Slashdot Mirror
Embedded Device Manufacturers Ignoring GPL
swillden writes "Iain Barker and some other Linux Kernel Mailing List readers have discovered that several manufacturers of DVD players based on the Sigma Designs EM8500 chipset are distributing Linux, both in the devices and as binary-only firmware upgrades, but not providing source. Apparently, Sigma Designs provides its customers with a copy of the kernel as part of a chipset SDK, and those customers are making and selling devices without complying with the terms of the GPL. It's not clear if this is because Sigma didn't tell its customers about the GPL and their obligations, or if they're all ignoring it on their own. Maybe they've all bought licenses from SCO and therefore don't have to comply with the GPL? The LKML post contains a list of some of the infringers."
If I have to pay an extra USD$25 in shipping when I replace my DVD player because it comes with the kernel source printed out, I'm going to be seriously pissed.
all we have to do is wait till SCO's problem is solved.
then DVD resellers will likely to be punished.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
One driver for Sigma chips was made long ago. I wonder if they use that one too. Since Sigma provides shit for Linux
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Great now we can get some DVD code and keys, hopefully if they have integrated it enough, sweet. Kiss my ass MPAA, not so hot now are we?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I am suprized that SCO has not offered an embedded licence - should be worth at least 2 points for SCOX
Seriously, the GPL only applies to derivitave works, right? How do they know it's not a stock kernel with no changes and hand-written non-derivative drivers added on to it?
Maybe they are GPL compliant.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'll be embedding my kernel in your mom's open source later tonight.
*Takes bait*
It doesn't matter if you don't modify the kernel; if you distribute it, you must provide source.
Maybe they've all bought licenses from SCO and therefore don't have to comply with the GPL?
In other news, DVD players will now go for at least $699, more on that after these commerical messages.
*cue DVD player commercials*
Join the TWIT army now!
someone needs to strat a fund to sue violaters of the GPL. And the money collected can be distributated to needy projects for new hardware, bandwidth, and publicity (to increase the general populations awareness of where good software really comes from).
of hiding the source? Apparently they have to comply with the GPL and provide the source for their binaries upon demand.
But what is the point for them in not providing it? Anybody can get it from Sigma anyway... Good conspiracy theories, anyone?
The GPL is non-intuitive, and does not have any real precident. Because of this, it is widely misunderstood. When somone says free software or open source, they will assume that it is completely free, not GPL. Everyone has been selling OSS as free software, when it is explicitly not. There are obligations involved that must be followed.
>DVD don't have processors as such
3 0521.htm:
Exactly. Instead, the logic for the DVD menus and the MPEG decoding are handled by cheerful little hedgehogs that live inside the DVD player.
From http://www.sigmadesigns.com/news/press_releases/0
"The EM8500 is designed around the system-on-chip concept with an internal 150 Mhz RISC CPU"
In this context, of course, RISC stands for "Rodents in Spiny Coats."
Lots of people ask for tons of money for a privilege we let people have without charge. The least they can do is comply with the terms of the license.Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Furthermore, the linked article says that Iain "really only interested in being able to recompile kernel for the Liteon product which I own." Presumably, the stock kernel won't compile without changes.
Considering that they mostly got away with stealing the xvid group's work with thier x-card, Sigma's got a history of ignoring licensing requirements on Free software. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had been telling their customers that it was all their own proprietary code, no linux about it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Even if you pay money for a SCO fire ensurance
you would still have to follow GPL as SCO doen't
own the rigths to the major part of Linux, if the own any of it at all that is.
And if the SCO licence and GPL is incompatible (very likely) you can't legally use Linux at all.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
It really pisses me off how overzealous you Linux people are. The GPL is there to protect freedom, not make it so companies are unable to use it to do business. Calm down for a bit and see what's going on before you react liek this next time.
Actually, from what I understand, the BSD license is more appropriate for businesses who do not wish to disclose their modifications.
Join the TWIT army now!
"The GPL is their to protect freedom..."
Yes, that is what it is meant to do.
What freedom?
OK, go ahead.
The freedom that is meant to be protected is to keep some business from taking all the hard work of those "overzealous" Linux people, using it, without upholding their part of the bargain.
Yes, that is correct. And what is their part of the bargain?
To redistribute back to the rest of the people who have made modifications to Linux the changes they have made.
Hmmm. I wonder if they have? I suppose someone ought to find out.
emt 377 emt 4
this isnt the first time the GPl has been violated. many folks have modified GPLed programs and not ditributed the source with their mods.
what i say is its about time someone comes along and does it openly. i hope they'll go to court about it. we need a precedent to be set that will show everyone else what can/cannot be done with GPLed stuff!
I sometimes wonder if people bother to read the license they want to talk about. The GPL clearly states that if you want to distribute binaries (which is what those companies do), you are only allowed to do so if you (and that's you, not someone else like kernel.org) makes the source code available, including any modifications you may have made. That's not making it overly hard on anyone who wants to use it - besides, they use something they don't have to pay for, so the least the developers of the linux kernel can expect is that people who use it comply with the license.
Cisco got trapped this way, too. And they can turn around and sue those far-east folks, if it's worth their time.
I am an expert witness in one such case.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What worries me isn't much the fact that these guys violated the GPL but the fact they all bought a so called "licence" from SCO.
Indeed, since SCO's trial didn't take place so far, some companies may use the fuzzy situation about the GPL for their own interest. That is : They buy a licence from SCO and then don't have to comply to the GPL. Indeed they would argue that the SCO licence they acquired prevail on the GPL and that they're not bound to give the sources... A lot of companies could actually use this unclear situation to "legally violate" the GPL !
Morality : SCO's trial : the sooner the better for Free Software developper...
Maybe they've all bought licenses from SCO and therefore don't have to comply with the GPL?
I seriously doubt any embedded Linux manufacturer has bought a license from SCO. Didn't SCO once threaten embedded Linux manufacturers, like they have threatened just about everybody else? If I remember correctly, Darl went to Japan to a major embedded Linux conference there to drum up support for his illegal licensing scheme from embedded Linux manufacturers. I think the reception was less than warm.
As wrong as it is not distribute the source code to the embedded Linux these manufacturers are using, they are in no uncertain terms on the same level as SCO. They might be if they charged you for the product as well as charged you for the right to use the embedded Linux.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
How laid back would any company be if someone wasn't obeying the license under which they licensed their code? Given the number of lawsuits involving just such IP issues; the laid-back/zealous-defender is probably be fractionally low. Why should the Open Source and Free Software communities be any less zealous than a company? Answer: they shouldn't.
If you want to blame someone for starting the frenzy over defending one's license; blame tohose who wrote the rules of the game - lawyers and the judiciary. Whether community or company, we're just playing the game as the rules were laid out by the rulemakers and like any game: play to win!
you must provide source.
And these companies are thinking, "... or else what? A bunch of college kids are going to sue us? Not bloody likely." The GPL is a nice idea, but without some weight behind it, it's only a very simple, largely unenforceable gentlemen's promise, which doesn't mean shit when the bottom line is at stake. My guess is that there's all kinds of GPL'ed stuff out there without complying, but the fact is, most people will never know. GPL is a nice, quaint, friendly idea, but completely and totally unrealistic.
This is what *BSD is for. It works just as well as Linux, better in my opinion (hey zealots, keyword is opinion), and has a truly free license -- one where you can redistribute in both source and binary form. I suggest Linksys, Broadcom, Google, and whoever else is under fire from FSF and EFF to use NetBSD (great for embedded devices) instead of Linux.
