Slashdot Mirror
GPL Violation, Microtest's DiskZerver
Slashdot reader brtb reports:
About a year ago my employer, a local high school, purchased a couple MicroTest "DiskZervers," network-attached-storage boxes designed to cache CD images for LAN usage. We were mainly Netware-and-Win95 at that time, and the Zervers performed flawlessly in that configuration. But problems began when the district IT department made the decision to switch us over to an NT-domain setup. The Zervers, even with their advertised "Domain Integration" support, didn't seem to like this too well, so I dug a little deeper... imagine my surprise when I found out the boxes are actually embedded 486's with Linux and a whole slew of other GPL'ed software, mentioned nowhere in the manuals or on the accompanying software CD.
Apparently, Microtest (NAS division since sold to XStore) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x-ALPHA (!!!), 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 sold it as their "DiscZerver" product line. They also used some non-GPL packages, including Apache and Netatalk (macintosh server). Nothing wrong with their methods, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.
The web interface and proprietary Windows front-end, the only given methods of configuring the device, refer to the various services 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 useful tech support from this company, much less someone to ask about getting the source code for the software and whatever modifications they made, which includes a flash file-system driver ("yaffs" - I think MicroTest wrote it, as I can't find any info on it) for the kernel. I did manage to hack out the hidden-from-customers root password; 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 with the limited information I had before I got shell access, 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 the programs I knew of at the time (and actually suggested I post to Slashdot to get some answers). xStore itself has not returned my emails or phone call. I have another e-mail in to the FSF, now that I know the machine includes glibc1.
So, right now I have a nice little piece of hardware, some mis-compiled (I think) software, and no idea what to do next. At the very least, I learned that my usual policy of disassembling and analyzing any new hardware we get is the right one; of course that doesn't help all the LAN users that need access to these CDs. I'd be happy if I could just get the code so I can fix SMBd/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 cached CD images (thankfully just standard .ISO's) off the Zerver's CD-storage hard drive into my other Linux server, compile and install Samba correctly (works great if you do it right) , and get on with life... but I really shouldn't have to do either. Any ideas?
I'm only familiar in passing with the GPL, but understand the reasoning behind it at what it hopes to do. So, when violations are found such as this, "who" goes after them to either a) get the code released,
or b)sue the manufacturer?
The EFF? The FSF?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
If they put up an FTP site that includes a) all the original source code used for the product, and b) all the modifications, there should not be a problem. The GPL allows the sale of products based on GPL'd code, but you have to give your changes back to your customers. They probably only have to give the source code and their changes to customers, though, and not to the general public.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
What is with all of the GPL violations reccently? Are companies just using open source more without providing the source or are they cracking down on violators?
my sig sucks.
This gives Microsoft a great platform to stand on when they say that GPL software is flung together w/out the backing of a company that can provide the fiscal support needed to "properly" develop software...
Shame on DiskZerver (or however it's spelled) for tarnishing the GPL name w/ an obviously misguided and unplanned product... Simply gives us more motivation to create products that are good, durable and legal while still holding a GPL license.
And now some of you who say the FSF (and by extension, RMS) are "control freaks" since they ask that the copyright of GNU stuff be assigned to them see the reason why.
It isn't about control: it's about protection.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
and make sure they know you do, and make sure they know you will never buy from them again or their affiliates until they fix the problem, and actually do that if you have to. It could be more complex, but the far too obvious first thing is to hit them where it hurts, and since their goals is to make a profit, eliminating that should wake them up. What is so hard?
Slashdot them into non-existance, er, compliance! "They have yet to comment. In situations like this, what should a company do to bring such a glaring GPL violation back into compliance? "
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
If whoever holds the license on whatever software they took does not press copyright issues, then the free software licenses will never be taken seriously.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/whiskeyjuvenile/
How did you figure out that the product was full of GPL code and such? From the looks of things, it appears you had to reverse engineer binary code and hack out a root passwd. IANAL, but chances are good xStore put in the license agreement that you werent allowed to do those two things. You may run into trouble with that should everything turn out legit. Yes, they may have breached the GPL, but their agreement probably restricted you from those activities.
Basically, it's an issue of risk. If it turns out that they have no GPL violations, then you could get nailed for breaking the license they provided. On the other hand, you could show that they broke the GPL prior to specifying the license terms you use the product with, either voiding their license or something of that nature.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
My first guess is that XStore didn't do enough due diligence, or if they did, then they ignored what they found out. Even if they did some, it may well be that Microtest is liable - what's scary will be how _much_ they're liable for. This may well turn into a very interesting test case - will XStore have to publish all the code they've changed? Will they have to pay damages? Possibly most worrying for a commercial software company (which they seem to be) is that if they've done their own development (or paid for development in the sense that they bought the product), then the Intellectual Property that they thought they owned may end up having to be made available to everyone. It'll be a very interesting case if someone decides to prosecute.
... release the code and start working on their own code from scratch...
I thought that was understood...
Alternatively, if they can contact the author, they could arrange for a specific license that is different from GPL, and that would allow them to "buy" that code. They'd still face competition from the existing GPL code though.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
From reading the snippet hear, it sounds like they put a whole bunch of pieces together into a box, and shipped it, after adding on a new admin tool.
/. hearsay.
Since (I'm guessing) the admin tool probably just modifies the config files, I fail to see how that could possibly be a GPL violation.
There is mention of a modified kernel, but without further info, I will take that to mean almost anything from radically modified code to a loadable module, which could be on both spectrums - details? Without, it is just the normal
So, they slapped together a box and shipped it out without mentioning Linux or GNU. Does the GPL say anything about this? If they have not made any mods are they still required by the GPL to have the same offer?
What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs.
If they don't obey the GPL and might Allah, we should declare an open-source jihad and ram airplanes into their office buildings! Heil bin Laden!
You sound like you are on the right track. Move those ISO images to cache on another box and set up SAMBA for them. Now your users can have access to those files.
Now with your Zservers, you can either send them back to the manufacturer citing the fact that they are illegally manufactured, request source code to fix it yourself (Good luck), or just keep hacking at it yourself (My approach).
The real problem with the FSF is that more holders of copylefts need to transfer some power of attorney to the FSF so that the GPL can be enforced in these cases. As it is, the FSF can only be a watchdog (which it does well) and not the pit bull of open source we want it to be. If the holders of copylefts don't care that their work is being commercialized and closed without their permission, the Open Source movement becomes a grab bag of free technology to be made unfree by the corporations.
GPL is moot when it comes to Embedded Systems!
You're not supposed to access the software on
these directly! Even Stallman admits as much
(check out the FSF philosophy pages)
If someone puts Linux on a toaster, he doesn't
have to supply you with source!
Smells like rotting meat to me .. whhheeeee
Im sure there is more out there.
Vultures are masses in business,and my guess is
that many more companies are doing the same.
Does "rectifying" something mean "putting it where the sun don't shine"?
If so, I don't even want to know what the "handling" is all about.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I thought *demanding* that credit be given for code used was the major "non-gpl compatible" problem with the old BSD licenses advertising clause. Now, it's another case entirely to argue about not supplying source code after modifications, and frankly IANAL. However, this tirade about not giving credit where credit is due seems more than just a little bit hypocritical...
And here is where you insert all the usual "let's get all the facts before going on a tirade" sort of speech. I'm frankly too tired of the whole thing to spell it out.
when I read the title I saw Microsoft.....woops, I was jumping for joy over that and the Anti-trust...then I looked again....ahhwell......
just as good though.
So who is going to go after these dudes?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
That about sums it up. Of course companies are going to do this! You'd have to be a stupid company NOT to do this! There's no company with deep pockets to fight this, and it's very easy to bundle GPL'ed software into your closed source without telling anybody. This is probably happening all over the place, but there's no way of knowing for sure. As this happens more and more, there are going to be fewer and fewer people developing OSS applications.
Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.
If they have not made any mods are they still required by the GPL to have the same offer?
Yes. Again, section 1.
What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs
I don't see what the pain is in putting the GPL in your manual along with a written offer to provide source (see section 3 b) of the GPL).
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
You do realize that even if they provided the source code to all this misbehaving software (which you can get anyway, unless they've modified it beyond simply stripping out copyright information) you would still need the right hardware and/or software to reflash your device -- and the company is under no obligation to provide either.
.. for opensource bashing.
