Slashdot Mirror
FSF Statement on Violation of GPL by RTLinux
bkuhn writes "The FSF has issued an official statement on the GPL violation by RTLinux." nothign surprising here, basically they say that RTLinux is violating the GPL by not releasing the source to their Linux kernel mods, but since the FSF isn't the copyright holder, they can't do much about it. Now it's up to RTLinux to decide if they are gonna do the right thing or not.Update: 09/16 00:48 AM GMT by H : Please check out these comments for more information - it's not a source code violation, but a patent issue.
Has the GPL ever been successfullly enforced?
Has it even needed to be enforced?
This
So, Who IS "THE" copyright holder? Linus? A consortium? Would some of the larger distributions be interested in combining together to fight this thing? RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake would do for a start...
I wonder what RTLinux have to say too...
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
C'mon...I hope they take a stand. I'd like to see someone rock the boat. They obviously don't want to give up their hard work to the general public. Let's see how it pans out. What's the worst that could happen?
Is it possible for someone to sue these guys over something that's free?
Well, RTLinux has already decided what its doing. It is time for the copyright holders to decide what they are doing.
...is listed on their site here. Anyone who can translate this into plain English, please do so. IANAL.
how would the GPL actually be enforced, what exactly would happen?
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
Linux was intended to be incompatible with "Free for me, but not for you."
jeremiah cornelius
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Linus needs to do somthing about this!!! if it is done to the core code that Linux himself has developed then he needs to enlist the FSF to prosecute RTlinux, if it is the code of another kernel hacker then Linus needs to emplor him to do what I have said above.
I this does not happen, the GPL will be a lame duck licence.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It's my undestanding that with patents you have to disclose the nature of the patent ANYWAY. Why should this keep them from abiding by the license of the software they are building on top of?
--fatboy
since the FSF isn't the copyright holder, they can't do much about it
Could Linus Torvalds become involved in this case? I am not familiar with RTLinux, but since Torvalds is the trademark holder of the name "Linux" and provides the license for using and modifying it, would he be the one to push something like this further?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I'm wondering that if RTLinux was taken to court and won (ie the GPL is not enforcable, even if it's due to clueless judges), if most open source programmers would stop releasing GPL code? I wonder if it would be possible to create an enforcable open source license if this were to happen.
The violation has to do primarily with a patent license that imposes terms not allowed by the GPL.
This isn't much different matter than failure to distribute source code.
And it's not Linux. It's GNU Operating System or something like that.
Just don't download/buy their kernel/distribution. If they don't make any money, they go bankrupt, plain and simple. Violators of the GPL, if they cannot be forced to comply via legal action (or threats of), can only feel pressure through the users of the product. Since the majority of GNU/Linux users uphold the GPL religiously, if this company decides to violate, the users will let them know of their displeasure. Wether that be through email, phone, or simply lack of revenue from product sales.
der dee der.
Interestingly, I was reading the part in Linus Torvalds book this morning about his decision to use the GPL license for his kernel. Imagine how different the internet would be today if some small company snapped it up and all development ceased. Or worse, it fell into the hands of Micro$oft.
A chilling thought indeed...
...What this means is that RTLinux guys can be prohibited from using any GPL software until such time as they are "forgiven". After all, wasn't that the upshot of why the KDE people were "forgiven"? To formalize that the FSF would not take any action over prior GPL violations?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This has absolutely nothing to do with withheld source code, and everything to do with the use of a Patent "to impose restricted terms on distribution of a GPL-covered program".
"the GPL will be a lame duck licence"
I hope it does. There are so many holes and flaws in the GPL that it basically puts a Nazi'ish stranglehold on developers.
If this guy's changes are for the better, than let's see some l33t d00ds reverse engineer it like they've done with Windows stuff.
Oh, but I forgot...it's easier to bitch and complain than actually do something.
The violation has nothing to do with source code, which is freely available, it has everything to do with restrictions on use of the software - it is free only for non-commercial use. If you want to sell your program you have to buy a license. Interestingly, this is a case where GPL fanatics are sticking up for the rights of commercial users.
Next post could you please consider checking both your facts and your spelling? ;-)
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Yodaiken's trying to patent his kernel mods. Not only is that a violation of the GPL, it absolutely flies in the face of the idea of using GPLed software.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Just put the RTLinux kernel up for sale. That puts the shoe on the other foot; they would have
to prove that its not GPL and they would be the
ones spending the big bucks on the lawyers. IANAL
Here is a significant innovation which was created in hopes that it would be protectable and thus profitable. That is the traditional rationale for patents: by allowing intellectual property to be protected for a limited period, they create an incentive for innovation.
Now we see that the GPL's anti-patent stance appears to be trying to stifle this innovation unless the inventor consents to its terms, which would deprive the inventor of profit.
A clearer example of the anti-innovative tendency of the free software movement could not be imagined.
Tim
If RTLinux wanted to patent something, why the fsck base it off of a GPL'd product in the first place? It can only become a legal mess, and if FSM Labs wins in court, it's gonna piss off the FSF, OSS, and anything else slightly connected to Linux.