Fortress of Insanity
It suffices for them to include the GPL license in their documentation and a URL where you can download the sourcecode. They have to keep the URL working for 3 years.
This is not an onerous burden.
...the Free Software Foundation
[snip from GPL]
/. opinion is on this.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
[end snip]
So does this then mean that if I install Linux on my computer, and then sell or give my computer away I must provide extensive notification of the Linux installation? Including documentation at each place I may have edited the code, and some form of the Linux kernel source in cases were I do not have the kernel source installed?
I can see how distributing firmware upgrades constitutes distributing software, and is thus firmly within the preview of the GPL. However, I'm having a harder time understanding how imbedded hardware applications constitutes a software distribution. If the hardware running the GPLd software can not under normal operation be accessed by an end user does it still constitute software distribution? The manufacturer does seem to be getting some benefit from the use of the GPLd software. However, if I use an online service that uses a modified Linux on internal hardware are they required also to provide me with their source? Where is the line? That the hardware is physically in my possession? What if I rent or lease equipment? This seems like a very slippery slope for the proliferation of GPLd software.
I'm not proposing an opinion I'm just curious what the
I didn't write the RPL(it was written by Scott Shattuck at Technical Pursuit--but I helped with some of the legal research and also helped walk the license through the OSI approval process.
The fact that they're distributing it just as a binary is not in itself a GPL violation. The GPL doesn't require that you actually include the source code, but rather that you make the source code accessible without much hassle. So who knows, maybe if you called one of these companies asking for the source code they would send you a file or a CD or something with the source code on it! In that case they would be totally in-line with the GPL.
However, I would bet that that's not really the case and they don't make the source code available as easily as that. In that case there probably should be some complaining about it as they would be in violation of the GPL. Even if that were the case though, I doubt they would be opposed to changing their practices to make that code available, especially since (from what people have been saying) they don't seem to have modified the code very much.
I can't believe they won't give me the 330,000 lines of source code to the DVD player I just bought.
I had an inkling to cover myself in ants, cut off my penis, and read code all day in an attempt to get my DVD player to run Linux.
so my liteon dvd drive is apperently running a pirated version of windows CE because it barfs on every second media and shows ascii garbage for the device id at bootup... but it was cheap, and thats what consumers look for in the first place.
anyway,
if the fsf doesnt follow up on this one manufacturers will infridge on gpled code again and again to reduce development costs. there got to be a way to make corporations pay for things like this, otherwise they simply wont care.
is that you, Ken Lay?
I know you're just a troll (posting histories available on /.) but - a significant proportion of the linux kernel developers are millionaires by now. While linux is unfortunately not actually a GNU/FSF project, and thus the FSF can only give advice, several linux kernel developers ARE fully capable of enforcing their copyrights. Companies with your attitude could be in for a NASTY surprise. Remember, the GPL is a "proprietary" license in intellectual "property" lawyer-speak - ownership IS asserted.
Modification doesn't matter. Source distribution is required regardless if modifications are made. Modification of the source isn't what triggers distribution of the source; ditribution of the binary is the act that triggers the source release. In short, no; they're not GPL compliant.
Why does the community demand compliance? There's only one way the community can be certain that no modifications were made: the source must be distributed. Otherwise modifications can be hidden behind binary-only distribution. Binary-only distribution ultimately leads to the death of the community or at least a substantial reduction in effectiveness.
From the GPL:
Note that anyone who distributes the executable is still obligated to provide the source, regardless of any changes they may or may not have made. Not only that, but they must also provide scripts used to compile and install the executable.
This whole issue came up because someone wanted to modify their DVD player. Apparently having access to kernel.org wasn't sufficient.
But isn't the FSF/RMS too busy removing Hurd OS devs over doc license issues to enforce the GPL?
> I know you're just a troll
No I know this guy is right. The GPL stuff is not realistic to real life means. Not to mention that the GPL doesn't have any effect in various countries such as the UK because of the already existing law. In various countries you need to re-write the GPL to manifest/integrate it in their law.
Is this the same Sigma Designs that was infringing on XviD?
/. story
/. update
Granted, the email in the link states that it is Liteon and not Sigma, but there's still something fishy going on here...
So does this mean that if there is SCO code in these DVD Players that all the consumers who own them will face the anal thrashing of SCO's lawyers?
I wish this would happen... if the 'SCO' Problem were to step out of the computer world and bite everyday electronics' consumers in the arse... maybe enough people would get pissed to end this whole thing.
Popcorn anyone?
Is in compliance, or at least appear to be.
To redistribute back to the rest of the people who have made modifications to Linux the changes they have made.
Not at all. The point of the GPL is not redistribution, but protection. You need to know what modifications are being applied so that, if you use it, you know you are not running malicious code. Many think it is about knowledge, but a public knowledge isn't necessarily a good thing. It limits advancement because a secret can be a good tool if used properly. But GPL doesn't have a central governing body to be held repsonsible, like a major company does. You trust that Novell won't put malicous code in a service pack, so we don't deman that they make it public. The Open Source community doesn't have such trust, so we self-check with the GPL. It isn't about increasing/limiting profits or knowledge, it is about limiting damage.
Thanks,
Bruce
> only that it is supplied on request
You have to provide an offer to supply the code.
(and you have to supply the code if someone takes you up on the offer.) So if Sigma aren't shipping such an offer with their product, they are violating.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
They have done so. It's $32 per device. RD
I sent my request to one of the manufactures that sell their product at the local computer store here. Send yours today. Lets see if they violate the GPL or not. :o
No, this is
But, assuming you were right - that would just mean you have NO permission to use linux under the Berne convention in the UK. In actuality, under the Berne Convention, the GPL does have legal weight in the UK. Though you don't have the same "fair use" rights as in the USA - so it's HARDER to "get around" the GPL in the UK - however, if you are in the UK, you can just go to Ireland, which has "fair dealing" rights similar to "fair use" if you wish to rip off some GPL code.
I've wondered before about the practicalities of enforcing GPL? When a proprietary license is violated, presumably there are money damages alleged as part of the complaint. What are the damages for violating a GPL license?
I'm laughing at clouds.
Just like you ask for a lot of money to support the GPL in court? It's not like you are an expert witness for free.
"The EM8500 is designed around the system-on-chip concept with an internal 150 Mhz RISC CPU"
In this context, of course, RISC stands for "Rodents in Spiny Coats."
getSexySig();
Those little hedgehogs certainly paint those pictures fast...
(Is a hedgehog a rodent? I thought they weren't but IANAZ.)
If someone works with Linux he has to know about the GPL, simple as that. A former employer of mine worked with the EM8400 and I wrote an application that used it. And we knew about the GPL and planned to release the sources when the product was to be released.
Unfortunately our company went insolvent so it's quite easy to say that we would have released the offending sources ;-) But the point is we worked with Linux and thus knew we had to deal with the GPL. I think anyone who professionally works with Linux has to know the GPL.
But many companies seem to ignore the GPL and just hope they won't get caught. It can be very hard to convince your managers that you are forced to republish any modified GPL'ed programs. In my experience the engineers/programmers know the GPL very well and tell their managers about it but those just don't want to hear. They are not comfortable with giving anything out to the public, even when it's about non-critical stuff or like in this case work of others with a license that forces you to release that particular code. They seem to ignore the fact that only the stuff that your employees wrote is the only thing you really have a right to and that you don't need to release that.
