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."
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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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
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.
I don't think I'm too worried about scaring thieves off.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.