Dish Network Dishes Source Code for DVR

An anonymous reader writes "According to Dish Network they are accommodating 'requests for the portions of the DISH 921 DVR source code that are subject to the GNU Public License, or GPL. In compliance with the terms of the GPL, we are making this source code available to the public to download. Please note that the DISH 921 DVR software also includes some proprietary elements that are not subject to the GPL. You cannot create a working DISH 921 DVR software build without the additional proprietary code. Do not replace or add any software to the DISH 921 DVR with items compiled from these source trees. Doing so will void all warranties and cause the unit to fail.'"

Comments

GPL != GNU Public License

[gimpboy]

Actually, GPL is the General Public License.

Re:GPL != GNU Public License

[gimpboy]

What does "GPL" stand for?
"GPL" stands for "General Public License". The most widespread such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. This can be further shortened to "GPL", when it is understood that the GNU GPL is the one intended.

So GPL can stand for "General Public License" _or_ GNU General Public License. Neither of these include the "GNU Public License".

Re:Odd caveat

[resiak]

No, that's not true. If you're calling a function like that, you have linked the GPLed code to your homebrew code, and so the GPL's "viral" nature kicks in --- if you release the binaries to the world, you must release your own code under the GPL to anyone to whom you supply binaries.

The example you were looking for is something like the following:

#!/usr/bin/perl
# This file is covered by the GPL, blah blah.

sub frobnitzigate {
#return "No frobbing possible!";
return `a-binary-we-dont-want-to-gpl`; # Added by Evil Company(TM)
}

# blah

Now you don't have to release the source to a-binary-we-dont-want-to-gpl --- this is what the GPL calls "mere aggregation", and is (probably) what has happened with the DVR stuffs.

Would you at least...

[Kjella]

...try to get a clue, before you post? That code must be released under the GPL, hell even the LGPL as it is an internal change. There are other ways like having a kernel stub which are legal, but I think their function would be completely lost on you.

Kjella

Re:Odd caveat

[po8]

Nope. Read your GPL carefully. If func_mine_all_mine() is part of a GPL-ed program, you'll have to release its source anytime you release the binary to that program.

Now there's some controversy about what counts as "part of a GPL-ed program." Shared libraries? Kernel modules? Driver scripts? RMS and the FSF legal team, Linus Torvalds, and others have all released opinions on this, but so far I'm not aware of any court cases that have defined these limits legally. It may be that DN's lawyers think that they have a legal case for keeping some code out.

DISH 721 DVR source code

[Xeo 024]

If anyone is interested, the DISH 721 DVR source code is also available.

Re:cool

[Curtman]

A larger media conglomerate fulfilling their end of the bargain?

Are they though? I don't care to RTFA to find out, but doesn't this:

You cannot create a working DISH 921 DVR software build without the additional proprietary code.

... go directly against this:

You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

Yes.

I thought this was what the LGPL was created to allow people to do.

i.e. non-compliant

[Dwonis]

You cannot create a working DISH 921 DVR software build without the additional proprietary code.

That doesn't sound like GPL-compliance to me. From the GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Re:Odd caveat

[Lord Kano]

As someone who used to work for that company, I'd be willing to bet that the DVR will simply refuse to work if unblessed software is loaded.

The original DishPlayers *COULD* be upgraded with much larger hard drives than they originally came with. The company found out that people were doing this and updated the software so that the units would refuse to run if a hard drive larger than the original was in place.

They said that it was about compatibility issues, I suspect that it was because they wanted to force people to buy the newer, more expensive DVRs.

LK

Re:cool

[Arker]

They're ok legally if they aren't linking the code - just communicating through socket calls, etc. No different than running, say WordPerfect or Oracle on Linux - as long as the proprietary stuff is stand-alone and not linked it's not a legal problem.

However, if they are correct that installing binaries compiled from this code release will cause their PVR to stop functioning, that sounds to me like they aren't actually in compliance. If the proprietary stuff really isn't linked, and the code they released really is the code for the free software in the system, then binaries compiled from it (assuming the same compiler and settings) would be byte for byte identical with what's already on the PVR.

So, it seems to me they're lying about one thing or the other.

Re:Odd caveat

[Faw]

I have checked DishLinux for a while (I wanted to add software of my own to the 721) but unfortunately it seems every executable is encrypted with PGP. The loader decrypts it and runs it.

Also there is a file in the root partition that seems to be a list of files on the disk, also PGP signed. When the system boots it checks and if there is any differences between the list and the disk and if there are any it does a full reinstall.

If anyone wants to know more go here and here . These are 2 threads on SatelliteGuys detailing what I found out while replacing the hard drive.