Slashdot Mirror
Epson Pulls Linux Software Following GPL Violations
ChrisWong writes "GPL violations has caused Epson to yank their free downloads of their ImageScan! and Photo Image Print System software for Linux. While one can use xsane instead of their ImageScan! software, the latter is easier to use and produces subjectively more attractive output."
Anyone know what exactly the violation was?
Are we supposed to be mad at the Evil Corporation(tm) for violating the GPL, or dancing in the streets because Epson is taking proactive steps to remedy said GPL violations? Please, Slashdot, tell me how I'm supposed to think!
Nathan
At least they did the right thing... acknowledged the problem, and did an internal audit, and found a problem in the second piece of software.
The website implied that they'd have a compliant version up sometime, and that everyone should upgrade when it's available.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
for dealing with this responsibly--assuming, of course, that the violations weren't intentional. The /. post seems to have an overtone of "because of the GPL we lost a nice piece of software". But I think that's inappropriate way to look at it. Rather,
I hope that after taking stock of the situation, Epson decides to release the source code for those programs per the terms of the GPL. That's what the GPL is trying to promote and incentivize. If we miss out on a few possibly-useful proprietary programs as a result, I can live with that.
a company doing something propelry instead of putting spin on it?
They admit the FSF informed them of violations, so they pulled the software from the site in order to check it out and get into compliance. They also drop a hint that they will encourage anyone to upgrade to the new compliant version once released.
Seems like they are playing fair to me.
The page actually states that the closure is temporary, while the GPL violations are remedied. There is absolutely nothing on that page to indicate that the software is being permanently discontinued.
Nathan
You can insist to have the source code of the software if you got it, and watch Epson go into panic mode. Epson needs to learn the hard way not to touch GPL software without wearing thick rubber gloves.
Ooh look! A real live Microsoft astroturfer... Nice one.... Hah - it makes me laugh to read it! They say "The GPL is a complicated agreement" - have you ever read the never ending Microsoft EULA? David
i realize that its important that the GPL be preserved and enforced, but it's a pain in the ass for users like me who bought the scanner the day the software was pulled and can't get it now...and considering i tried getting normal SANE running by both recompiling and now soon by completely upgrading from redhat 7.2 to 7.3, it's annoying to go nearly a month without being able to use a piece of equipment...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Come on...did you really need to reproduce this complete thing?
May we never see th
I'm in the process of purchasing printers and a company acting responsibly, with respect to the GPL or any license, would seem to be a company I'd be happy doing business with. Realistically, this is the best method to encourage hardware manufacturers to support the FSF and it's goals.
Viral nature? There is no Black Eye here. You are talking like a Microsoft weenie. They have used copyrighted code, have acknowledged it and pulled it. There is no difference between using GPL'd code and any other copyrighted code. The GPL allows code to be used but with certain requirements which Epson have decided that they don't want to adhere to. It seems like they are behaving very responsibly.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
...to have a Slashdot story that has useful news but isn't also a rabble-rouser. :-)
Ah, well. I'm glad they didn't pull it completely because legal problems were a PITA.
Both Epson and the FSF did a good job here, I think.
This is a model for how future GPL violations should be handled...not tons of flames being sent to the violators (well, at least not at first }:-) )
May we never see th
Where did you determine that the company (Epson) "got upset"?
Maybe they are upset at themselves for not paying proper attention to the licensing for the code that they used, which caused them to have to make this (somewhat) embarassing last minute withdrawal of their product.
But that's conjecture just the same, unless you have more information than the rest of us. I looked, and didn't find any.
I agree, it is nice to see a big company like Epson actually commit themselves to *nix support, and for them to raise their hand and say 'Ooops, we're sorting it out, sorry about that'.
Disclosure like this will mean they'll get more respect for being honest about the situation, rather than burying their head in the sand hoping people won't notice (like a certain company and their interpretation of OS security). A company who admit their mistakes will be more inclined to learn from them, rather than focusing their efforts on passing the buck.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Thank you for your patronage of our product and services.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) informed us that our "Image Scan! for Linux" software violates the GNU General Public License. Prompted by the FSF's message, we have discovered that a number of our "Photo Image Print System" packages violate the GNU GPL for similar reasons.
