's question on how a binary can be ready for public consumption before the source. I explicitly stated that the situation I was proposing had nothing to do with Sony. I guess I should have also stated that the situation had nothing to do with GPLed code either, but was rather a statement about the readiness of code in general.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
The source could be very poorly documented or strewn with spaghetti code that is to be cleaned up. The binary could be completely usable even though the source is an unreadable mess.
This is totally hypothetical in this case - I'm not saying that it is or isn't applicable to Sony, just that it is possible.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
This is funny. Some of the best sarcasm on Slashdot is too quick to notice.
~^~~^~^^~~^
I tried to take that into consideration when I read the article, but after reading it, I think this could get ugly.
The modifications Sony made to POSE were made to support its scroll wheel and the Memory-Stick expansion modules, two technologies Sony has said they own and will not share. Do you really think they're going to release the source to a program that fully utilizes those devices? That effectively open those devices to the general public. I'm all for that, but I really don't think Sony (Or at least their legal team) will agree.
No, I would be genuinely surprised if they do anything other than pull the binary off their server. Either that or they'll just tell us to piss off until a lawyer decides to get involved.
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
It may be precisely Sony's plan to use this as a test case for the GPL, and to throw enough star lawyers at it to outbid the FSF and win a ruling that invalidates or weakens the GPL to the point of uselessness. Sony is a company committed to a proprietarian model of intellectual property (i.e. trusted client systems, "secure" copy control systems), something that the GPL is at odds with.
If the GPL was invalidated by a court ruling, it would open the gates to Sony making proprietary forks of Linux containing copy-control mechanisms (perhaps similar to MS's Secure Audio Path) at the kernel level, without the threat of being forced to reveal their secrets.
Yeah, right. If the allegedly infringing company says it's based on a known opensource project, it looks like the aforementioned opensource project, and behaves like the aforementioned opensource project; then you have enough to go to court.
You can easily get a case to court if it smells, walks, sounds, and feels like a duck. Once in court, it's no problem to subpoena the source and find out.
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
Um, the scroll wheel was in the previous Clie, and the source for that emulator has been available for months, so I don't think your argument holds water.
The older Clie also supported the memory stick, but I forget offhand if the emulator did.
Perhaps, I'm not that up on the GPL either, but can we allow a week for human error and or changes to documentation of the source.
Regardless, the article was written on 2/5/01 which was before the new POSE was out, so he had to be referring to the old version, which as I stated above does indeed have source available.
Ok, fair enough point on the time issue, but personally I appreciate that the binary is out so I can begin using their new APIs.
As to the rest, I think Sony understands the GPL because they released the old POSE extensions, so there's little reason to believe they won't now.
I'm all for someone official asking them for their source and politely reminding them of their responsibilities, but the average response in this forum has been "Let's sue their asses off!". Come on, just because you may not like the tactics of Sony's music division (and rightfully so IMHO), does not mean that you can't act in a civilized manner when it comes to something completely unrelated.
Bottom line is I doubt Sony's trying to pull a fast one here because they have previous experience. Beside, the article was written in February which is before the 5/1 post of the new stuff anyway, so I think we're making too much of a big deal out of this because the source is in fact available for what was available in February.
I'm a registered Sony PDA developer, so I checked out this claim.
It is true that Sony released a new POSE for the new Clie.
However, the POSE used for the previous Clie is still available, AS IS ITS SOURCE!
Looking at the new emulator, it was just posted 2 days ago (5/1/01). My guess is that they'll release the source real soon now, but it probably wasn't quite ready for prime time just yet.
Personally, I'm glad they released the new emulator and ROMs in a timely fashion. Sure, they are required to release the new source as well, but before we jump all over them, let's give them a few days at the very least.
There are several problems with getting a lawyer to help us in the Open Source / Free Software community.
1) Who is going to pay for the lawyer? It's going to cost a ton of money to fight against Sony's lawyers.
2) Damages for a Free Software product are going to be minimal and hard to prove. The only punitive damages you can get is $10,000, and only if you register the work with the Library of Congress.
That said, there are some lawyers already involved in the community who are already helping us. The FSF has a lawyer, and the EFF has been very helpful with similar court cases.
I think the best use of a lawyer in this case would be to send Sony a Cease and Decist letter. It's cheap, and usually quite effective. Why not give the big corporations a taste of their own medicine?
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Yes, there is a big difference. TiVo provides the source and patches to the GPLed programs that they use in their products -- you can download them off their web site. And TiVo doesn't require you to agree to a license saying that you cannot modify the GPLed programs.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Nope - you can release your changes alone as BSD, but you can't release someone elses stuff without permission. This is the same no matter if it's a piece of GPL code you've changed or the latest Microsoft OS.
--
Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com
Why not report Sony to the Business Software Alliance? These guys are distributing pirated software, namely POSE.
The GPL isn't a contract, so breaking the GPL isn't a breach of contract. Breaking the GPL is a copyright violation, since you have no right to distribute someone elses copyrighted work without permission. If you don't accept the GPL you have no permission to copy the software.
--
Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com
date of the /. story: 3 may 2001
/.: 30
date of the web page reporting the gpl violation: 5 feb 2001
esitmated date of the notice of infringment: mid-jan 2001
estimated iq of the poster who implies that poor sony wasn't given a chance to respond before being hammered on
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Easy - clickwraps take away rights, GPL grants it. How do I know you agree with the clickwrap or are just a nice guy?
On the other hand, if you don't agree with the GPL, nothing else gives you the right to distribute the code (remember - GPL only concerns distribution, not use). So, with GPL code, either you agree with the license, and can redistribute, or you don't, in which case you can download & fix, but you can't redistribute. The proof of your agreement is that you redistribute.
http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html gives you the source code for their modifications to the Kernel. No violation there.
-- Hulver's site
*We* don't do anything. It's up to the copyright holder to write to Sony, remind them that he owns the copyright on the code, and ask that they stop distributing it. But they may distribute it under the terms of the GPL.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
There's no way that the serial port on that smart card has enough bandwidth to decrypt a DirecTV video stream. It is likely that the card is decrypting the key that is necessary to decrypt the stream, and it provides this key to some decryption chip that is built into the receiver.