You'd have to be insane to invoke that sort of bad kharma.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
If the FSF sends letters to RTLinux customers stating that the code they bought is of questionable legal status, then I'd expect the customers to drop use of the product immeditately. No customer wants to be sucked in to a vendor's lawsuit.
then I knew what pathetic, self-aggrandizing bastard was behind it.
OOOO... no Linux. Christ man, it's UNIX!
Go get yourself a distro of Unix, that's it...No difference. Why would Microsoft want a UNIX kernel?
I'm amazed. People think Linux is some revolutionary thing. All it is, is open sourced UNIX! If there was no Linux, you'd just buy a copy of another UNIX distro and life would continue. Get a grip.
I think the case has been clear cut before that you can make modules binary only. So if that was the case, they should have every right to impose whatever restrictions on their module they want.
HOWEVER, I can not imagine that making Linux real-time could be done in a module and no changes whatsoever to any of the rest of the kernel - unless all the changes are GPL'd and released and they have a free and a professional version of a module which has some of the tweaks/functionality there.
I'm not saying that they are right, but given the nature of the legalise on the agreement on their site, either they have some major lawyers there, or they have an english->legalise filter, so I would think they hopefully understand the GPL.
>Calling the GNU/Linux system just "Linux" leads to confusion. Making consistent distinctions between GNU/Linux, the operating system, and Linux, the kernel, clears up the confusion.
I think Stallman is jealous that he's not the Open Source poster boy. I wonder if he understands why?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
"do the right thing"? Wasnt this a movie by
Spike Lee? with music by Public Enemy?
Thanks and have a marijuana-induced weekend.
I thought that GNU was a project, a recursive acronym, and a bunch of utilities (GNU Software), used in operating systems like Debian, RedHat, Slackware...
The software on one of my RedHat 7.1 machines includes a large number of GNU tools, as well as the Linux kernel, as well as Apache, Gnome, KDE... But according to the FSF, the operating system is "GNU"?
It seems that not only is the GPL viral, but the GNU term itself keeps growing in what it is supposed to mean...
I am of the persuasion that the liberals in our government want not only to run every aspect of our lives, but also to totally remove any traces of democracy from the United States. The only thing stopping them from doing this right now is the still strong Republican Party which eventually will be destroyed because of events which I will name later in this article.
Liberals already have control of nearly all aspects of the media including public libraries, universities and of course mainstream television networks and hollywood. Of the major threats to liberals is the internet which allows uncontrolled free speech. They want to discontinue this free speech and all other forms of free speech as well (Consider the John Rocker Story: Already are free speech rights are decaying rapidly).
Unfortunately liberals are smart. They will not act in a way that arouses too much suspicion. Now I am going to reveal my theory about how they will eventually control the internet.
They will, or already have hired some of the most skilled hackers worldwide and are going to use these unethical hackers to cause massive problems on the internet.
Then they will use these problems as an excuse to begin to regulate in some way privately run web pages etc. Eventually this regulation will evolve into total control and the liberals will run the internet to a great degree. Think I'm wrong? We'll see. Enjoy the internet while you can!
http://www.conspiracy-net.com mail@conspiracy-net.com
Specifically, does the original author own the copyright on a large project that other people have made minor contributions to? Also, consider that no one explicitly handed over their copyright.
I think that one of the best ways for GPL developers to make money is by creating software under the GPL and also selling that software under a different license to companies that don't wish to use the GPL. But, I am unclear on whether the original author can do this if other people have made contributions to the project.
I guess an example would be if Torvalds decided to sell Linux to Microsoft under the BSD license. I know, I know - I would shit myself if it happened too. It's just an example.
I wish people would stop calling these things 'GPL violations'. What this is is a copyright violation. RTLinux is using someone else's copyright material without permission - no more, no less. That is illegal. Calling it a 'GPL violation', something which won't appear in any law anywhere seems silly, and just confuses the issue - which is plain and simple, and a matter of copyright.
Yodaiken's Patent on running the kernel as a RT process
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Derivative works are traditionally afforded at least some copyright protection, especially if the person who creates them adheres to the rules of Fair Use.
This means, more or less, that when you create a program that is GPL'd and have pulled source from other programs, that as author, you hold the copyright, and can theoretically sue if someone abuses your work in a manner prohibited by the GPL.
IANAL and whether or not this will hold up in any given court is anybody's guess at this point since its never been tried.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Adding real-time support to general purpose operating systems
"Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
Well you can add DSPLinux to the list. I have been trying to get the code for a while but been given the run-around. DSPlinux is backed by Texas Instruments and is aimed at the ARM / TI-DSP combo chip.
Help fight continental drift.
(Or alternatively Bradley Kuhn, as they seem to be the persons on slashdot that might have some insight)
How does the RTLinux case differ from Raph Levien's patent grant discussed on Advogato. On a quick look they seem to be identical, and Bruce Perens wrote at the aforementioned discussion:
Decklin: RMS and I discussed this a long time ago. If a patent grant allows free use of the patented principle in GPL software, that is sufficient to satisfy the restriction that the patent must be licensed for everyone's free use. GPL code is free for everyone to use.