As a provisional measure, Image Scan! and Photo Image Print System download services are temporarily closed.
Can someone please clue me into how the GPL has been violated? The link in the article doesn't say any details.
I doubt that the result of this will be any license conversion on Epson's part. This type of situation could potentially illustrate conflicts between "Free" and "Open Source" software since a less restrictive license could have allowed this Linux product to remain as it was (and therefore a host of others in the same situation)--the more of these pieces of software that cannot enter an essentially OSS platform the less attractive OSS and FSF look. On second thought, maybe a more in-depth analysis of the violation is needed here.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
It's not a black eye for GPL, so much is it a black eye for the lawyers these companies employ, as well as the non-education programmers get on licenses at most companies. If it was a MS EULA that was violated, would we be saying that it's a black eye for MS EULA's?. Remember ignorence of the law isn't considered a very good excuse.
With HP's recent actions, it looks like Epson might be the printer/scanner of choice for conscientious buyers now.
It's good to see a company make an honest effort to comply with the GPL.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
They may not want to release it under GPL if it includes their own propietary code. If they are foreced to release it anyway that will certainly bolster Microsofts argument and scare a lot of companies from using or contributing to GPLed code.
GPL violations has (should read have) caused Epson to yank their free downloads of their ImageScan! and Photo Image Print System software for Linux
If Epson used a normal license instead of a confusing one like GPL they wouldn't have had to waste money correcting this problem.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
So, please keep your flames to a moderate temperature.
While it would be cool if what they did here was to GPL their whole package, and contribute to the community, it looks like they'll replace whatever minor piece of GPL code they've incorporated with something else.
Epson has been pretty good about providing relatively good documentation and developer support for their products (which is why their printers and scanners are the best supported out there by free code), even if they haven't contributed actual code or algorithms.
Sure, people could intentionally steal a GPL projects' work and call it their own (i.e. Sigma Designs theft of Xvid's codec), which is pretty slimy, but heck, sometimes people just make mistakes. Maybe someone thought a package was BSD licensed, and wasn't careful enough, or didn't understand some semantic issue of the GPL..
Or, maybe they are thieves also, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, and call them innocent unless proven guilty.
I know I've pimped it here before, but I don't mind doing it again. VueScan is the best scanning software for Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. It supports all Epson USB, SCSI, and IEEE-1394 flatbed scanners, and a SCSI film scanner. The program is shareware, and registration costs $40.
One of the popular Jabber clients PSI has also found some company has used their source in a closed source product, they are in talks w/ the co. and FSF.
/. I think it was an mpeg codec or something, my memory fials me (and so did a quick /. search)
I find their poll (Is the GPL inforcable) an interesting one you may want to vote on.
I also remember read about another GPL violation on
someone mentioned demanding the source code.
thats just the sort of over-reaction thats going to make a company not want to deal with linux.
be happy they are rectifying the problem.
if you want to encourage linux development, attacking anyone that slips up with reckless abandon is not the way to do it, especially when it may have been an honest mistake.
zealots dont make good reps.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Not only would you probably never be able to distribute the software, if would cost your company millions of dollars to fight the law suit against you. The FSF is a fair organization enforcing the GPL in a fair manner where a company or person in violation can easly fix the violations with no loss in revenue and no legal costs.
Ok...now tell me again why I want to use or write software that runs on Windows?
Before I applaud them for playing fair (which they have done so far), I'll wait until the FSF takes a look at the new versions of the software to see if they've used smoke and mirrors to make it look like they aren't using open source code while they've actually plagiarized it.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but we shall see.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
i always like to look on the bright side, even for astroturfers. it makes me happy that microsoft hires english majors. it's so annoying running into them in mcdonalds where they slow up lines correcting customers' grammar. employed by microsoft they're probably paid a good salary and they might even be exposed to other, more valuable skills.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Epson has been much more friendly than most violators. Epson on their own chose to put up that web page and admit their violation publicly. We did not require them to do so. Almost always, compliance is reached through private discussions between the Free Software Foundation and the violating party. Only rarely (usually because a third party posts on slashdot ;)
does the public even become aware of the compliance efforts underway.