Still, I think you a probably right that TiVo doesn't know much about the DirecTV encryption scheme.
Becomes a real test case for GPL in this will show people the the FSF takes violations very seriously. I do not think sony will let it get that far though
interesting, but that's not how licensing works IMHO.
You would end up with 'GPL' AND 'BSD' here,
not with 'GPL' OR 'BSD'
Failing that, you could run strings(1) or nm(1) on the binary and scan for telltale things that match your code. For example if they forgot to take out that
static char *boilerplate = "Copyright 2001 under the GPL";
you'd probably have them right there.
Now maybe I am totally misinterpreting the GPL, but it's my understanding that when you use GPL'd code and *change* it, that you have to provide those changes to anyone you *asks* for them. I am under the impression that it is not mandatory to distribute source code along with the binary but you have to give your changes to anyone who asks for them.
Its great to see the power of Non Disclosure Agreements.
He decided to let me in on the secrets of Sony using Linux full-time on their "Internet Appliance PS2" machine, called the GSQ. They have a cluster of them in their research group with 16 in series, doing *REAL TIME* "matrix-style" video editing.
====
Well, first off, Mr. Ego who posted that story wasn't listening very closely. What Sony's got is the GSCube, and all it is is a cluster of the original PSX CPU and some added logic to glue them all together. And yes, it runs Linux. And yes, it's massively parallel to the point of doing Matrix effects in real time or so. Sony's publically admitted to having this piece of hardware around, since they see a massively parallel architecture as the Holy Grail of console gaming, once programmers learn how to use it well.
Regardless, there's still an important point here. We're foaming at the mouth here over a GPL violation mentioned on an airplane, without any legal counsel available whatsoever.
What's next? Taco's 3 year old cousin (I'm guessing) says that there's GPL code in a cell phone, and they'll post a story? Maybe we need a few more facts before going off on people.
Of course, if Sony is in violation of the GPL, then they deserved to be hauled into court. Not because of any supposed superiority of Free Software, but because it's a flat out license violation. GPL, BSD, or proprietary, Sony has to learn that they have to play by the rules.
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
The reason being i that GPL code is not exactly static, releases are often, for features or for bug fixes. So it is good business sense to put you changes back otherwise you have to spend each time on every release of the original tree putting your changes in again.
Not a very good business practice really, it is more cost effective to get your changes into the code tree than to "steal" a GPL'd product.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Whoah there... Apple never violated GPL because they never used the GPL. Their Darwin OS uses BSD licensed code, and is not at fault. Get your facts straight before spouting off like that...
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
Looking at the new emulator, it was just posted 2 days ago (5/1/01). My guess is that they'll release the source real soon now, but it probably wasn't quite ready for prime time just yet.
The GPL doesn't say anything about giving them a few days. If the product was ready for release, then it should *all* be ready, and if it's not, then nothing should have been released. Even if they release the source soon, they require users to agree to a EULA which is not compatible with the GPL, and is not the license for that software, which is illegal. I do believe that Corel did that with their Linux distro not so very long ago. The community reminded them of their error, and they fixed it.
The problem is that several companies don't seem to understand that the GPL is a license, and that its terms are every bit as binding as any license that they pay for. If they need reminders, we've got plenty of them.
ya. because everybody's so concerned with impressing this guy.
Yeah, he came off as being quite a dick.
I like smart people, but this sort of arrogance and pretentiousness just annoys the hell outta me.
Musta been fun chatting with 'im on the plane for 2 hours...
C-X C-S
But what would be the motivation for a court to do that? I'll admit, if someone was to release code without properly marking it as copyrighted, it's possible for it to be declared public domain. I suppose. But it's hard to imagine given the reverence paid to copyright. Also, it wouldn't be a GPL matter at all. It's just as likely to happen with a shareware binary, or even a demo-only binary.
There is basically zero chance that Sony would try to get the GPL overturned in court. The reason why is simple. If they go to court and get the license declared invalid, they no longer have any rights to distribute the source of binary at all! This is why the GPL will never be tested in court. They will either comply, or they will stop distributing the emulator. But they won't go to court.
Think about it. If not for the privilges granted to them by the GPL, they would be committing criminal copyright violations by redistributing the code or the binary! You would have to have the dumbest lawyers in the world to trade up from a civil suit (violation of a license agreement) to a criminal copyright violation. Duh. The GPL will never end up in court. Unlike a normal software license which only takes rights away, the GPL grants rights which Sony is relying on to redistribute the code. The same is true for every company which is redistributing GPL'd code.
What the heck is wrong with everybody today, why are the majority of the post of the "Sue now, ask questions later" varity? Remember "Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people." Instead of trying to get the facts of the case and trying to talk to Sony, most people are letting out Holy Hellfire based on rumors and heresay. Maybe the EULA presented before the download is bogus, that could be an honest mistake (Corel anyone?) and the source may be forthcomming. Lets give them time to correct the mistake before we go around speaking evil and hiring lawyers. They have shown clue before when they used GPLd software I doubt that are going to try to violate the GPL on purpose.
Oh, and has anyone who is flaming Sony actually read the GPL? It clearly states that source only be made available to people whom you have distributed binaries, and even then it is permissible to charge a nominal fee. They would be well within their rights to charge $10 for source on CD, only to people who have downloaded the binaries from their website. The GPL does not say anything about putting all your source on an anonymous FTP server, but you cannot prevent someone else from doing so.
Deep breath, calm down
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
but I don't personally think as a photographer that I would make any attempt to locate every copyright holder whose work might appear in a photograph I took
:P
I can tell you're not a professional photographer!
Yes, they really do go to that extent -- even though they don't necessarily have to. It depends on their (and their clients') exposure. No one uses a painting in the background of a movie without permission, but using it in the background
of a photo on page 3 of the local paper won't raise an eyebrow.