Most problem seems to arise because they didn't open up all sources as they had to.
Otherwise someone had noticed the problems earlier and there would be code around now for fixing.
If MS is really so silly to use this for bashing, then I'll guess that this might terribly backfire.
From what I have read, they used Samba, an alpha version. They used Apache, they use a number of other tools. They added a filesystem driver to Linux. I believe Linux specifically has an exception for loadable modules. It is entirely possible that there is nothing illegal. From the article, it appears the only thing they did was add a filesystem to Linux in a binary only format, if it is a loadable modules, they are pretty much in the clear. If they don't you should go talk with a number of video card makers.
If they didn't actually modify any of those tools they are not required to publish that, they aren't required to tell you they are using it. If the modify the binaries of a GPL'ed or LGPL'ed software they have to give you the modifications. If the configuration is seperate apache, with no apache mods, they don't owe anybody anything.
If you describe what source you think they tweaked, and how you know they did, that would be mighty useful, but there is nothing that is specifically in violation of the GPL from what you have described.
All things considered, I wouldn't buy one of those, I have enough Linux knowledge to assemble one myself. Nothing terribly complicated there.
Well, this brings up interesting issues over whether the code was actually extended, over whether the GPL covers software embedded in a hardware system (gee, sounds like patent law) etc. etc. Again, if they just sold a product using that software, without modifying it, then they're under no obligation to do anything. Presumably, the value of their product is not in the software, so opening up any extensions they DID make would probably not harm them at all--after all, they're the ones selling the hardware that makes the product valuable.
Of course, with there being no legal test of the GPL yet, a company with some resources could just ignore the GPL "at their peril" and see what happens. Could be it gets overturned in court, if they're willing to pay the legal bills.
Yet Another reason why GPL software sucks for making $$$
If I hack up a box to provide services in a non-standard way, ie, I modify smb.conf, httpd.conf, and probably other files as well to proprietize "my product", is that a GPL violation?
Is it really a GPL violation, or is it a standard machine that's been configured in a nonstandard way?
First:
... but [FSF] were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of the programs I knew of at the time ...
MicroTest could have done things simple just by printing a Readme-first documet stating that their system is built upon GPL'd software and printing the links to ftp-sites where it could be downloaded. Should sombody ask for the sourcecode it wouldn't be very hard having an ISO-image laying around with all the source on it. (One could say MicroTest acted a bit stupid.)
Second:
I would like to see the next version of the GPL including a clause granting FSF the right to sue on behalf of the copyrightholder(s.)
Look a monkey!
Contact info from their webpage (which will hopefully be Slashdotted by the time this is posted) is below:
Corporate Address:
xStore
Federal Highway Center
1200 North Federal Highway
Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 34432
Phone:(561)447-8236
Doesn't the FSF hold the copyright to glibc? Why don't they pursue this since their code is shipped
as well. It's very difficult (if not possible)
to put together a Linux system without using
GNU tools. Isn't that why Stallman wants everyone to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux.
Don't read this sig cause it's not worth it.
> They probably only have to give the source code and their changes to customers, though, and not to the general public
What makes you think that?
Why wouldnt they have to give the code to the general public?
They did after all steal the code from the general public.
Having already profiteered and exploited GPL code i think financial reparations would be in order (but of course who gets what and how much? i class action suit perhaps?).
If the company was declared bankrupt before they were bought out then it would be very harsh to expect reparations fromt the current owner so long as they promptly releases the code as they are obliged to do.
--
(Moderators, if you disagree then its Flamebait|Overated, not Troll or better yet just leave me and my battered karma alone)
Thank you Anonymous Coward! Thank You!
-- Jeff Paulsen
Well at least they found a way to make money on free software an linux!. So quit your crying! This is such a Pro linux Free software board people complain how one can make money on it.. well here you go.
Im not a lawer but from what little i knowcontract law just doesn't work like that.
...
If you tried to use a contract or license to try and make GPL code secret then the contract is would be bogus.
However if the code is not GPL and you got caught then you have to deal with the DMCA, and try and argue your right to reverse engineer.
And then there is the UCITA nonsense trying to legitimise shrink wrap licenses
You can already download all the stuff you need to make a CD tower/cache/jukebox thing. So what if you don't have the flash filesystem. If you're going to build it yourself you could just boot of the harddrive that is storing the CD cache.
If it is only a couple hundred dollars I would buy it to save the trouble of building a machine and installing the software. Time == $$ and if you can save a person time you have a product to sell.
Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
People have been saying for years that embedded systems need not fear from open source zealots.
since the software wasn't distributed separate from the hardware, it is hard to know if this fits
the definition of a distribution within its meaning in the GPL.
This is the reason that our systems are based on FreeBSD. We have a niche market (high precision timing systems) where we still have a lot of proprietary IP. FreeBSD lets us deploy that
without fear of GPL forcing issues.
And before anybody says anything, the company has
paid me for many hours of FreeBSD bug fixes over the years and contributes back to FreeBSD all that
we can because we know that it is in our best financial interst. FreeBSD isn't our compeditive
advantage, our ability to do high precision timing
systems is.
Maybe I don't get it, but how is what this company did (building a closed product based on Linux and other GPL components) different from what TiVo did? And if they're not different, why isn't everyone rallying against TiVo to get their source mods?
Their license states explicitly that THEY own all of the software on the device and that you may not attempt to reverse engineer the product.
So I guess they are saying that they wrote their own OS with utilities supporting all of the same file sharing mechanisms that Linux is known to support and that they own the whole ball of wax. That's a good one.
Sorry, I'd have cut and pasted the license in here but it was in PDF format.
-josh
I have noticed that a company called Shuffle Master promote quite proudly their "proprietary Linux based operating system". That seems to me to indicate that they are using GPL'd code and not releasing their changes. I emailed the FSF about this, but I never got a response. Oh well, I tried.
when one of my collegues reviewed microtest's "zerver" products (they have a few with that name) back in june of 1999, the company was quite forthright in admitting it was a linux based device. check out one of our reviews here:
9 9/ june/4_2043.htm
http://www.imagingmagazine.com/db_area/archs/19
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Losers I liked to see you try and win this cases
Oh my god. We are in the presence of greatness. For those of you who do not recognize this grand master's work, let me enlighten you. This is the author of, "All your base are belong to us".
Truly a genius of absurdist prose.
The brutality with which he murders the English language while equivocating multiple meanings boggles the mind.
He starts out with what appears to be valid english . Then throws a plot twist at thte reader by using words and phrases in ways so vile, so twisted, so ludicrous; it would make Tarentino shiver.
Bravo on another work of linguistic horror! Bravo!
You can never equivocate too much.
First of all I think that Slashdot is being just a little bit one sided in their presentation of this article. From reading the title of the story and the little blurb with it you would think that there would be a lot more evidence of a violation.
I would venture to say that a device like this could be put together without changing one bit of GPL software. The kernel does support flash devices. And it sounds like all the other programs are pretty stock. I belive the writer said the interface was a web interface and some windows interface...well the code for the website does not have to be GPL'ed and the user app on the box that's listening to fulfill configuration requests does not have to be either. And if there is a flash file system module, it could easily be a binary only module, not compiled in with the kernel. Last time I checked you do not have to put a GPL inside sticker on your box if it's running Linux. This sounds more like a case of a company that is just not responding to anything, not just GPL code requests. I think we need more evidence before reaching any conclusions...
Alright enough of my stupid ranting...
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
A thought: copyright violation is not only a civil but a criminal matter. Why not document the thing and get the authorities involved ?
After all, this was large scale unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material for commercial gain. Inst that a textbook case ?
f.
Look. Follow the bouncing ball.
The GNU General Public License
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.)
3. c) does not apply here, as they are a commercial entity.
So, the following are true.
Distribution is an exclusive right of copyright holders (17 USC)
xStore is not the copyright holder of some of the software on the machine.
The copyright holder chooses to license his exclusive distribution right under the terms of the GPL.
xStore is distributing this software in "object code or executable form"
The distribution is commercial in nature
As a result, xStore must either provide the source code with the machine or provide a written offer of the source code - whether or not they are distributing a modified or derivative work.
xStore has not done this
Thus, xStore is in breach of contract.
I'm probably in the minority on this opinion, but maybe they should just change their license. Create a new "version" of the software released under a different license and sell it commercially. Some people fail to evaluate their business model before they license their software, this is unfortunate.