That let's an entity use the code as closed source if they pay license fees back to the community. Of course it would be tricky to determine who gets how much.
...according to his FAQ on his site, he says that he conforms completely to the GPL and that the patent license applies only to the combination of RTLinux with Linux.... and his patent seems open...
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Um, no. First of all, he is releasing the source. Second of all, the GPL doesn't prevent you from patenting inventions that are incorporated into a derived work. The GPL violation results from the _extra_ restrictions he has placed on the derived work.
The Free Software Foundation could trademark "GPL" and have a "GPL Brand" of software that correctly follows its' license.
If they don't follow the license correctly, don't allow them to call the software "GPL".
But this would require a bit of forward thinking.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
An outside observer, on noticing the recent flurry of meta articles, might easily come to the conclusion that Kuro5hin.org is facing a crisis. To that extent, the observer would be correct. However, the nature of this crisis has been systematically misrepresented at every turn. Worse, the proposed fixes would in fact exacerbate the true cause of Kuro5hin's ills.
To be blunt, the Kuro5hin community is being consumed with paranoia and hysteria in response to a threat that does not even exist. While no doubt many people's belief in trolls is well-meaning, it is most definitely badly informed. Over the course of this article, the myth of the existence of trolls will be systematically debunked. Finally, some clues to the origin of the myth will be examined, most pointing to post-modern liberal ideologies.
It has been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and such evidence will be provided. However, it is important to first realize the difficulty inherent to any argument for a negative proposition. In truth, any belief in trolls is ultimately unfalsifiable, and as such cannot be disproved. However, the goal here is to rightfully oust that belief from the realm of shared objectivity. If one wishes to believe in trolls, such is one's right. However, that belief must be constructed as a personal claim of faith, not as a statement of objective fact.
First, it will be helpful to specify the exact nature of the imagined crises. If the worst panic-mongers are to be believed, Kuro5hin.org is currently being besieged by a vast army of posters who post solely for the purpose of causing controversy. To objectively examine this claim, it is necessary to ask what, who, and why.
What is the nature of this attack? If the claim of a troll invasion is to based in fact, one should be able to find ample evidence of inflammatory, worthless posts. However, the posts simply do not exist. Certainly much of which is written in Kuro5hin.org may offend various individuals to differing degrees, but there is not a large group of comments that express no tenable opinion and only inflame and cause offense.
Who is the source of this attack? This is also difficult to determine. In the course of researching this article, I visited many alleged troll meeting places, including "secret sids" on Slashdot.org, Geekizoid.com, and the channel #trolls on slashnet. Without exception, I found these places to be inhabited either by extremely juvenile posters engaging in puerile antics or bored individuals simply discussing everyday topics. The trolls of myth were nowhere to be seen.
While some posters no doubt use more aggressive language than others. On the whole, most members of the Kuro5hin.org community present a coherent and consistent world view. Admittedly, some individuals appear to have a particular issue about which they routinely squabble, but this is to be expected in any group as diverse as Kuro5hin.org's user base. Importantly, there plainly is not a army of people routinely posting contradictory and provocative material.
Finally, why would anyone engage in the alleged behavior? Why would anyone expend the necessary time and effort to write contradictory nonsense for the sole purpose of arousing tempers? The proposition is patently absurd. The passion of the intellect demands that one remains true to one's deepest convictions. To violate these passions would be an odious task to anyone. It is ridiculous to suppose that many would voluntarily engage in such behavior.
It is obvious, then, that the myth of trolls has little basis in truth. However, the question of its origin remains. Although this is impossible to determine with absolute certainty, the most probable explanation lies in post-modern liberal philosophy. One of the overriding themes in post-modern western thought is the individualized relativity of truth. However, because of inherent intellectual passions, disagreements are impossible to avoid. This presents a paradox. One wishes very much to argue against another, but if truth is individualized, there are no grounds on which to do so.
When truth is relative, the only criticism is insincerity. The only remaining means of disapproval is claims that one's opponent does not actually think what he is professing, and upon honest reflection would recant. The troll hysteria represents an extreme instance of this attitude. Faced with opinions that are utterly irreconcilable with their own, many of Kuro5hin.org's members resort to accusations of trickery and insincerity.
Although crying "troll" perhaps provides more immediate gratification, the long-term health of Kuro5hin.org demands that we as a community learn to accept the differences of opinion that our diverse membership holds. For the sake of peaceful intellectual discourse, it is time to retire the term "troll" forever.
Looney bin conspiracy you mean...
The revolution will NOT be televised.
If you release binaries compiled from modified GPL code, then you are bound by the GPL and the software is encumbered. If you fail to comply with the GPL restrictions, then you may be liable for copyright violation against the owner of the code you modified.
In this case, Linus Torvalds is owed damages for copyright violation on each copy of RTLinux distributed. If source code modifications were released, then the GPL "free redistribution" waiver would kick in, and Linus would nto be entitled to anything.
