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)."
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)
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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©
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
--
Free Mac Mini
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...
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.
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?
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'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
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?
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?
This was answered above.
Sony requires agreement to a EULA that states that all source is 100% property of Sony, and will not be made available.
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?
However it is conceivable that a lawyer could argue that if you knew about a violation of copyright, and the person violating your copyright knew you knew without doing anything about it, and this happens over an extended period of time, the fact that you did not do anything could indicate an implied agreement of some form.
If that could be successful? Who knows. I certainly don't (I'm not a lawyer), but I'm sure someone will try it at some point (or already have).
... 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, $100,000 and add the GPL into their redistribution of the software. Pay the lawyer his part and then use the rest to provide everyone with
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
It seems that the new trend for major corporations (Apple, Sony, M$, 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....