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."
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 guess you don't understand or you're joking.
I don't know now, but there were the times when I wanted to use my Sigma DVD card under Linux. And they provide shit. The least to comply with GPL would be releasing the drivers for their cards for Linux.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
"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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
There have been a lot of cases of far-east engineering firms including GPL code in products, and selling those products to other companies that are not made aware of the licenses they have to comply with.
The really unfortunate thing is that the GPL FUDsters may find this to be great fodder. I've often heard the "you never know if one of your employees will download something off the net, add it to your proprietary codebase, and inadvertantly cause all of your IP to fall under the GPL" argument. Now this can be joined by the "You never know if something you bought has hidden GPL code..." argument.
On the other hand, maybe it's helpful. At least when you base your products on a GPLed codebase you know where you stand, rather than getting a surprise later.
Just the fact that they didn't include the GPL license, copyright statements, and a written offer to provide the source code, makes them violate the GPL. ... It doesn't matter if they provide the source after you discovered by accident that the binaries are GPLed.
- Erwin
Well if anyone said you can ignore a EULA, they lied. A EULA may not be legally binding in general (a hidden provision signing off your first-born child would just be so many useless words) because you hven't actually signed anything. But it does affect your use of the software. Agreeing to a EULA can legally limit the things you can do with the software and your legal recourse against the distributor.
EULAs are, however "unenforceable" in that it would be impossible/impractical for a software distributor to catch you violating the EULA, or gain enough evidence to prosecute you for it. It's like laws prohibiting oral sex in your home... It might be illegal, but for anyone (including the police) to catch you doing it, it would require them to break the law in the process of obtaining evidence. This is what most people mean by "unenforcable" (dunno about the legal definition if any... IANAL).
The GPL is significantly more enforcable, since it deals with the distribution of software, which must be done in public. These embedded devices contain GPLed software, that much anyone can verify, but the companies are not distributing the code. All the evidence needed to make a case is publicly available.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Should be:
"Maybe they've all bought licenses from SCO and therefore don't think they have to comply with the GPL?"
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.
P.S. - I'm not a big GPL supporter, The BSD License is more commercially acceptable.
You can be a fan of whatever you want, of course, but that's not a reasonable justification.
What's commercially acceptable about software that doesn't exist? The reason so much GPL software exists is because developers like the license. Not being a fan of the GPL because it doesn't allow businesses to get free code without so much as having to share their changes is pretty weak stance IMHO.
The GPL is setting out a set of additional rights that the copyright holders are granting you if you agree to abide by certain rules. If you don't agree to abide by the GPL you can still use the product, but copyright law prevents you from legally distributing it.
How is it anti-business? If you want to distribute GPL code and don't like the license terms, you're free to negotiate others or to write your own code. This is exactly the same situation as with proprietary code, except that the GPL gives you an easy way out if you are willing to accept the restrictions that come with it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
the possibility of accidental use of GPLed code causing them to have to open their entire codebase under the GPL.
The accidental (or even intentional) use of GPLed code does not automatically make the entire codebase GPL. The only way code becomes GPLd is when its owner explicitly distributes under the GPL.
If a company includes GPL code in their proprietary codebase and distributes the result as proprietary, then they have committed a copyright violation and can be sued by the GPLed code owner(s) for infringement. In this case the company has three options:
Distributing GPL code mixed with proprietary code does not automatically place the proprietary code under the GPL.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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
Would you even need to go so far? The GPL states, "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I really doubt a print-out would qualify, even if it was machine-readable to some extent.
You are correct. I had not seen the initial LKML post.
Their refusal to provide the source upon request is a clear violation.
Is it worth it to compromise what Linux stands for just to gain popularity? And what then? Is it necessary for Linux to become the number 1 operating system? That will only make it a larger target for viruses, and it's not as if Microsoft and the other giants are just going to go away if Linux surpasses them in popularity. They'll still be household names, and people will still buy their products, just as we still buy Linux products. Thus, as long as Linux remains a sizable majority, it will survive , and forgoing principle to acheive greater ends will be unnecessary but for greed (Microsoft, anyone?).
Esoteric reference.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
>"... 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}}
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.
All this guy is asking for are the kernel mods that let Linux run on that chip, so he can make his own PC-cards work.
Litigious bastards
been here before
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.
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.
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.
Right, and this is why many people don't consider GPL code to be at all free, in any sense of the word. If I'm looking for some code to help me develop something faster and I see GPL code, I right away think, "Oh, this is GPL" rather than "Oh, this is free".
Personally, I'd sooner rewrite a basic library and release it BSD than use GPL software. Of course, this is probably because I prefer the middle ground of free basic software libraries, but commercial end programs. Of course, if an end program is fairly simple, then even that I figure should probably be BSD based.
Anways, I don't think people dislike the GPL becasue it is bad for companies, rather that the GPL is heralded as "Free Free Free" when it's really not.
The part that denies you complete control over your own work by requiring distributed modifications and derivations also be licensed under the GPL.
Okay. First. It's not "their own work". It's the works of hundreds of individuals who have spent their time (many years) working on this Linux, agreeing to let others use it only if the source code is included. You may have built on it, but you always have the option of starting from scratch. I think the saying is "You can't have your cake and eat it to". You can't use someone else's work and resell it outside of the original terms.
Second, if you wrote your own software and don't want it released under the GPL then simply Don't release it under the GPL!