Most people have never really had to deal with copyright law before the internet, so I think that's why a lot of it is surprising in how much protection it gives creators.
I don't have to GPL my article-- that's Fair Use
You answered your own general question with this statement at the end, though -- all of your illustrations were of fair use.
Taking a photo of JUST a painting is not fair use, but having one in the background is a gray area where multiple factors of intent, commercialization, etc come into play. I was deliberately making an example where there is no question -- of a photograph that is intended only to reproduce a painting. Sorry that i wasn't clear on that!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You're exactly right, if the presence is wholly incidental it's almost certainly fair use, especially in a news/documentary situation.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
No, it doesn't work like that -- copyright is cumulative and granular.
If you take a photograph of one of my paintings, you own the copyright for the photograph. But I still own the copyright for the painting. So if Time Magazine wants to use your photograph on the cover of their next issue they have to get permission from you (to use your photo) AND from me (to use my painting in the photo).
Sony can license their own modifications separately, but they cannot make changes to the license of work they didn't create...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Wait.....
I'm a little fuzzy on this, but I believe you own the CHANGES to the original work. You may license your changes however you wish, but the original code still must be GPLed.
"Ahhh, there's no justice like Angry Mob Justice."
--Principal Seymour Skinner
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Ah, but what you fail to realize is that the GPL is not a license to use, whereas almost all EULAs are. You can download and use a GPL'd program and completely ignore the GPL. The only time the GPL affects you is if you wish to redistribute the software.
See, copyright law has been around for a long time. It's illegal to distribute copyrighted works without the author's permission. The GPL is a way for the author to give permission in select cases--that is, as long as you agree to give the source code to copyrighted work (modified or not, if I understand correctly). Otherwise it's illegal to distribute.
However, UCITA is something completely different. UCITA works on *use* agreements--that is, you aren't allowed to use this software unless you blahblahblah... That's where the problem is. If I buy the software, I should be able to use it as I see fit, not only according to your idea of how it should be used.
This doesn't interfere with copyright, because you can STILL only install one copy of the software legally, unless otherwise allowed by the company.
Yes the PS2 dev kits come with gcc, as did the ones for the PSOne© And it was/is completely in accordance with the GPL© Pleeeeeaaasse everybody read the GPL first©
/usr/share/common-licences/GPL on a Debian system or in any other copy of the GPL©
The source has to be made publicly available only in certain cases© If they did provide the source wiht the binary to those who they gave the binary to, they do not have to make it publicly availavle© Yes, that's true, written in black and white in
So now, everybody please go back again and re-read the GPL before you spread more FUD about the GPL which just hinders the adaption of GPL software in coorporate environments, because companies are unneccercarily afraid of it©
Yes, but posts that are wrong are low quality. They take away from the real issue and either confuse people or make them have to waste their time responding to the statement. This is particularly troublesome when it's an early post in a hot button issue like this one. Instead of wasting discussion time and space with posts that are incorrectly marked "informative" when they're in fact untrue moderators should be able to undo this moderation with their counter "untrue" or "wrong" moderation.
The problem is that no other moderation fits the bill. They're not "offtopic" because they're talking about the right things. They're not intentional "flamebait" because often the poster believes what he/she's posting. They're "overrated", but not because the issue isn't interesting, but the poster made a mistake.
Is there anything in slashcode that doubles the number of moderators when "GPL" and "Violation" appear in the same article title? If not there sure should be.
Just a warning people, get your facts straight, count to 10 and think about what you're doing before you do something about this. The author of this diary had a really unfortunate encounter with a really annoying Sony employee who most likely doesn't represent the official company's position. Unless you're in a position to verify that there has been a GPL violation don't go off flaming Sony. If you can prove it then follow the steps on the GNU site.
If indeed Sony is violating the GPL, maybe we can convince IBM (who is apparently all about Linux these days) to put their money where their mouth is and give some of the financial muscle needed to take on another huge corporation.
Looking at the new emulator, it was just posted 2 days ago (5/1/01). My guess is that they'll release the source real soon now, but it probably wasn't quite ready for prime time just yet.
How can the binary be ready before the source code? Is that some kind of temporal engineering there or something?
What's your damage, Heather?
Agree totally. If he's as obnoxious in RL as in his diary I wouldn't be surprised if the Sony guy was just winding him by saying :
"We don't really care about [the GPL]. Go ahead, sue us and see how far you get..."
People like that are so much fun (and so easy) to torment.
It's not even as simple as that. They're also imposing a EULA on the binary which is completely incompatible with the GPL. Even if they did give you the source, if that EULA is attatched anywhere (source, binary), they're in total violation of the GPL.
Then who does? Where do you draw that line?
You mean apart from the rather severe fines plus jailtime a violator would get for copyright violation for profit, which is what not complying with the GPL amounts to? That is, after all, a federal crime, not merely a civil case.
Considering that willful copyright infringement for profit is a federal crime, your friendly neighbourhood US Attorney could assist you. They are rumored to have some funds at their disposal.
Im sure he would just loooove a tape recording saying 'go ahead, sue us, see if we care', and make them care all the way to the cell.
Maybe he should have put it under the seat in front on him?
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Are you posting anonymously to keep RMS from trying to cash out early?
The music industry uses copyright to prevent redistribution, but the GPL uses it to allow redistribution. What's so hard to understand about that?
There's a difference between source that will compile and a source distribution that will unpack and be complete (and perhaps even contain the proper licenses!).
When a company violates the GPL, do we:
1. Politely inform them of the infraction, wait for a response; if they continue to violate, take it up legally.
2. Show up at their front door with torches and shotguns
3. Spam their PR department and the company president to death.
4. Curse them out to all hell on Slashdot, ineffectively
5. Sue the bastards!
6. Cowboy Neal
... seriously, if all you people are serious about the GPL (I'll take a neutral stance on the GPL itself), for God's sakes, get a real organization together to handle these things, so that there's always someone to turn to when there is a GPL violation. You know, some professional and legal experts to help the cause out.