Also, maybe they should try a less "viral" license, such as BSD.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the GPL, but I think we've all seen that it's not the best choice in some situations.
... jumping all over Microtest. I've had good experiences working with them and this product.
:)
First off... we have one of these. I love the darned thing. Easy to admin. Always seems to work... no fuss at all. (In a fairly heavily NT environment, no less.)
Some things I am wondering:
Do we know that there is actually modified code, or is that just a guess? It seemed to me that they just used a linux system and related software as the OS for a network appliance. I don't think the GPL has a problem with that, unless they modify the software. If there is any violation, (it does look like ther is) it is simply not mentioning its use and possibly not making the source of the programs distributed in the product available upon request. (Did anyone ask them for it, and did they refuse when asked? Or was it simply assumed they would refuse because it wasn't advertised with the product... which it probably should have been... but I see those as different severities of violation.)
As far as his problems go... is he running the latest firmware for the Zerver? He didn't say.
Another thing... the fact that this is a linux box is not exactly hidden. The case is not sealed, and you can see that it is simply a tiny PC with flash memory. And if you simply look at the logs (through the web interface... just click on a link) it is blaringly obvious. It is just a standard syslog, listing all of the programs and kernel messages in all of their glory. (If they were trying to hide the fact that it was a linux machine with GPL/other licensed software on it, I doubt they'd give you a simple link to look at the real syslog.)
Lastly... I have no idea who this new company is, or what their support is like. But Microtest was (at least back then) outstanding. The few times I needed to talk to them, I got a person who knew what they were talking about immediately. They were responsive, answered all questions, and fixed everything I needed. I even talked to them about how the log looked like it was a linux box... and they were like "yeah, it works great and does exactly what we need!". I asked about whether the SMB server was samba, and the web server was apache, and so on. They gave a "yes" to all of those questions, were up completely up front with all information, and were quite excited about it all. (This was back when the product was fairly new, and before the big "linux craze" hit a year or two ago.)
Anyway, from my impression of working with them (Microtest) and this product, I'm not so sure this is an maliciously intentional license violation. I'm not saying there isn't one (It does look like there is) but I suggest talking to them first before getting serious about getting on their case. They just never appeared to be trying to hide anything from what I could tell. I frankly wouldn't be suprised if they just said "Oh! sorry. Completely forgot about that. Here you go..." and that was it. (If I'm wrong... well, I'm wrong. Jump on their ass big time.)
Perhaps I should've asked them about the source code back then... I didn't because I didn't need it, and the product worked.
I dunno... they just seemed like a good company with good people and a good product. If they're really screwing us over for real, then hang 'em high, I guess. Perhaps the people I worked with are gone. But I just thought I should share this before they get put on trial.
It is very easy to obtain and use products without ever agreeing to a license.
For all the bitching out Microsoft licenses, I bet only .001% of the users have actually bound themselves to the silly terms. Think about what conditions would have to take place for someone to want to agree to it: you'll turn up a blank.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Call microtest:
602-952-6400
or
602-952-6401
ask when the press release will be out about the possible gpl - gnu public license violation with regards to the DiskZerver NAS device.
fill up the Press releaser's voice mail.
get a good night's sleep and see what heppens.
-aicra
Uhhh tough shit even if it is a pain. That's the price they pay for not having to do their own coding. We have to pay in currency for their products, thay have to pay according to the licensing rules. I think we're providing a much better deal: just follow these rules and you can use our work.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Do nothing! Personally, I can't wait to see the parasitic GPL go to court and lose. If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it. That isn't freedom, it's not even communism, it's just tyranny with a pretty face.
For what it's worth, if you don't want the hassle of going to court and being the martyr that pays through the nose to defeat this nonsense, just use BSD. Besides being more stable and closer to true unix, BSD licenses basically let you do whatever you like. This is why BSD has been a mainstay of appliances for years (and will remain so); that's what runs on this Snap! fileserver I've been playing with all day.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
samba
very sloppy, no wonder he got caught
All that they had to do was give notice that there was GPL code involved (kinda like intel inside) and there would be no problem. Go look at the first section (it is at www.fsf.org). They are under no obligation to distribute anything (assuming that they didn't make any modifications to GPL'd code), but they cannot hide the GPL-ish ness of the product.
Just wanted to note that I just now saw BRTB's post where he said he did see the logs, and all of that. (I wonder if these new "xStore" guys are just a bunch of jerks and won't give out any info? I checked out their site and it totally sucks. There's almost nothing there. The support page for these things on Microtest's site was great. There's no comparison at all... what a shame.)
Actually, if they didn't change the source, you should refer to Article 3. Article 1 refers to source code. I'm not completely sure, but from reading article 3 it sounds like if the source is available then you are fine, which the kernel, samba, etc. except you have to tell the people where the source is...That means I have to change my response, it does turn out I was wrong, after R'ingTFM, or the GPL for that matter, I didn't realize that you do need to tell how/where to get the source code even it is knowingly available, either by providing it with the software or a written offer for getting it.
:-P
From GPL: "Article 3...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 hope I didn't viloate the GPL by copying part of the GPL...
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
IANAL, but it doesn't take one to see that the only people who have potentially grounds to sue are the direct authors of the GPL'd works in question. And at most their recovery will be a portion of the revenues of the "infringer," since as the GPL authors have already essentially given up their right to directly profit from the work, the claimant will have woefully little basis to demonstrate damages.
(jumping ahead a few steps, but in the interest of keeping this post short,) therefore, it is not a bad strategy for for-profit companies to ignore the GPL and simply include GPL'd code in commercial products. Doubly true considering that much code can be included into obscure compiled binaries where the chances of getting caught are quite slim.
Furthermore (gets on rant horse). Can one of you stallman-swallowers please explain to us Normals your duplicity when it comes to licences? How many of you guys "sticking it to the man and his restrictive licences" when you, oh, I don't know, encourage piracy of content and software by using "anti-censorship" systems such as the peer-to-peer flavor of the week, are also getting your panties in a wad when somebody abuses a restriction of the GPL?
Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.
Not necessarily. Section 1 is of the form "you may do X if you do Y". Just because they did X doesn't mean they have to do Y. Interestingly, if they did make changes, then they don't have to release the source. Look at section 2, of the form "you may do B if you do C". It allows you to modify the Program and distribute copies as long as you provide prominent notices and relicense the derivitive work under the GPL. There is absolutely no requirement to release the source code.
In order to get the rights of section 3, you must follow both sections 1 and 2, but in order to get the rights of section 2 there is no requirement to follow section 1.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Phone numbers, addresses and email addresses are all located here:
http://www.xstoreonline.com/contactus.htm
They run M$'$ crappy OS on their webserver: Netcraft tells all...
GPL violations piss me off!
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
You know what? I just changed my mind. I just looked at the license page in the manual. Not only do they not give any credit (which could perhaps be an oversight) they explicitly claim EVERYTHING. Here it is:
License and Warranty Provisions
This manual and the product described in it have been protected internationally by
copyright and other applicable laws with all rights reserved. You may not remove or
conceal any trademark, patent or copyright notice appearing on the product or this
manual. Microtest remains the sole owner of the software programs that are part of this
product. Microtest grants you a nonexclusive license to use these software programs.
This license is for a single fileserver only. You may not make any copies of the software
other than as a backup copy for your own use. You may not sell, rent, lease, lend,
distribute or otherwise transfer copies of the software or this manual to others, except
that you may permanently transfer all copies of the software in your possession
(including any backups) and all related materials as a set to another person who
accepts the terms of this license agreement. You may not modify, transcribe, translate,
decompile, reverse engineer or reverse assemble the software, or create any derivative
works from it. Microtest may terminate this license at any time without notice if you
breach any of these terms. If any provision of this license is held to be unenforceable or
contrary to any applicable law, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be
affected.
Here's the particlar part of that turns me:
Microtest remains the sole owner of the software programs that are part of this
product.
This sucks, and that is just plain stupid. I figure that a standard boilerplate license got slapped on it, and there may be some miscommunication/disconnection between the developers and the legal department. (Who knows, maybe thats why they discontinued and sold the entire division?)
Throw the book at 'em.