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
The GPL is anti-business because it seeks to undermine traditional business models (by reducing the cost of software to $0) while thwarting alternative business cases
Sure, the GPL is antithetical to traditional software businesses, but GPL software is also tremendously useful to lots of other businesses. Lots *more* businesses, in fact.
Sure there are plenty of /. pontificators who sit around on their couch proposing alternative business models, but 90% of those wouldn't pass the laugh test at a corporate board meeting.
Here's one, see if it passes the "laugh test": A company is in the business of producing computer-animated films. It can buy high-end hardware that runs expensive software which may not always do exactly what it needs, or it can grab GPL'd software, modify it as needed and run it on commodity hardware.
Now, which type of software better serves this business?
Or, how about this one: A company is in the business of selling powerful computers, high-end proprietary software products and professional services to integrate the software and hardware and make it meet business needs. This company can develop its own proprietary operating system(s), incurring huge costs that really only serve to support the hardware and services businesses, or the company can grab GPL'd software, port it to the company's hardware, port the software to it and train the company's services professional on it. The services professionals can then score additional points with their clients by pointing out that the clients are not locked into said company.
I'm sure you recognize this company.
The GPL is about making software available to users and keeping the software from being locked up and controlled. Many users, in business and not, appreciate this.
You can try to argue that this destroys software companies which will ultimately destroy software development, etc., etc., but that's crap. As long as there are people willing to give their work away for free, there's no market for competition to that work. In markets where the free stuff doesn't exist there are opportunities to sell proprietary software.
At the end of the day, this may very well slow the development of commercial software because it increases the risk that the investment will not show a return. I'm convinced that this slowdown will be more than offset by the fact that so much code is available for experimentation and enhancement by anyone, not just by the developers at one company.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Uh, you *always* have to get permission from the copyright holder to copy the software. That's what copyright law is.
The EULA takes that, repeats, *and* says you can't even *use* the software (which is expressly permitted by US copyright law, incidentally: if you lawfully acquire the software, it is not infringement to run it).
EULAs are based on contract law, rather than just copyright law.
So a EULA is only like the GPL in a superficial sense....
Most people draw a distinction between commercial and non-commercial use of other people's intellectual property. Home piracy is non commercial, and was only recently criminalised under pressure from the copyright holders. Commercial piracy has always been criminal and held to be unacceptable by almost everyone.
In this case, devices are being sold in violation of the GPL, so it's clearly commercial.
Right but the use of the GPL license has absolutely nothing to do with business. The choice of the GPL license is that of the developer. That is right not any business but the individual developer. It is a way to release code into the wild without it being either sold back to you and or exploited. What most people tend to forget is that I, Joe Developer, don't give a damn if you cannot put my code in your closed program.
Got Code?
While they have to provide the source to the kernel if they are including it in hardware they are selling there is no compulsion to release their drivers - just like nVidia, they could quite easily provide a kernel module that is a wrapper around a binary. I think they might have to release the source code to the wrapper module, but they don't even have to release the binary file it uses at all (other than in the devices they supply). The kernel would report that it was tainted (P), but who will ever go running lsmod on a DVD player?
Having said that, I hope someone nails them for the infringements they are guilty of.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
I would say that most of us GPL software developers don't give a damn what you think.
Got Code?
Okay, I think it was someone else who called me a troll. Sorry about that.
Ahh, okay. NP.
That's not an alternative business model. That company wasn't writing their own software in the first place.
How is that relevant? That company (actually there are several that fit the description) now does write a fair amount of software and contributes plenty of it to the GPL domain. And the company that I was thinking of (Pixar) most definitely did write their own ground-breaking software (Renderman).
There's probably room for one or two big companies to be successful with the GPL.
And hordes of small ones as well. Trolltech, Sleepycat, zillions of little 1 to 10-man consulting and custom software development shops... they're all making a living, and their clients are getting what they need in return.
Of course, if the GPL really takes the world by storm (which won't really happen, IMO), the pure software plays like Trolltech will be out of business as well, unless they switch to a services model.
The idea that the GPL is anti-business only holds water if the only businesses you care about are the software development houses. Maybe that's why I see this so radically differently than you do: I write software for a living, but I do it as a consultant and contractor working to solve specific problems for specific customers. In my world, the GPL is a great business *enabler*, because the proprietary software world really sucks when it comes to solving unique problems cost-effectively. In a proprietary world, if you have a unique need, you often have to bear the entire cost of development yourself.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It is possible that capitalism is the optimum system for software. Its also possible that it isn't. Its also possible that capitalism is the optimal system for non-OS software, and that it is a failure for OS software. The only way to find out is to allow the systems to compete and see which one survives. Personally I'm betting on both systems surviving in different areas of the software game. I tend to see Free Software as the driving force for OS and other "background" aspects of computing (web browsing, etc), and the propriatary model for the "foreground" aspects (games, word processors, etc).
So, I suppose that in the sense that the GPL seems likely to eleminate business from OS and other background computing areas I guess it is "anti-business", not in the sense that it is opposed to business, but that it is superior, and demonstrating its superiority by competing successfully. My question is: what's wrong with that?
You seem to believe in capitalism not so much as a system, but on a more religious level, which I think is a mistake. Capitalism is great, for most things, but it isn't the ultimate answer to all things.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Only if the consolidated widget company never distributed the product. If they distribute it, they have to comply with the terms of the GPL regarding derived works.
I do know of a number of companies that use the GPL to drive commercial license sales. Troll Tech, Sleepycat, MySQL come to mind. There are no doubt others.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
The source for the kiss divx player is on there website Kiss GPL sourcecode always was.