On the other hand Sigma could be telling their customers more about the GPL and what their customers have to publish and what they can keep. But I don't think it's Sigma's fault when their customers don't comply with the GPL.
Remember, this is the same company that tried to steal the . html">Xvid codec</a>. There is reason to believe this is not a simple mistake.
An important detail... The GPL provides terms under which you are authorized to distribute the software. You CAN mix together proprietary and GPL code and use it internally. You CAN NOT distribute software that contains both proprietary and GPL code.
While I am sure that there are numerous manufacturers out there that are blatantly violating the GPL in their use and distribution of Linux, that may not be the case with these manufacturers.
The GPL states that those that distribute GPLed software must provide the source to the recipients of the distributions upon request. That does NOT mean that they have to make the source available on their website. It means that people you receive the ditribution, in the form of the DVD player, must receive the source upon request. No one else is entitled to the source, only those that have received the distribution. It is even legal for them to refuse requests for the source from those who have not been distributed to, as in people who do not own the DVD players. This strict interpretation breaks down when these manufacturers make the software freely downloadable from their website in the form of firmware upgrades but, even in this case, the GPL does not require the distributor to make the source available on the website. They can still require formal requests before providiing the source.
Now, what the LKML does not say is, if the people concerned have made a formal request or not. It states that they examined the web site but there is no requirement for the DVD manucaturer to post the source on their website.
Like I said in the begining, they may be in violation of the GPL but there is insufficient evidence in the LKML posting to prove that. Remember that it is only a courtesy when distibutors make the sources available to all on their website. The GPL does not require them to do so at any time.
Should be:
"Maybe they've all bought licenses from SCO and therefore don't think they have to comply with the GPL?"
I think it's time to set a few examples and sue a few of these companies for the $150K per infringement statutory damage that goes along with wilful copyright violation for commercial gain.
They might have problems reading licenses, but I'm sure that will get the message across.
Would also put an end to the doubts about the enforcability of the GPL that some ppl seem to suffer from.
The GPL is not so hard to understand and is hardly ambiguous...
/ maine-speech.html
This is the short and very clear deduction from the GPL text by the person that made the arangement for this copyright, Eben Moglen.
He said it in here:http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications
The GPL, whose language you've been referred to, is not quite as elegant a license as I would like but it is pretty short; yet I can put it more simply for you. It says: ``Take this software; do what you want with it--copy, modify, redistribute. But if you distribute, modified or unmodified, do not attempt to give anybody to whom you distribute fewer rights than you had in the material with which you began. Have a nice day.'' That's all. It requires no acceptance, it requires no contractual obligation. It says, you are permitted to do, just don't try to reduce anybody else's rights.
So stick by it or have a chance to get sued...
.. I've run into more than one GPL nut who just happened to be running unlicensed copies of [proprietary M$ software] .. This seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
To use proprietary software, the license usually requires that you promise not to share with your friends. It's wrong to make this promise, and wrong to keep it if you made it.
The courts of most countries will disagree though, so I avoid proprietary software completely.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
..... or is it copyright law which is being violated here? Copyright law says you need permission from somebody to distribute copies of stuff. The GPL is permission to distribute copies of stuff as long as you comply with certain conditions. If somebody has been distributing binaries without making the source code available, then the permission granted by the GPL is automatically withdrawn.
.config file to be released.
..... even a load of IFs and GOTOs that would compile to produce the same object code probably would do ..... there'd be more than enough work for all the lawyers in the USA sorting out who had violated whose copyright!
If these companies are simply distributing binaries compiled from unmodified sources available on a site such as kernel.org, then there is not much of a case, because the source is already available elsewhere. They might be able to weasel out of their obligation by claiming someone else already has fulfilled it for them. However, if the kernel source has been in any way modified, then the GPL certainly requires source code to be made available in order for permission to copy to be granted. And it could be argued that the act of configuring the kernel constitutes a modification, or at least requires for the
Of course, the whole thing might start to get unbelievably messy if someone were to reverse-engineer this firmware and post a source code listing somewhere
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I maintain the EM85XX/Bravo D1 Hacking Page (maintain in the loosest sense of the word, it severely needs to be updated), so I've run into this before. One of the manufacturer's has attempted compliance though - Kiss. They made the source for the modified uClinux kernel they use available once, but now I can't find it on their website...it is still available here, though. Now whether any of the mfgr's are complying in full by not using GPL code in other parts of the firmware (i.e. init, mpegplayer.bin, fileplayer.bin, etc.) is another question entirely.
I don't want to enter a debate about how I make a living for myself, but there is nothing wrong for charging for the application of specialized knowledge. How many consultants do you hire for free? The fact that I can negotiate my rates is simply a product of the economic system we live in. What those rates are, specifically, are my private business. However I will state that sometimes I will negotiate for a lower amount if I feel the case has immediate relevence and importance. I prefer to view it as an investment at times.
Again, this wouldn't be a case of zealousness, but simply good business. Belief in a principle doesn't have to be removed from monetary benefit, for any parties involved.
Thanks,
Bruce
Has anyone been able to get the source from Watchguard? I've never been able to find sources from them. As for the written offer, I've never seen that either unless it is hidden away on their included CD-ROM.
Maybe they've all bought licenses from SCO and therefore don't have to comply with the GPL? Correction, they may think they don't have to.
- One story explaining how music/software piracy is actually good for society/the labels/the artists. /. readers bitch about how evil corporate America is not complying with their precious GPL license.
- One story where someone posts the entire text of the article because the site got Slashdotted.
- One story where someone posts a link to the Google cache of the article so readers can avoid registering with the NYT.
- One story where
-a
Companies with your attitude could be in for a NASTY surprise. Remember, the GPL is a "proprietary" license in intellectual "property" lawyer-speak - ownership IS
And do you have ONE example of legal action to enforce the GPL? Anything at all other than bad PR? Theoretically, it *could* happen, but it hasn't yet, and realistically, it ain't gonna. There's nothing to back it up. Hell, it hasn't even been challenged in any court. As far as a contract goes, I'm still convinced that it's null and void because there's no consideration involved.
Quote from the GPL:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
As long as any GPL'd source that is modified is rereleased under the GPL, which may very well be none, the worst violation I see is forgetting to include a link to the source code provided by whoever gave them the binaries, which is required if you make redistribute a unmodified binary-only version of a GPL'd program.
One *could* take messes like this to reinforce SCO's point - that the GPL is terrible, (terrorist?) and an excessive hindrance to business. Therefore the GPL should be found illegal and all of those copyrights reassigned as traditional copyrights to the correct entity appropriate to a derived work of Unix, namely SCO.
This is meant as tongue in cheek. Problem is, I suspect SCO could argue this in court with a straight face, and others like Microsoft would back them with an equally straight face.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The GPL should be endorsed: it's no big deal following the rules if you see what you get in return. ..and the big companies are really forgiving if you break their licence's? right?
so if they break the GPL: sue their ass and make em comply.
GPL VIOLATOR!!!! BURN THEM!!!!! IT'S A WITCH!!
BURN THEM!!!!
(Don't ask questions first, like did the
company actually release the source, or did
it not even modify the source and use a
kernel module....)
As far as a contract goes, I'm still convinced that it's null and void because there's no consideration involved.
In which case you would have no right to sell your derivative work whatsoever.
If a contract is void, that doesn't mean one side automatically gets everything it wants. The kernel developers still retain the rights to their code. If a company wanted to use the developers' work to make a product, and the GPL were void, the company would still need to deal privately with the developers to obtain suitable licenses.
God bless America.
