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

Sounds like reverse psychology

[DrugCheese]

Don't try and make some code that'll fit in place of our proprietary code - YOU CAN'T DO IT!

Dragged kicking and screaming into the light...

[pieterh]

Some of the ways companies try to avoid complying with the spirit of the GPL, even if they comply with its letter:

1. The "Vogon" strategy... the source code is available on the web site but you have to go down the stairs, look in the bottom shelf of a filing cabinet behind a locked door with a sign "beware of the leopard" on it.

2. The "Proprietary pieces" strategy... the source code is released, oh yes, but with significant pieces missing.

3. The "Under development" strategy... coming soon folks, as soon as we get it ready.

All these are quite hard to sustain.

But what really amazes me is how slow companies like Dish are to understand the benefits that the GPL brings them. They are building on top of commodity software. They have access to hundreds of skilled engineers at little or no cost. These people ask nothing better than to act as a volunteer R&D department, in exchange for appropriate credit and possibly some long term kudos.

But no... instead we get these "compliance" releases, basically useless.

The key is this: if you are selling a device and your software is GPLd, you have created a platform and you can potentially sell 10, 100 times more if you provide a decent product at a reasonable cost.

Not only does it make excellent business sense to re-release improvements to GPL'd software as cleanly and transparently as possibly, but it makes sense to release proprietary software exactly the same way.

Re:GPL is viral no?

[Ed Bugg]

I didn't think that you could mix proprietry and gpl code? How are they releasing parts of a source code tree - I thought it was all or nothing if you include GPL in your source?

Well kinda... What you do is write an abstraction layer, kinda of a hook into your proprietry software. You'll need to release the abstraction layer (The functions and routines that call GPL routines and use the variables from the GPL modules) but not the proprietry stuff.
That is perfectly legal (not neccaryly ethical) and many companies do it.
It would look something like this (assume code sprinkled in different source files

gpl_code() {
do stuff here;
abstract_api1();
}

abstract_api1() {
proprietry_func();
}

abstract_api2() {
do other stuff here;
}

proprietry_func() {
abstract_api2();
}

But, it is not a violation.

[beldraen]

They used GPL code. Anything they modified, I presume, is re-released. The fact that they call external code that you cannot have access to is your problem.

If you give people a free hammer to use any way they wish, you cannot be justified when they make a building that you are not allowed to enter. GPL gives people the freedom to use it as the people see fit as long as they do not try keep the source code to themselves. Apple has not.

What you are really mad about is that you want anything the GPL code to which it is linked to be free as well. If this is what your idea of GPL means, then I can understand why Gates calls GPL viral. Your idea is viral and Apple's proprietary code is not yours to have. KDE's team was naive to expect they would get a free lunch in return for handing out free lunches. The GPL's purpose is to keep the code free, not its use.

While you're fuming...

[Kjella]

A "preamble" or "spirit" is not a legal obligation.

a) Apple is under no requirement to release individual patches, nor any big patch at all. Only the complete source.
b) Apple is under no obligation to give anything at all to the KHTML team (only to those who got their browser as part of a Mac).
c) The source files as they stand are obviously the "perferred form" of editing the source code internally in Apple. The GPL does not cover any other form of material, such as structural documents, documentation, bug database or any other material required to understand the source. If anything, it is an oversight of the GPL, not Apple.

In short, you are asking for kindness above and beyond their obligations. They have forked the project, and I don't see why they should have to maintain someone else's code tree. Are the *BSDs required to make compatible patches, because they came from the same source? No. I assume Apple has released everything they are required to under the GPL, and so your allegations of closing the source like a BSD license is groundless, as are your allegations of a GPL violation. If I had mod points I would mod you as -1, Troll, UID not withstanding.

Kjella