How did you figure out that the product was full of GPL code and such? From the looks of things, it appears you had to reverse engineer binary code and hack out a root passwd. IANAL, but chances are good xStore put in the license agreement that you werent allowed to do those two things. You may run into trouble with that should everything turn out legit. Yes, they may have breached the GPL, but their agreement probably restricted you from those activities.
And under the DCMA, that gives them the right to sue you.
Catch 22.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
It's not even that much of a pain. All they have to do is to provide a CD with the product that contains their source code. That's not a terrible hassle or expense, you know. They don't even have to do that; they can simply include a note in the product literature that the source is available on request for such-and-such a fee for medium, shipping, and handling, or for download on their web-site. The chances are that only a tiny fraction of their customers would want to see it anyway, and most of them would download it from the ftp site (at virtually no cost) instead of actually requesting the physical medium (in which case you can charge them costs). It's hard to see that doing that is actually a significant problem.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
For anyone who cares (I hope somebody at GNU sees this), thirdpig is doing exactly the same thing with their "BrickHOUSE" secure web server appliance. It runs a linux kernel slightly modified to do 'Process Based Authentication'.
Of course nobody would ever know this, because the only way to administer the system is with their custom, windows only, administration utility. Pretty sneaky, but not sneaky enough.
For anyone who cares, you can read more about the appliance here.
This case brings up the interesting question not just about this particular GPL violation, but also how many other GPL violations are out there that have so far gone undetected. If these idiots (who did little to disguise their theft) went undetected until they sold their product and the rights to their product, how many other thieves have stolen GPL code and cleverly hidden the proof, while profiting from other people's hard work?
Scary thought.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
when i first read this i thought it said microsoft's diskserver. then i was like, microsoft, GPL, WTF??!
yep.
The GPL isn't even close to tyranny. Here's why...
"inventing a new maneuver" would indicate a new implimentation of "fishing". This would be anagalous to reading the source code of Samba and then writing your own implimentation of the SMB protocol, but not using the actual code. This is perfectly valid under the GPL.
However, if after reading a book I wrote and GPL'd on fishing, and if you came up with a new maneuver BASED on one you read, then yes, you'd have to share. It's not tyranny, because nobody is forcing you to read my book. If you don't like the rules, come up with your own fishing trick on your own.
Don't complain that I'm making you release your fishing technique if you couldn't come up with it on your own.
It interfaces with GPL software (apparently), but that doesn't mean they owe you the source to that. You don't directly say that, but it seems implied in the original story submission.
It doesn't matter if it is embeded or not.
If GPL code is distributed, the source MUST be provided or otherwise made available.
The fact that the machine itself is locked up so you can't access it is irrelevant.
Actually, it's "You may do X *provided* you do Y". You can only do X on condition of doing Y also. Same with Section 2: "You may do B *provided* you do C".
Big difference between "if" and "provided".
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
I would tend to agree. On the other hand, I think the problem is not so much with recognized brand names, but when someone registers a domain with their last name that happens to be the name of a big corporation. There have been more than a few instances where the big company came in and stomped the guy because they had money and he didn't. He wasn't cybersquatting in this case....unless you consider posting your song lyrics and pictures of your kids cybersaquatting.
think the main issue is not that there is an international organization deciding this stuff. I think it is more that they have no oversite (oversight?). What they say goes, and screw you if you don't like it. That is a sucky attitude to begin with, and in obviously non-cybersquatting rulings in favor of a trademark holder, it just seems like a big bully taking the candy away from a baby.
See Microsoft article....Microsoft bad. HURRY AND POST FLAME ON SLASHDOT!
See Linux zealots see Microsoft article....Microsoft bad. HURRY AND POST FLAMES ABOUT CAPITALISM AND MICROSOFT!
See someone read article about Microsoft. Read EULA......oops, Microsoft not so bad. HURRY AND BURY THE STORY!
Pathetic.
And, YES, I can install and have used Linux, can compile my own kernel, make it do all the crap it needs to do to get the job done.
These are all MY ORIGIONAL IDEAS not anyone elses. The copyright to these comments belong to ME!!!!!
OK, xStore thought they were buying something from Microtest (proprietary software), but in fact they were getting something entirely different (allegedly GPL'd software). Wouldn't that constitute fraud of some sort on Microtest's part?
Well, that's really two very different situations. When someone sells GPLed software w/out source, they either
- agreed to the license (which gave them rights to distribute derivative works) and are violating it
- or they didn't agree to the license (which would have given them distribution rights), and they are violating copyright.
When someone uses (in a manner not prohibited by copyright law) a commercial program in a way that conflicts with the EULA, there isn't that either/or situation. They either- agreed to the license and are violating it
- or they didn't agree to the license and they are
... doing nothing bad.
They key difference is that all the GPL violations that are getting covered onAs copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Just build another machine exactly like the original. Don't copy any code from the original, but use all the GPL'd software you can, and provide all the source on a CD. Market this heavily, with ads that look like the original DiskZerver. Wait until their legal deparment jumps, and see them in court!
In Murphy We Turst
the false advertizing that the machine could handle NT domains would void the licence, therefore he is within his right to do whatever he feels like, kinda .
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Re-release it under the LGPL and date it 2 years ago. Simple solution.
Xstore paid for the IP assets of that Microtest. They paid for, among other things, custom software, from that DiskZerver, which turned out to be stolen GPL ware.
That is fraud. Very simple. Very defined under the law. Very easy to determine who to sue, and the outcome is very likely a judgement against Microtest, possible criminal charges as well. Not for using GPL ware, but for selling that which you do not own.
All without DMCA or any other new BS laws being necessary.
Big difference between "if" and "provided".
Explain to me how "You may go to a concert if you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert if you do your homework on Friday."
is different from "You may go to a concert provided you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert provided you do your homework on Friday."
In both instances you do not have to do your Thurday homework to be permitted to go to the Monday concert, even though going to the Monday concert implies going to a concert. There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
After all, it is only recently that Microsoft was the clear laggard behind various *nixes and Mac in terms of stability and other issues. (Still is in some categories.) If you were a Microsoft engineer back in the late 80s / early 90s, and you were tasked with building the company's first server-grade OS, where would you look for ideas?
And how would anyone know since the source isn't released to the public?
Gotta wonder
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
The actions they took do not qualify as subsection a) and as a commercial product they do not qualify under subsection c). Their secretiveness does not allow us to interpret their actions as fulfilling subsection b). Perhaps they took MS's word that it was all MS IP and didn't need any GPL handling? Ross
Big difference between "if" and "provided".
According to dictionary.com, "provided" means "On the condition; if" em mine.
Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.
There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".
"provided" has stronger conotations than "if".
"provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y", whereas "if" is a little weaker in conotation: "if you do Y then you may do X".
Shades of meaning, and "provided" has a stronger meaning than "if".
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
are pretty nifty little boxes, about the size of a zip or jaz drive (maybe a little larger.) I've worked with many of MicroTest's products, including some more expensive goodies, and almost everything is linux based. none of it is ever mentioned, either.
based on this discussion i'm going to check out the $2000 network diagnostic tool that I have of theirs and see if it's also linux based; I've always thought it was, but never really looked closely. we'll see.
but back to the original point, there's little reason to build a huge linux box with breakable physical components when you can just use a very simple unit with no moving parts that fits into a 5.25" bay.
plus, it was pretty cheap. worked pretty well for our needs when we used them. YMMV though.
EOM
...so you don't look like an utter fool. And "rectifying" something means fixing it, making it proper again.
What is your Slash Rating?
There's a big difference. "If" allows for the possibility that the eventual result could be accomplished even if the test fails -- that is, if it was stated that "You may x if you do y" it might also be possible to do x if you do not do y. "Provided" is closer to "if and only if" -- "You may do x if and only if you do y"
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Even if you are distributing unmodified binaries... you must still provide the original copyright/GNU license with the product, according to the GPL.
Go ahead , read it. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Even stallman agrees this is not good for embedded systems. Imagine every appliance you buy coming with pages and pages of copyrights. For what reason?
Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.
Because it showed that "provided" and "if" mean the same thing. It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".
"provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y"
Can you provide any backup to that assertion? I disagree, and so does dictionary.com (not that either is authoritative). Further, wouldn't your interpretation negate all dual licenses?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
So where can I download an embedded 486 microcontroller motherboard with Microtest's special customizations and flash ROM?