And posting the "news" on Slashdot is a bad way of handling it, since now Sony is going to be defamed and disparaged about 50 million times for something that may be non-existent, innocent, or an issue dealt with expediently. What if one manager made the decision to evilly include a GPL'ed program in the product, and when the company found out, they fired the manager and changed the product to be GPL compliant? Then will the Slashdot community remove or apologize for all the flaming that will follow this? I doubt it.
o/~ All God's children shall be free in Pirates of the Caribbean, when we reach that Magic Kingdom in the sky... o/~
Perhaps some of the changes they made were coded ok but not documented well. I write code in-house all day, and documentation is something I usually add as an afterthought, once I actually figure out how to make the blasted thing work. I then go back and add comments describing what I did do, rather than revising old comments that stated what I intended to do, to reflect what REALLY happened
And I thought Slashdot was hypocritical! Go figure!
------
IANAL, and I have no idea if any of this is legally accurate, but this is my understanding of the situation. When you buy a book, there is no EULA, and regular copyright law applies which gives you certain rights. Obviously you can read the book, you can also make copies of limited sections, (I believe) record yourself reading the book, and study the author's sentence structure and word choices and incorporate the techniques you find into your own writing. A typical software EULA removes most of these rights, and gives you nothing in exchange. They will typically claim to grant you a "license" to run the software, but you can already do that under copyright law. So the EULA is a completely one-sided "contract", stripping your fair use rights in exchange for nothing.
The GPL on the other hand grants you additional rights that you would not have under a standard copyright, specifically the right to distribute copies to anyone as long as you fulfill certain conditions.
So my view is that EULAs are not enforceable because the user receives nothing in exchange for surrendering his rights, while the GPL is because it grants the user additional rights, and merely stipulates the conditions under which those rights can be exercised. If somebody with actual knowledge of this topic can correct me, I'd be interested.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I have a question... Who enforces violations to the GPL? I would imagine that it would be costly to prosecute a company like Sony, as I'm sure they have LOTS of lawyers. How are the GPL lawyers paid?
Um, this is my sig.
Easy, they want to provide better documentation along with it. It's also quite likely that they have to go over all of the distribution to ensure there isn't any sensitive material/image damaging material in there.
One of the biggest problems I see with articles such as this is, they're all hearsay if you ask me and not really worth merit until proven. Someone can say anything for any reason to slander another person or company at will, so while this may seem intruiging until hardcoded news comes out such as Richard Stallman seeking legal actions against Sony, its all bs to me.
If it doesn't have any source to verify the fact that the executable may be based on licensed code, or rather any testing or dissection to prove this, then anyone can claim all they want. For all anyone knows or cares, someone frmo the open source community can say MS' ProductX is based on source code X and create a ruckus.
As for the EULA, I can't speak on this since it doesn't relate to anything I know or care about, again I will just point out that anything this guy has heard is strictly hearsay. At least providing a name would have added some credibility, and no I'm not calling this guy a liar, but what this all boils down to in my mind is he said she said junior high school based unsubstantiated bullshit.
laying the smack down
Want Root?
> So the EULA is a completely one-sided "contract",
h tml
EULA's are non-binding contracts. A contract needs 2 people to sign (or both people give a verbal/oral agreement.)
You can find links here on Contract Law: http://www.studyweb.com/links/2972.html
This is an interesting link: http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/contracts/contract_2.
one question: who is this David Desrosiers guy?
The Bottom Line is that, if this is true, no matter how many lawyers Sony has, they're violating the license on POSE. and they can fight it all day, but in the end, they'll have to release their additions to the source.
moral of the story: big companies don't get open source. see the apple article posted today...it's a paradigm so far removed from their culture that they ignore it.
so if the FSF has to take them to court to enforce it, then they will...take this opportunity to throw some $$ their way.
http://www.fsf.org/help/donate.html
OT: gpl violations aside, that was probably the _most_ obnoxious email i've ever read.
"So as I'm sitting here working and playing with my Palm, people
tend to whip theirs out and play with it, as if to say "Hey, I'm one of
you, look, I have a palm too..!"
ya. because everybody's so concerned with impressing this guy.
Actually, I think the LGPL would be quite an improvement over the BSD license if you want to disseminate technology widely. GPL is deliberately "viral", which definitely limits its spread (where the license is observed), while BSD is horribly vulnerable to MS-style "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics.
Yes, it is true. But, sony cannot limit those who recieve the source from distributing it. Now, they _can_ limit distributing the sony binaries / cds (look at libranet -- they violate not the GPL). Now, I can just compile their compiler, and give away the binaries, and it is perfectly legal for me to put the psx/2 gcc sources on a ftp server somewhere.
-------------
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
You're telling me that you think that because some application developer that you meet on a plane, makes a comment that the company doesn't care about licensing issues, that Sony's policy is to violate the GPL.
Someone involved in the project should contact Palm and Sony in order to get this resolved. Give Sony a chance to fix this before you get too up in arms. Mistakes happen.
You only have to show in court how their copyright claims are invalid since their software violates the GPL.
---
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
... I saw this exact topic months ago here.
That is, unless you have a lot of money and enjoy fighting lawsuits.
That's because only the copyright holder of a work whose copyright has been violated has standing to sue. While I might imagine that the FSF might be willing to lend you some legal advice if you hold the copyright to your work, they don't have standing to sue themselves and may choose not to devote substantial resources to it.
Imagine what kind of legal power - and money - a company like Sony could bring to bear in a copyright violation. Imagine the legal delays that can be done. Can you afford the plane fare to fly you and your attorney to wherever the lawsuit will be contested?
Please see the FSF's page on Violations of the GPL, LGPL and GFDL, in which it emphasizes that the only person who can act on a violation is the copyright holder.
Note that it may be required, and definitely is advisable, that you assign copyright to the FSF in writing - not in comments in the source code, but as a legal document written on paper with a "wet signature". I believe the FSF has a page about that somewhere but I couldn't find it. I do know that copyrights can only be assigned to someone else in writing.
