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

bah, here we go again

[psycho8me]

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.

Re:This is bad?

[mrchaotica]

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.

Re:Hmmm....

[kpharmer]

> 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.

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:This is bad?

[JediTrainer]

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.

Re:Hmmm....

[throwaway18]

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.

But they're different companies now!

[John Harrison]

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

Re:But they're different companies now!

[John Harrison]

Pretty much all cities in Utah do. The entire county of Salt Lake is on the same system, so nobody here has ever seen or used a street map of the city. You just write down the address and drive there. I just bought a new house thirty miles from my parents and simply told them the address, no instructions and they drove right to it. Contrast this to say, Boston, where everybody has a detailed map of everything in their car.