Well, where?
Nowhere. You have to buy their hardware to make the code useful.
Case closed. The GPL beats out all other licenses again.
*Sigh*. Go back and read the GPL - you've obviously completely misunderstood it.
*If* they make alterations to the source *and* distribute the resulting binaries, they *must* make an offer to the receiver of those binaries to provide the source code - including their changes.
Shh. Don't tell Dell; their business model is a sham. There's no way they could possibly be successful.
I can download Windows for free, though I have to admit - legality becomes an issue. If you want, we'll stick with downloading a copy of Linux. Though... piracy is a common "option" to many.
That leaves me with... software. No box. So I'll have to build my own whitebox. There's nothing Dell offers that I can't get, or at least find a suitable equivilent to, on my own.
So now I have my own Dell competitor. A product that might even be better than anything they offered. Perhapse cheaper depending on what options I went with.
Assuming I have the time and knowledge to put this all togeather.
The same goes for an embeded linux server product.
*If* they make alterations to the source *and* distribute the resulting binaries, they *must* make an offer to the receiver of those binaries to provide the source code - including their changes.
Where does it say that? What if they are the copyright owner of the source? What if they got permission from the copyright owner of the source? What if their distribution falls under fair use? What if the copyright is expired? What I read is that they may distribute the source (or derivitive works of the source) provided they also distribute the source.
Perhaps you're the one who has completely misunderstood the GPL.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I am a commercial vendor and we are porting a Windows product to Linux. How do we use Linux like we use Windows APIs without running afoul of GPL issues? I.e., we need to read HTTP pages, open and close sockets and other things in our application, but to do this means connecting to GPL code. How do we build our commercial application without violating the GPL?
Sorry dude but that argument is way off base.
He can hack up GPL code however he likes. You want to take a kernel binary and disassemble it? See if anybody complains. Since the code on that flash ROM is generally GPLed (and due to integration more than likely all the code is now) the company can't touch him.
Next thing you know, someone will sit outside my door and tell me I have to pay them $5 to get in my house or I'm breaking the law.
Then, after that, someone will argue I'm in trouble for not paying that guy his $5.
Of course, the guy _could_ have been in trouble if it turned out not to have included GPL software. In that case he probably wouldn't have posted to slashdot about his l33t hack, tho.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Sure... but they carry different conotations.
It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".
Huh? It certainly does imply that. "may" implies permission: the condition for that permission is that you do Y. If you do not do Y, then you do not have permission to do X. Said another way, in order to obtain permission to do X, you must fullfill the conditions spelled out in Y. If you do not fullfull those conditions, you don't have permission. I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Can you provide any backup to that assertion?
See above.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
I don't know why I bother replying to trolls, but here goes...
Where does it say that?
Go read the GPL.
What if they are the copyright owner of the source?
By definition, they're not; if it's GPL'd software that they did not develop originally, they hold copyright only to their changes, and distributing binaries based on the original GPL'd code + their changes requires that they provide the original code and their changes. Go read the GPL.
What if they got permission from the copyright owner of the source?
In that case, it's not GPL'd code - it's under a license that would read something like "The original author is letting me redistribute binaries based on his code without any restrictions". Go read the GPL.
What if their distribution falls under fair use?
OK, now you're just trolling. What do you mean, "fair use"? It's got zero to do with this case.
What if the copyright is expired?
Copyrights don't expire in the US for (I believe) 90 years - which sort of makes it a moot point, since we've only had computers for fifty or so...
What I read is that they may distribute the source (or derivitive works of the source) provided they also distribute the source.
And that's exactly what I said. Jerk.
My buddy told me about the domain name diskstorage.com...
I wonder if it would help xStore if they purchased this domain name:
"diskstorage.com"
from eBay's auction site?
See http://www.diskstorage.com/
Q. In situations like this, what should a company do to bring such a glaring GPL violation back into compliance?
A. Meet the terms of the license governing the non-original products.All the terms.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Go read the GPL.
Where in the GPL does it say "We were just kidding about section 2, you have to distribute the source code, too"?ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
AFAIK, they are only obligated to provide machine-readable source code to the person to whom they gave the binary executables.
The GNU General Public License, section 3(b), requires licensees who redistribute the software to make the source code available at cost "to any third party," i.e. to parties who have not necessarily purchased the device containing the software.
I just found a loophole in the GNU GPL! The "source code" could be in a proprietary language (as long as it remains the preferred form for modification), as the GPL does not require the compiler to be distributed. (Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use MSVC or VB to compile GPL software.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I suspect it's SASH. It doesn't seem to state what it's license is, but it isn't clearly GPL. The extent of the "license" seems to be:
* Copyright (c) 1999 by David I. Bell
* Permission is granted to use, distribute, or modify this source,
* provided that this copyright notice remains intact.
*
RMS opposes patents on software, except for very special purpose software used very close to hardware. Interestingly, Transmetas codemorphing software doses not belong into this category.
Stallman is however absolutely opposed to proprietary software used in embeded devices! In fact his first, traumatic contact with proprietary software happened to be a Xerox printer for his lab back in the early eighties.
AFAIK, for every GPL violation so far, the public outcry has been loud enough to make the violating company comply. (In this case, "public" = developers in the know.)
While I'm still waiting for the GPL to go to court one day, I think that community pressure is a much better strategy. Why sue someone when you can avoid feeding lawyers and bring the opposing into your own camp, at the same time?
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
They also must provide the code on a physical medium on request for no more than the cost of media and shipping; simply putting it up on ftp is not sufficient.
RMS wrote in GNU GPL v2:
The "cost of physically performing source distribution" can be interpreted as "cost of bandwidth to run an FTP server." When you run FTP, you are making a copy of the software appear on the client's hard disk, leaving the client with a hard disk (a physical object) containing your software.IANAL so I don't know how this would hold up in court.
Another GPL loophole: you may be able to get any and all proprietary shared libraries classified as "the operating system".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Maybe the GPL needs to also guarantee you the right to disassemble GPL'ed code. This way nobody can forbid you to discover their GPL violations.
Or said another way, the GPL needs to require people distributing GPL'ed code not to restrict people's rights to disassemble GPL'ed code.
This says nothing about non-GPL'ed code. If I mix GPL'ed programs with proprietary programs, one cannot forbid disassembly of GPL'ed software, but one can still forbid it of proprietary software distributed in conjunction.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Where in the GPL does it say "We were just kidding about section 2, you have to distribute the source code, too"?
..."
GPL:
"... under the terms of Section 1 above
Section 1 only allows source distribution.
Section 3 allows binary distribution under the terms of Section 2, and, by extension, Section 1.
Very nice selective quote there... it might pay to look at Section 3 as well, though:
= =O ==O==O==O=
= =O ==O==O==O=
=O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O
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.)
=O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O==O
This company is distributing GPL'd software in binary form; ergo, they must also provide it in source form. And you're still a trollish jerk.
Well, it's not like Joseph Heller's would be suing you, what with him being dead and all that.
If a work was first published on or after January 1, 1923, the estate can sue you into the ground for infringing copyright. And nothing created on or after that date will ever expire into the public domain thanks in part to the actions of the late Sonny Bono.
On the other hand, a short phrase like "Catch-22" cannot be copyrighted; it can, however, be trademarked (as restaurants, as board games, as computer games, as knit sweaters, as other clothing, etc).
Will I retire or break 10K?
What if they are the copyright owner of the source?
Then they have every right to re-license, as FSF does for the GNUPro toolkit. However, in this case, they're definitely not.
What if they got permission from the copyright owner of the source?
GNU GPL section 10 (alternate licensing from the copyright owner) covers the issue.
(snip)What if the copyright is expired?
Expired? Huh? Thanks in part to the actions of the late Sonny Bono, copyrights don't expire anymore.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Imagine any appliance you buy coming with pages and pages of warnings about not sticking Rover into the microwave and not sticking your fingers into the blender to see whether the blade is turning. Oh, wait, they do.
In short, your objection is ludicrous. You can embed Linux and put your proprietary software on top of it. You do need to include the GPL somewhere--it fits onto a page (small print)--and a pointer to where they can get the sources. If you can't do that, your company is beyond hope anyway.
Section 1 only allows source distribution.