There is one good reason to reserve copyright to yourself, and it is a considerable reason. You may wish to be able to provide the software under a proprietary license to someone else who wouldn't be required to redistribute source, perhaps for a fee. That is done, for example, for the proprietary license to CygWin, which allows proprietary Unix applications to be readily ported to windows without requiring source code disclosure, in the case that the proprietary license to CygWin is purchased.
If relicensing your source is not in your plans, assign the copyright to the FSF.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Read the article. When prompted about the GPL violation, the Sony emplyee basically said "Go ahead, try to sue us.."
Doesn't sound like they're giving it up to me
"However, the POSE used for the previous Clie is still available, AS IS ITS SOURCE!"
So? the point of the GPL is to share the code... saying "well, you can still get the old source" doesn't really make a lot of sense.
"but it probably wasn't quite ready for prime time just yet."
This I'm a bit unsure about, aren't you required to pass long the code from day one, or is it alright to wait until you see fit? I doubt it.
Has the copyright been registered with the US Copyright Office? See the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress site and their excellent FAQ for details.
If the copyright has been registered, it substantially increases the chances of successful litigation, and allows treble damages.
Speaking of suits, is the copyright held by someone who has the will and the means to litigate this? If not, has it (or will it) be1919igned properly to such an entity?
Sorry, no.
I've had a goodly amount of discussions with lawyers about the GPL. The GPL only allows you to distribute derivative works if you distribute them under the GPL. If you fail to distribute under the GPL, then you have no right to distribute. The GPL is nicely viral, if a bit vague on the terms about 'the product'. Typically, process or executable boundries are considered sufficient for a second license.
You may be able to offer the EULA in addition to the GPL, though users and derivatives will be bound solely to the GPL. FUD.
Profit motivates invention.
--
Free Mac Mini
Yeah, you are definitely right. Maybe that e-mail was meant to go to friends, but I think he has a bit too much high school angst. Programming is really not that hard.
Surprisingly enough, you can end up with binaries which can't be built with a "current" copy of source code if you program in Java. (!) This is because its notion of "binary compatibility" is a bit broken.
Check out this paper:
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/drossopoulou98what.html
It wouldn't fit.
Seriously, have you seen overhead bins these days? They aren't big enough to hold much of anything - and certainly not one carry-on per passenger.
---GEC
(M-x depeche-mode)
"Mercy is bad for the vision, ruthless will clear it away"
Bow-ties are cool.
No one should be surprised by the actions of either company. It's all about the game, and how you play it. And they play to win, which means make the most money (for them). Releasing stuff under GPL isn't obviously good for business to them, so they don't. =(
Online wrestling as a trading card game? WWF With Authority.
Why in the world, moderators, would this be considered off-topic? I think the credibility of your source is always on-topic.
I got the same impression that stilwebm got when reading this article -- this person is probably not a very reliable source of information.
--
For a claim as large as the one stated in this story, the one most important question that needs to be asked is...
Where is the proof?
IANAL - but this is a *very* big deal (news). If violations of the GPL are not pursued, then the license becomes null and void. Lack of enforcement would make the GPL license just like the BSD license. I doubt anyone who believes in the GPL would like to see that happen. By posting this story on Slashdot, Sony is provided with a warning that they are "found out", giving them the opportunity to do the right thing and release the source. Posting this story also gives people that would be willing to fund a legal battle notice that there is a problem. Given the implications of letting a company slide on a GPL license violation, I believe that giving this problem the most (negative) publicity possible is a good idea. Greg
To a shark, you are just another food choice...
What's to stop me taking the various bits and bobs from a number of utilities and selling it?
Aside from my morals of course? Who would know? Do people actually sit there reverse engineering programs here and there just to see if the original source was released under the GPL?
You are not talking about derivative works. You are talking about distinct works that interact with another work. For example, my Java application is not a derivative work of the Java platform. This is the scenario you address. And, as you state, whatever license I may impose on that product has no bearing on the license under which you use the JVM.
On the other hand, if you take my mSQL JDBC driver and modify it to support MySQL, that is a derivative work. People using that derivative work are bound both by any licensing I have in place and any licensing you put in place.
Yes it does, that is exactly what copyright is about.
Not true. The original copyright applies as well as the new copyright. In order for the downstream person to use the derivative work, they must have the rights both to the derivative and original.
That's trademark law, not copyright law. If what you say is true, most commercial software would have lost it's copyright because it's copyright is rarely defended.
A normal software license tries to limit how you can use a product even in cases where you don't copy the product at all - i.e. it is applied to areas outside of the copyright system entirely. E.g. by claiming that you can't disassemble something, or can't use it for commercial purposes (like rsaref).
--Neal
--Neal
Go IETF!
Whenever i`m about to release source code, I have to spend a few mins removing all the swear words! :)
I mean, can a what to do when you see a possible GPL violation link from GNU itself be clearer than anything else? Just read it, people. C'mon.
Anyone else get the feeling this guy thinks he is "above" everyone else?
So as I'm sitting here working and playing with my Palm, people tend to whip theirs out and play with it, as if to say "Hey, I'm one of you, look, I have a palm too..!"
No, you're not one of me. You could never be one of me.
Then he goes on to show and tell his huge collection of handhelds in a similar manner. Later he brags about how he fixed the guys week old problem in 60 seconds.
Is this really the type of guy we want to trust a secondhand story from?
If I posted sony copyrighted materials, they would do this to me.
Seriously, we should wait for a response - many people don't understand the GPL. And be polite.
Never attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity or ignorance.
You own the copyright on a derivative work. True, you must license that derivative work under the GPL, but that doesn't restrict you from also licensing the derivative work under the BSD licence. Then a third party can take that work which you licensed under the BSD license and create a derivative work based on that. This eliminates them from having to distribute the work under the GPL, as they never agreed to the GPL, only to the BSD license.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Ignore it. It states that the customer (who does not own the copyright) gives full IP rights to Sony (who do not own the copyright). I'm sure Sony would also accept that I can give you a copy of any of their copyrighted material if you sign a contract granting me exclusive rights to this.