There have been many cases, but they have been settled out of court. No lawyer in their right mind would challenge the GPL in court.
If SCO is selling embedded licenses for $29 per device and the DVD manufacturers are RETAILING them for $29 at Wally World then they must be giving them away for free.
When you consider all the middle men and middle-middle men that handle the unit from assembly line in China to the isle pallet at wally world, each handler marking up the unit 100%, or at the very least, 50%, (and figure in shipping costs too!) the cost to produce a DVD player is most likely in the less than $1 per unit range. And if they paid the SCO scam of $29 per unit, they would be losing a LOT of money real fast.
It's in their best profit-interest to ignore the GPL and do what ever the hell they want. If they get sued they can fold shop, change name/address and be back to cranking out new players the next day.
Welcome to the wonderful game of "global greed"
The GPL specifically states that merely agregating a work with GPL work does not make it a derivative work.
---
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
---
Derivative works must abide by GPL, but a mere agregation of separate work does not.
What ticks me off are trolls emphasizing one part of the GPL, while ignoring other parts to further their agenda.
It is not a violation to include proprietary kernel modules, nor to have proprietary code in user space. From what I can see, that is where it's highly likely the vendor code lives.
Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
RPMs and DEBs supply GPL'ed software, but the source isn't included right in there, is it? Well, not unless you're downloading a .src.rpm or something. The package generally contains pre-compiled files for your distribution and architecture, no source is involved.
The point is, I think if it were a violation of the GPL to distribute software explicitly without the source included, then someone would have cracked down on the whole package system a loooong time ago. As it is, the people supplying the packages just supply source alongside the compiled binary packages, so presumably all you need to do is make the sourc available, as people have said.
The GPL is anti-business because in business if you can steal and cheat your way to profit, you're morally obliged to do so. The GPL makes this harder to do than - e.g. a BSD-style license - so it is definitely anti-business, yes.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I don't, because the GPL isn't a contract; it's a unilateral grant of permission to perform actions normally prohibited by copyright. (However, I do believe that most commercial EULAs are or should be invalid due to lack of consideration, among other reasons). Regardless, there are two ways the GPL could be found "null and void":
1. The GPL is ruled to be entirely meaningless. Standard copyright law now applies to formerly GPLed software. Among other things, this means that *nobody* can distribute Linux since it has multiple authors.
2. The redistrution permission is upheld, but the requirements to provide source are found to be invalid, essentially turning the GPL into another BSD license.
Which of these do you believe will happen? Both seem unlikely to me, especially 2.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I recently bought a really cheap system from a local computer store at a really good price... It came with SuSE linux, and I am planning on using it try try out debian, fedora and mandrake as well (looking for my red hat replacement).
I didn't get any media with the computer. I went back to the computer store the other day asking for a copy of the SuSE media so I can reinstall, and they got all nervous, like I was asking them to give me a pirate copy of something.
Its GPL isn't it? they sold it to me, didn't they? Aren't they obligated to give me a copy now? Should I go in there and cause a scene?
As far as a contract goes, I'm still convinced that it's null and void because there's no consideration involved.
And you'd be wrong. Time to go back to law school. See Contracts - Cases and Comment sizth edition, by Dawson et al. page 370.
"Consideration confers a benefit on the promisor or causes a detriment to the promisee...." In this case, the promisee is the redistributor of the GPL'd work, who is required to perfrom an act that he has no legal duty to perform - provide access to the source code along with the binary. There is consideration, therefore the GPL stands as a valid contract on that point.
Redhat, IBM, AT&T, Stelias Computing Inc., Turbolinux Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Tacit Networks Inc, Mountain View Data Inc., Cluster File Systems Inc., Axis Communications AB, Transmeta Corporation, Caldera Deutschland GmbH (now SCO), Procom Technology Inc., Conectiva Inc. Qualcomm Inc., Montavista Software Inc., Madge Networks Ltd., Fore Systems Inc., ATecoM GmbH, Sun Microsystems, Telford Tools Inc., Free Software Foundation, ITConsult-Pro Co., Farsite Communications Ltd., Sangoma Technologies Inc., Intel Corporation, SysKonnect, United States Government, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Digital Equipment Corporation (now HP), Silicon Graphics Inc. (now SGI), Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation, PJD Weichmann & SWS Bern, Digi International, D-Link Corporation, DAVICOM Semiconductor Inc., MIPS Technologies Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc., RedCreek Communications Inc.Texas Instruments, University of California, Inside Out Networks Inc., Innosys Inc., Keyspan, Precision Insigth Inc., Va Linux Systems Inc, Broadcom, Hewlett Packard, ARM Ltd., The Victoria University of Manchester, SpellCaster Telecommunications Inc., Eicon Technology Corporation, Cytronics & Melware, QLogic, Perceptive Solutions, Mylex Corporation, LSI Logic Corporation, Compaq Computer Corporation (now HP), Tekram Technology, Seagate, Adaptec Inc., Creative Labs Inc.... Ok, I'm bored now, so that's all I can be bothered entering. Try a "grep -r -i copyright ." in your /usr/src/linux, and probably '(c)' as well.
Does that look like college kids to you?
Now, a lot of these companies are small, but quite a few of them are Fortune 500 companies too. There's your weight.
A lot of the above companies own copyrights on specific drivers only, so they may or may not apply in specific configurations, but many key contributors, such as IBM, SGI, Redhat, HP, Novell (SuSE) have their stuff all over the place in the kernel, and have money to go after you when it's their interest to protect their IP.
by Bruce Perens (3872) .Bruce Perens (150539)
by
So will the real Bruce Perens please stand up and his karma whoring alterego please step aside? Unless you're _both_ the real Bruce Perens, in which case I excuse myself, oh schizophrenic one!
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Respecting the GPL is important BUT embedded devices is one area where Linux has managed to get some real traction, take any steps to kill it now and you can only harm the community and adoption.
It's free or it's not free, in the long term you can't have both.
I am an owner of a DP-450 and the printed manual does not mention the GPL or that you can download the sourcecode on their webpage...
"Is it friday yet?"
I thought this was impossible (or not authorized by DVD CCA).
Has someone told DVD-Jon about this?
What does the MPAA have to say?
"Gentlemen, start your debuggers."
[meant to be funny.. it's nice to see Bruce post] Quoting Bruce Perens: "Stop being morons and read my posts! I've only said the same thing three times!"
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Some developers like the license. Some of us find out just how troublesome it can be, and change our minds.
My earlier projects were distributed under the GPL or LGPL. Then I got a job. I have to develop software for an organization that doesn't have the ability to release source code; we are a subsidiary of a larger organization that technically owns the copyright of everything I produce at work.
If I want to create software that uses GPL'd libraries, even if the software I create is a completely separate source tree and I don't change a single line of code in the distributable source of the library, the software I create has to be GPL. This is simply unacceptable; I don't have the time to get permission to do that on every project from my boss, let alone from the head of the parent organization and their lawyers. Eventually, every one of my creations at work may become OSS (and indeed, one of them already has) but I can't sit there and wait for that to happen before I start.
The solution is to use MIT-ish licensed software instead. Therefore, I license my own projects with the MIT license, so I can accept contributions to them and still be able to use them at work. Had I ever accepted contributions to my GPL projects without copyright assignment, pieces of those projects would be GPL *and* copyright to someone else, and I wouldn't be able to use my own projects at work!
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
>"... or else what? A bunch of college kids are going to sue us? Not bloody likely."
No, the free software foundation would take care of that. Perhaps also the ACLU would like to help out.