Ah... That's the key... Section 2 allows creation of derivitive works and distribution of the source code of the derivitive work. Section 3 allows binary distribution of the derivitive work (under its terms which include source distribution).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Very nice selective quote there... it might pay to look at Section 3 as well, though:
Section 3 is irrelavent if Section 2 allows it. But Section 2 doesn't allow distribution of binary code.
And you're still a trollish jerk.
Why, because I disagree with you, or because I point out when you are wrong?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Section 2 doesn't allow distribution of binary code.
Hello? That's the whole point here, troll. If they're distributing binaries based on GPL'd source code (as they are), then Section 3 applies. Sheesh.
Why, because I disagree with you, or because I point out when you are wrong?
Because it's assholes like you that deliberately mislead people as to the meaning of the GPL. Loser.
Section 2 doesn't allow distribution of binary code.
Hello? That's the whole point here, troll. If they're distributing binaries based on GPL'd source code (as they are), then Section 3 applies. Sheesh.
If that was the point an answer such as that would have been much better than your answer of "Read the GPL", something which I obviously have done.
Because it's assholes like you that deliberately mislead people as to the meaning of the GPL. Loser.
I had no intention of misleading people as to the meaning of the GPL. I think it's obvious that neither I nor you nor RMS know the meaning of the GPL, since its meaning has never been determined by a court of law. Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
"I think it's obvious that neither I nor you nor RMS know the meaning of the GPL, since its meaning has never been determined by a court of law. Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it."
Every day, thousands of contracts are made without a court of law being involved. And if there are loopholes in the GPL, why has nobody ever successfully exploited one? The GPL's meaning is clear. You just screwed up and don't want to admit it.
What you've just said is true, obvious, and irrelevent to the discussion at hand. In fact, it misses the whole point of the GPL, which does not envision a society consisting only of hackers who compile and modify code. In my experience, this is the biggest misconception of the GPL among the slashdot-type crowd. The main harm committed here is to prevent another business from taking Microtest's (and now Xstore's) software, modifying it (say by improving the GUI, fixing bugs, getting a newer version of Apache) and then selling this version in their own embedded device. By taking GPL software, conceiling the fact that they've done so, and aparently shoddily throwing it together, Microtest managed to gain an advantage in time-to-market or development costs over possible competitors -- competitors who decided to "play fair" and develop their own technology or pay licensing fees. You, as a purchaser of turn-key products, are hurt only indirectly.
More generally, the free software movement is hurt, in that one of it's core arguments is that software should be freely improved and reused, and that this is ultimately a more efficient and better way of doing business. By violating the GPL, distributors of proprietary software show they want these benefits but are not willing to extend them to others. If they are not forced to share their modifications, then there will be less free software for others to use.
Finally, there are some who might want to make changes to Microtest code themselves (say the company goes out business, or is bought by a parent firm with lousy tech support, or are late in providing a patch, or their manuals are crap, etc.) You might argue that they can do this even now, but they wont be able to share their improvements with anyone else for fear of being sued by Xstore for IP violations. These people are also hurt.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I had no intention of misleading people as to the meaning of the GPL.
Suuure.
I think it's obvious that neither I nor you nor RMS know the meaning of the GPL, since its meaning has never been determined by a court of law.
A court determines the interpretation. You were spouting rubbish that could only come from soomeone who either had never read the GPL (which is why I told you to do so) or was deliberately trying to mislead people.
Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
Right. So no laws mean anything until the court determines what they mean, right? So how can the legislative arm of the government create laws if no-one knows what they mean? The whole point of legalese is to ensure the least amount of ambiguity. Of course, the interpretation is done by the courts, but a well-written law (or license) allows only for a very narrow interpretation. Now, with regard to the GPL, if there are so many loopholes in it, why don't you show us a real one instead of bringing up all this irrelevant bullshit?
To find out if the product violated GPL, you would not necessarily have to reverse engineer it. Simply using the string command will pull all of the text strings out of a binary. That usually includes some mention of the licensing some where. Further simple binary comparisons should point you at least in the right direction as to whether or not a program is the same as another implementation, especially for a non trivial program.
As for the root password, simply testing to see that a system was secure should not necessarily be considered a violation DCMA. Not having completely read the law, I can not be sure. However from what I remember, it specifically covers copyrighted data. As the password is not likely covered under any specific copyright it is likely exempt, but that is just a guess.
And if there are loopholes in the GPL, why has nobody ever successfully exploited one?
Firstly, because they are afraid to. Secondly, because they don't have the money to. Thirdly, because of the mob rule that goes along with the GPL. Finally, because there would be little advantage of exploiting the GPL anyway.
The GPL's meaning is clear.
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I sure as hell can't understand it. I think if you showed 5 lawyers who knew nothing about the GPL the GPL and asked them to define the meaning, you'd get 5 different answers.
You just screwed up and don't want to admit it.
Yes, I screwed up, and I have admitted it. But it wasn't for the reasons that most of the people were saying.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Microsoft has a strict anti-GPL policy in their programming departments. Somebody in MS has purposely used all this GPL software... my guess is that they'll be fired.
Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
Right. So no laws mean anything until the court determines what they mean, right?
No, I didn't say that the GPL doesn't mean anything, I said that "neither I nor you nor RMS" knows what that meaning is, and I meant by that that no one knows what it means, and anyone to claims to is lying.
The whole point of legalese is to ensure the least amount of ambiguity.
And I feel that the GPL fails at that point.
Of course, the interpretation is done by the courts, but a well-written law (or license) allows only for a very narrow interpretation.
I don't think it's possible to do what RMS intends for the GPL to do without an End User Licence Agreement.
Now, with regard to the GPL, if there are so many loopholes in it, why don't you show us a real one instead of bringing up all this irrelevant bullshit?
I'm tired for tonight, but I'll be sure to try again another time. Not because of people like you who will respond with assanine responses like "You're wrong. Read the GPL" though.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It is kind of backwards, but this is part of what needs to happen:
Since xStore is the proud owner of the product, the copyright owners need to apply pressure to them to make xStore open up the source code, and make it available. Unfortunately, they prolly paid a small fortune to MicroTest for the product, and will not want to give away what they just paid for.
However, what needs to happen is that xStore needs to file a fraud complaint to the DOJ about MicroTest, and them selling a product in which they do not fully own the copyrights to. As copyright holders we needs to encourage xStore to follow this course of action.
xStore sues MicroTest for fraud and damages, gets their money back, opens up source, and everything is right with the world again -- with one small problem. How do we make sure that something like this does not happen again?
The word is "asinine", and I feel it describes your comments on the GPL perfectly. Troll.
The word is "asinine", and I feel it describes your comments on the GPL perfectly. Troll.
Damn, I had that first too, but then I changed it. Troll.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
To make it even simpler, suppose X is "have a cookie" and Y is "wash the dishes." Therefore "you may (X) have a cookie provided you do (Y) do the dishes" obviously also implies that "you may not (X) have a cookie if you do not (Y) do the dishes."
As far as things go the actual license part of the GPL is fairly straightforward. RMS certainly knows what it means, and it certainly isn't "full of loopholes." You simply misunderstand how copyright works. For more information see here [columbia.edu] and here [columbia.edu].
From Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL:
And all of them, from Apple to Microsoft, have complied rather than pressed their luck in court.
Both Apple and Microsoft were faced with a lose-lose situation with exploiting the holes in the GPL. As software companies, their interests are in keeping copyright law as covering as much as possible, and they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they tried to argue that copyright law simply does not cover some of the restrictions which the GPL attempts to cover.
It's funny that you use Microsoft and Apple as examples, because they can certainly do just about anything they want with GPLed code which runs on their operating system.
It is also illegal to make a derivative of a copyrighted work and distribute it.
The entire foundation of the GPL relies on the legal definition of what consitutes a derivitive work with regard to software. Further, to my knowledge it has never been ruled that a work is even considered a derivitive work if there is no claim of copyright on that work. Even in the unlikely case that the legal issues do pan out, a derivitive work can be prepared anonymously, and there are no legal protections against the distribution of a derivitive work, only the production of such a work. A third party who obtains a derivitive work does not have to agree to the GPL, and therefore can redistribute binaries without redistributing the derivitive work. These last two points assume that the derivitive work does not contain any code from the original work (they could be dynamically linked libraries).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
"You know we bought the IP for this product Microtest"
"Yes, boss"
"And you paid a x dollars for the IP"
"Yes, took me weeks to negotiate down to that"
"Hmmmm. And you realise you can download that IP from Freshmeat for...let me see now... free?"
