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!)"

Comments

And this Suprises anyone HOW ?

[MajorDick]

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

Dell?

[GrEp]

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.

Re:mod me redundant but...

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:This is bad?

[complexmath]

It's one thing to play a copy of a Michael Jackson CD and enjoy it. It's another to play that CD for a friend and tell them you just recorded it in the studio. In the first case, Mr. Jackson is getting credit for having produced the music, and may be indirectly gaining fans (and therefore potential revenue) as a result. In the second, the artist is getting no credit for having created the material. This comparison roughly applies to software copyrights, though attributing the use of libraries with software typically requires the company's legal team and often adding stuff to documentation that no one wants there. I've had to avoid the use of some very popular free software before simply because legal refused to put the required blurb where it needed to be.

It's too damned early here

[RLiegh]

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.

Re:It's too damned early here

[jdavidb]

As far as I know, there is no Caldera IP in FreeDOS. I think you are conflating FreeDOS and OpenDOS. In particular, I think you're confused on point #2, which may or may not have happened, but was not the genesis of FreeDOS.

Re:bah, here we go again

[mrchaotica]

Actually, there is an explicit statement in the GPL to that effect. Namely, term 5:

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.