If Linus Torvalds accepts *anything* for damages, it should not be without injunctive relief applying to the patent.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
By using GPL licensed code you are agreeing to follow the GPL license as if you'd signed a contract. As far as I know breaking a written agreement is a crime and can be prosecuted by the legal authorities in the US or Finland. If somebody filed a charge and made a lot of noise about it the state attorny has got to listen to it, especially if several people did so.
Look a monkey!
Those companies have large, cautious legal departments. They will not release product that violates GPL, or that may in future be found to do so - even if the voilation is by a supplier or consultant. One activity that lawyers do prior to signing an agreement with compaies such as FSMlabs is a full due-dilligence search for issues just such as this. FSM will have to answer some difficult questions consequent to FSF's statement, regardless of how much foundation it has.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
Depending on how RTLinux implements things, they may not be making any kernel changes at all so there may not be changes that they need to release the source for (and, in fact, if you read the press release, FSF mentions no such thing.)
Rather what FSF has a problem with is that if you purchase RTLinux, they impose additional license restrictions on the copy of Linux that is run by RTLinux, something that is not allowed by the GPL.
(e.g. you can't create a distribution of Linux that has a more restrictive license than Linux itself comes with.)
The surprising part about the patent is that this is exactly how "real time" versions of Windows NT work; a real time OS runs a copy of WinNT as a thread of the RTOS, assuring that real-time sensitive operations are handled by the RTOS.
Regardless, the issue at hand is the more restrictive license on the copy of Linux included with RTLinux, not kernel changes that may be made to the copy of Linux running within RTLinux...
Looking at this case, I do see a reason for either FSF or GNU to patent software methods used in GPL/LGPL code. The organizations have stated that they do not support software patents. But then what prevents a for-profit company from patenting ideas used in GPL/LGPL programs, and then attempting to restrict use of those programs.
However, this is not to say that I support RTLinux. By asking for the contact info, they have placed a significant burden on any distributors or programmers who use their software. However, this case may not stand up in court - I am not sure.
Way the hell offtopic but this will ensure that this gets noticed here on Slashdot: This article on CNN says that MS is going to change their Flight Simulator game. I can't believe that their game's intro had a character saying that it'd be cool to crash an aircraft into the Empire State Building. Is this true? I don't buy MS games so I've never seen it, but it sure seems like if true, it might expose the software giant to some serious liability action against them.
The problem is that if people start adding little clauses like that everything can spin out of control. You decide to take RT linux and make your own modifications and then you add a rule saying that in addition to the GPL, people must mail you a postcard. If a product is GPL, then it's GPL, and you know what you are getting into.
If you don't enforce the GPL here, when do you do it? There's no blurry line in the GPL that let's some things slide, it says, no additional clauses, end of story. If he doesn't like it, tough, go modify a different OS.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
First, if they playing in GPL-land they should certainly play by the rules. That said...
Aren't you missing a piece here? If they give away what they did, nobody needs to buy it anyway. So how much could they lose? Nothing from nothing...
I'm sure I'll be modded down for pointing out this totally obvious economic issue with free software, but the reality is it's difficult to make a lot of (read: any) money off of something you give away, I don't care what it is. In their case (unlike most others) they probably could make some money on support, but most of the guys doing real-time stuff are pretty resourceful by definition.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
As long as they respect the GPL (said modules would have had to be written from scratch, not based on GPL), hence, gpl2 now exists and kernel libs are (optionally) gpl2
So, if the modules in question are theirs (rtlinux's), there is nothing to prosecute and fsf would be doing more harm than good to the Linux community if they take the case and loose, because they will if thease are kernel modules written from scratch.
Of course, i dont know exactly what parts of the kernel we are talking about here but any legal action can only be taken by the copyright holder and (if they are from-scratch modules), rtlinux is the owner and thus have the right to patent whatever they want, within that copyright....err or at least thats what i think
Alex
NO SIG
My understanding is that on RTLinux there is a ``hard'' real time kernel that runs and that the regular non-realtime Linux kernel and all its processes run as a separate low priority thread of control under this system.
It seems to me that Yodaiken could GPL the mods to the Linux part of the kernel (if he likes) and liscence the real time part of the kernel any way he likes. The patent prevents others from making their own real time kernel and running a non-realtime kernel on top of it, and that idea appears novel (I've not heard of prior art) so he can do with it as he pleases. I don't see how this is any different than a vendor releasing GPL'd device drivers or kernel patches for a patented piece of hardware or software that he would like to support.
War with who? Aww .. shut up, you media-fed loser. The USA are not the only country in the world suffering terrorist attacks. Hundreds of people die everyday: tortured, raped, bled to death, from awful diseases ... and you are crying upperclass people with 6 figure salaries and millionary life insurances ?
by allowing intellectual property to be protected for a limited period, they create an incentive for inovation.
What does this do to create an incentive to innovate - it miraculously helps innovation by denying the right of other researchers to use that information to innovate. So that means only the patent holder can innovate.
Now if patents were banned, then all researchers would have a change to use the information to create further innovation. This would therefore boost the capital available for research and would also boost the innovation by allowing different people to take different approaches, and then (because they couldn't patent them) use each others to improve theirs.
