Slashdot Mirror
AOL And The GPL
Phantasm writes "AOL seems to have forgotten about the GPL in its linux powered Device sold by Gateway. Reported by Observers.net AOL made every attempt to credit other program copyright licenses such at the MIT and BSD License but forgot to mention the "little people" that created the utilites essential to getting the system to work." As is obvious, Observers.net is an AOL watchdog -- but the article is quite interesting.
The GNU foundation has an excellent and very calm little document explaining exactly what to do when you think you see a GPL violation. I suggest you read it now, and i really wish that the Slashdot admins would link to this little document in their "other links" box every time they run a story on an apparent GPL violation.
An understatement if I ever heard one.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
This unit is being discussed quite heavily atd /UltraBoard.pl.
http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoar
Check in for discussions on hacking these, and other, internet appliances and related electronic toys.
Squash
It's more complicated. I don't know what you're background is, so this may or may not make sense:
Linux (just the kernel, not the O.S.) is GPL'd. Any change to Linux has to be made available under the GPL to anyone who gets a binary copy. Applications written on top of the kernel do not have any restrictions imposed on them.
For any distinct program, the same applies. For a library, there are two licenses to deal with, the LGPL and the GPL. If you use a GPL library, your whole application has to be redistributed under the GPL. If the library is LGPLd, you only have to redistribute the changes you made to the library itself.
My guess is that they used a modified kernel, standard LGPL libc, and some standard utilities. So, the only thing they would have to supply the source for would be their kernel modifications, and the existing sources to the libraries and utilities.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Big companies are so good at getting their legal department to draft a serious-we-mean-business type of letter, maybe the FSF (or someone else) could write up a couple letters to send to companies when they violate the GPL.
This isn't the first time it's happened, and won't be the last. It would be nice to be able to clear it up as quickly as possible.
Ooh- Idea for site-- a GPL Violation site. Where you can choose from several different letters (by selecting tone, what clause has been violated, whether this is the first time they've done this) etc. Also, people could use it to exchange info about GPL enforcement issues & stuff.
Just a thought,
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The source to Mindori Linux is available, so there shouldn't be a problem there.
There is a problem there.
The GPL says that the distributor of the binary has to make the source available.
The article doesn't mention who they spoke to at AOL, but the response they got ("look on the web for info about the GPL") was the wrong answer.
The correct answer should have been "You can download it from our server", or "we will send you out a CD with the source on it."
* 2001-05-22 22:04:28 Vidomi GPL violation of VirtualDub situation update (articles,news) (rejected)
How we know is more important than what we know.
I don't get it. Why do you post this crap when real GPL violations by shady companies are currently going on? How many times must the story of Vidomi ripping Avery Lee's GPLed code to VirtualDub be submitted before the Slashdot editors stop ignoring it?
How we know is more important than what we know.
No it doesn't, it says no such thing. The NPL might, but not the MPL which gives practically the same rights as the GPL. Most of the code is under the MPL except for a very few specific bits under the NPL.
And even where the the NPL or MPL is used, it normally says in the boilplate on the top of the code that you can use the GPL instead if you want.
Actually, it's an extremely clear-cut license violation. First, from the article:
While the inside of the Tech Pad was mildly interesting, most striking was what we didn't find. For software allegedly released by its manufacturer under the GPL, curiously missing were most of the things required by the license.
No notices of copyright holders. No disclaimer of warranty. No source code and no directions on where and how to get the source code. No copy of the GPL, or at least none accessible or viewable from the interface provided by Gateway or America Online. No notice in the interface or help files about what is and isn't covered under the license.
Now, from the GPL:
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,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I don't see how there's any way you could claim this is anything but an egregious violation of the license. If you'd like to review the license yourself, it's at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. AOL is likely assuming no one will have the money to properly sue them, or perhaps they think they'd be able to have the license found invalid, or possibly they think they're in the clear by putting it all in a box that's not supposed to be open.
As one of the Midori developers, I feel the need to say something here.
1. AOL has a pointer to Transmeta's Midori Linux site in the "About" box of their client (which is the primary GUI application on the box).
2. All of the source code changes to GPL code made by AOL have already been rolled back into Midori. (In fact, AOL regularly sent us diffs of their tree.) The source code is at midori.transmeta.com
3. No partitions are encrypted. It's just a different partitioning format to allow sub-partition upgrades of cramfs. (It's all part of "packcramfs" which is part of Midori Linux.)
I should also add that we have enjoyed working with AOL.
Dan
As I understand it, if they just used the code then they just need to say 'we used this stuff' and point prople to where they can get the source. But if they modified it, they have to show the source for their modifications as well.
This could be an over-simplification...
"You said the magic word and win the prize!"
Yes, this will play into the whole MS debacle and their fight to undermine, criminalize, and destroy the GPL virus. Think on it: the GPL exists to foster the on-going creative process of programmers freely writing code for the community and allowing that in itself to enhance their own notoriety, taking on the task of being their own agent. This in contrast to MSerfdom, which is the preferred model for an existing large business.
It is in AOL's interests to be sued by GPL authors and prevail. It is also in MS interests, and any other software house built on the traditional pyramid model. Once a court disqualifies the GPL as a valid contract, precedence will have been set, and then GPL will die.
Do you imagine that there is a company that hasn't considered the business aspects of the GPL? I know many have. And what do you think they think about it? Travel with me, if you will, into the mind of a corporate CEO. Careful, don't step on it, it's pretty small..."
"If I could only get the GPL code and keep it, it would be like having thousands of programmers working for me day and night for free! But if I can't keep what I write, then it would be like giving my profit away. Gee, if I could only find a way..." "Darla, get MyCongressman on the rotary phone."
Yes, if they could only get all that lucrative software, use it in their products, and then not have to re-release it! That would work for about a week after the courts rule that the GPL is unenforceable. The courts would basically allow this to happen, programmers stop releasing code, and go to work for large corps, and things go back to the Way They Were.
And Andy Grove, who scoffs at the thought of a New Economy, would be right. There is now a glimmer of hope that Linus and Richard's baby could re-invent this economic system, empowering people at the expense of corps.
But if GPL-holders sue AOL and lose, this glimmer would die. It would also die if they failed to sue, given that AOL has actually violated the contract. It would be a signal to all other CEO's to scoff up what they could and use it, and then try to keep it.
So it is very important here that the FSF win this one, a big case against a big company.
Because if not, MS will be the next violater, if they aren't already.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
I was one of the first people to buy one of these. I had been waiting since November 1999 for someone to come to market with a net appliance that would work for my mom. ThinkNIC? No. Audrey? No. MSN Companion? Dear God, no. IMac? Sorry, I don't know anything about Mac's, so I wouldn't be able to support her.
I paid $650 for one of these as soon as it came out (it's way cheaper now, see below). The AOL-only factor is actually a positive for me, because it's great for old-lady types like my mom (and probably yours). No porn SPAM, no three hour calls trying to explain to my mom what a VBS script virus is, no Comet-cursor privacy crap.
AOL and Gateway are marketing this as a second terminal for your household, but it works great as the only terminal. Built-in modem.
The whole thing is just really well designed and rock solid. Well, it's rock solid and fully featured now after a few more months of software upgrades. Hell, the thing upgrades itself! Back in March, AOL/Gateway/Midori released an OS upgrade that downloaded itself (24 MB, ugh) and installed itself. She just let it chug for an hour and it was done.
I'm 800 miles away and have better things to do than provide phone support to my mom.
My only complaint is that it's a little slow.
And now, if you try hard, you can buy one for $200, and even hack it into a pure linux/windoze box if you're so inclined. Come on in guys, the water's fine.
One simple rule for its versus it's
I think your idea would be great if the goal were to settle these matters in a polite, cooperative way that builds the free software community and makes companies want to involve themselves with it. In fact, the goal is to launch one jihad after another, boosting Slashdot's page hits and building the profile of whatever "advocate" started yelling first. Actually calling the company involved and finding out what they plan to do about the problem always gets postponed until, at the earliest, the Slashdot article has 150 rabid posts calling for blood.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Programmers? Only if they used GPL without notifying their Analysts.
Analysts? Only if they failed to notify their Project Managers.
Project Managers? Only if they failed to alert their Technical Writers.
Technical Writers? Only if they failed to notify Marketing.
Marketing? Only if they failed to notify the Lawyers.
Lawyers? Don't be silly, lawyers are never to blame, and they'll sue your ass silly if you try.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In the article, instead of adressing the issues, they resort to an ad hominem attack, for no aparent reason:OK, so the author thinks Case is an idiot (and he may not be wrong about that). Fine, but it doesn't add anything to the article, or the case the author is trying to make. In fact, it makes the author look petty and does damage to the creadibility of the organization. I'm not a big fan of AOL, but you have to wonder about watchdog groups what may be inappropriately biased, (or at least those who make the mistake to show that bias in public)
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
The correct email address for AOL/TW shareholder concerns is: AOLTimeWarnerIR@aol.com in case you wanted to write a letter about this.
...
I already did
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The article seems to go off on a rant about AOL with Netscape, but neglects to mention that they purchased NaviSoft and then allowed NaviServer to be revamped as an open-source package. I have been using AOLServer with Oracle for a couple of years, and am totally in love with it. If I remember right, there was a request by Philip Greenspun of MIT to AOL to release AOLServer as open source, and they said agreed to it.
Please take the time to actually read about GPL copyleft. Copylefted source is copyrighted. Even if a court rules that the "must give source" clause is void, that doesn't void your copyright. Go ahead and sue.
The nightmare scenario is a really bonkers judge ruling that GPL code is public domain (which it explicitely isn't). However, that would have huge implications for all forms of corporate copyright, so it's hard to see even a US judge going that far.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.