That's why you should give the FSF rights to your GPL software. Then it doesn't cost a dime to protect your freedoms.
Then again, since I'm not a developer, perhaps there's other philosophical issues apart from the legal issues that keep authors from signing their rights over to the FSF.
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
OpenAdStream (http://www.realmedia.com/) serves a lot of banners you see on the web sites.
The core of the product is mod_oas.so, an Apache module.
It embeds GDBM and GNU Rx that are both published under the GPL licence. It doesn't dynamically links with these libraries, it really embeds a specific version of them (the server works without the libraries installed on the system). If you are an OpenAdStream customer, just run "strings" on the module to discover the name of the source code of GDBM and an RCS ID of GNU Rx.
However the module is commercial, closed-source software. The GPL licence is available nowhere in the product. Even GNU Rx and GDBM author's names are missing.
I sent them multiple emails about this, none ever were answered.
{{.sig}}
When an open source projects infringes patents or trademarks people all whine about how unfair it is.
I believe the equation is:
No matter what is done: Free Software is good, Companies that try to make a couple bucks are bad.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
At first, I was in complete agreement with the idea being expressed here. It falls in line with the popular misconception that "free software" is all about "no cost". From there it isn't too far of a leap to suggest that if source code is included, Open Source code might be mistaken for something in the public domain.
But then - we're talking about professionals in the software industry. Getting software at no cost and not being aware of its licensing is a neophyte's mistake. After all, Open Source software is hardly the first time software has been available without an up-front fee.
Look at the whole range of software commonly referred to as "freeware". Some lump Open Source software under this label. However, freeware also includes quite a range of software licensed under proprietary licenses. Some proprietary licenses limit use - often delimited by commercial or non-commercial use. Sometimes these licenses don't even allow redistribution of the binaries that are freely available from the author's site.
It is very common practice within the Industry for software to be restricted in ways other than cost. And even when a fee is paid, the software in question still involves licensing restrictions. Developers know that this includes software with source code.
In the end, I agree that the GPL and many other Open Source licenses will seem odd to Industry developers. However, shrugging off these restrictions as "non-intutive" is naive. Anybody who has spent any time in the Industry knows that "free" means very little when it comes to licensing. And they should have the basic instinct to investigate and understand the license involved in any software they acquire and use.
Cisco didn't challenge it after acquiring Linksys, who use Linux in their routers and switches. After speaking with FSF legal counsel, Cisco put up all of the source.
The company I work for has fairly deep contacts at Cisco. Believe me, they weren't concerned about bad PR. It was a legally wise decision.
The FSF has challenged many, many incidents of GPL violation. Every company challenged has chosen to settle out of court.
I suspect you don't work with GPL'd code, have never dealt with companies that do, and have actually never been involved in systems development at all.
GPL'ed software dispenses with the "you pay us money" part. Then, it gives you the following additional rights:
What's "anti-business" about distributing a better product at a lower cost, giving more functionality to the end user? Is Macintosh "anti-business" because it's better than Windows? Is "Snap Cola" "anti-business" because it's cheaper than "Coca Cola"?
If you don't like the GPL or GPL'ed software, you have the same choice as with any other product: just don't use it. Well, actually, you have more of a choice, because while you may not be able to avoid using Microsoft software, you can definitely get through life without ever touching GPL'ed software.
'tongue in cheek'
Haven't you heard? Information wants to be free.
'tongue out of cheek'
"If BSD really was the superior OS that it is often claimed to be, why didn't it achieve buzzword status?"
Of course it is. Check Windows 2000 source code.
Seriously, you can not use "buzzword" status as a measure of anything.
Did they install the boxed version, or the download version.
Maybe they did do somethign wrong.
Which they shouldn't have.
been here before
n/t
Actually what has been demonstrated is that a very vocal minority has settled here, and is getting lots of air time (and mod points). Hence the perception of bias. Of course no one has ever accused Slashdot of ever being fair, and impartial, and I doubt anyone ever will. The fact that the parent post got as high as it did, is a good sign though.
I thought RISC in this context meant Really Inbreed Shitty C0cksuckers.
o well...looks like it's time to pull my pitchfork and flaming torch from SCO's "where the sun don't shine" part.
There's often quite a difference between infringing on a trivial software patent, and taking someone else's code and basically trying to pass it off as your own.
There's nothing wrong with companies making money from GPL'd software. However, if a company takes GPL'd source, compiles it into their product and then doesn't provide a notice anywhere describing how the source including any modifications can be obtained, then they are in violation of the GPL.
The bottom line is, if someone has spent their effort on creating a piece of code and has (generously) decided to release that code under the GPL, and you want to reuse some or all of the code that they wrote, you have to comply with the GPL - otherwise, you don't get to use it. It's not a difficult concept to understand, nor is it unfair.
LOSE not LOOSE (unless we're talking about your girlfriend). i don't normally do this, but i'm starting to see it 3 or 4 times a day.
"She got pushed down, and they walked over her like a herd of elephants," said her sister, Linda Ellzey.
*sniff*, things like this always make me remember what's important about Christmas..
getting trampled by overweight shoppers!
It's as Insightful as its parent .. if not more
... i.e., a closed-source operating system based on the Linux source code. They're working on it already, and it will the the single worst violation of the GPL. And there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
I purchased this DVD player late last summer and discovered the Linux kernel present on the upgrade BIOS disc.
This is the response I got from them:
----
From: DCTW_Service@liteonit.com
Subject: Re: Request for GPL Code
Dear Sir,
Sorry at the present, we don't provide the source code.
Thanks for your understanding.
Best Regards!
----
Of course, my understanding isn't important. The copyright owner's understanding is what matters.
I decided to e-mail the folks at the FSF for a follow up. I assumed that was the place to go, though I admit even today, that I'm not exactly sure sometimes.
Here was the response from them:
----
From: license-violation@fsf.org Subject: [gnu.org #114549] Linux GPL Code Violation - LiteOn Phomaster LVD-2001
For some reason, your mail never reached my inbox (indeed, the web interface to our RequestTracker seems to be having a bit of a hard time with it too). So, sorry for the late response.
We've already seen a few violations which look to be the same product as this under different packaging. We will add LiteOn to the list of people to write to about this. Thanks for the report.
--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
----
The whole process was really quite daunting from my perspective. It is my understanding that the Linux Kernel is not a GNU product (though much of the software in a typical linux distrubtion is). Being a linux/GPL/FSF/GNU newbie, it took me quite a bit of time to hunt down a place to submit my complaint. Does anybody know of a database of copyright owners who use the GPL, and more importantly a convenient location for notifying said individuals when a breach is found or suspected? Even the FSF site didn't have a spot that was blaringly obvious to someone who had never visited the site before for reporting GPL violations of their software.
I will say, its nice to see some attention being payed to this with regard to my DVD player. Not to advertise for the theifs, but its a great player...the new BIOS even allows one to play ogg encoded files written to a DVD or CF card. I'm interested, obviously, in getting my hands on the code and potentially flashing the BIOS with my own handy-work...maybe see if I can get the thing to take a hard drive or wireless network adapter in its PC card slot.
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead!" - God
Hey, I know, the FSF could sue them for
vioaltion of contract (the GPL). Then again,
nah, that would be doing the same thing as SCO
and the free-source community wouldn't wan't to
do that, would it?
We wouldn't even be having this discussion
if the manufactures were using a BSD licensed
system. These GPL compliance demands are just
another reason for these manufactures to use
BSD products in the future.