"Ah."
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
For the customer: if anything go wrong like the Zserver case, the customer has no access to the original source, let alone the modification done by your copany.
For your company: as far as I know you have no obligation to contribute anything back, just rip off as much as you can, also minimize your coding, if any.
Then the customer has no choice but to shut up!
Most appliances already come with pages of legalize nobody reads. Two more pages (for the GPL and offer to procide source) won't make a difference.
maybe this case leads into the end of DMCA.
Because it shows how dangerous DMCA really is, nearly noone could proove a copyright violation without self breaking the DMCA.
So the DMCA is weakening the copyright instead of protecting it.
Realworld Example:
Someone uses my software/patent commercelly without a valid licence.
I could only prove it by reverse engeneering, but when i do so, i would violate the DMCA, but when not doing so, i havn't an evidence to prosecute them.
In this case the DMCA protects the thiefs of my software, and not my copyright
I'm honestly a bit puzzled here, isn't there at least a library or something which is FSF owned?
In fact there is no clause in the GPL that states that you must give the modified source to the original author if you redistribute a modified version.
The correct analogy would be:
---
An author publishes a book on fishing, and allows the people that get the book to modify, and republish the book without reference to the original author (pretty generous so far)
The only restriction being that if you choose to distribute your improved version of the book, the people that get a copy also get the same right to modify it that you just took advantage of in order to create your version. (still seems pretty fair to me)
---
So there's no obligation to the original author, and you don't have to send them a copy.
If you don't like having to dilute the rights you have over the page you added, simple write the whole book from scratch.
The idea that adding a single page to the book should allow you to seize greater control of the resulting work than the original author had in the original seems a little churlish to me.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Look at microtest's page... They sold off their
Network Appliances and Storage(NAS) division.
There are 2 lines of "Zerver" products. One
DiscZerver went to xstore. The 2nd FileZerver is
now held be a company called NetZerver. No idea
who had this thing first, but NetZerver's home
page lists Linux as the OS. Still no source
though. Who actually developed this?
I can't find my car keys. (no a's in email)
This is as dumb as saying that if someone gave me a pirated version on WinXP, I could distribute it freely because I wasn't the one who made the original copy. By distributing any derivitive work, you would still be in violation of the original copyright.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
It's legal to distribute an embedded device without source (duh). Otherwise, Linux would be useless in the embedded world. What the GPL says is that you have to give the source if people ask for it. So if you write a letter to the company, and include "reasonable cost" for media and shipping, they need to send you the source.
Both Apple and Microsoft have been in violation of the GPL, and both speedily rectified this problem when it was pointed out to them.
They might be able to use the GPLed software on their systems, but if they distribute it then the GPL catches them. The only way that they could know that they have a legal right to distribute GPLed code is to read the GPL.
As for the bit about what is the proper criterion for judging a derivative work, you are correct, there is no legal precedent. However, you are overlooking two important facts when you assume that the FSF will not be correct in the judgement that linking programs creates a derivative work. The first of these facts is that pretty much the entire commercial software industry would be in favor of the FSF interpretation. In fact, they would probably want an even stronger opinion that software written to their copyrighted APIs was a derivative work. The second, and most important factor, has to do with the nature of copyright itself. Unlike trademark violations where the onus is on the trademark holder to curtail the public use of their trademark, copyright holders can pick the time and the place to enforce their copyright. Use of someone else's copyrighted material does not cause this material to become public domain. This means that the FSF can pick and choose who they want to prosecute. When the GPL is finally tried in court you can bet that the defendant will be some small underfunded corporation without the benefit of millions of dollars for legal defense. It is even likely that the suit will be brought forward by Sun, IBM, or some other large corporation that has published software under the GPL.
The FSF will get their precedent eventually, and would probably already have it if they were the type to play hard ball.
As for your assumption that a layer of anonymity would make it possible to defeat the GPL, well that's just absurd. If someone hands me a manuscript that they claim to have written and I publish it under a pseudonym and it turns out to be a Steven King novel I will get sued. If I turn over the name of the person who gave me the manuscript I might be able to claim that I was defrauded, but I certainly wouldn't get to keep the profits from the episode. I might stay out of jail, but that would be it.
If you distribute a piece of software that contains GPLed code that you received from a third party, then you are liable if you do not make the source code available. Of course, you could countersue the third party, and if you honestly tried to make it right the FSF is not likely to crucify you, but you had better make sure your efforts are sincere.
By distributing any derivitive work, you would still be in violation of the original copyright.
You failed to read my very next sentence.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
They might be able to use the GPLed software on their systems, but if they distribute it then the GPL catches them.
They can distribute GPLed software as long as they do not simultaneously distribute their operating system. They can offer GPLed software for instance on their web sites. Not that any of that matters, anyway, because they need only write and release the GPLed software which makes system calls to their binary kernel.
The first of these facts is that pretty much the entire commercial software industry would be in favor of the FSF interpretation.
I'm certainly not overlooking that fact. I believe that is the number one reason why no major software company has taken the GPL to court. It simply wouldn't be in their interests to do so for the miniscule gain they'd get out of it.
This means that the FSF can pick and choose who they want to prosecute.
I have serious doubts that the FSF would let any major software company get away with a GPL violation without prosecuting them (if they didn't back down). Do you really think they would? Besides, as I said before, I don't think it's in the best interests of a major software company to fight the GPL in the first place.
As for your assumption that a layer of anonymity would make it possible to defeat the GPL, well that's just absurd. If someone hands me a manuscript that they claim to have written and I publish it under a pseudonym and it turns out to be a Steven King novel I will get sued.
That is a completely different issue, because Steven King has not given up any of his redistribution rights. GPLed software, on the other hand, may be obtained for free, and once you have obtained a physical copy of software you have the legal right under the first sale doctrine to redistribute that copy to anyone. If you "buy" 1 million copies of Red Hat, you have a legal right under the first sale doctrine to sell those 1 million copies without regard to the source code (because you never had to agree to the GPL in the first place).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
No, that would be covered under the LGPL. *Any* work derived from something under the GPL must be placed under the GPL if it is distributed.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
We too bought many from MicroTest. Linux/Samba/mkisofs works well as a replacement most of the time.
Question: How do you handle hybrid CDs? Win32 mounts them as CDFS so that files from both the Apple and ISO session are exposed. Linux can mount as CDFS but this only exposes the images on the CD - not the same thing. Each still has to be mounted individually then exposed as a Samba share.
What do I do with these multi-session types to share them thru Samba just as a Win32 client expects to see them? One thought is to mount the two sessions, copy the files from both and create a new ISO. Not perfect. Any other thoughts?
Microsoft expects people to respect their license. How can we do that when they don't respects others?
What law are you relying on? Are you saying that this is contributory copyright infringement? Because there is no law restricting the redistribution of a derivitive work, only the preparation of a derivitive work. The redistribution is only protected to the extent that it infringes on the original work. Further the first sale doctrine allows the redistribution of a work without permission of the copyright holder. The anonymous author may have only licensed the derivitive work to you under the GPL, but that doesn't stop you from ignoring the GPL and invoking your rights under the first sale doctrine. Further still the copyright on the derivitive work is owned by the anonymous author, and extends to all parts of the work which are new material. In the case of a carefully written library, that is the entire work. The list goes on and on. Copyright law simply is not powerful enough to do what the FSF wants it to do.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I love their site .. well I would have loved it if it was 1995. I really enjoy how on the splash screen how the graphics are seperated by one pixel. Now that's professional!
it's a sig, wtf?
why don't you show us a real one instead of bringing up all this irrelevant bullshit?
I'll start with a hypothetical situation, and ask you your opinion on the legal status of each party.
Person A creates tax preparation software. That software has no printing facility. It is distributed under the GPL.
Person B creates an API for printing tax forms. The API is such that the main program calls a plugin and passes the line entries from the forms. The plugin then prints those forms. Person B only creates the API.
Person C modifies the tax preparation software to allow a plugin for printing under the API mentioned above.
Person D creates a binary plugin which does the printing. It shares no code with any of the previously described software. It follows the API presented by Person B.
Person E purchases 1 million copies of that binary plugin from person D and resells them.
