Slashdot Mirror


Sony Rootkit Allegedly Contains LGPL Software

Deaths Hand writes "According to this Dutch article the Sony DRM software (or rootkit, if you may prefer) contains code from the LAME MP3 encoder project, which is licensed under the LGPL. However, the source code has not also been distrbuted, hence breaching the license. Here is an english translation of the page." So apparently Sony violates your privacy to create a backdoor onto your machine using code that violates an Open Source license. This story just keeps getting stranger.

6 of 623 comments (clear)

  1. Sony Rootkit by Edman · · Score: -1, Redundant

    It's a shame for a company to use software which harms your rights of privacy just to check out if you're stealing software (yes, even music can be seen as software). It's even more shameful for this company to use a stolen piece of software to do this job...

  2. Re:Uuuuuh by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Doesn't the LGPL permit this?

    No. You're thinking BSD-like licenses.

    If you're using LGPL code then you're allowed to link it against non-GPL code, but you're not freed from the requirement to make the code available.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
  3. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    (eom)

  4. Re:Thank god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL We need more time to use our mod points *grumble*

  5. Re:And the moral of the story is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    well in this case it's rather more like

    1. Install rootkit that contains licensed code without telling users
    2. ????
    3. Lawsuit!

    More Like
    1. Install rootkit that contains licensed code without telling users
    2. ????
    3. Lawsuit!
    4. ????
    5. Profit!

    It is up to the reader to implement steps 2 and 4.

  6. Re:Notification? by BrokenHalo · · Score: -1, Redundant
    This is the problem with the viral nature of the GPL

    I get very tired of seeing the word "viral" in association with the GPL, perhaps because it occurs so often in Microsoft propaganda. It is an unnecessary slur on what is, in fact, a very open-ended agreement between developer and user, which is designed principally to confer rights on both parties rather than take them away.

    An honest and open agreement (and yes, the BSD licence is another such) is not something to malign, especially in the context of predatory "agreements" (read "ultimata") handed down from Redmond.