The reason so much GPL software exists is because developers like the license.
Yeah, but how many of GPL'ed projects are actually useful and complex enough to spawn any commercial
activity around them ? I personally know plenty of programmers who have no clear preference between GPL/MIT/BSD/SleepyCat/etc because in the end neither is realistically enforsable for an average small and mid-size project. The real reason so much GPL software exists is because GPL is a reasonable default choice of an open-source license, not necessarily the best one from the business perspective.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Just send your properly pickled penis to Cmdr. Taco and you'll receive a free CD of the source code to your DVD player in the mail.
Not just to protect against malicious code, but to allow you to modify the way the program works. For example, I have a Linksys Wireless-G Router, $69 after rebate. They also make a Wireless-G Bridge, for $169. It has less hardware, and I see no reason why the Router hardware couldn't perform the same function (connecting to an access point, rather than being an access point). I'm definitely interested in looking at the source for both devices to see how it can be modified.
... you get credit for your work.
Not just that. You retain copyright by the BSDL therefore the code you submitted under BSDL always remains BSDL.
So it's copyright and visible acknowledgement of that. But that's all AFAIU.
Coolest post I've seen on Slashdot in a long long long long long time.
Kudos.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
If there are GPL violations, we can sit around here and complain forever. The real question is, is there somebody out there who is DOING something about it?
It might not seem worth it in a lot of ways, particularly legal costs -- but the danger of not dealing with violations of the license is that it is going to make more companies assume that GPL authors/supporters can not or will not enforce the license. And that is a dangerous precedent.
Guys, we are scaring them off.
What if, because of this GPL mess, that manufacturers go to Windows Embedded and nextgen devices end up with some Internet connectivity or something.
I wouldn't like to see "The system is now shutting down due to some RPC shit. This shutdown was initiated by NTAUTHORITY\SYSTEM" in the middle of a DVD movie.
- is available here, http://www.duke.edu/~java32/bravo/bravohacking.htm l.
I do believe that they're most likely statically linking the drivers on those players, which constitutes an extention of the Linux kernel. There's a sort of exemption for dynamically loaded modules, in that it's been stated that it's considered to be "okay" for binary only modules, but there will be no considerations given for preserving any of the module to kernel interfaces so your module can break at any revision of the kernel. The problem with modules are that while they allow flexibility in the ammount of support provided in the kernel, they bulk up a kernel that only needs ONE set of specific device drivers loaded. In that context, it makes a BUNCH of sense to make them statically linked in the kernel.
Now, do you see the issue here? The vendors are statically linking Sigma Solutions' driver into their kernel versions. Direct violation of the GPL- period.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If they're distributing it as a binary distribution, the source code offer/distribution requirement APPLIES.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Stay away from Fedora. It's test-ware (or crap ware) whatever. There is no real commitment behind it. Go Suse or Mandrake. Even Debian.
Having worked in the Embedded Linux field for quite some time now, I have some perspective. It's not 100% gospel as I don't have anything but an add-on driver set for an obsolete SBC from Versalogic to my name as for kernel stuff. It is MY understanding (and the general understanding of the embedded world using Linux the "right" way...) that binary kernel modules are "okay"- there's no written exemption included with the rest of the licensing for it, but there's numerous references that can be found on the Internet that Linus and others didn't plan on pursuing that situation and that they were not going to worry about breaking binary compatibility with modules at any version release. Static linkage is purely a violation of the GPL if you do not provide the sources back to the world at large- it's linkage pure and simple and under the terms of the license grant, you have to provide source or stop distribution altogether.
It's a big grey area, but if you're using modules, it's a lot better and you're likely to not garner complaints like this if you do.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
So, say that I had written a program, that I distributed in binary form, that was GPL.. and had made the source available, but no one actually took advantage of the availability. What happens, if the original source code say, is destroyed in a hard drive failure, or some natural disaster, or some such? What is my liability then?
This actually happened to me, though the 3 year limitation had long since passed before anyone even thought to ask me about the source.. I just told them "look, I wrote this program 10 years ago.. the source was lost in a catastrophic IDE controller failure..." and the person asking was cool about it. But, what if they had decided to take me to court on the GPL?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I was under the understanding that it was okay. Now,reading what you've said, I've done a little research now, and I'm not sure anymore.
Ouch.
Perhaps it's for the best that the drivers are open source anyhow- it's not like they're REALLY keeping the competition from "ripping them off" like many keep saying will happen if they did open source things. Anyone capable of ripping them off would have a crack reverse engineering team and would do it with or without the source code. Yes, it'd make it more "difficult" but in the end, the result is exactly the same and usually, it's not much different in the bottom line for the copy-cat.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
hmmm... here the music industry, computer manufactures, M$, etc. are trying to sue people for writing this stuff. I wonder if it is possible to trade functionality in much the way that patten infringments are traded...
Just a thought.
Lindows claims it is offering up the source code to the specific programs it puts in it's Lindows distribution. But they do not state this is with some exceptions, for example xine. No xine source available. Maybe it's because of the commercial DVD decoder codec included in their version? Maybe it's some other reason. The fact remains it simply isn't available.
Actually, from what I understand, the BSD license is more appropriate for businesses who do not wish to disclose their modifications.
Which is probably the reason nobody uses BSD, and they go with Linux. With BSD, businesses will treat their mods as their own 'Intellectual Property' and more likely than not aren't going to give anything back.
There is a reason businesses use Linux, and it has more to do with the license than you BSD whiners think.
I don't agree.
The GPL says that you must provide the source, or an offer to supply the source if you distribute.
I don't see any clause that permits you to pawn it off on others.
Anyone remember when Sigma released an MPEG4 encoder that was 90% of XVID's code? It took a month to straighten out and ended with Sigma GPL'ing their encoder.
Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, First Sale.
If you sell me a copy of your book for $0 and I turn around and sell it for $20, your bad.
If you sell me 1000 copies of your book for $0 and I turn around and sell them for $20 each, your bad.
If you sell me 1,000,000 copies of your OS for $0 and I turn around and sell them for $100 each, your bad.
If you sell me (x number) copies of your (y content) at (z price) and I turn around them and sell them for (z*n price) each, your bad; well, assuming n >= 1.
Isn't this the same group that was pushing the first sale doctrine on Apple a few weeks ago? Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot. The only one here that must follow the rules is Sigma, everyone else is just a reseller selling the product.
I love how Walmart didn't even just give her the damn DVD player -- they offered to put one on hold. Gee thanks.
Oh my god......[sploooooooge]. Oh man, that list of industry heavy hitters just gives me a hard on, and brings me to splooging orgasmic ectasy. We're the counter revolutionaries that hold up big daddy corporations whenever we can.
IBM!...[splooooooge]...Compaq! [splooooooge]...
Come on mods, how many of you are gonna keep modding this .Bruce Perens up?
so they should theoretically be accountable; but of course, there's nothing to stop them from being cleverer than the others about disguising its origins.
Someday we'll all be negroes
MOD PARENT DOWN This isn't the real Bruce Perens - Just another shaky faggot.
Profiting off of the code and ignoring the authors wishes. There's little incentive to write code which offers little return. Compliance to the GPL can offer some type of return to the authors, GPL infringments remove that collective potential return to the authors.
