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."
*Takes bait*
It doesn't matter if you don't modify the kernel; if you distribute it, you must provide source.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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!
No reason to wait... This kind of thing has happened many times before. You send 'em a "comply or desist" letter, which should weed out all those infringing due to ignorance. So far, all GPL infringment cases have been settled out of court, which is why everybody's saying it's "untested in court". In reality, no lawyer in their right mind would actually try to fight the GPL. It's not like this issue's never come up before.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
I would have thought somebody of your stature wouldn't have made such a simple mistake. The GPL doesn't state that distributors have to supply source with all products, only that it is supplied on request. Thus the company does nothing wrong until it refuses to release the source upon a request.
Hey Bruce, do you know if anyone is doing anything about these violators?
Off the top of my head they've modified GRUB, VideoLan, and KHTML and aren't distributing the source code or including a written offer for the source code in the distribution.
Dinivin
You have to distribute source whether or not it's a derivative work.
Not exactly true. You do not have to DISTRIBUTE the source, you can make the source available on request and that is good enough.
See paragraph 2 of the GPL Preamble (...or can get it if you want it.) as well as Item 3, Sub-Item B of the main body:
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,"
In short, you DON'T have to distribute the source WITH the product. Making it available via a download would satisfy.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
why can't you just ignore the GPL?
As a user... you can ignore the GPL. You can use the software as you see fit.
As a distributer of GPL'ed software - you have to get permission from the copyright holder to copy the software, or, if you'd like, follow the terms of the GPL.
With an EULA, you have to get permission from the copyright holder to copy the software. (Fat chance). Or.... nothing. EULA's don't give you permission to copy software at all.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Is in compliance, or at least appear to be.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The GPL doesn't state that distributors have to supply source with all products, only that it is supplied on request.
To comply fully with the GPL you have to offer the source code. The GPL is quite explicit about this: when you distribute a binary, you have to tell people how they can get the source code and the offer has to accompany the binary distribution.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They have done so. It's $32 per device. RD
3(b) of the GPL says the written offer must apply to any third party, not just the person who got the binary.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
linux zealots at their best, foaming at the mouth whenever someone doesn't follow their every command.
You're trolling, but this raises some worthwhile points, so I'll respond anyway.
In the first place, this is no different whatsoever from the behavior of any copyright holder -- just try distributing DVD players running Windows CE without a license, and see if Microsoft doesn't get peeved.
In the second place, no one has to follow the commands of the "Linux zealots". Anyone can opt out of the GPL by simply not distributing GPL'd code. Don't distribute, and you won't be subject to the terms of the license.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In the case of a computer with Linux, if you give it away you fall under 3(c) of the GPL, and only have to pass on the source-code offers that were given you. If you sell it, you fall under 3(a) and 3(b), so you either distribute the source code with the computer or make an offer to do so valid for 3 years.
Me, I'd wipe the disk, put on a fresh install, and give the buyer the CD set.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Nope, the GPL says "offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code". That could for example be a little slip of paper, saying "You can download the Linux kernel source at $company_url".
There's normally already lots of little slips inside a generic DVD player package, saying things like "If you can read this, your warranty is void" and other stuff, so one more shouldn't bring the cost up by too much.
why can't you just ignore the GPL?
You can. The GPL even says so. Section 5 says:
However, if you don't accept the GPL, then ordinary copyright law applies, and copyright law says that you're not allowed to make copies of a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright holder. So, you can use GPL code without accepting the GPL, but you have no right to distribute it.
Section 5 goes on:
If you want to make and distribute copies, you have to get permission. The GPL will grant you that permission, but only with some caveats. Or you can contact the copyright holder(s) and negotiate some other agreement that gives you permission. If you don't want to do either of those, then you can't distribute the code without opening yourself up to lawsuits.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Great now we can get some DVD code and keys
Who cares? CSS is so thoroughly cracked that today's open source decryption code doesn't even need any keys. It just looks at the encrypted stream and does a ciphertext-only attack to recover the keys, which it then uses to decrypt the data. CSS sucks.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I can't lie under oath. And I have to deal with discovery - the fact that the court can force me to give my opinion whether it is to the customer's advantage or not.
So, when I think my testimony would damage them, I have once or twice told a customer - you don't want me to work on this any longer, and you don't want to know why. And they know not to probe farther.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
The thread started with a request by an owner of the DVD player, to Liteon, for the source. The request was refused. If that's not a clear violation, I don't know what is.
Also, as Bruce Perens pointed out in another comment, the GPL requires that you offer to provide the source code to anyone, not just people who own the DVD player.
Human/Ranger/Zangband
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.
People don't seem to realize that there are two sides to this equation. The GPL is commercially very useful, because it provides the copyright holder with a means to restrain his competition and potential customers. With the BSD license, a competitor or potential customer can run away with your product, with no obligation to fulfill any sort of quid-pro-quo. With the GPL, the competition and customers either have to follow the rules and release the derivative works that they distribute with your code, or they have to come to you to buy a commercial license that lets them out of the GPL obligations.
Thus, I often wonder if most people who find BSD licensing more acceptable just don't release much free software of their own.
But then, I have gotten a number of emails of the form so-and-so stole my code in their product, but I guess it's my own damn fault because I used BSD licensing. Some people don't seem to think this through until it's too late.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
And of late there has been an effort among the kernel developers to hide some kernel symbols from proprietary drivers. There's a macro you can use to control what symbols are exported, and what they are exported to.
Modules don't directly make system calls, so what Linus says about them is probably moot. I can not conclusively tell you today that proprietary run-time loadable device drivers for Linux are legal. I've studied the problem a lot, looked at the relevant cases, and talked with lots of lawyers about it. And the result is that I can find no legislation, no case law, and nothing in the license that would make them legal. Thus, I tell my customers not to engage in making them.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Nvidia only gets away with this because they don't ship the Linux kernel. The end user combines nvidia's drivers with the kernel, creating an "incompatible" combination that can be used by the end user but may not be further redistributed.
Most embedded device manufacturers are going to be distributing the kernel with their modules. Since the modules link to the kernel as shipped, the modules must be GPL'd.
I'd recommend mencoder if you don't mind the command line. A quick mencoder -ovc [insert codec here] -oac [insert audio codec here] -o somename.avi dvd://[number] and you're set. My current setup supports a straight copy, XViD, QuickTime, and several others which I'm not sure what they are...
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
- is available here, http://www.duke.edu/~java32/bravo/bravohacking.htm l.