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!)"
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
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.
Actually, if you read the FreeDOS page, the FreeDOS author only requests that Dr. DOS Inc. do something about complying with the GPL. i.e. He's asking them to distribute a copy of the GNU General Public License with the software, and make an offer to provide the source code to anyone who asks, as per the GPL. So all that's really required (assuming they haven't changed the FreeDOS software) is that Caldera be ready to send people over to the FreeDOS site, and perhaps burn a CD or two for a fee.
The incredulous part of the whole thing is that the page makes it sound like a major step back for Dr. DOS. Instead of moving forward on the source base they have, they're moving backwards by kit-bashing a bunch of old OSS software and then trying to sell it. Or at least, that's what I got out of TFA.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
> And wasn't DR DOS originally owned by Caldera...?
> Which turned into...SCO!
No, DR DOS was originally owned by Digital Research. These were the guys that IBM originally was going to buy their dos from, but their CEO at the time blew off IBM and went sailing instead(!). He was fired soon thereafter.
Anyhow, DR DOS 5 was a fine product - *far* better than MS or PC DOS. It was a completely compatible replacement to DR DOS that worked great with windows. If I remember correctly, it also included a very cool disk cache and set of memory management utilities. Anyhow, in reaction to its reviews & success, Microsoft:
- upgraded its MS DOS from 4.1 (a horrible product) to 5 (a reasonable one)
- dropped price for MS DOS from over $100 to something like $19
- generated fake compatibility error messages that DR DOS users would get when using Microsoft applications
- etc, etc, etc
Microsoft never did release a dos as good as DR DOS - with its conditional config.sys lines, online command help, etc, etc. But it did kill the product through illegal competition. Eventually, Caldera bought it out - just for the opportunity to sue microsoft over it. And won.
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.
The ultimate point of all this nonsense about information wanting to be free is that no one wants to pay anything for anything so ANY license makes the information less free because a license automatically signifies it is in some way tied to someone who owns it more than anyone else. Truly free information has no owners. We used to call that public domain. The GPL and so on is just a way for the cheapskates in amature socialist garb to have their cake and eat it too, but eventually the dogma generates the karma that runs it over.
Calling anything free with a license is just self-deception and there because those using it want to have the power of Intellectual Property OWNERSHIP and still look cool because they are LETTING people not pay money. It's not free as long as someone has to LET me use it.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
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.
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
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.
hmm you do have some level of conditionals in config.sys in ms-dos (you can create a menu that choses a section and then that section can use an include command to run other sections).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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?
No, stuff licensed under the GPL IS Free. It's just a different kind of freedom, or freedom from a different perspective. It's merely a different balance of where my freedom ends, and yours begins.
In the case of public domain, a person using the code is Free because they can do anything they want to it, including restricting others from Freely using their changes.
In the case of the GPL, the code itself is Free, because all parts of it are Freely available.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Precisely explained apparently does not mean clearly explained. Perhaps this is why people are still confused. How about instead of precision we aim for clarity? The purpose of the GPL is to make information more free. Violations of it, therefore, actually make information less free. The purpose of most copyrights is to make information less free, so violations of them make the information more free.
Finding other idiots on
He's asking them to distribute a copy of the GNU General Public License with the software
This is one of three things that they can do to be compliant. There are two others, which given their commercial nature they may decide to undertake:
1 - stop distribution, remove all GPL code from their application immediately and rewrite those parts before distributing again
2 - negotiate an alternative (commercial?) license with the copyright holders of the GPL portions of code. This can be problematic when there's a lot of authors, but it can be done.
Generally if a company effed up in (mis)using GPL code they should be given the opportunity to fix their mistakes. If this is an intentional misuse and they do not intend to correct things they may open themselves up to a lawsuit.
Any way you slice it, of course, the GPL software is still copyrighted. Without the GPL it doesn't become public domain. Eliminating the GPL means that you don't have *any* permission to use the code.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
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
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
They're depriving their customers of the ability to see their changed code and improve and learn from it, and share it with their friends. The GPL's a bit unusual in that the payment the author asks for in return for being allowed to redistribute his work goes not to the author himself but to the people the work is redistributed to, but you could see it as similar to the case where an author declares that the royalties from their book should go to a charity.
I am trolling
If you, an insignificant individual, do those things, at least you're behaving consistently (if not necessarilly legally).
If a commercial software vendor does those things, while at the same time demanding that people pay for *their* goods and abide by *their* licenses, then they are being big hypocrites.
No, DR DOS was originally owned by Digital Research. These were the guys that IBM originally was going to buy their dos from, but their CEO at the time blew off IBM and went sailing instead(!). He was fired soon thereafter.
That was Gary Kildall.
If you are going to repeat a computer industry myth at least get it right.
He was out flying his aeroplane not sailing and he wasn't fired, he later sold the company to Novell for 120 million.
> That's nice - so, what you're saying is that DR DOS was a replacement to DR DOS?
use your brain: it was an obvious typo
> Also, your story about how MS-DOS beat out CPM/86 is just misinformed.
use google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS - provides some general history
http://www.digitalresearch.biz/HISZMSD.HTM - describes some history of the DR blowoff of ibm
I was a heavy user of DR DOS when Microsoft was struggling to close the gap between ms dos 4.1 & dr dos 5.0. And got to watch first hand as Microsoft killed a superior product.
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.
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!
That's the point that many are missing. It doesn't matter if you consider the GPL invalid. If you consider the GPL invalid, that simply means nothing gives you the right to distribute that code without explicit permission of the author. The GPL works because it gives you privileges that would not have existed otherwise. Remove the GPL and you remove all permissions to distribute derived works, except those derived under the principle of fair use.
Co-opting a short function or a couple lines of code--especially generic code--might constitute fair use. Annexing entire programs does not.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
The problem (assuming it's a problem and not a deliberate choice) is the insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The Digital Rebel certainly runs DOS
Wrong. They distributed a binary, so they have to make source code available to any third party that asks for it. This is covered under 3.b:
It's not theft, but it's not okay (there are lot of things that aren't theft that are still both illlegal and wrong), and they should comply with the GPL, and people shouldn't download stuff illegally from P2P applications.
Note that none of that means that the music industry isn't stupid for understanding the competition they face from illegal downloads and addressing it reasonably (you can be within your legal rights but still be stupid), or that it's not legitimate to legally buy your music from overseas where it's cheaper.
Presuming that by "russian piracy sites" you mean sites that offer downloads legal in Russia, then there is nothing illegal about that. It's like claiming that it should be illegal for a company to pay it's workers in China less than the US minimum wage, or for a US company with a factory in Indonesia to not maintain US environmental and work hazard standards.
No, but I think Adobe is going to announce the availability of Photoshop for the Amiga.
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
It's not free as long as someone has to LET me use it.
It's not free to who? The person who gets to use it, or the person who has to let the other person use it? Every freedom is a tradeoff... swinging fists and noses and all that jazz. I bet the slaveowners were upset about their lost freedom when their ex-slaves found theirs.
"Information wants to be free" means "no one wants to pay anything for anything" as much as "lets start a company" means "I want to embezzle millions". Sure, some people who say one thing mean the other, but that doesn't define either movement.
Isn't it funny that you call the people using the GPL license as "cheapskates" when the only real cheapskate here is the people who took code other people wrote and called it their own product instead of investing their own time and money to develop a product that was truly theirs?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Woah, 219 comments and no-one's made a humorous remark about Udo Kuhnt's name?!
Actually, it means you don't have any permission to distribute the code. You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL code, only if you intend to distribute it (or modifications to it) to others.
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?
AllofMP3.com has songs which have never been authorized for internet distribution by any site -- for example, The Beatles have never signed on with iTunes, Napster, or any other online service. The copyright holders are still waiting to see how things play out. But their entire song catalog is available at allofmp3.com.
Even the Russian cops admit this place is illegal.
GPL is not about defending copyright.
It's about fighting copyright, fighting fire with fire.
The GPL does not use copyright law on a _moral_ or _ethical_ basis, it just uses it as a tool.
The whole idea of the GPL is keeping free stuff free. When someone want to keep free software from being free, you can use copyright law, as a tool against them.
Of course, the GPL would be useless in a world without copyright, but of course, it wouldn't be necessary, because that's the kinds of world the creators of the GPL want.
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?