Person F downloads the tax preparation software from Person C's website, and purchases a copy of the plugin from Person E.
Persons B,C,D,E and F have no interest in defending the GPL.
Who can Person A sue, and under what legal basis?
To present one quick strawman, even if the binary plugin created by Person D is a derivitive work of the program created by Person C, it in no way even uses the API of the program created by Person A. Further, because it merely accepts line items and then prints out tax forms, it certainly does not rely on the particular tax preparation software created by either Person A or Person C.
Perhaps you will argue that I set up the specific situation to be beneficial. I can only say that the reason I picked tax preparation software and printing is because it happens to be what I am currently working on at the moment. Feel free to present to me a different case where someone would want to add a significant enhancement to a GPLed product without GPLing the enhancement.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
A GPL violation!
I worked for a company in Phoenix that developed similar things as the zerver. I even interviewed with Microtest when my company went under. At one time microtest even let us play around with some of their beta boxes. I knew these things were running Linux almost two years ago. When I was looking around with these boxes most of the stuff in it was stock apps. So to appease the GPL they should have provided a way to download these apps. But I also know that they had proprietary software on the zerver. To work with Novell NDS they bought some module from Novell that Novell developed for linux. They also wrote the administration stuff for the system. Does the GPL require them to release their proprietary code? If it does then I know of quite a lot of companies that are in violation of the GPL. I know of two other companies that use linux for similar products. They are Tracer and Disc. I am not sure of how they liscence their products, but if it is any way similar to what Mircotest is doing then they to are probably in violation. Anyways, I am not a law type of guy just a developer with some information.
All kinds of answers.... buried at the bottom of the discussion.
No matter what, if Person C distributes the modified tax software, it has to be under the GPL.
Person D seems to be clear because the GPL software is making calls to his library. If it were the other way around (the binary module making calls to the GPL library), there would be a problem.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I interviewed with them 14 months ago. I thought it'd be cool to work at a place that did Linux based development. Now I'm glad I took this job.
I forgot to mention that, Person C distributes under the GPL... 99% of the functionality of course is in the library, not the thin wrapper distributed by Person C. Now I assume you see where I'm going... What if Persons B,C,D,E are really the same person (possibly working anonymously)? I think it's clear that the GPL can easily be subverted from this example.
I was just wondering what the next step is?
Will the company release thier code? Can the FSF sue for damages?
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
Ok, now I see how you got confused. You are applying first sale doctrine to the copyrighted material. The first sale doctrine permits me to sell my copy of "Carrie" by Steven King. It does not, however, permit me to type the text from "Carrie" into my computer and make a hundred copies for all of my friends.
Likewise, if you went to Staples and bought 500 RedHat CDs, you could sell those 500 RedHat CDs to whomever you wanted (first sale doctrine). You are not really distributing the software, RedHat is. However, if you opened one of those boxes up and started burning copies. Well then, that's clearly contrary to what the default copyright allows and the only way that you could have possibly come to believe that you had any right to do so was to read (and agree to) the GPL.
If you do not agree to the GPL, then you do not have any right to make and distribute copies. Do you see how that works? If you buy RedHat CDs it is RedHat who is making the copies of the software, they are the distributor in the sense that the GPL uses. If you start burning your own CDs and handing them out to friends. Or if you make the binaries available via FTP, then you too become a distributor and must be able to cough up source code on demand.
Once again, just like the example with the novel. It is perfectly legal to sell my copy of a book. It is also perfectly legal to make a personal copy of a book for archival purposes. However, if I make a copy of a book and sell it, I am violating Mr. King's copyright. For this to be legal I would need Mr. King's approval. If he gave me the approval all would be well.
The GPL is nothing more than a standard approval with stipulations. We are welcome to distribute copies of GPLed works as long as they come with source code. It can be assumed that we have read and accepted the GPL if we make copies and distribute them, because under the default copyright this would be a copyright violation.
Eben Moglen says it much better than I do. Check out those links I provided.
I think I'm missing it. How is the GPL being subverted? Nobody is using any GPL code in their proprietary product, and a GPL version of the library could be created if someone had an objection to paying for it.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
You have that backwards. You can produce as many copies or derivitive works as you like and wouldn't be in violation of anything. It is only when you try and distribute something that you run into problems with the law.
If it infringes at all, you aren't allowed to redistribute.
First sale doesn't give you any rights to make derivitive works, only to sell exactly what you have bought. If you haven't bought anything (say you downloaded a GPL program), you have no right to redistribute unless you follow the GPL. If you did buy something (say a CD containing GPL programs), you have the right to resell that cd.
You cannot buy a Stephen King book, add a chapter, and then sell a million copies.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
You have that backwards. You can produce as many copies or derivitive works as you like and wouldn't be in violation of anything. It is only when you try and distribute something that you run into problems with the law.
If you did buy something (say a CD containing GPL programs), you have the right to resell that cd.
Yep, and you can resell that CD without distributing the source code. So if the author can't be found, and the source code can't be found, that doesn't stop you from selling the binary.
You cannot buy a Stephen King book, add a chapter, and then sell a million copies.
No, but if Stephen King gives Person A permission to create a derivitive work of his book on the stipulation that Person A gives the rough draft for the chapter with every distribution, then Person B buys a copy of the book from Person A, first sale allows Person B to redistribute the book to Person C without giving the rough draft to him/her.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Likewise, if you went to Staples and bought 500 RedHat CDs, you could sell those 500 RedHat CDs to whomever you wanted (first sale doctrine).
What if Red Hat goes out of business? Do I have to distribute source, or can I just pass on the written offer from Red Hat? What if Red Hat goes out of business without ever distributing the source code? Are the binaries still legal to (re)distribute under first sale? How are you going to sue a nonexistant company?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
And exactly how are you going to get caught making derivitive works unless you try to distribute them? I doubt anone would even care what you do with your personal copies as long as you don't start selling them or giving them away.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
If I rip the copyright notice out of a book I buy and then resell it, that doesn't mean that the person I sold it to can then make as many copies as he likes. Person B above *only* has first sale rights, and so does person C. They still don't have the right to distribute a single copy that has added to the original. IOW, they can't pull out single pages and write a story around that page because it would be a derivitive work. Each person down the chain of first sales would have less than or equal to the information that the previous person had.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
And exactly how are you going to get caught making derivitive works unless you try to distribute them?
My point was that distributing derivitive works which you have not produced is not in and of itself direct copyright infringement.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
If I rip the copyright notice out of a book I buy and then resell it, that doesn't mean that the person I sold it to can then make as many copies as he likes.
First of all, I never said that the copyright notice was removed. The software is modified, copied, and distributed by person A under the permission of the copyright holder. Secondly, I never said that Person B was the one making the copies, Person A makes the copies, Person B only redistributes those copies.
Person B above *only* has first sale rights, and so does person C. They still don't have the right to distribute a single copy that has added to the original.
What is "the original" in this case? Person B can redistribute the single copy (or multiple copies, if s/he bought multiple copies) of whatever s/he received.
IOW, they can't pull out single pages and write a story around that page because it would be a derivitive work.
But if Person A pulls out those single pages and writes a story around that page under the permission of the copyright holder, then Person A sells a 100 copies of that story to Person B under the permission of the copyright holder, Person B has the first sale right to resell those copies under any conditions s/he chooses.
Each person down the chain of first sales would have less than or equal to the information that the previous person had.
On this point I agree. Personally I think that Person A would also have the right to distribute modified copies without distributing the original, but that point is much harder to argue because it comes down to the question of whether or not the GPL is a binding contract. So I have been forced to enter into the scenario multiple entities in order to get around that fact. It would be similar to a situation where a license prohibits reverse engineering, but because the reverse engineering is done by one entity and then his/her work is given to another entity in a clean room, that second entity cannot be held liable for breach of contract (since the second entity has never agreed to the contract).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I think I'm missing it. How is the GPL being subverted?
It is being subverted in the sense that it is essentially equivalent to the BSD license.
a GPL version of the library could be created if someone had an objection to paying for it.
Likewise a GPL version of Mac OS X could be created if someone had an objection to paying for it. The point is that enhancements can be made to a product without releasing those enhancements under the GPL. The only realistic legal difference I can see with the GPL and the BSD license would be for minor bug fixes which can't be realistically made into a library. And that's only one of the many legal holes in the GPL.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?