I just checked again today, and now they apparently are, but only to an older version of their hardware. Interesting switch on their part. This has been an open issue with them for several months now, at least since early January. They were in possible violation of the GPL until May 1, 2001. I stand by my statements.
If you were to make copies of Sony's product could they sue you and win? Even though their EULA is illegal, since it violates the license on the original (GPL) product, and a derivative work is still covered by the original copyright?
I am not a lawyer, please tell me if the above makes sense...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Yup.. and you can go get the source at a few places.
try...
http://ps2dev.sourceforge.net/index2.html
and
http://www.anarchists.co.uk/html/psx2.html
also.. for more (non-gpl) psx2 coding fun try...
http://www.napalm-x.com/~duke/
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
I'm told that GCC is actually a fairly common target for GPL theft, though I can't picture MS doing it.
This does seem pretty blatant, though, especially when Palm itself has gone out of its way to be Open Source-friendly. But coming from Sony... I'm not too surprised. Sony is not a company I trust anymore. I've always had a bit of a funny feeling about them, but it's mostly been a good funny until recently. Now... I will most likely not buy a Walkman, Clie, or Vaio any time soon (though I'd take any one of them as a gift). Sony is not quite the Microsoft of consumer electronics -- there's too many other players in the field for them to even come close -- but they don't make much of an effort to appeal to those who prefer open standards. Granted, there are lots of 8mm camcorders, but Sony did try and keep a much tighter control over Betamax than was really wise. (It was big news when Sony shipped its first VHS VCR, and I think they had to OEM them from someone else at first...) I may be getting a PSOne some time soon, but even then...
/Brian
I've always had this vague sense that BSD licensing (- adClause) is about as close as you can get to public domain and still have a copyright on it. That's how NeXT kept the guts of NeXTStep proprietary: because they could. With the copyright transferred to Apple, they were free to do as they wished as well, and we have Darwin.
To those who claim that BSD licensing gets abused by companies turning BSD code proprietary, I say horseshit: the BSD license as it stands now cannot be abused because you can do practically anything you want, however you want it, with BSD'ed code. It was *designed* that way.
OTOH, what Sony is doing with POSE is GPL abuse, plain and simple, and they should be smacked for it.
/Brian
This might not be a GPL violation.
Palm, Inc owns POSE (they bought copilot).
Palm chooses to release POSE under the GPL.
Since Palm owns POSE, they can (if they choose) relicence it to Sony under whatever licence they want.
This all seems very similar to how ID Software released Quake 1 source under the GPL. However, they may still licence the source to other parties under closed licences, since they own the copyright.
Cryptnotic
My other first post is car post.
The community (FSF in particular) has always wanted a chance to sue an infringement of the GPL! Getting a judge to rule that the licence is valid and not easily circumvented would be a very good thing indeed...
Unfortunately, the licence appears to be so ironclad that nobody has been reckless enough to test it yet. Let's hope Sony are pig-headed enough to try! But let's also hope (and it seems reasonable) that they will lose!
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Sooner or later, a big company (like Sony) would inevitably test the merit of the GPL license in court. The outcome of such a case will decide the future of GPL and significantly affect the Open Source community.
First step here is to make a fuss about this. Yes, I'm serious. Not here on Slashdot, but get reporters from AP and the Wall Street Journal (among others) so that Sony will actually care about their reputation.
If we really care about the GPL, we can't let Sony set this illegal precedant.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Interesting question. The bottom line is that they should both be but that the concept of an "unreasonable contract" should be upheld by courts. If a contract requires the sacrifice of your first-born, no court will find you guilty if you don't, for example.
The issue is "what rights are copyright holders allowed to hold on to, and what rights do users have automatically?". Before the DMCA these questions were quite well settled but now it's all open warfare again.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It seems that the new trend for major corporations (Apple, Sony, M$, et al) is to use open source code to save develpoment cost.
You're grouping together different instances of open source uses by corporations.
Who is going to enforce the GPL?
What, specifically, does this have to do with Apple?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Christ, was I the only one hoping this egomaniac would store his attitude in the fucking overhead bin?
*Somebody* is going to have to sue Sony for this. I am not a lawyer, so this is only a thought, but I seem to recall there's a section in copyright law which says that a copyright can lapse if it isn't defended. If no legal action is taken, then POSE's copyright could fall off, which will render its license irrelevant.
The problem is, this could be easily used as a way of wiping off GPLs. All it takes is for three or four big companies to break GPL on a single product at once. Somebody's then got to fight them all, or lose the copyright for nondefense. Oh dear.
, it was just posted 2 days ago (5/1/01). My guess is that they'll release the source real soon now, but it probably wasn't quite ready for prime time just yet.
Although I understand your point - maybe they want to clean up some poor code or fix variable names (from bobabc to loop_count etc) or add documentation. BUT it is a dangerous precedent to allow someone to 'hold off' on their source for any time at all - who's to say how long they should be allowed to wait? What is a 'reasonable' length? 1 day? 1 week? 1 year? If the source/binary versions are not being made available *AT THE SAME TIME* then it is a random (interpreted) amount of time before the former is released - who gets to decide?
The amount of 'reasonable' time will only increase - each new case sets a precedent where others can last as long as they want less than T; anything more would have to ask for a special 'extension' (from The Community) - thus setting a new 'reasonably interpreted time' as T+T1.
This is the way concepts get screwed with over time - exceptions are made until the original intent has been subverted by 'special acceptable cases'... eventually everyone will feel their case is similar enough to be a 'special acceptable case' and you will never see mod sources available with binaries - and GPL code will be used as the basis for proprietary products - and the code only available until their market advantage is over (by technical attrition) or until they extend the new source further (making the old source NFG without their *new* mods).
I suggest 'we' *NEVER* accept anything less than simultaneous releases of binaries and sources.