You can read FSF's General Counsel's essay for more details on FSF's GNU GPL enforcement efforts.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
From: S.B.
To: B.G.
Subject: New FUD Needed
I'm agonized to have to inform you that the usual anti-GPL FUD we've been foistering upon the world has once again been discredited. Epson corporation was found to have violated the GPL in the company's Linux based proprietary scanning application, and had merely to remove the offending code from the application. Unfortunately for us, no FSF lawsuit was filed to force Epson to give away its I.P. as we've been claiming for some time would happen in cases of GPL violations. Those damned hippies just politely asked Epson to correct the situation.
We should wake up the slugs...err...public relations department and have them think up new anti-GPL lies...err...messages.
******************
On a serious note, this is exactly how companies -should- act when found to be violating the GPL. Just admit that it happened, correct the violation, and everyone is happy. Nobody gets sued, the company gets a round of applause for playing nice, and life goes on. Congratulations Epson! You're a model of corporate integrity.
Ok...now tell me again why I want to use or write software that runs on Windows?
Uhm, because it works?
It's strange to note that 'innocent until proven guilty' is so uncommon on slashdot that it needs to be explicitly mentioned.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Unless they agree to the terms of the GPL, the GPL doesn't apply, and they lose all the rights it grants, and this becomes a simple copyright violation case, and they're probably justified in asking you to return the software, since they didn't have the right to give it to you in the first place.
Actually, I think it was a big news day. Check the previous posts, especially the one about p2p.
And what are you complaining about anyway? "Boo hoo, this Slashdot post had nothing to do with my Windows computer. *Sob*"
As they say, "News for Nerds. *Stuff that matters.*"
It's strange to note that 'innocent until proven guilty' is so uncommon on slashdot that it needs to be explicitly mentioned.
The trick is that they have been proven guilty. They even admitted it, in fact.
So, we're just arguing about motive, basically.
It's certainly unfortunate that this GPL violation occurred and that Epson have had to pull this software, which I'm sure is useful to some people.
However, in terms of inconvenience to users, it means very little indeed. The combination of GIMP-Print drivers for Epson inkjets with CUPS doing the spooling already produces output that is arguably better quality than any driver Epson has produced for either Windows or Mac. With the KDEPrint subsystem providing the user interface, you get a system that is powerful, flexible, easy to use and can do everything that Epson's own drivers do, and then some, whilst looking and working as an integral part of KDE applications.
Similarly, the KDE scanner program, Kooka, is a nice, powerful KDE-style alternative to xsane, supporting all the scanner hardware that SANE does and better, can scan straight into all sorts of KDE software, including KOffice, similar to the TWAIN system on Windows and Mac.
There are, of course, plugins for the GIMP also - GIMP-Print and xsane's GIMP plugin which provide similar features, at least to the GIMP, although not GTK or GNOME applications as a whole (hey guys, is this going to be fixed anytime soon? printing from GNOME apps is still in the dark ages, and there's nothing like Kooka's scan-service mode at all :(
Personally, I don't see why Epson bothers - the Free Software community has outdone them. It would be far better if they just helped projects like GIMP-Print and SANE out more, although I guess that means they can't stick Epson logos all over the software... ahh, the joys of corporate ego gratification.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow! epson happily respects and complies with the GPL! they just won another loyal customer! AGFA,Cannon and HP can all sit aside while my next new Linux scanner will be an Epson!
If we dont support the companies that not only release a Linux program/driver but also respect the GPL then we all might as well just give up and install XP like good drones.
Kudos to Epson!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
please check the cal sticker on your dissimulationometer, we believe it may be operating out of spec.