Of course, there might be some monetary loss. But the increase in innovation would be worth it. So actually patents stifle innovation by denying the right of other innovators to innovate using the same intellectual property
But with Bush in office I doubt this will happen - maybe Tuesday's disaster will mess up his re-election chances (though I do feel greatly sorry for everyone who died, I just think that America should make the best of a horrible thing, just like the way we can use the economic depression to critisize Bush.)
I am issuing an official statement that my right to steal FSF, and in particular to use free SW to steal copyrighted mp3 material, has been violated by the UnFreeSWFoundation. In addition, my right to a clean smelling environment is in dire jeopardy.
I urge users everywhere to keep the evil FSF members from their atrocious misuse of the word free. Free is free, as in hookers. Don't let them perform illegal advertising on you. Fight back and use the power of your pants to take your feet where they need to go.
The good people at RT Linux have worked hard to preserve your right to steal code that has no value. Fight the evil RMS singing monkey.
Take this personaility test.
The patent licenses are markedly different, the one on Advogato makes no further restrictions than those already expressed in the GPL ... the RTLinux one does (the e-mail requirement, the administration requirements etc etc ... why he wants that information and how it would be used is an interesting question BTW).
The GPL does not take intellectual property into account at all - so what they are basically saying is that code is completely GPL, but that the technology underneath the code is patented and is only usable under a different set of terms.
I think that some people are going to wind up being upset here - these are two very different legal topics, and having a patent does not affect the use and protections by copyright.
Solution? Don't allow algorithms to be patented!
They have yet to release their GPL modified code.
When I first ran accross the supposedly GPL'd software from Lizardtech the same idea occurred to me (http://djvu.sourceforge.net/).
... people can pretend source code is released under the GPL while its patent license is too restrictive or non existant. What actually happens is that because they are the copyright owner they can release it anyway they like it and tack the GPL on it, but since you cannot comply by the GPL and use that source code thats just an empty gesture.
Its a related problem, but in some way's even worse because they are not even infringing upon anything
In this case the only possible way to prevent it is through trademarks and/or certification.
I know these people and they are a small company and have long been involved with working on Linux. One of these people is Cort Dougan who has worked on the PPC port of linux for a long time. Victor has been a supporter of the GPL and they do release the source. The patent just enforces the way that program code can be used.
In the GPL a company cannot just take the program and make something new and not give out the source code, but what Victor is doing is allowing for a double licensing system. If you don't want to make some sort of commerical product you do things under the terms of the GPL. Which fits because to write RTLinux programs you have to create modules, which can quite often require mods to the RTLinux parts. However, if you need to do it in a closed system then he will allow that if you license the Technology from him.
I can't see anything wrong with this because look at the cross licensing by many other products out there like QT and the OpenOffice project. Just how is this any different. I can see that you people don't even know what is going on and have become a set of rabid dogs and didn't even check into how it worked.
How is the FSF better then the German lawyers that went after the author of KIllustrator? By the sounds of it, the FSF didn't ask Linus if he was concerned by this before they started writing about it.
I think the FSF should stay out of other people's business. If anyhting, they should have alerted Linus to the what was going on before saying something.
GPL does have some things to say about patents BTW.
... his only line of defense is saying that he's abiding by the GPL. Which makes copyright law inconsequential :)
But it isnt about copyrights really as much as its about contracts, without the GPL he has no rights to distribute Linux at all
Copyright law only comes into the picture if hes proven not to be abiding by the GPL.
There is a distinction between civil and criminal law....breaking a contract is not a criminal act.
Further, the situation involving licenses like this is not a clear cut as you obviously think. There is no signed contract, it is not exactly the same.
No true. The original author(s) can release under any other licence(s) they choose. What they can't do is take something that someone else wrote, munge it up a bit, and then release that as a binary only.
I could, for example, write MarkOS, a from-the-ground-up operating system coded in Haskel, and release it under the GPL, while at the same time selling MarkOS-QPro with portions of the kernel rewritten in Forth, under an ultra-restrictive-I-now-own-your-first-born-and-yo u-don't-get-the-source licence.
What I can't do is release Markux, a linux clone produced by running sed on the 2.2 sources, under that restrictive licence, because I don't hold the copyright.
Does that clarify things?
-- MarkusQ
Apart from the fact that the patent is bloody obvious (as can be seen by the development of L4-Linux) I cant say Im charmed with the following parts of the license :
"5.
Licensee and any subsequent user of the Patented Process through
Licensee's products or services will give notice of their full name,
address, telephone number, E-mail address and date of first use or
access to the Patented Process, whichever is earlier, to Licensor by
sending an E-mail to license@fsmlabs.com.
6.
You will keep complete and accurate records of all commercial uses
of the Patented Process and all commercial distributions of the Patented
Process whether that distribution occurs directly or as part of your
products or services. You will also provide copies of all such records
upon request from Licensor."
"3.