I understand wanting 'benefit of the doubt' - but this introduces ambiguity... and that is not a 'fail safe' condition. And given the whoreing nature of sony I suggest the coders involved (in writing this emulator) be very carefull about who their dealing with (Remember: "we'll block them at their routers; we'll block them at their ISP; we'll block them at their Computers etc")
For such a thing to go into a court and be proven really happened, violation of GPL, the judgement should be court costs Plus not only making public the source code that should have been GPL to begin with, but additional source code of at least equal value but proprietary being made GPL.
In other words, if you try to steal you will risk losing what you have.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
If such GPL code exist, then getting it into such GPL domain, like posting it into the public in any opublic medias (here, Usenet, etc..) is not a violation of law, but rather a support of the predefind Glicense. Since the GPL was in effect before they received the code, it shall be held to.
There is genuine value to be had in Anonymus Remailers. That of upholding the Law, without the overheaproceedures.
In other words, there will be no manipulation of the law via. the game of whos got the most money or power.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
I dunno, maybe it's a dumb question, but how does anyone *know* if GPL'ed code is being used by these people if all they're distributing is the binaries? Please forgive if I'm totally clueless in this regard, I'm genuinely curious...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Conversely, don't we have the same situation with the GPL? You're running a program, you find a bug, so you download the source code and hastily click through or agree to whatever requirements the code ships with. How can the GPL be made to be enforceable while clickwraps shouldn't be?
But, the GPL says that Sony only has to give the source code to the people it gives the compiler to. Even then I don't think they have to unless they are ask. So, the only people that would have the right to complain that the source is not available are the PS2 developers. So, if Sony distributes the license agreement with the compiler (a copy of the GPL), then they are in compliance as long as when I developer ask for source he gets it.
If you ask for the source from Sony, well, tough, you never bought a development kit from Sony so you never got the Binary, so the license does not apply.
Nothing keeps a developer from posting the binary and source. At least, I hope Sony does not imply or threaten developers not to. Anyway, the compiler would do you little good without the rest of Sony's devkit, which would be proprietary.
Just because it wasn't written behind closed doors by company owned lawyers doesn't render it as ineffective as other software agreements like MS EULA and such.
Just like we have PrePaid Lawyer services for those who can't afford costly legal representation, the EFF is analogous(sp?) to such legal services for programmers. It gives them a source for effectively written distribution and copyright licensing of there software.
I think you only need to convince a judge 'testing' this license that taking steps to nullify or weaken such a contract like GPL is totally unfair and biased. Such biasing would need a STRONG legal leg to stand on.
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/tools/emulator/emul ator_src_31.tar.gz
The source and binaries are available for download without any EULAs I see.
IIRC, TiVo keeps the DirecTV encryption secret because it doesn't know anything about it. The smart card you stick in the slot does the decryption.
The TiVo box simply "tunes" the decrypted output of the card.
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
Where is the "All above" option ?
No, you are still responsible as a company of your managers decisions.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Sony obviously feels that putting out the source would help people develop code for models by those they are in competition with, so they with-held it.
This of course sucks. Question is, what can be done to force them to open up the code?
--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Thanks, I didn't know that.
So how does TiVo keep the DirecTV encryption scheme a secret?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Is this any different than TiVo using Linux? They take a GPL OS, do some proprietary modifications, then use it in their product.
That's OK, is it not?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Actually, Apple is including a lot of GPL software in the OS X developer tools CD. And they're in full compliance with the GPL, and going far, far beyond the requirements of the BSD licensed code in Darwin.
The bullshit you read here notwithstanding.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
"Reports state that Sony has violated the GPL. The whole Slashdot community immediately stood up to protest, then sat back down, panting heavily." (Adapted from Penny-Arcade)
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
I have a hunch m$ is laying the groundwork for just such and assault on Open Source. It really has been a surprise to see Alchin and Mundie deign to discredit Open Source. There's got to be a reason, more than fear of competition... what's up their sleeve?
At least Sony is demonstrably giving back, by using Linux and GPL code. An endorsement, if you think about it, from a company which has a heck of a record on proprietary technology.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is kind of random, but what if when the source code of some modified GPL software is requested, a company decides to distribute source that has been so badly obfuscated that it is useless?
Would they still be following the GPL (as they ARE giving their source code which they have modified) or would they be in violation?
lol! i think, a missing option is:
5) too scared to leave their computer to go to court and miss out on the next /. bashing opportunity
Or is HP keeping him too busy these days?
--
What about a provision in the GPL that invalidates such EULA restrictions on derivative code? That way you could click through the EULA (or get the code some other way, by hook or by crook), repair the fork, and if Sony decided to sue you, you could rebut that Sony was using your code, and that their EULA was invalid.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) 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.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Will we see the first test of the GPL in court?
Yes, I mean civil penalties as well as criminal.
I do not know if sony is guilty as charged. Whether they are or are not, There needs to be a remedies clause attached to the gpl, that states upon a violation of the license terms, violator agree to pay to FSF and the software developer(s) all revenues from sale of said product. This payment should be 50% to FSF, and 50% to software delveloper(s). No, not all profits, as they can be adjusted to be whatever you want at the moment, but all revenues. This would greatly decrease the motivation to do so, and add some punative damages to the act. It would also accumulate to a nice gpl defense fund and pay the developers for being ripped off.
IANAL, but that's trademarks, not copyrights.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Easy. They have yet to remove all the "Palm sux0r" comments.
I once was working on some java code, and main was defined like: public static int main(String []argggggggggggs /* I'm a pirate*/)
There was also a bunch of crap, like some constuctors for a few objects had the line
super(size) // SUPER-SIZE it
As well as some curse words and stuff. You realy should remove that kind of stuff before you release the code, GPL or not.
Doesn't the GPL state the provided source code must be in the original form the developers work on it? so even stripping swear words would be a violation of the GPL, and cleaning up spagetti code sure leads to a source code not corresponding to the released binary.
