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.

Comments

Has the GPL ever been successfullly enforced?

[ellem]

Has the GPL ever been successfullly enforced?

Has it even needed to be enforced?

Re:Has the GPL ever been successfullly enforced?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yes. It has always been successfully enforced. It has never come to court though.

Copyright Holder?

[Zwack]

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.

Re:Copyright Holder?

[JesseL]

I think Linus is the original copyright holder, but much of the kernel code now is copyrighted by it's respective contributors.

I hope they do the wrong thing.

[Win-Developer]

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?

Re:I hope they do the wrong thing.

[Azog]

Actually, I think there's a much more serious copyright violation of the GPL license going on. At least RTLinux makes the souce code available (contrary to the posted story, sigh, usual Slashdot fact checking...)

Anyway, the company LinuxDA has made modifications to Linux (the kernel) to run it on Palm Pilots. A demo version is freely available for download. (see http://www.linuxda.com/download/index.html)

There's a "Coming Soon" spot on that page for "Source Code For Linux Kernel". But it has been months, and no source has shown up.

Not only that, but they have been asked (by Rick Van Riel, one of the significant contributors and copyright holders of the Linux Kernel) to provide source.

They still have not provided source.

I sent them an email about this, and got the following form letter:

Dear User:

We are committed to the Linux Open Source Movement.

We are currently working on making the source code for the modifications to
the Linux kernel available. Please continue to check www.linuxda.com for
download availability.

Thank you for your continual patience and support.

Best Regards,
Linux DA Customer Support Team

I sent them another letter asking them if they thought they were violating the terms of the GPL by allowing months to go by without releasing the source, and if not, why not, but got no reply.

I also pointed out that it's not difficult to provide source (make mrproper, tar cvzf linuxda.tar.gz *, then ftp the file to the web site... it would take about 10 minutes.) Obviously they are purposely dragging their feet, and I'm a lot more worried that someone is getting away with that than the RTLinux patent thing.

The Open RTLinux Patent License

[mblase]

...is listed on their site here. Anyone who can translate this into plain English, please do so. IANAL.

Re:The Open RTLinux Patent License

[TheFuzzy]

As an unlicensed contract lawyer, it's actually pretty clear ...

The patent restriction requires all users of the RTLinux code to comply with the GPL or make a seperate commercial license with Yodiaken. This is, IMHO, a good thing that extends "copyleft" to the patent world.

On the other hand, the Patent adds some additional restrictions not normally contained in the GPL:

5. To require any recipient of your product based on RTLinux code to send an e-mail to Yodiaken with their contact info;

6. To keep detailed records of commercial uses of RTLinux, to be furnished to Yodiaken on demand.

All of the other clauses either repeat the above or support the terms of the GPL.

Frankly, overall Yodiaken seems to be a staunch upholder of the GPL and using his patent to uphold it. I can't understand why Stallman is freaking about Yodiaken's demand to collect a little demographic information.

Surely this is something that could be worked out with Yodiaken or simply ignored? Sheesh!

-Josh

If there intent was IP...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Why didn't the RTLinux team focus on an xBSD solution?
Linux was intended to be incompatible with "Free for me, but not for you."

jeremiah cornelius

Linus involvement?

[jeffy124]

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?

CmdrTaco made a factual error

[bkuhn]

CmdrTaco made a factual error in his statement above, so please do follow the link and read the details.

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.

Re:I think Richard M. Stallman holds the copyright

[geekoid]

The kernel is Linux. not GNU/Linux.
Linux distributed with GNU packages are(acording to RMS)GNU/Linux

Once again you have it wrong

[SurfsUp]

basically they say that RTLinux is violating the GPL by not releasing the source to their Linux kernel mods

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? ;-)

RTF-GPL

[Darth RadaR]

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.

So how is it implemented?

[Sabalon]

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.

GNU is an operating system?

[Merk]

GNU is a Free Software Unix-like operating system. GNU/Linux is the integrated combination of the GNU operating system with the kernel, Linux.

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...

Kinda offtopic

[ryanvm]

This is somewhat peripheral to the story, but I have a question that revolves around the GPL and copyright holders.

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.

'GPL violations'

[SmileyBen]

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.

Patent link here.

[small_dick]

Yodaiken's Patent on running the kernel as a RT process

Re:opposition to patents stifles innovation

[Genom]

Please.

Nothing stopped the RTLinux people from "innovating". Unless you define "innovating" as "using copyright to prevent distribution".

Nothing forced the RTLinux guys to use the Linux sources as their basis, and thus accept the terms of the GPL -- they could have used BSD sources and avoided these issues. Instead, they used the Linux sources, and accepted the GPL license they came with. Plain and simple.

Noone is saying that they couldn't innovate, or turn a profit. They just have to abide by the terms they agreed to when they used the Linux sources =)

Re:opposition to patents stifles innovation

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I've got little sympathy with the guy. Whether his patent is valid or not- the licence he agreed to when he took (took as in stole) the GNU/Linux software and added his patented code to it is pretty clear; and there's descriptions of the GPL all over the net. He could have written his own OS, or distributed patches or closed source modules or device drivers. Or he could still go around and ask every single designer of every single patch to the Linux OS to relicense their code for him to use. Good luck with that.

Now, this version of his software is going to be GPLd. The GNU/Linux designers licensed him their code on that basis. He took it and used it, and he has to pay for what he took. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Unfair? Probably not. You work out the ratio of the code that he wrote to the code they wrote.

xStore DiscZerver - GPL Violation

[BRTB]

Speaking of GPL violations, I found a pretty flagrant one at work a few weeks ago...

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?

Victor may be right, though.

[chrisd]

Please read this entire message before replying.

Note:

• a) Victor has a patent on the methods he used to apply real time features to the (GPLd) Linux Kernel
• 
  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