The Licensor may terminate this License and end all uses of the
Patented Process if, for any reason, Licensor believes that the Licensee
is, or is about to become, bankrupt. In addition, Licensor may terminate
this License and end all uses of the Patented Process if Licensee files
a petition for bankruptcy or if an involuntary petition for bankruptcy
is filed against Licensee during a bankruptcy proceeding."
His intentions might be good, but do we have to suffer for the fact that he chose the wrong kernel to extend in this way (he should have gone with xBSD) with the erosion of what the GPL stands for?
From my research (done due to licensing issues in a GPL project I co-founded) the GPL is toothless *unless* there is a copyright holder (or cooperating holders) willing to enforce the license. That's why the FSF's GPL does 'copyright assignment' to the FSF. (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-assign.html)
The default GPL (used blindy by most GPL project starts) does not include a copyright assignment clause for the assignment of copyright to the project starter for contributed work. I think this is the reason:
The FSF holds a stance that software authors should not have the *choice* to produce non-GPL'ed software or un-GPL previously GPLed software. By not having a copyright assignment clause, it becomes difficult to sub-license or un-GPL an existing GPL project without explicit permission from every possible copyright holder.
I've been recommending to friends who are starting new GPL-type projects to always include a copyright assignment clause for contributed works. Otherwise the project becomes difficult to defend legally (as the FSF points out), and difficult to sublicense or (gulp!) non-GPL later.
I agree with the FSF on most things, but I think the project head (who starts the GPLed project) should have more power than the FSF would like. Thankfully, educated project heads have the power and freedom to alter or supliment the default GPL to add back this control.
--Phil
Microtest (now XStore) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x, Apache, the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sells it as their "DiscZerver" product line. Nothing wrong with the method, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.
The web interface, the only given method of configuring the device, refers to the various services installed generically, like "Web server," "SMB server," "NCP server," etc. - there's no mention anywhere, even in the manual, of the actual programs being used. Of course along with this is no accompanying source code or even the offer to provide any, as the GPL requires.
I can't even get any tech support from this company, much less someone to ask about getting the source code for the software and whatever modifications they made, which include a flash-filesystem driver ("yaffs") for the kernel. I did manage to hack out the root password (which they apparently hide from all customers); with that I found a shell prompt (Stand-alone Shell v1.0 - GPL? dunno) which only increased my determination as I could see exactly what programs they managed to steal, strip out identifying info, and use without credit.
I did contact the FSF, and they did confirm the existence of a GPL violation, but were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of these programs (and actually suggested I post to Slashdot to get some answers =] ) Of course xStore itself has not returned my emails or phone call.
So right now I have a nice little piece of hardware, a bunch of GPL software that Microtest 'stole' (for lack of a better word) and no idea what to do next. I'd be happy if I could just get the code so I can fix NMBd to work properly. I've thought about trying to make my own really-small distro to load on, but it's not really worth my time - I could just load the CD images into my other Linux server, connect the CD tower, and get on with life... but I really shouldn't have to do either. Any ideas?
The code is GPL so anybody can distribute it all they want. Yodaiken can't sue anybody for modifying, forking, selling etc etc the source code.
The patent applies to those who use the invention for commercial purposes, not the code. So IMO the GPL violation occurs when somebody sells a product utilizing RTLinux, RTAI (or a similar product) or when somebody runs the product commercially.
So RTLinux in no way violates GPL, nor does Yodaiken by developing RTLinux. Those people trying to market or use RTLinux commercially violate GPL. In other words, RTLinux, RTAI etc cannot be used for business purposes until a less restrictive patent license is granted. So not even Yodaiken is allowed to do business with his invention unless he replaces all GPL code.
Marko
I'll probably get labeled as a troll for not agreeing with the masses, but right now, there are more important things to worry about than having a penis war over a software license.
Note:
b) He provides those patches under the GPL (download it and see for yourself)
c) His Patent Licence allows for a blanket Licence, free of charge to all those who incorporate that patents process in GPL'd software.
d) He reserves the right to charge for those incorporating his patent into non-gpl'd software.
So if you hate Software Patents, go ahead and hate Victor (I've talked with him, he's okay with this), however, he is not violating the GPL. He has gone the extra step making his Patent non-violating against the GPL.
Remember that a patent is -not- code. The code is the code. His patches are an implementation of the patent. And his patent licence allows them to be included in GPL'd software without paying him.
If you were to write code that did what the patent described, and did it in a proprietary manner, then you would need to negotiate a licence with Victor, or fight it out with lawyers. You can not like this, as this is the basic software patent bad thing, but he isn't violating the GPL.
Also note the inconsistancies of the FSFs position on Software Patents. Richard has noted that he is for them, if they are used as a pool to force other companies to share thiers, but in this release they say they are completely against them. I'd like to see a public position from Bradly Khun and RMS.
That also said, there are undoubtably a number of places where the Linux Kernel is violating any number of software patents. Get used to seeing these kinds of stories.
Chris DiBona
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
This seems important enough that perhaps you should submit a separate thread on the topic. I fear it will get lost here. If you don't get many responses, that might be a good route.
JMHO -- Spiny
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Remember the old articale about the dude who grants use of certain patents for GPL:ed projects? Wink, wink!
If your story is correct, the FSF does indeed have standing to sue, as much of libc5 is based on glibc version 1. Even though that is LGPL, anyone Microtest gives the binary to may demand the source to the library, plus any modifications to the library.
And they probably have at least a couple programs from GNU fileutils or shellutils in there.
The GPL grants certain rights, those are restricted by the patent license ... and thats not allowed, simple really.
...
... you could never violate the GPL by selling or using covered code if you complied to its requirements.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
+
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
=
No if's and or but's about it
Requiring someone to give usage information to be allowed to use it is as legal as any other requirement beyond whats in the GPL. If the patent license forced you to pay mr. Yodaiken money would you still uphold his right to do this? If one is legal then so is the other.
It may suck for mr Yodaiken, but if he wants to modify GPL'd code using his patented technology and distribute it then he will have to give an even more open license.
"So IMO the GPL violation occurs when somebody sells a product utilizing RTLinux, RTAI (or a similar product) or when somebody runs the product commercially."
Where does it state in the GPL that you are not allowed to sell covered software or use it commercially? GPL covers distribution not use
The FSF must be slipping in their old age.
Not one single time did they use the designation GNU/RTLinux.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Have you read his patent license? He requires things beyond whats required by the GPL, that is enough ... if you think he should be able to get away with that then why draw the line at him asking money for patent licenses? There is no fundamental difference.
... thats about it as far as restrictions you can put on use.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
The best you can do with patents you want to be allowed to be used in GPL'd code is to require the licensee to use them in GPL'd code
FYI, RTLinux is a real-time layer that passes hardware interrupts to the rest of Linux. The rest of Linux runs as a task under rtlinux. This isn't the kind of thing you can easily make into a module. To do that, you'd have to make init_module() patch the machine code in other parts of the kernel.
/., remember?
Also FYI, rtlinux is not new. They've been around for a couple years. I guess the FSF just waited to see if anything was going to happen before they got nasty. The source code is available, and there is an "open patent license", similar to the GPL, but with a few restrictions about having to provide contact info to Yodaiken on commercial users of rtlinux, and having to send him diffs for any in-house changes, IIRC.
Yodaiken is _not_ limiting the chances of others, etc.. He is limiting the desire to, because such work would not be as Free as GPLed code.
Know the facts before you get too excited. This is
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
You point me where in the GPL it say's I have to keep a running administration of my commercial use of covered code which I have to pass on to the some third party?
... but far more profitable is to let the GPL version get popular, bankrupt the company (which voids the existing license) and then sell the patent and the listing of commercial users to get a nice complete list of who to extort license fees from.
... so which is it? You think he should also be allowed to demand money from commercial users of his so called GPL code? Or you think that as long as they comply with the GPL they should be able to use it?
That comes on top of the GPL (or rather it would if the GPL would allow that).
Have you thought about uses of the information he acquires through his patent license BTW? I can think up some sinister scenarios, he can of course sell the info for marketing purposes
BTW you didnt cover my main point, whats the difference between putting further restrictions in the patent license or just putting in a monetary fee for use? Either both are allowed or both are disallowed
Actually I totally misread the bankrupcy bit :) Still, what does he want that info for?
Any Linux kernel copyright holder can send a DMCA takedown to the ISP for the firm that is (being alleged to be) infringing the GPL.
Use whois to find the ISP, and look at the DMCA itself for what you need to do. You might want legal advice before you actually do anything though.
Just because we hate that law doesn't mean we shouldn't use it when we have the legal and moral right to do so.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
IANALS (I am not a land shark) but I have researched the issue in depth.
By default - if no other arrangements are made, the author of each contribution owns copyright on their contribution. For a variety of reasons most small contributors are asked to assign their copyright to another person - either the leader or main contributor of the project, the company they work for (in the case of RedHat for instance,) or the Free Software foundation. However in the case of Linux, Thorvalds from the beginning has asked that people *not* assign their copyrights to him. The idea being that this would quickly reach the point where no one could, as a practical matter, reach each and every copyright holder to negotiate a separate license - to make sure that the kernel would always be available under the GPL and ONLY under the GPL.
Indeed, this is a perfectly legitimate option for many projects. However, in the case of Linux, it is not, and by design.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The GPL, to the best of my knowledge, has never been tested in court, let alone upheld as a valid software license. The FSF seems awefully pushy, dictating the license terms of the free software community, in my opinion. If I remember correctly, the FSF forced a software package to remove some disclaimers of liability, and the "click to accept" license portion on the web site.
Maybe the FSF should realize that these people are doing the other members of the community a favor by making the programs and services open source. They don't have to. For a nonprofit organization that doesn't own any of the data in question to dictate terms to individuals that are making their product free out of goodwill is bound to come right back at them.
So what if something is 100% GPL compatible? As long as the permission to modify/redistribute and the full source code are included, that should be good enough.
J.W. Koebel
Interesting that the government will do so much for companies and copyright holders and so little for "we the people" who contributes to the GPL.
Could we please ask for protection under the Digital Millenium GPL Act?
Why isn't it worth unprotecting?
RMS has turned into a whiny bitch that is giving Linux a bad name. FSF is like an inverse Microsoft. It threatens with lawsuits because
of selfish reasons not for the betterment of the community. But, it is a non-profit organiziation.
RTLinux is available for NetBSD and is thus not dependent on Linux, as such it doesn't break the GPL according to RMS previous statements.
This is because RMS have said that only if there is a dependency on GPL'ed code, it has to conform to the GPL.
I'm going to get moderated down as a troll, but what the hell I have Karma to burn!
Have you ever considered the other side effect of pressing GPL violations?
Probably not, but anyway...
You add fuel to the Microsoft argument that the GPL is viral and anti-business.
It's a double-edged sword, and from that standpoint pressing on these supposed violations gives the GPL an air of being a hot potato that no company in their right mind should touch.
Something to think about...
It only requires a licence if you use it to sell something. I would guess the people behind this company has bills to pay like everyone else?
(and PLEASE spare me bullshit replies about service&support)
A note that hasn't been prominently mentioned in this discussion: Red Hat Picks RTLinux For Real-Time Kernel Technology Posted on /. on 2001/09/06.
I would not expect RH to place themselves in legal jeopardy. It also means that they are not going to support any legal action against RTLinux, at least not without a very public and embarassing about-face.
There is no need to go to afganistan to find fanatism, there are lots of it right here on slashdot.
Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted
Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted
Copyright law provides for statutory damages in addition to or in lieu of actual damages or additional profits by the infringer.
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $100,000, in addition to the attorney and court costs of the plaintif.
So even if the software is given away, the copyright infringer would be liable for up to $100,000 plus in statutory penalties. (See Sect. 504 of the Copyright Act
Since all contributors to the Linux kernel would be plaintifs in this case, it seems that the most reasonable type of suit would be a class action suit, with the class consisting of all the kernel authors.
On the other hand, they could each sue separately, but I doubt each would be awarded $100K...
(IANAL)
The GPL *IS* already out of control. The BSD license is a more open license model.
Stallman and lots of the other GPL/GNU folks are starting to scare the hell out of me.
IBM Published Proir Art that embodies the same
idea as the RTLinux Patent in releasing in 1967
the CP67 kernal for the Cambridge Monitor System.
CP67, VM and the IBM System/390 Virtual Image
Facility all describe and embody a Real Time
Kernal that runs an entire operating system
(which may be Linux) as a process and that
prevents the client OS (Linux) from disabling
interrupts on the actual CPUs while giving the
appearance of having done so to the client OS.
This is the direct lineal ancestor of the VM/390
and z/VM Operating System and of the System/390
Virtual Image Facility for Linux Kernal that allows
40,000 copies of Linux to run concurrently on a IBM
zSeries mainframe.
Since the Source code for CP67 and all user mods
were published and provided freely to anyone who
had an IBM or compatible Mainframe it could be said
to have been the father of the GPL.
Thanx Doug...
I had submitted this as a /. story quite some time ago, but it never got posted, so I'll add it as a comment here.
When I installed the first version of QNX Real-time Platform, I used their package management system to install extra developer tools and packages from the RtP CD i burned. one of those packages was essentially made up of GCC and other GNU tools. When you install packages using RtP's package manager, it sometimes pops up licences to the various packages - most often, the QNX RtP license.
Well, surprise - the GNU package popped the QNX license, too. That license is of course NOT a free software license, so it could probably be considered a GPL violation.
Or maybe it's just a mistake while building the package, leaving the default QNX license on...
I didn't install the new release of QNX RtP, so maybe this has changed. Does anyone know?
Few people know that Linus did not name linux, someone else did and the name stuck - It was never an exercise in ego as RMS says, unlike his continual badgering of Troll and the KDE people long after Qt was GPLed. The orginal Troll licence wasn't as bad as people said it was (few bothered to read it before complaining!), and the companys attitude was always good (it hasn't been source under glass for years if ever, many people outside of Troll contributed patches five years ago), and the company reacted to flames by steadily improving the terms of their licence. They got it into a good state, but it wasn't the GPL licence, so they still got flamed. They made it GPL, and now finally the flames have died from everywhere except from RMS.
On the positive side, I suspect that making putting Qt on the GPL was the best thing for the gnome project, it removed the political motivations and the desire to have the same release numbers as KDE, whether people thought it was ready to be called 1.0 or not. From the perspective of a user, gtk is now back to being as stable as it was before all the fuss, although somewhat larger with some weird dependencies.
I for one, dislike it when I've been calling the OS Linux for several years before the gnu prefix was even suggested, and then suddenly large numbers of people reply to any mention of the word linux that I'm using the wrong name. It tends to turn any thread into a political one
Check out http://archives.e-insite.net/archives/ednmag/reg/1 997/091297/19df_01.htm for an article published in September 1997 comparing several real-time add-ins for Windows NT, doing things like sharing interrupts and running Windows as a low-priority task under an RTOS kernel.