If you are still using the obsoleted irony-ometer or feigntographer - or worse yet, the long unsupported subtle-jokometer, please have arrange with your cost center manager to upgrade as soon as possible.
cal dept.
Troll, right...
Truth hurts and you know it.
Go ahead, try to silence the oposition. The more you do the more look like the dark side.
I understand "liscence" is a spelling error for "licence", but is "faciest" an error for "fascist" or is it an error for "fanciest"?
When the GPL denies users access to something useful, because it generates the impression that the GPL is anti-user. (Trolls and dumb modders, note that I didn't say the GPL was anti-user, but that these types of incidents create that impression).
This is unfortunately the kind of thinking Microsoft would love to perpertuate and here they didn't have to raise a finger or spend a cent.
Just providing a viewpoint from outside the GNU rules! Linux-uber-alles camp...
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
A very good point that many people don't understand. The GPL doesn't apply unless you agree to it. It isn't an EULA that you need to agree to in order to simply -touch- the software. It's simply an attached agreement allowing you to -modify- and -distribute- the software. It grants you extra rights if you agree to the terms. If you don't agree, you don't get those rights, and then normal copyright restrictions apply.
So the worst thing that could happen to them is they get sued for copyright violation. Being forced to release their source is highly unlikely no matter if they lost or not. Though really, I think the way it's being dealt with is the best way.
The enemies of Democracy are
Until I read this on slashdot. I didnt even know that Epson had written any scanner software for Linux. Next time I go to buy a scanner, I'll now seriously consider Epson. That is providing their Linux products come back into action. Any publicity is good publicity?? G.
If they plan to solve it by releasing code as required by the GPL, but are delaying the release in order to possibly remove code they don't have the legal right to GPL (for example, licensed code from another company), then it'll be a good thing.
If they plan to solve it by removing the GPL'd components and replacing them with Epson-written components, then they are no longer in violation of the GPL, but nothing has been gained by the Free Software community (unless making your proprietary competitors do a little extra work counts as a gain).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Of course any top is going to have some degree of slant on the perspective. You usually only notice this when the slant goes against the grain of your oppinion. I personally think that the GPL is to restrictive in a lot of ways when it comes to commercial companies publishing software.
Yes, we are just aguing about motive. Thank you for bringing absolutely nothing to this discussion.
VueScan is very good indeed! I bought my license several years ago, and I still get free updates.
I use it with an Epson flatbed and a HP PhotoSmart slide scanner (both SCSI), and I never have any problems. And the program just keeps getting better and better. Ed Hamrick is doing a great job!
Free your mind!
Wouldn't releasing the source be the "right thing"!? It couldn't hurt them, and could make epson scanners the "de facto" Linux scanning hardware.
Would it be legal if an employee "leaked" the code for the version that contained GPL code?
What are the penalties for GPL violation? I'd want some serious financial compensation if my code was stolen. Hell, if rape victims can sue, why can't GPL programmings!?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
what does that mean?
Ceci n'est pas un post
think user will respect EULA if them self
can't respect a simple license a the GPL.
if you're developing for windows, that might be true....
i don't use epson drivers with my umax scanner, so they didn't ruin it for me...
Maybe you got modded down because you spell like a second grade "special-needs" student. Just a thought.
I've never used the Epson-produced / labeled software, but XSane is one of the best, easiest scanning programs I've ever seen / used.
And since I think most software interfaces are terrible, maybe it's just that I'm a dummy with exactly umgekehrt tastes in software, but what exactly does / did the Epson software do better?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Maybe they'll just decide that it's too expensive and too much trouble to support Linux
Perhaps next time you can schedule those resources before jumping down some company's throat and causing the resources to get overcommitted in the first place.
Or the short version: don't bite off more work than you can chew.
K PLZ THX.
Which of his body parts would they want to scan?
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
not meant as a troll...
Epson violated the GPL, was caught, and is handling it.
The music industry uses a license for their products. Not the GPL, but it is a license.
