Slashdot Mirror
DrDOS Inc Breaking GPL
Bob Dobbs writes "DR-DOS 8.1 (DrDOS Inc) came out at the begining of this month, however instead of an upgrade to DR-DOS 8.0 the new product is based on work available on the internet.
The work includes shareware utilities, a badly patched version of the kernel work by Udo Kuhnt, drivers (Samsung, ESS) and utilities from FreeDOS and others (e.g. pkzip). Full information on the FreeDOS site. (Cheers FreeDOS!)"
Huh huh... huh huh...
Yeah... hehe... hehe...
Because you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"
DR-DOS being the best DOS around in the time of PC-DOS and MS-DOS with their EMM386 (I even changed the DOS in Windows 95 once to get faster games)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I mean, Caldera, err...SCO
The funny thing is DrDOS was Sued , pre Caldera, and won, then Sued MS once (or right before) Caldera Bought it, I think Caldera pulled something like 200 Mil if I remeber out of the suit against MS
Maybe we should have taken it as a sign of things to come
And wasn't DR DOS originally owned by Caldera...?
Which turned into...SCO!
I thought information wanted to be free. If it's okay for me to download music from russian sites at a nickel a track or watch movies from bit torrent trackers (and I do both of these readily and happily), who am I (and most of us) to criticise a little GPL violation here and there?
Do people out there really use DOS? I can understand an old point of sale system that might still be running DOS 3.3 or 5.0, but why upgrade something that is still working fine. And if you do upgrade, why to DOS?
--
http://blogs.sun.com/javawithjiva
You cannot "break" the gpl. It is a license, not a contract. If you do not agree to it or violate it's terms, you have no license to use the software or make derivative works. If that occurs it is simple copyright infringement.
Doesn't Dell sell some computers with DrDOS? You might try harrasing Dell's lawyers about it. You would probably get a much quicker response. I don't think Dell will be happy knowing that one of their vendors is giving them "pirated" software to install.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Why shouldn't it be? Licensing issues, "intellectual property" (no matter whether it's copyrights, patents, trademarks or whatever) stories and all that belong in here.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
no mod you somewhat oblivious.
sorry but you cant SELL the sourcecode under the GPL, you have to give it to me freely. and that webpage talks about pricing for access to the sourcecode. Most likely for their closed source items.
nowhere do they offer the sourcecode to the GPL products nor admit that any gpl items in DRDOS exist.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What's the issue? Remember: GPL sez: "If I give you binaries, I have to give you code..."
And if you RTFA, you'll see that's PRECISELY the issue. Not only are they not releasing the source code with the FreeDOS binaries they've included, they're not even mentioning that they're GPLed.
My God.
And when I think they tried to get rid of Family Guy.
Having looked at the DR-DOS pages, there's a link to "Source Code" (here).
"Email sales@drdos.com" regarding source code so the site says. However, if there's no GPL file included then it'd be a breach.
Additionally, from TFA, it'd be interesting to see whether the distribution breaks the terms of the two shareware products that have apparently been included. (Ranish Partition Manager 2.44 & PKZIP 2.04g by PKWARE)
The submitter neglected to explain what the supposed GPL violation might be, but it seems from R'ingTFA that the DR-DOS bundle includes GPL'd products without adequately crediting the authors or including license information.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The difference is that violating the GPL makes the information less Free, whereas violating most other copyrights and/or licenses makes the information more free.
Ahh yes, and this makes it "ok". So when I break into your house/computer and publish your ssn, credit card#'s, and whatever other dirt, since I'm "freeing" information, it's ok. If the govt wants to tap your phone line and packet capture all your internet sessions, well, that's freeing even more information, right?
Actually, the GPL does allow you to charge a fee to package and ship the source code. There is no requirement that it has to be freely available from a FTP site.
The site says "email for price quote". Have you asked what the price is? I don't know what the magical number is. $8 would be reasonable, $1000 would not.
Aside from that, yeah, you're right: the page for the source code says "Email sales@drdos.com for price quote" whereas the 8.1 binary page has "1 User License $45.00" and a pick that says "buy now" and has Visa and MasterCard logos. Obviously, that implies that the source code is
And that's the problem.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I've been wondering something as of late about a company I'm working for/with (anonymous and all, you see).
Say there is a company with a small hardware device that ran a hacked up version of linux embedded with quite a few of the GNU tools. There is a good deal of custom code that runs on the device as well. As far as I know there are jack and sh*t for download from the company. The devices are network enabled with thttp and encryption and ssh.
Anyway, er, what does the GPL have to say about this?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
EULAs restrict USE, and therefore violate the Doctrine of First Sale. The GPL only applies to DISTRIBUTION, and only removes some of the restrictions of copyright law.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Because the GPL isn't an EULA, troll-boy.
You can download and use GPL software without agreeing to any part of the GPL whatsoever.
The only time the GPL applies is if you wish to negotiate extra rights beyond those to download and use the software--specifically, the right to copy and re-distribute it yourself. In which case, the GPL is merely one possible set of terms for such redistribution; often the copyright owner has other terms available too.
The GPL is basically a convenience document saying "Hey, by the way, if you want to copy and distribute this, I'll tell you in advance that you're allowed to do so under these terms. No need to contact me and ask. If you want other terms, go ahead and ask. If you don't want to copy and distribute, ignore all this."
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I'm not sure if I understand correctly.
It sounds like DRDOS's latest version is just a bunch of software that can be downloaded free from the internet. A collection of GPL'd or other OSS licensed software. They are trying to charge $45 for what would otherwise be free.
But why would this be illegal? If they have not modified any of the software, how would this even violate the licenses?
I don't get it. Apologies in advance if I'm being dumb.
--Barry
C:\>del config.sys C:\>copy con config.sys SHELL=C:\DRDOS\COMMAND.COM ^C C:\>Alt+Ctrl+Del
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Grab your pitchforks--No! Mice! Yes! Grab your mice and let's stab--NO! CLICK! YES! AND LET'S CLICK THEIR WEBSITE TO DEATH!!
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
Let me try to answer this. Other people may do a better job. The GPL and most commercial EULAs are not the same type of animal. EULAs seek to restrict the user's freedoms. "Open source fan boys" tend to object to the EULAs because of this, and even more so because many EULAs attempt to impose restrictions outside the immediate scope of the software to which they are attached (e.g., mandating spyware, no benchmarking, etc., there was a story here earlier). The GPL, on the other hand, places no restrictions on use: you can do whatever you damn well like to the software so long as you keep it free. This, I believe, is the crux. "Open source fan boys" don't like people taking GPL'd code, locking it up where others can't get to it, and worse still (in some cases) claiming ownership of it.
There is no hypocrisy in asking that the GPL (which in my opinion is very reasonable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably trying to build a baby mulching machine) be respected whilst denouncing these jackbooted EULAs.
I haven't had my coffee yet, so I may be wrong; but here's what I understand of the issue:
1)OpenDOS is released circa 1996 by Caldera, with source code for the kernel included. Not sure under what license, but I don't think it was GNU/GPL (correct me if I'm wrong).
2)Someone starts independent work on the OpenDOS source code and creates several revisions.
But relicenses under the GPL
3)A company named Device Logics comes along, buys the rights to DR-DOS from Lineo (who was split off from Caldera a couple of years before they became SCO) and releases a new version (8)
4)THe guy independently working on the kernel releases Fat32 inhancements, which are snatched (against the terms of teh GPL) by DR-DOS nee' Device Logics
5)According to the letter by Jim Hall ITFA they also distribute two FreeDOS programs without providing source (this is cut and dried; the maintainers of those programs clearly have a case there; but I'm mentioning this for completeness).
SOooooooo, what I wonder is this: if the Original IP belonged to Caldera (and now, through aquisition, DR-DOS inc) aren't they free to do with it -and with derived products as
they see fit?
If TFA is true, I don't have a really high opinion of these guys (charging $45 for a couple of 3rd-party kernel inhancements and distributing GNU software illictly -without source); but look back at the original license for the kernel source and I bet you ten to one that there is a clause in there which allows this behavior by the owner of the DR DOS code base.
sorry but you cant SELL the sourcecode under the GPL, you have to give it to me freely.
Can the people posting this crap and modding it up please read the GPL ? Section 3b in particular.
Yes, it's true, you cannot sell the source code. But you can "charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
So until you email them and find out they are charging more than a couple of bucks or so, please refrain from assuming that any form of pricing for the source code is automatically bogus. And I say this as somebody who does actually expect to find that they are infringing.
perhaps b/c certain (portions of) certain eula's have been found unenforceable, but the gpl has never been found unenforceable?
search "Eben Moglen" for more...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Because, in most instances, you have to break the seal on a CD or some other sort of media before you can even get to the EULA on a commercial package. Once you break that seal, you usually cannot return the software for any sort of refund or even store credit. This means that you have no opportunity to effectively read a common commercial EULA to decide whether or not you want to use a package covered by that EULA unless you commit to purchasing that package anyway.
However, anyone can go here and read the GPL in all its glory before deciding whether or not they wish to use a particular package.
Simple enough?
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
...Kuhnt Udo something about this?
IANAL (BIWIW)...
Illegal means that a law has been broken, and implies a violation of criminal law.
AFAIK, violating a license is not illegal. A license is essentially an agreement between two parties (a form of a contract?). Violating the terms is allowed under the law, however there may be specific consequences of violating terms.
Am I being too picky? Anybody out there that IAL want to correct my ignorance?
--Barry
Sure you can, as long as you didn't sell the binaries first. Like for scripting languages, there really is no binary, so you sell the source.
- If I give you binaries, I have to give you code.
- If I give you code, I can't stop you from giving other people the code.
- I can modify the code I give you, but I must display prominent notices for each file in the code I change that I changed it, I must offer the code to you under the terms of the GPL, and most importantly, my program must display an appropriate copyright notice and a notification that the program is available under the terms of the GPL.
From TFA:Furthermore, the offer for the source code needs to be available to any third party (you need not have purchased DR-DOS to get it), plus they can charge for no more than their cost of physically distributing the source (i.e., $1-2 for burning a CD-ROM and $1-2 or so to mail it). The offer they have seems to imply that you need to get a price quote -- I'm guess a they're not gonna quote you $4-5 for the cost of the open source utilities.
My blog
DOS is still used on most diagnostic boot disks for the major hard disk makers, many BIOS upgrades, numerous low-level diagnostics. While almost everyone has access to MS-DOS 7.10 (Win9x DOS Final) it cannot be freely distributed. I'd be happy if Microsoft released it as a free release, but that's unlikely at this point. Most freely released diagnostics use Caldera's DR-DOS.
Scott Cooper
http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/
While DrDOS does look to be breaking the GPL (they need to provide the relevant sourcecode WITHOUT charging for it), this is the type of situation that scares companies away from working with GPL software. The link says they sent an email on 10/20/2005 and that they haven't received a response yet.
So they gave a company 4 days to respond to something having to do with a legal license? So they were given 4 days to talk to read the email (I've taken 2 days off in a row before), talk to their lawyers (or FIND a lawyer if they didn't have one already), come up with a solution, and respond to the email? Seems like someone jumped the gun on this one.
Many companies don't really understand the GPL, but will follow its guidelines if they're explained to them. But companies WON'T use GPL software if they see OSS bulldogs going after a company publicly when that company hasn't had a sufficient amount of time to respond.
At least give them 10 days or so to get their stuff in order, THEN post about how they're screwing stuff up.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
I mean, by looking at the addresses DrDSO is at least two doors down from SCO...
DRDOS
379 South 520 West
Lindon, UT 84042
The SCO Group Corporate Headquarters
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042-1911
Lasers Controlled Games!
Two things... first of all, it's perfectly legal to sell the source code to GPL'ed software, just like it's legal to sell the software itself (which actually may be distributed in source code form). What you can't do is charge someone *extra* for the source code who *already* got the software from you.
In particular, this also means that you (or me, or anyone) is not automatically entitled to receiving the source code; if the source code or a written offer to send it, as well as the text of the GPL license, accompanies the product, that's enough to be in compliance with the GPL. You do not have to make the source code available to random third parties who did not receive the product from you.
Of course, once someone has the source code, they are free to put it up on their own web page for all the world to download, for example. But if noone does that, then you cannot go to the company who sells the product and demand the source code unless you have bought the product yourself.
HTH. And JBTW, IANAL, of course.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I am not a lawyer, but I think you're violating the GPL. Under the current GPL I think this assumes you're actually SELLING the custom devices - not, for instance, renting them out.
Please note that you don't have to let your entire application be available for download, just the modified GPL parts. Most of the good bits of Linux Tivo don't have available source code, and that's ok.
Also, it doesn't specifically have to be download or totally free - offering to mail CDs for a small fee is acceptable. But if they're expensive _enough_ someone will buy one copy of the source and then offer copies - of those free parts - themselves, and that's legal.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Tehre is no double standard - just a poorly worded standard that was put to words by the mediocre not the experts. "Software wants to be free" doesn't mean "software doesn't want it's author to be credited with it's production", and it doesn't mean "software wants it's licensing agreements violated". More like software "wants it to be licensed on a free-basis". You give away the software, and sell the support. That's more-or-less what the company I work at does. We're a state contractor (that's our exclusive thing) - we write all the apps for free, and many of them don't generate revenue. We get our revenue from transaction fees on some of on the software.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
netcraft surveys prove it.
Just because some people here happily violate copyright, and some people here defend the GPL, doesn't mean that any double-standards are happening. There is undoubtedly some overlap between those groups, but don't go tarring us all with the same brush.
The Digital Rebel certainly runs DOS
Yes, it's true, you cannot sell the source code. But you can "charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
3b is just one choice among others. If you distribute source code from the start, you can ask whatever price you want. The 3a option has no price limit whatsoever. There might be practical issues if you just take some GPLed and try to resell it, but if you add significant value, you can be sure that people are willing to pay prices which are obscene. Incidentally, this also discourages them from sharing with others who haven't paid anything, even though the GPL grants them that right.
If the code really was released under GPL and the FreeDOS people used only GPL code, there was no such clause. The GPL has no such clause.
w ww.drdos.net/faq/license.txt
If the code was released under another license and re-released under the GPL by the author of the derived work, and the original license was incompatible with some term of the GPL, then the author of the derived work exceeded his rights in re-releasing it under the GPL.
What is the license they started with? All I've found is this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021022095633/http://
This doesn't seem to be compatible with the GPL. Source code distributed under this license could only be released under the GPL if the copyright holder did so.
As far as I know, no part of the GPL has been found UNenforceable, either, while many parts of many EULA's have. ...and the lack of precident doesn't mean it is not enforceable, it just means that there hasn't been a pair of deep-pocket litigants on opposite sides that both see a benefit in continuing to the end, where the dispute is about license terms rather than ownership.
People make equivocations that GPL, Open Source, and public domain are precisely the same thing; and assume that is all FREE-as-in-beer.
If I had a brilliant idea on how to make money off of dumb people "giving" their software away for free and not give them I cut of course I would! Its kind of like a modern day Robin Hood thing.
If you want to see the GPL be an effective means of licensing, there will need to be more legal strongarming....otherwise all of this complaining will be seen roughly the same as a prostitute claiming rape. (Sure, it could happen, but who cares?)
As a related note, I believe fully that the open sourcing of software has brought its value down, and along with it the value of the labor taken to create it (outsourcing to India for example). "Joe Sixpack" wants free software no matter how he can get it, if he can find it for free. "Joe Sixpack Linux Convert" will take software and have no guilt for the piracy. The results are the same; both Joes are cheap bastards, but the feelings are slightly different.
Why should anyone pay for software when there are people out there who just want to give it away? Why should people pay for labor when the results are FREE? The answers to these questions are why IT and software professionals are currently in a race to the bottom.
You can charge whatever you want for GPL binaries, or even GPL binaries+source.
Hell, you could even legally charge them 10 dollars for the binary, and 3010 dollars for the binary plus source. How you package and price things is not covered under the GPL.
However, if someone who has a binary then asks for code, however, you have to give it to them for a reasonable amount, unless you already gave it to them. You can't say 'You had the option to purchase the code for $3000 when you bought the binary, so I don't have to give it to you.' under any interpetation of 3a.
All you can do is refuse to sell the the code for the price of the medium if they did get the code on their CD. If they didn't, you must give it to them for a trivial amount.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
DECworks found to be infringing OS/2... film at .... Zzzzzzzzz.....
Edith Keeler Must Die
see subject
Hey! I'm posting from Utah! Am I trying to scam you?
Lasers Controlled Games!
Woah, 219 comments and no-one's made a humorous remark about Udo Kuhnt's name?!
Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
Go read the GPL again. It says one only has to privide sourcecode to those to whom you distribute your (GPL'd) product. If the product isn't free (ie, is commercial), then you are only obligated to provide source to your paying customers.
You only need to do this if you don't provide source with the binaries. That's one method of compliance, but not the only method. It's legal (though probably not shrewd from a business standpoint) to charge $10,000 for the binary and source package.
Hey! I'm posting from Utah! Am I trying to scam you?
Yes, your sig advertises pac-man with random mazes, but I would bet that they are acutally pseudo-random mazes. Case closed.
music lover since 1969
WARBLER and jiggler Britney Spears is highly miffed that pictures of her new baby have appeared on the world wide wibbly web before they could be flogged to a magazine.
Spears and her husband Kevin Federline posed with the sprog in what has been called a private photo session.
However, now some snaps all over the net and Spears has instructed briefs to seek and destroy the sites that put them up.
Briefs for Jive Records have said that anyone who publishes, sells or otherwise exploits any of these images in any way will be subject to liability and damages for willful infringement of copyright, and will be liable for invasion of privacy.
Among those who apparently in the soup is TangibleBrit.com, a Britney Spears fan site. It has already apologised over the weekend after posting the pictures and taken then down as has WorldOfBritney.com and BritneySpears.org, which took them down earlier.
Until the web pictures appeared there had been no clear pictures of Spears junior and magazines have been negotiating for huge wodges of cash for pics for readers to coo at.[The baby isn't called Google, is it Nick? Ed.]
(reprinted without permission, against copyright rules, willfully, hell, flagrantly, from The Inquirer. Fuck em.)
This is possibly the first post I read where someone approaches all the issues.
I don't get it.
Or even freely available source code, but it does mean source code for everyone who gets a copy of the product. The product is DR DOS the only legal way to get a copy is to buy a copy. Once you do buy a copy then you will be entitled to the source code.
Why do people think GPL=Free??
Get a free ipod.
I don't know exactly where you got sidetracked in this, but the debate was over providing source code. Under no circumstances can you charge whatever you want for source code.
Uh-oh, read again. There is no clause in the GPL that forbids this in general. Only if I do not give you the source code immediately, I cannot charge you for it later (apart from distribution costs). No other restrictions on the cost of source code exists in the GPL.
Some comments are saying that they are breaking the GPL by doing these two things and that is not the case. There are limitations though, the binary-only distribution still must contain a copy of the GPL and instructions on how to get the source code. A reasonable fee can be assessed for sending the source code as well, to pay for the physical act of sending it.
It appears from the email on the FreeDOS site that DrDos does not include a copy of the GPL or instructions on how to get the source code. This would be a violation. If they charge an unreasonable fee for distributing the source code, that would also be a violation. However, once one person gets that source code, they can post it or distribute it however and to whomever they wish. Thus if DrDos had some enhancements to the GPL programs, they could be incorporated into the existing programs under the GPL. That is what the GPL is about, having people modify your programs and being able to incorporate those modifications into your own programs. It is about Free as in Freedom more than it is about Free as in beer.
Wrong. If you distribute GPLed software in binary only form, you are required to make the source code available to any third party for no more than your cost of distributing it. You are obligated under copyright, via the GPL, to make the source available to Tom, Dick, and Harry, regardless of whether they were paying customers.
Nothing like getting pedantic over a 15 year old OS :)
They didn't use SHELL=, they used COMSPEC=!
There, technically right, ahhhh I feel better already....
Eben Moglen has apparently offered many people/orgs the opportunity to try it in court:
[all emphasis mine]imho, a perfect system would never get tried ... the reason even truly guilty people take a shot at court is b/c the law is not perfect, and sometimes they can get away with something. If everyone knew that there was no possible positive personal outcome, why would anyone bother?
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
You are Hemos!
emt 377 emt 4
IIRC, Merkey at least was with Device Logics; I don't know
about now. But it's all the same people, Bryan Sparks, and
Merkey as employee, I think.
I think that's a FINE way to distribute GPL based customized software -- charge for the customization, provide source, and let the customer DECIDE on her own whether to redistribute.
If your customer wants in on the software game, she can go ahead and try. On the other hand, this stuff isn't easy. So far, it hasn't been an issue. The customer feels a need to keep the customizations off the market; to exploit the business advantage.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Just go look at the drdos web site. At least one typo per page. Contentless if not meaningless pages. I wouldnt buy a used toothpick from those folks.
There's a sports bar here called "third base"; I ate lunch there last Friday (Walleye and fries).
Lunch was free. However, it DID come with a catch - you had to buy a drink, so I got lunch and a pepsi for $1.50, the price of a Pepsi.
GPL code is still free, both as in beer and as in speech. There are conditions attached to its use, however, and like the bar's free (as in beer) lunch (which you have to buy a non-free beer or whatever for) it's still free.
Public Domain is completely free, free as that beautiful sunset you saw last week.
Commercial software is not in any way shape or form free.
And BTW, information does NOT want to be free; it doesn't want anything at all. It should, however, BE free, and until the internet age it always was. We used to have these places called "libraries" that lent books full of information for free (conditionally; if you kept the book too long it was no longer free). Anything you wanted to learn was written in a book somewhere, and that book was in a library. Free. As in speech AND beer.
(mind reading capcha="precede")
Their banner image was ripped from http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/; the picture is titled "Latticework".
There are several ways to get the Linksys modified sources. They are bacically device dependant.
unslung.org has the nslu2 sources and even more enhancements.
Lots of places have the Linksys router stuff, but Sveasoft is even making money enhancing the Linksys enhancements. Now that's good stuff, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter. And I can even recommend the Sveasoft products. It boggles the mind what you can do in 8 or 16 MB! (DNS, SSH, HTTP, NFS, etc etc)
I have never tried asking Linksys directly for sources. I also do not see any documentation in the packages I have for how to get sources.
The GPL does contain EULA-like provisions. Happily, it limits them to "The act of running the Program is not restricted".
It *is* mostly a developer license, but it contains an End-User License Agreement as a subset of that.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
That would be because DrDos is currently owned by Bryan Sparks, who was the founder and former CEO os Caldera Inc. Later Caldera Inc split into two companies: Caldera International, Inc (which later renamed itself SCO) and Caldera Thin Clients (which shortly thereafter renamed itself Lineo). Brian became CEO of Caldera Thin Clients / Lineo. Throughout its run, Lineo continued to sell DrDos, mainly by selling perpetual source / binary license buyout contracts. Brian later purchased the DrDos IP from Lineo and began selling it again, though as I understand it he had some difficulty finding DOS developers...
Sigh, ok, you asked for it: (notice the "no" part)P LRequireAvailabilityToPublic:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheG
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
What happened to gpl-violations.org? It seems to have disappeared and been replaced with something unrelated... Strange.
A good explanation of why the GPL is a license and not a contract was posted at Groklaw a while back. It includes some quotes from Eben Moglen, who is quite familiar with the subject.
..wayne..
Here's a hypothetical scenario and honest question for you.
Say some development group is offering their open-source product for free download, both the source and compiled binaries, but the two as separate downloads (i.e. one zip file full of source files, one zip with just a binary in it).
Say you download just the binary, and put that together in some zip file with some other files for free download on your site. Say the program is a game engine and you made some data files to run in that engine, a mod, and you don't want your users to have to download the engine separate from your data files, for their convenience. You haven't touched, seen or even downloaded the source.
Can you then redistribute that package, and if anybody asks for the source, point them to the developers' site? Or must you also host/distribute the source? Also, what of superficial modifications to the binary, like changing the name of the executable to the name of your mod project, or changing the icon to match the icons of all your data files? Not claiming the engine as your own or anything; you leave in all the original credits, just change the appearance of the executable file in the user's Finder/Explorer window.
Basically, how far can a content creator who's never seen a line of code in his life use the binary from an open source project in a free (as in beer and as in speech) project of his own, without violating the GPL?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The copyright holders involved can't sue anybody. The GPL's sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to "all third parties":
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are "offerors" and not "third parties" therefore,
the "offerors" suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue.
Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years. You can't sue someone over another party's alleged injury --- only the person "injured" (in this case "third party") has standing to sue.
"I thought information wanted to be free."
;-)
;-).
Or it wants to be speech AND beer.
Anyway, I'm sure the illegal downloading of music would go down considerably if it was licenced under the same principles of the GPL (for instance, that it can be used and distributed freely
The difference in perception is this: take a hypothetical situation where someone is stealing something from a shop. That is theft, yes, and illegal, and should be dealt with. In principle, it would ALL be considered theft, regardles of the actual material that was stolen, and the law often sees it that way. On a humane/moral level, however, I (and I imagine many people) would not regard the theft of a bread by a kid so he doesn't have to starve to death as being of the same 'wrongfulness' as a rich dude stealing a TV. In fact, I would have no problem with it, in that circumstance. That's not the law, granted, that's my own moral judgement on the matter.
One can lament this or not, but just as in your example of (breaking the) copy-licencing by the *IAA, which tries to limit ones' freedom (of use), or one of the GPL, which tries to safeguard your freedom, people do not morally measure this in the same way. This may seem inconsistent if you only take the law as the absolute and sole measurement (just as in the case of the theft), and not your own individual morals.
I, however, am rather of the opinion that the morality of what is right and wrong, and what the laws say, often contradicts eachother, and that in that case, your individual morality and ethics is more important then whatever law has been passed. My moral judgement has no problems if someone 'steals' a bread for survival, nor does it have any problems when someone is downloading and copying music for non-commercial use.
In general, I would claim the answer to your question about why people regard one thing as ok, and another thing not, is because people think it's ok to act (even if that action is that of a rebel, dissident or illegal) for more freedom, while they think it sucks when freedom is being limited. And thus, while in the two instances, it's both about licenses, one is limiting your freedom in use and distribution, and the other tries to safeguard that freedom; thus, infringement on the one is deemed not very objectionable (in a personal moral), while the other is.
I hope this answered your question.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
if i had my way, x86 would still be at, like, old-school fixed 386 for a bit, with good cheap and fast facilities, segmented addresses and all. of course, if i had my way, i'd grow the silicon for that in my own vat, but then, putting DOS on it may not be considered as 'hard' as i'm feeling ..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I use a DOS boot disk every single time I prep a new hard disk or new system (which in my role as hardware guru for the local user group, is often). I run the partitioner from DOS and do the initial setup in DOS. Thus I not only have more direct control, I also discover sooner when something isn't working. And the whole process is a matter of a few minutes, with no large OS to install and no drivers to locate and/or fight with.
With a seriously screwed-up machine, it's often much faster to fix Windows from a DOS boot disk than it would be to reinstall Windows, hunt down obscure or nameless drivers, and do battle with OEM "tech support".
So, while average users nowadays have little need for DOS, we folk who get our hands dirty certainly still use it, and are glad to have it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
> I would very much like to see copyright go
It was the lack of copyright that got us into this mess in the first place! Up until the mid seventies or early eighties, software was not copyrightable! And so companies "protected" their software with trade-secret law and contract law. Which was even worse! If software had been copyrightable from the start, AT&T would have never offered the ambiguous license terms that SCO is attempting to misinterpret in their suit against IBM. This is also the reason behind the still-widespread theory that you're not buying a copy of the software, you're buying a license to use a single copy of the software under greatly restricted terms, which forms the basis for so many horrid EULAs even today.
(On the other hand, if software had been copyrightable from the start, AT&T would not have been able to accidentally lose their ability to copyright so much of UNIX -- but it's tricky to rely on companies making as big a mistake as AT&T did when they overly freely distributed UNIX tapes to universities.)
"It's a simple fact that the GPL was designed to force publication of modified code, which is an artificial limitation on the personal freedom of authors in exchange for public accessibility."
Yeah, but I think the point of the other poster was that it is actually a restriction of the copyright itself (as a system), not that of the GPL. The rationale for this reasoning is that, if there were NO copyright-protections whatsoever (for instance, if *everything* ever written automatically became public property), there would be no need for the GPL.
In essence, the GPL puts a restriction on a restriction (namely that of classical copyrights), which - with reason - could be seen as being more free. Because, if there was no restriction on that already-globally-in-place restriction, the freedom to use it would be less. I agree that, at first view, one could see that as an additional restriction, but the fact is, if one does not restrict the (copyright)restrictions, you become more restricted, not less.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Actually, yes. If you distribute GPLed software in binary only form (rather you charge for it or not is immaterial), then you must make the source code that forms those binary images available to "any third party", which means the public at large, and you can only charge your distribution cost. Thus, if you were to decide to distribute binary only, then anybody can request from you the source code, when could then be put on a web site for the general public.
In your description, what you are selling is the convienence of having compiled the software. You can charge for that, surely. GPLed software is Free, not free. But...if you don't give them the source code when you give them the binary, you have to give "any third party", i.e., everyone who as much as asks, the source code.
No, that's still not correct. The person/company that distributes the binary only has an obligation to provide the source to people that it has given the binary to. There is absolutely nothing that says "any third party" has to be able to get the source code, because the person/company has no relationship to random third parties, only those that it has given a copy of the binary. You may have thought this was the case because *most* GPL software is given out freely, but it doesn't have to be so. Go read the GPL faq again.
Example 1: I write a GPL program, and I give a single copy of the binary to my friend Bob and no one else. The only person I am obligated to give the source code to is Bob. Anyone else that asks me for it, I can tell to go to hell. However, Bob can of course turn around and give out the binary and source to anyone and everyone. But that's no longer my responsibility any more, because I've already met all my obligations by giving the source to Bob.
Example 2: A company has a commercial product based on GPL source code. It charges $300 for this product. If you pay them $300, you get a copy of the binary, as well as a password to a protected area of the web site to download the source if you want it. This company is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to give the source code to anyone but those people who have paid $300 and gotten a copy of the binaries. However, any one of those people that have paid the $300 can turn around and give the binary and source to anyone and everyone at no charge. But again, that has nothing to do with the obligations of the Company, which are met by offering the source to the customers that have received the binaries.
"Email sales@drdos.com" regarding source code
Email sales@drdos.com for price quote [under DR DOS Source Code heading].
On the DR-DOS website, on this page : http://www.drdos.com/products/drdos81.htm
w ww.drdos.com/products/drdos80.htm+&hl=en&lr=&strip =0
Compare this page to the Google cached version:
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:7Tlnhc5cJbEJ:
The difference is that now it says:
Portions are licensed under GPL (SYS v2.6 and FDXXMS v.92) or other licenses.
My little Linux and tech blog
It depends if you regard freedom as..
bool Freedom;
or
float Freedom;
Freedom isn't black and white or you could argue that it's unattainable. There are degrees of freedom and something can be more free or less free. More free isn't the same as free: more free != free. It's just closer than less free.
But that doesn't matter. "the dogma generates the karma that runs it over"? Get over yourself.
Even freedom isn't free.
I've been arguing this point with a friend. Everyone knows the GPL and that if you change it you're supposed to release the source code including your changes.
However, who is going to do anything about it if a company is in violation of the GPL?
Is an anonymous group of part-time coders going to send a cease and desist letter?
So far, the GPL has not been challenged in court. Most legal experts are of the opinion that the GPL is indefensable anyway. Or at least that it would be very difficult to defend.
Until a high profile GPL case precedent is set somewhere, GPL software is fair game!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about OSS and GPL works. But really, a GPL isn't worth anything until a court precedent is established.
(Yeah, go down Peachtree Street and turn right at Peachtree Court, then turn left at Ponce deLeon (pronounced "Ponce dee-LEE-on", or, frequently, just "Ponce"), go down to Peachtree Circle, make a jog onto Peachtree Lane, then turn left on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard for about three miles, then right onto Jimmy Carter Boulevard for about five miles, then right again onto Peachtree Circle (no, that's a different Peachtree Circle than the other Peachtree Circle), then right again onto Peachtree Road, then turn right yet again after about two miles to stay on Peachtree Road (because if you go straight, it turns into Peachtree Avenue), and after a mile or so, Peachtree Plaza should be on your left.
OK, that's an exaggeration, but only just.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
It's true that no GPL violation has ever gone to court. But it's not because no one has ever pushed the issue, quite the contrary: it's because the general assumption is that it will hold up in court, and no company really wants to risk it.
Check this out for a start: FSF Compliance Lab.
Cheers.
1. It's not true that the GPL has not been tested in court. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407231 5554313
2. Breaking news: DR-DOS no longer exists! DRDOS Inc. have removed it from their site and now sell only the old version 7.03!
I DO use [Free-]DOS. Why ?
...
:-(
... and give me :D
There is nothing else running on IBM/PC or LENOVO/PC.
"Windows XP" ? SHIT, CRAP, MALWARE, VIRUS, WORM, SPYWARE
and one even is expected to pay for it ??????????
LINUX ? Clone of Windows
OS/2 ??? Show me a working PC with it
a download link
If I obtain a GPL program binary from you, and do not have the source, I can obtain the source for a nominal amount or free, no matter what is going on. (Well, within three years.)
That's all anyone is saying, and you also seem to agree with this, you're just refusing to state it in a sane way.
I can also, if I am stupid, pay a large amount of money for the source at certain times, like if I buy it at the same time as the binary.
However, that does not hinder my right to get it for the cost of shipping if I don't have it, no matter what was offered at what point.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"I write a GPL program, and I give a single copy of the binary to my friend Bob and no one else. The only person I am obligated to give the source code to" is anybody who requests it. The use of "third party" was intentionally to eliminate a burden to prove you had purchased the software. The clearest way to do this was to make it available to anyone who asked, which also gives you incentive to give "Bob" the source code to begin with. Now you might ask, "how would anyone know that I gave this to Bob, so how could they know they could ask." And there you are right! So long as Bob doesn't brag, how would anyone know? But in terms of the license, when you gave Bob the binary only copy you gave "every third party" the legal right to your source code. That they don't know the source code exists is your only protection.
Example 2 is exactly the same. They have the right to modify and distribute their code so long as they abide by the GPL. If they refuse "any third party" the source code for distribution costs, they have, at that point, forfieted their rights under the GPL to distriubte. It would be very stupid, and I hope anyone considering doing such would talk to a lawyer first.
That is not true if you have modified and distriubuted code that was already GPLed. If you have any code that you have right to because of the GPL, then the only way you can distriubte is if you place the work as a whole under the GPL. At which point "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
It also looks like the license says so even if you are the sole source, since if you distriubte it under the GPL you must, according to the GPL, include a copy of the GPL, which says at the very beginning: So if you want to distribute under the GPL, you have to include the GPL with what you distriubte. The license says it applies to any program so distributed by the copyright holder. You are the sole source, you are the copyright holder. If you want to use the GPL, then you have to be bound by the GPL. When you formed the relationship with the person you distributed your source code to under the GPL, as per the GPL, it had to either be GPLed or not. If it was distributed appropriately under the GPL, then in Binary form you should have given the written notice offer, too. Otherwise you aren't distributing as per the GPL's requirements.
Now what gets interesting is what sort of relief would their be? Usually, in GPL violations, it is the person who owns the rights to a work that was modified via the GPL that has action. But consider this. Did you proport the work to be under the GPL? Can it be if you aren't following the license? Is that fraud? Seems like only the person you sold the binary to could claim damages, though...
So, in conclusion, if there is modification of GPLed code, or distribution of GPLed code, then you have to make the source code available. If you give someone a binary without the GPL attached, or without a written offer, you are not distributing the binary as per the GPL. Either you need to give them what is missing, and be GPLed, or it isn't GPLed. However, if it is GPLed, in all cases, you have to give "every third party" source code, who asks.
If I give one person one binary copy accompanied by one source copy, then I have fulfulled my obligations under 3.a) completely and 3.b) is entirely irrelevent. I have no further requirements to give anyone anything. Now, the person that I gave that binary and source to is free to give it to anyone he chooses, but that has nothing to do with what is required of me.
If I instead choose to use 3.b) and include a written offer rather than including the source with the binary, then that offer must be redeemable by any third party and so I must give anyone who asks a copy of the source. But again, this is an option that I can choose.
The GPL FAQ is very clear that the GPL cannot force a party to redistribute anything that they don't want to. In other words, if I choose to give you a binary then I must also include the text of the GPL and the source with it (or a means of getting the source.) However if I do not wish to give you a copy of the binary, then I have no obligation to you at all, provided I have not chosen 3.b).
From the GPL faq: