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.
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.
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
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
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.