They didn't really need to give her anything. It's not Wal-Mart's fault that their customers are imbeciles.
it *is* anti-business, specifically anti-software business. lets think of an example, shall we:
two companies decide to develop an innovative product, gadget X, that requires some sort of OS. in the old days, when no Fre Software was available, they would both develop something proprietary (or license it) to build upon. nowadays, they have GPL'ed stuff available to them. company A decides that it will build on GPL'ed code and to heck with the consequences, while company B decides to stand their ground. company A is first to market, with a much lower development cost. company B is still developing their proprietary thinger, spending a lot of moolah. meanwhile, company A sells some gadgets and enjoys some temporary success, but finds that a bajillion other companies now sell the same or equivalent thing, because they could build on their source. company B is screwed, because they have just lost a ton of money on developing their own solution. company A is likewise screwed, because they either didnt sell enough gadgets to cover their development cost or, in the best case scenario, did not reap the benefits of being the leader/one of the first in coming up with the idea.
this is *bad* for the same reason that lack of patents is bad. while this does, in the short term, offer the consumer lower prices, more freedom and more choice, it disincentivizes the companies from investing into r&d and creating new stuff. so until altruistic spirits start developing dvd players and charging their cost for them, this will be anti-business.
with that said, im writing this on a linux box, which i enjoy using.
paul
After purchasing a Rio Karma, I started to poke around it abit. Guess what? It too is running linux, and the source is not made available from the Rio website (or on its CD)
Where's the address to write to if I want a copy of the Linux source code?
http://skyos.org/messagelist.php?category=OS&topic =Where+can+I+get+the+Source%3F
Just use a Free/Net/OpenBSD, and you won't have to worry about getting 'infected' by the GPL.
Linux is used because it is popular. Sort of like how Britney Spears sells a lot of albums. Popularity != Quality
It appears that copyright is only for the rich, as they are the only ones able to defend it. We need a way to 1st enforce our rights, and 2nd provide an easy way for users of copyright code to comply. Stick and carrot below.
For example if a corp has save a bunch of money by using GPL, but don't want to release source code, being threatened by 100 angry protesters doesn't do much. Their day in court won't come since as a software developer you aren't necessarly rich enough (or have the time enough) to spend in court.
But if a central body, (GPL Enforcement agency) is assigned the legal right to sue on the behalf of GPL providers, then it's one big hammer, that looks like a class action every time it hits.
So the company want's to comply but doesn't want to spend a huge amount of money doing it. They don't want to set up a web site etc etc etc. So the GPL Enforcement agency says, we will provide a web site on your behalf.
It becomes a central repository for code,(esp specific to device drivers), and as it becomes used more, the gpl becomes more accepted business pratice. It provides an easy system for companies to comply, without a big budget drain (just ftp and you're done) It just becomes a cost of doing business.
I think a lot of the times, a company isn't necessarly hiding the code (after all most of it is available anyways), they just never budgeted for the release.
Hey Bruce what do you think?
I have to ask: why bother? Linus et al have never, to my knowledge, sued any of the numerous violators, or even threatened them. Why would any of these companies give a damn if they were violating Linus' copyrights if he's never going to enforce them? I hate to keep taking this position, but as long as Linus keeps his head in the sand, this is only going to get worse.
Do you have ESP?
It woule be cool to make a site that lists GPL violators where people can add companies which violate the GPL and details about the GPL violation (what products, etc.).
If a company wants to take away my software freedoms in order to run their business, then I have no problem using the GPL to prevent them from doing that.
The GPL protects my freedoms as the recipient of the software. I couldn't care less about the "freedom" of a company to sell GPL code without honouring the license.
...there's also a BIOS company ignoring the GPL with some of their non-BIOS software...
...understand?
Have you read the Long email xchanges included within the kernel source? No where does it bring up your point: a dynamically loaded module doesn't have to be GPLed, while a static module has to be GPLed.
The whole point was to consider if a module is 'derived' work of the kernel - is it independant that it can run on different kernel OSs(i.e AIX, Linux, Windows, etc) or does it require linux specific features?
In Nvidia's case, they have a core-driver wrapped around a kernel-specific layer, where the driver was ported from Windows. This was the original intent of allowing non-GPL modules: porting of drivers from other OSs proves that your module is really 'non-derived'.
But if your module was initially developed under Linux and only runs on Linux, then it can be considered 'derived', as you haven't proved otherwise. Since the concept of 'derived' is ambigous, the kernel guys are now labelling symbols as GPL, LGPL, etc. Though it's going to be hard not to mix GPL and LGPL symbols(i.e. can't use a macro that references GPL code from a module that only uses LGPL symbols).
""" ...people who produce useful things are rewarded.
...some government regulation is required...an industry where everyone loses.
"""
Correct, so it would be correct to apply this to the makers of Free software who have obviously produced somthing useful and are rewarded by availability of source code from people who use their works.
"""
"""
Wow, that's a new one. Here I was thinking that it was Capitalism *itself* that weeded out those industries because it ""exploits a game theory model in which people who produce useful things are rewarded"". Hmmmmmm. The only reason government intervention is required is when (as you *correctly* pointed out) monopolies are created so that one company/person gets rewarded *too much* at the expense of everyone else. Government intervention is *not* required because some industry starts bottoming out its profit margins due to high competition: this is the very reason we use a Capitalistic system!!! I for one would be *very opposed* to my government artificially raising prices to keep some industry alive on life support. I believe the WTO has some strong things to say about this too. If GPL software kills some other company's margins: Bad Luck.
"""
Copyright law is an instance where government regulations ensure that the game theory basis of capitalism can be applied to industries with high development cost but low marginal production cost
"""
Perhaps, but that is only *by accident* in fact, copyright law and patent law exist *for the betterment and advancement of knowledge in society as a whole*, a function which the GPL performs quite nicely, wouldn't you agree?
"""
The GPL is a perverse attempt to disrupt this balance by using copyright law to subvert the exact purpose for which it was intended.
"""
As demonstrated above, patently false.
I think you can go home now.
If anyone does not like the GPL license that goes with Linux, then there is BSD as alternative open source OS. By using BSD instead of Linux, there is no requirement to release the modified source. If you insist on using Linux then you should respect the terms of the contract. If your supplier uses Linux and you modify the code then you should either respect the GPL, ask your supplier to use a different OS, uses a different OS yourself or seek an alternative supplier, who does not use Linux in their product.
There are choices, and it is up to the business to make the best one for their needs and limitations.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Lansonic is an example of another company that uses Linux in their devices but is reluctant to provide the source:
The source for the kiss divx player is on there website Kiss GPL sourcecode always was.
The linux kernel isn't distributed under the BSD license - get over it. It is distributed under the GPL. Nobody forced the business to choose this software solution, they did it because it seemed to reduce their costs and software development overhead and time. They took advantage of it and must follow the licnese, period.
http://www.Mecotek.com/ also sells a player (MK-X4000) with Linux. I've generally been pleased with the resulting solution, but would really like to correct their menu system to honor directories.I'm tied of carefully created directory systems being ignored.
WHERE CAN I GET THE SOURCE?
Companies can quite easily use the GPL to do business provided that they follow the terms of the license just like they would with any other license. Would they get away with violating the terms of a microsoft license? If not, then why should they be allowed to violate the terms of any other license?
Call it flamebait if you will because I used microsoft as an example, but you are already moderated at -1 Flamebait, and my example is valid. Stick in the name of any other license holder if that makes it easier to swallow.
When was the last time Microsoft sued someone for violating their EULA?
Hah! Microsoft EULA's are just gentlemans agreements that do not carry any legal weight.
You are all hypocrites.