Yet many people who get upset when the GPL is violated could care less about other licenses being violated using Napster etc.
What we need is GPL-DRM to protect code from the unwashed corporations...
this is not a sig
This is getting more and more confusing
If EPSON does not, in your opinion, violating any GPL licensing term, - in spirit or in deed, - then why in the world Slashdot flashes the title "Epson Violating GPL
So my question is:
DID EPSON VIOLATED GPL ?
AND HOW ?
What I would ask is that the parties maintaining the GPL'd software in question put forth some extra effort to help EPSON straighten this situation out!
If, as I suspect, we have a friend in Epson, then lets do what we can. Let's show companies that if they work with us, we'll bust our *sses to work with them.
That was my 2 cents. Where's my change.
I bought my Canon S520 before I had converted to Linux, and it worked great, but when I installed Linux, it was a NIGHTMARE to make it work. It took hours in SuSE, Lycoris, and Debian.
Next printer I get will be an Epson. I was considering an HP, but after canning Bruce Perens and Epson being nice to the Linux community, I'll make sure I get an Epson next time around.
Now, if other companies saw that playing nice got you more customers, they'd do it!
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
I know, I might be off-topic, but I wish HP would be so friendly to open source as Epson. Today they stopped any support of HP 990 cse printer driver for gimp/lpd. HP ScanJet 4470c backend is even not listed in Sane. I found another day a feedback of another unlucky HP hardware user that HP doesn't see any business to support Linux platform. I'll never buy anything from HP.
You can pass this message to your friends in Epson - they should be proud of really great job they are doing.
Less is more !
Like Sun with Java on the desktop, the GPL tries to tightly regulate what can and can't be done source code. Like Java on the desktop the GPL will eventually whither and die because who wants to deal with that bureaucratic BULLSHIT? Either code is free (BSD) or it isn't. Restricting developer's freedoms to use the source code how they see fight is wrong.
You have your cause and effect backwards.
The GPL didn't "create" the impression that it's anti-user. Companies that stand a great deal to lose if OSS and GPL succeed, created that link in peoples minds. Before you didn't hear that all that much, except from the BSD camp. Who BTW "feel" that they stand to lose as well.
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=3
Wow
Consult any dictionary, folks. Think about the application to IP and you should see that "proprietary" has a very simple meaning: not in the public domain. Someone owns exclusive rights in the software which allow him to tell others what they may or may not do with it. Any software under copyright is proprietary. Say "closed" or "non-copyleft" or even "non-free" if that's what you mean.
I keep forgetting to ask about this, since it's not a particularly *high* priority item on my agenda -- but....
Has anyone actually had any luck getting an Epson ES-600C flatbed scanner working with SANE?
I own one of these old (circa 1996 or so?) beasts, and although it's a high quality unit - it uses a parallel port. Epson no longer supports it under Windows XP or 2000, but I noticed it shows up on the SANE scanner compatibility list.
Whenever I've fired up SANE in RedHat 7.2 or 7.3 though, it reports it can't detect any usable devices, even when I verify that it's attached to my LPT1 port and is powered up.
(Apparently, Epson actually sold an internal board for a short time that converted the ES-600C to SCSI. Sure wish I had that option board, but it's all but impossible to locate now. I even called the Epson parts supply house, but they said it has long since been discontinued. I hope the people adding the ES-600C to the SANE compat. list weren't just trying a SCSI version instead of the parallel port model?)
Bull f-in crap its "interesting" .. .. a first post is a first post is a first post
its an fp whether its for firefighters, communists, your local geek who lost his computer, or just for the sake of first posting a
as they say
- mescaline - its the only way to fly -
Aw, come on, moderators. Flamebait? Haven't you got *any* sense of humour?
This post was funny as hell.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Epson is one of the few companies that are really pro-active in Linux support.
I know it for sure as far as printers go: Till is really happy with them, and until recently Epson inkjets were the only devices that produced photo-quality output under Linux.
