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."

Comments

Re:Keep this within reason, please.

[justsomebody]

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.

Re:time to prove GPL's right in court

[Bruce Perens]

The big difference is that the people who are violating the GPL are distributing the GPL code in a product. When you redistribute or sell the code, you have a different set of obligations than a user. The GPL allows the end-user to do almost anything.

Bruce

Re:No doubt the OEMs have not been told

[Bruce Perens]

I think it would be much more dangerous if the product you purchased contained an unlicensed copy of Windows CE. MS sues for real money.

Bruce

Re:Define distribution

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Sigma is not to blame here.

[Bruce Perens]

In my experience, the most likely reason for this happening is the engineering firms desire to do everythig cheaply, and they have their managers interpret the license rather than hiring an attorney to do it. The manager says something like "this is an embedded device, so this source-code requirement must not apply". Obviously, the pay lawyers and expert witnesses much more later in exchange for what they saved by not hiring a lawyer to advise them about the license.

Bruce

Re:time to prove GPL's right in court

[swillden]

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.