I thing the GPL needs to add a clause about monitary compensation. Somthing to the point of:
Uppon distributing this GPL software you agree to comply with the tearms of the GPL. If you do not comply, you are liable to the copyright holder(s) an amount to be not less than $15,000 per copy distributed in violation of the GPL.
A clause like this would at least would make a starting point for awarding damages.
-----------------------------
kaaaameeeeeeehaaaaaameeeeeha!
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
kaaaameeeeeeehaaaaaameeeeeha!
-----------------------------
... is a lawyer who is willing to support the GPL (and other licenses such as BSD, apache, etc) and he/she should also have a thorough understanding of the license. By having such a person or people under the wing of the OpenSource community, we could fight such legal battles... then the lawyer could sue for copyright infringement including lawyer fees and a moderate fee of $10 million to be contributed to the Open Source community projects.
/. t-shirts =)
This way, if a company such a Sony doesn't want to bother with the court case, maybe they'll settle out of court and provide, oh let's say only, $100,000 and add the GPL into their redistribution of the software. Pay the lawyer his part and then use the rest to provide everyone with
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
Yes
o ryID=3041
http://www.gamedev.net/info/news/FullStory.asp?St
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
You do know the PS2 devkits come with GCC as the compiler?
I sure as hell would like the source to that... (Emotion engine opsoces anyone? Emulators?)
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
I understand your defense of Apple, I will direct you to the source of the specific abuses/misuses http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html As for M$ corp. the details can be found in the anti trust case and in the "infamous" slashdot post http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/31/207205.shtml
"Get them before they get....
It seems that the new trend for major corporations (Apple, Sony, M$, et al) is to use open source code to save develpoment cost. Thats great, but only if they give the back to the community. Who is going to enforce the GPL? Who has the resources? As a developer I'm concerned, as a Open_source supporter I'm out-raged.
"Get them before they get....
Is there any fine print url: mentioned on any piece of paper in the original packaging? Sony might try to cover by claiming to make source available only to those owners that register with sony. The corporate monolith will probably comply with the gpl - eventualy; but only after the open source community burns up resources in the effort. From a practical point; is a url: the best way to provide source for a storage limited device?
How would you sue a company for violation of the GPL? Would the FSF, as an entity, be the Plaintiff? Or would the FSF instigate a class action suit on behalf of the software developer community? In either case, if this story is true, it's time to test the GPL. Sue Sony!
I remember the first program I 'managed'. The project consisted of me and one half time C++ programmer.
It was the first time either of us had worked in Visual C++ and we were both experiencing the 'joy' that is the MS STL implementation.
It was during a code review with the prime contractor and the government customer that I noticed the following comment in front of a commented out block of code.
/* This should work like this, but it doesn't because the FUCKING MICRO$OFT MORONS can't write a proper STL */
So that is how the binary can run, but the source code not be ready.
After that I proofed all code BEFORE it left the building.
If the creator of the software transferred the copyright to the FSF, then the FSF can file suit.
If the software was just released under the GPL but the creator held onto the copyright, then the creator is responsible for filing the suit.
This is why Stallman encourages people to transfer the copyright to the FSF, it facilitates them taking direct action. They've got the resources, etc, to carry through on the issue.
Sorry, no. Sony is obligated to release the source used to create their binary, provided that they actually modified it. Cleaning up spaghetti code results in a different binary.
Reboot macht Frei.
While source code is obviously required to compile an executable, the source might not neccessarily be ready for public viewing immediatly after the executable was compiled.
:)
I've known developers put all sorts of stuff in comments that a company would not want the public to see. They might just want to clean all the non code related comments out before they release it.
Who knows, they might even be spending time adding comments to make the released code extra readable and easy to adapt...
At least two people have posted the link to GNU's instructions for violations of the GPL. (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html) However, the page explicitly states, "Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we do offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same. But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation." I'm unfamiliar with POSE, but I don't think it's part of the GNU project. So, the FSF might help the POSE copyright owner, but there's no help for us to go talking to FSF; go talk to the person(s) who wrote POSE! Also, some have stated that Sony isn't violating the GPL because no one has asked for the source code. The GPL doesn't say, "Wait for someone to ask and then make it available"; it says, "Include with your distribution an offer to provide the source." Sony's not off the hook just because no one asked! Releasing binaries a couple of weeks before source code doesn't cut it, either. Of course, all this is moot if this isn't really Sony's policy, but just someone making noise.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
First of all, I will try to avoid the speculation on why you would put such a "We don't really care, go ahead sue us..." sentence in my mouth. I noticed, that you were definitely angry at something. SONY does take the GPL very seriously and believe me, there are a lot of people here "Open Source" minded, who you have insulted for absolutely no reason. Also, the GSCube (you referred to it as GSQ) is no secret and was not a secret since SigGraph2000, (again, I refrain from speculating why you tought it was a secret, I most definitely have not even implied it), you could have seen the "*REAL TIME* Matrix" in our booth back in New Orleans... Your comment on how "I'm forced to use Windows at work" is again a bit out-of-touch, I work with 4 computers, *ALL* of them running Linux. I do have a laptop though (the same one I had with me on the plane) having dual-boot, but even on the Win2000 I mostly use VMware's Workstation to run Linux... Yes, on the plane I was using CodeWarrior for Palm running under Windows. Your comment on "I showed him the merits of properly coding C" is well put, I'm glad you think highly of yourself, I thought the same thing of you. And thank you for showing me that I have to call LstDrawList()... What other merits you are referring to I have no idea... But you definitely helped me and I thank you for that. Your "Many years of study with ancient Tibetan masters" should have helped with your observation on the overhead bins to see, we had 2 carry-ons and a plastic bag full of the higly appreciated Linux gifts which I was bringing back to SONY. (By the way, yes, I helped other passengers with their baggages, but I don't claim them as mine just because of it) Again, I do agree that violating a GPL is a serious problem and must be dealt with appropriately, but so is giving false or distorted statements. I appreciate your time on helping me with that function call and IR transfer. Thank you.