I got really worried when I saw the title of this article, but I'm convinced that this is just an accident of the "ups, haven't thought of that" type. Guess it's really business as usual - their lawyers are chewing on this now, and some reasonable solution will pop up shortly.
Btw, HP is NOT a willan company either: on the contrary, they put a lot of effort and actually write their own GPL drivers for their printers. Don't know about scanners, but they also wrote Linux drivers (GPL) for their multifunctional devices...
It will have to be if they are unwilling to give away the source. Good job Free Software Foundation. Now the free software is gone.
Vote for Pedro
Judging from the way Epson deals with GPL/opensource and Linux I made the decision that my next printer will be an Epson. Even though they made a mistake - they seem to be attempting to correct it and Im sure that there will be a good solution to this shortly. /m
Commercial Closed-Source people who want to help Linux Users will now think twice before doing anything.
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
The FSF probably have other ethical considerations than just promoting free software.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
While there are many aspects of the American society I admire, the fact that it as the only nation in the world feeds more lawyers than programmers is not one of them.
You might be better of asking this question on the sane mailinglist.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
I'm finding this a little hard to believe. It just doesn't pass the "modem light" test.
My wife and I have two computers that feed into a Linksys router that feed into a DSL modem, which is on my desk where I can see the data light.
She basically is a "magazine reader" Web user. She doesn't download files as such, she reads articles and Web-based bicycle forums and Yahoo and such. When she's logged on, I can easily see her activity; basically whenever she follows a link, I see the light light up in a few brief bursts for a second or so. I think most of the traffic is dozens of little images from the new page (and the banners and pop-behind ads).
On the othe hand, if she's off and I'm on and Limewire is running and I'm not "doing anything", I see little or no visible activity from the modem light. No visible evidence at all of all that P2P traffic the article says is taking place. I only see the light go on when a download is actually in progress, and the duration and duty cycle of the visible activity are a very close match for the size of the file and the average transfer speed.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yes. I scanned from XP to a Slackware box with the ES-600C last night. It's dog slow, but doesn't seem any slower than when I had the scanner directly connected to a Windows box. The gotcha is the Epson backend has to run as root to get R/W privledges to the port directly. It doesn't use a driver. The rest of the set up is fairly well documented. I have saned started from inetd as root. The epson.conf file has to specify the port address.
The third solution for Epson (that nobody seems to have mentioned) would be to negotiate a private license with the project which released the GPLd code.
This would allow Epson to release their product as "closed source" and would provide funding to the original project.
The GPL (as I understand it) doesn't require that the only licence that the software be available under be the GPL. IIRC, Perl is released under both the GPL and BSD, the choice is up to the user which licence he wants to follow.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Does GPL allow the release, instead of the actual (original) source, an assembly-language version resulting from the disassembly of the compiled binaries? As long as one can build binaries for the end product via an assembler/compiler and linker, and those "sources", then it constitutes "source code", right? :-)
And since that is "source code" that anybody with the right tools can create, there's really no reason for every commercial company to not release "source" for their products in this manner -- they can then borrow freely from GPL but still abide by it, technically speaking!
What am I missing...
That would make sense, except that when companies decide to stop supporting a piece of hardware, they also stop MANUFACTURING and SELLING that piece of hardware.
And they don't make money off second-hand sales.. so..
the gpl is wonderful for commercial companies. if said company feels that the gpl is to restrictive, then they dont have to use gpl'ed software. they can build everything from scratch.
if being able to use the available gpl'ed codebase out weighs releasing the companies code under the gpl, then they can take advantage of a huge amout of code already written.
-- john
If it were astroturfing, the writer would attempt to convey the message that, hey, i'm just your average joe, and here's why i think GPL sucks and M$ rocks.
instead, the text of the posting says:
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information.
(italics mine.)
in any case, a google search shows this article to be M$'s GPL "FAQ", available at http://www.microsoft.com/korea/business/downloads/ licensing/Gpl_faq.doc
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
It wasn't free. That's why we're talking about this!
If they show us the same courtesy we show them by licensing their source, I'll buy an Epson to replace my crappy old HP. If they don't, they can write their own damn code and anyone who gives them money deserves what they get.
Once I license code under the GPL, the rights to use, modify, and redistribute it are no longer exclusive.
All I can do is stop anyone else from getting exclusive rights to it.
In fact, once I accept outside contributions, I no longer have any rights the other authors don't, so I no longer "own" it in any meaningful sense.
I knew I shouldn't have tried deadpan on /.
Oh well, live and learn.
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
This is a very interesting question. If Epson were to refuse to release their proprietary code that was linked with GPL code, that would void the license grant in the GPL and make it a simple case of copyright violation (reproducing the GPL code without authorization of the copyright holder).
Now, it seems like an open-and-shut case to say that the court would find infringement had taken place -- after all, they were distributing binaries including that GPL code. (Supposing that Epson was intransigent instead of cooperative, and that the FSF took it to court.)
It seems clear that a flagrent GPL violation would result in an injunction against redistribution of the GPL code, but they could still rewrite their code to replace the GPL code with non-GPL code and distribute that later. (As Epson is doing now.)
So, the real question comes down to damages. Since damages are usually tied to economic loss, and the GPL code is (usually) freely available, there's a good argument to be made that there was no economic loss to the owner of the GPL code (since the people who received the infringing copies could have received the same GPL code for free through another means, and the GPL even grants those people a license even from the infringing copy!) -- perhaps the court would find that "actual" damages are therefore zero, no matter how flagrent the GPL violation? If so, perhaps the threat of court action over copyright infringement isn't as stong as it sounds?
Does the GPL really have enough teeth for enforcement if a straight copyright infringement case might not be costly enough to discourage misuse of GPL code? If Microsoft is willing to steal Stak's compression code outright (and they did), which caused actual damages, should they be so worried about the GPL? Or can they just say "we've never intended to apply the GPL to our products" to dodge the "viral" nature of the GPL and simply pay off the occasional copyright infringement case (and rewrite the code) in the few instances where they can be caught red-handed?
Of course, if there are statutory damages for the copyright infringement, those would apply even in the absence of actual damages. I think someone mentioned damages of $100,000 -- but only applicable if the copyright is registered with the Copyright Office? (Then again, even $100,000 is pocket change to a company like Microsoft...)
Disclaimer: I think Epson is doing the Right Thing, and I'm not a lawyer. Take the above with a grain of salt; this is just food for thought...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I laugh (and "cry") when I see people echo Stallman's nonsensical use of the word proprietary as if GPL'd code isn't proprietary.
Only recently did I realize how completely Stallman has managed to frame the debate by twisting the meaning of words like "proprietary". As you say, the GPL is proprietary, but Stallman has so demonized the word that nobody wants to recognize the truth of the situation.
The GPL may be "less proprietary" than most closed-source licenses in some sense, since anyone can obtain the benefit of GPL code by agreeing to abide by its rules. However, the GPL is far more proprietary than BSD-style licenses, which are barely proprietary at all. The only truly non-proprietary software is public domain software. If someone owns the code (i.e. there's a copyright and a license), then it's proprietary, by definition -- even if anyone can redistribute it under its terms and conditions.
Stallman should be demonizing "closed" software, not "proprietary" software. (A bit late now, of course, he's already trained everyone to turn rabid at the word "proprietary" while pretending that the GPL isn't also proprietary...)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Since the FSF always negotiate before suing, the issue of being forced to pay damages aren't that relevant. The risks are:
1) It may disrupt the distribution, and
2) the pr loss / embarrasesment of being caught in a copyright violation.
I suspect either of these are more important than damages, even when violating the copyright of proprietary softwere owned by sue-happy companies.
I'm glad they have a sense of humor; I wish rather than pulling the software that they would just release it under a legal license -- if it's better as you describe (though I've never been too unhappy with my scans from Xsane, maybe I just don't know what I'm missing), I'd like to try it.
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5