You all complain when someone uses GPL stuff and doesn't comply, but NONE of you comply with commercial software licenses when they say "Don't disassemble this code" in their licenses. Don't give me the "fair use" rights crap, if you want people to follow the GPL, then you should too, and stop ripping those commercial entities into GPL code.
Hypocrites extreme is what you all are.
And modders, get a clue.
They are stealing code. They are breaking the license. If they don't want to release code, then THEY SHOULD NOT MODIFY GPL SOFTWARE.
Me personally couldn't give a fuck about scaring a bunch of thieves off. The GPL is not a free lunch that makes it okay to ignore and get all those developers ass-raped by some greedy corporation.
This is confirmation of the parent's points from the FSF itself.
If you don't like this 'abuse' of the GPL...then grow a backbone and sue.
A very blatent violation was the Virgin Webplayer. No action was taken then, so why should anyone think the copyright holders in the Linux kernel will grow a backbone now and sue.
Go 'way and play with your lame pr0nsite some more NineNine... :P
Section 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:
Okay.. that's straightforward.. you are allowed to do X if you also do one of the things listed here
This does not mean just CD Roms. The last paragraph of section 3 even clarifies this. Downloads off a website certainly qualify.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Okay.. of note is "machine readable" and "medium customarily used". A download off your website easily qualfies here. YOU are responsible for providing the download though, you can't just point them at a different copy someone else maintains. (or maybe you can, but you would have to be prepared to offer it should they stop). You are correct, though, that this has to be a real offer, just posting the stuff to the web will not work.. and is irrelevant.. what matters is that you give them a valid offer to get the source. That offer does not need to indicate a URL, or what format it will be provided on. It could say "Call this number to get the source" and sort it out from there... and as long as it was provided via a reasonable, accepted media(website, cdrom, etc), you are compliant.
This clause does not apply, as it says, to any commercial distribution. This clause is there so that I can give you a copy of something, and point you at the original vendor's source.
Now.. for an embedded device.. this is all trivial. As the source is not included IN the device, it would have to be either included on a CD with the device, or the device would have to come with a written offer stating who to contact in order to obtain the source.
Good for them! I applaud the initiative! I'm just counting down the seconds until the GPL is declared legally invalid!
Long live BSD! Long live the LGPL!
Actually, according to the GPL, the source code must be available for anyone who wants it... however, if they didn't modify the kernel, it would be quite sufficient to say "this product uses the RedHat 7.2 kernel, source is available at the RedHat site (www.redhat.com)".
If their *application* code is running with no kernel mods (the kernel mods, being integrated with other GPL code would be "infected" with the GPL and would need to be open sourced), then their own application code could be on what whatever license they wanted and would *not* need to be GPL'd or made available.
Personally, they would have been far better off using NetBSD, under the BSD license. It supports at least as many architectures as Linux, and is far more easily ported to new ones. Plus it has the advantage of allowing them to keep things under wraps (ok, such as the CSS keys, which are useless since it can be cracked anyways... but perhaps other code such as licensed code from Dolby or something for the sound)...
Anyone out there who has used an F5 load balancer or a Nokia firewall has used BSD. They are welcome to make their own tweaks to the OS and distribute it w/o opening up thier mods. This has bought them a market edge for a few years, and they do contribute to finding bugs in the codebase, etc. They contribute to a more stable/secure product, while still keeping their own product 'proprietary'.
Well, I am a programmer, and while I've not (yet) contributed to any open source projects (precious little spare time as it is), I can imagine I wouldn't be too quick to sign my copyrights over to the FSF (or anyone else, for that matter). There's no legal reason why not, afaik, I'd just rather keep hold of it, even on stuff I've open sourced. Never know when it might come in handy.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Stop distributing the infringing code. The FSF don't sue for damages if the infringment stops.
Companies that sell gadgets sell something more than the software that's in them. They sell an image, a status, a thing that looks cool and fills some functions for the users. Reducing the development cost for software for a gadget X and the copies X2, X3 ... Xn (and the cost is not totally removed since code can be capsuled in different way as described elsewhere in this thread) simply transforms the market situation for gadget X into one where the monopoly time is shorter and product image has to be built faster. Healthy gadget makers can cope with this.
The fact that company B is screwed is quite allright in the capitalistic model we work with. They clearly have not adapted to the fact that gadget Xi competes on other grounds than they presumed. This indicates that their management needs to be replaced and/or forced to learn from the experience.
Given the large number of gadget makers out there and their quite comfortable profits, I don't feel the GPL will be the end of gadgets. For us non-gadget makers it will just mean better, shinier cheaper gadgets with fewer bugs in the software.
With that said, I write this on a MS box, which I curse every day. :-( /TLTS
Or, at least, if you read many of the posts about the RIAA on Slashdot, the unauthorised acquisition of intellectual property isn't theft.
Until it's GPL'd, that is...
[monopoly time is shorter]
that, my friend, is the key. we are not talking gadgets as in 'novelty items', we are talking gadgets as in, say, a network appliance that solves problems X, Y and Z. the problems were not solvable previously, hence no market for the appliance existed before company X came up with its solution. they invest time and a lot of money into building a market, informing the consumers (sme consumers in this case) and building awareness. if company Z can then come and compete on equal footing, there is no point for company X to have gone to all the trouble.
speaking from experience, the situation is alerady pretty bad. the only chance for a startup X in such a scenario is to get bought out by one of the big guys who want a piece of said market and find it cheaper and faster to buy the startup out than to roll their own product in-house. if such does not happen, startup X has to rely on a very slim chance that they will grow fast enough to be able to compete with the new entrants. and this is *without* having to make their source code public.
'dumping' (ie selling at an artificially low price in order to kill competitors with less cash reserves) is illegal for the same reason. im going to use gpled code because the other guy will, even though i will probably kill myself in the process because some other guys will build on my code, but this at least gives me a bit of time to live. it is *very* hard to compete against companies that do not exist with the goal of becoming successful.
paul
a true /. classic! BRAVO!
I think the GPL is ambiguous to say the least.
What is the difference between LGPL and GPL? The ability to link commericial code to code under the LGPL?
What about with interperated languages? What is linking? does RPC count as linking?
^moo^
I believe it's called "public relations".
I am presently working on an embedded project that will embed the linux kernel and many other GPL'ed programs. We will comply with the GPL by giving the email address of an individual who can provide the source.
When you ask for the source you will get the source tarballs for the GPL packages plus any patches we applied to them. You won't get the compiler, proprietary applications, proprietary modular drivers, makefiles, and build scripts that put it all together. Basically, what you get will be useless.
A lot of people here seem to think that if their DVD player (or whatever) contains linux then they should have the right to the source to build the whole firmware image. I'd love to have the option of tooling around with my dvd player too, but it is the manufacturer that will decided if I can do that or not.
I'm gonna say "SCO" but this isn't a joke post.
SCO's infamous initiative is "to create new and innovative licensing programs" for their "UNIX(R) System intellectual property". They've decided to become a litigation company and have found it to be a very unpopular thing to sue every human possible for the benefit of themselves and their shareholders.
What if SCO concentrated on suing on behalf of others instead of for themselves? They have the will and the means to sue just about anybody, and they think they own Linux somehow. What if they only went after those that were violating the GPL? They could be heros. They could do the dirty work that most open-source developers don't want to have to stoop to, and they could keep actual non-imaginary IP violations in check.
Maybe someone else already does legal stuff for linux. I never bother to RTFA.
Of course you'd get "insightful" for that.
I'm surprised I didn't get flame for my message, just wait. slashdot will set me straight on the wonders of the GPL someday.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire