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
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.
I use it regularly for turning old PC's into Citrix clients. When a donated 486 can be turned into a functioning PC for free there's a lot of value in that. I would love a version of DOS with a built in TCP/IP stack and a LANMAN client, it would save me a lot of work having to do all the voodoo magic that it takes to get that stuff working under plain old MSDOS or its clones.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
> 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)
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
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.
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.
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.
I can't agree with this. In my opinion, they started screwing up at the point when they started trying to assimilate GPLed software into their commercial product. They could have read the GPL at that point and understood the requirements of the licence and then decided whether they still wanted to proceed. There must have been a significant amount of time between starting the process of creating DRDOS 8.1 and actually releasing the software; if there's a clock ticking, it starts when they started, not when the FreeDOS guys found them out. I don't think that the thing about not understanding the GPL holds water for a commercial company - it beggars belief that you would create a product based on code from someone outside the organisation without involving a lawyer at some point to check it out.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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!
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.
If they're selling binaries but attempting to charge specifically for provision of the source, it's one of those edge cases not specifically covered in the GPL's terms.
Actually, it is dealt with. If they're not bundling the source code with the binaries they distribute, they must:
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than [their] 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" -- GPL 2.0, Section 3.
So they're perfectly allowed to charge separately for the source code, but only if they offer it to anyone interested at cost.
Woah, 219 comments and no-one's made a humorous remark about Udo Kuhnt's name?!