USDTV Subscribers Gouged For Linux USB Keys

Former USDTV Subscriber writes "A few weeks ago, Salt Lake City-based USDTV discontinued their service. USDTV used the Hisense DB2010 as subscriber boxes, with Linux based firmware. USDTV should have released the source and binaries as required by the GPL, in order for customers to create a USB key to convert their DB2010s to FTA HDTV boxes. Instead, they chose to hand the keys to former USDTV subcontractors. Cable Communications is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key. ProServ is selling USB keys. But 'Due to copyright laws you are only allowed to purchase one of these keys if you have proof of being a current or previous subscriber to USDTV.' USDTV customers are being charged $30 for a service and/or files that should be freely available to anyone who has a DB2010 in their possession. There is a thread on the AVS Forum detailing the whole debacle."

Comments

Possibility of GPL Validation

[MrWGW]

Well, this would be a great opportunity for a lawsuit, instigated by the FSF or another stakeholder in the matter. The flipside of that, however, is that proponents of proprietary OSes would then immediately cite the case as an example of the "dangers" of using Linux.
Tough call; I'm in favor of an attempt to enforce the GPL (and potentially get validation from a US court that it is, in fact, a legally enforceable license).

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Lockejaw]

Tough call; I'm in favor of an attempt to enforce the GPL (and potentially get validation from a US court that it is, in fact, a legally enforceable license).

Either that, or it becomes a really verbose BSD license. I personally prefer BSD, but I think this would be a Bad Thing.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

Proserv is definitely in violation of the GPL if they are not providing access to the source. If someone buys the thing they offer and Proserv does the compliance thing, then any of those people who bought it are within their rights to share the source with anyone they like. But if I understand it correctly, Proserv is supposed to be obliged to make the source available. I'm uncertain about the binaries. I'm sure thousands of other people who know more will reply here as well...

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Qzukk]

would then immediately cite the case as an example of the "dangers" of using Linux.

To which you respond by asking what they would think if the company had installed windows on all of these boxes without paying for a single license.

Same thing either way. You either pay with the code, or you pay with your cash. Or use BSD.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[bcmbyte]

I totally agree, I would like to see the GPL validated and enforced. Hold their feet to the fire!

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Chandon Seldon]

Your question: "The GPL has never been tested in court, is it really legal?" is way over-hyped. It originated as FUD from the SCO case. Legally, the GPL is on really solid ground - even moreso than EULAs for commercial software. It's a copyright license. Either the user agrees to it and gets to take actions not normally allowed by copyright law in exchange for whatever terms are in the license, or they don't and are restricted by copyright law.

But... even if the GPL needed a test case, this wouldn't be it. This case would be about whether $30 was a "reasonable" fee to distribute source code, and given that USB keys are like $15 the judge would probably rule that it's close enough to the cost of media to be OK. Even if the judge ruled that $30 was too much, the penalty would probably only consist of a requirement to charge $25 in the future and refund $5 to anyone who payed $30 and asks for the refund.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[burnin1965]

proponents of proprietary OSes would then immediately cite the case as an example of the "dangers" of using Linux

Actually this is already available as an arguement for proprietary vendors but I suppose they don't use it because they persue copyright violoations agressively to the point where customers move to open source solutions.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone think the USB key contains the source code? It's just how you update the firmware on these boxes. You plug in a USB stick with the new firmware image, power on the receiver and wait a couple of minutes while the new firmware *binary* is written to the flash memory chip. That's just one more binary distribution that warrants a corresponding source offer, which is, in violation of the license, nowhere to be seen and neither is the source.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[dch24]

USDTV has been doing a little of both: selling and leasing boxes to customers. But at this point, they are going into their second (or, depending on how you look at it, third) bankruptcy because the CEO and the president of the company have been ... well, doing some shady things.

Most of the (former) employees of USDTV (full disclosure: I was) were doing what it took to get a decent alternative to cable off the ground. It seemed like a good idea: send digital video over the air on unused bandwidth, capitalize on the switch to ATSC broadcasting, and earn a little revenue with some extra offerings, like PVR, pay-per-view, and some of the most popular cable channels. It was a very limited channel selection (plus all the free HDTV channels), but there were almost no infrastructure costs.

But the company had a serious problem with "too many chiefs, not enough indians" and after the second round of VC funding, the "chiefs" couldn't drum up any more loans. So now they're shutting down. There are lots of small startups in Utah that fail. It gives Utah a bad name in VC circles.

Tim Rikers (who does bzFlag) has been in contact with the company for some time, trying to obtain GPL compliance in the form of source code that will run on the HiSense box. If any of you out there would like to sell me your HiSense box, we can probably work out a deal. They're very capable of doing something like MythTV. As far as I know, USDTV has stalled until they're closing the doors.

And now, they're making you pay $30 to prevent your box from going into "Please Activate" mode, since none of the boxes will receive activations anymore. (Technically, they won't go into "please activate" until the first power outage.) In my opinion, they were in violation of the GPL for selling a GNU/Linux-based system to some of their customers, and now that they're giving the rest of the boxes to the customers (sort of by default), they are still in violation of the GPL. There are no GPL notices anywhere in the system, unless you connect by a serial console (I can give you pinouts, and maybe a password or two) -- then you'll get the login: prompt.

I don't think a lawsuit is going to do a whole lot of good. But I think if anyone tried to acquire USDTV's IP and sue someone or a website doing hacking on the box, they'd make SCO look like a profitable venture. What is it with Utah businesses?!

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Chandon Seldon]

If that's true, then some contributor should threaten a copyright infringement case. But, in that case, why does the summary include the following text?

USDTV customers are being charged $30 for a service and/or files that should be freely available to anyone who has a DB2010 in their possession.

I mean, the GPL has no requirement for binary distribution...

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[sumdumass]

Who are you going to suit? The company is closing it's doors. Being that it is a corporation, your not going to go back on the investors or owners or anything like that. You might be able to block the distribution of assets until the firmware source is released but if a hurry isn't put on it, that might even be too late.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[init100]

There are lots of small startups in Utah that fail. It gives Utah a bad name in VC circles.

I guess failing startups may not be the only thing giving Utah a bad reputation in VC circles. There is also a company called SCO...

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[SeaFox]

If any of you out there would like to sell me your HiSense box, we can probably work out a deal.

Why don't you just buy one off eBay, there are quite a few available.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole thing was pretty shady from the start. There were some good people there, but managers with $$$ signs in their eyes still thinking it's the heady days of the dotcom boom contributed to USDTV's downfall as they did in their previous companies. Take a look at their managers and you'll find quite a lot of failed businesses, bankruptcies, employees not paid, etc..

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Dun Malg]

I mean, the GPL has no requirement for binary distribution... It does have a requirement that the source code to those binary distributions be made available, so yes, in that sense they should be freely available. Simply put, you shouldn't have to depend on them sending you a USB key with the binary, as you should be able to obtain the source to compile those binaries at no cost.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[DoomfrogBW]

You're no better than them.. why not just make a website and post the instructions.. it obviously would help a lot of people.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you just have a short memory. It was stated long before the SCO case and you'll see the question raised on Slashdot back when SCO was still called Caldera (and praised for having the best desktop Linux). Oh, but as long as you can act definitively and superior you can get +5, huh? We can just forget reality and go back to screaming about how 9/11 changed everything.

And you know what people's answers were when asked if the GPL was legal? People said it was legal enough because organizations kept settling with the FSF before legal action was needed. If the companies prefered that method, the GPL was likely legal enough since none wanted to truly test it.

But I'll just be quiet and let you keep spouting out BS. I mean "SCO CHANGED EVERYTHING" right?

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Chandon Seldon]

There is no requirement for them to distribute a binary. Unless they distribute a binary, there is no requirement to distribute source. Even if they are required to distribute source, they are not required to distribute it at zero cost.

If they really did distribute binaries by sending technicians around with USB keys, they are obligated to provide source to those binaries at their cost of distribution. If they decide that they are going to distribute the source on Dual Layer DVD+Rs they got a bad deal on ($10) and they want to charge $5 shipping and $5 handling, that $20 is a reasonably legitimate distribution charge for source code under the GPL.

In any case, there's on way that GPL version 2 requires them to provide a person anything aside from the source code to any binaries they distributed to that person, or (probably in this case) to anyone that person redistributed binaries to.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[dch24]

Thanks; I know about the eBay scene. But for those who don't want to pay the seller fee, or who aren't thinking about selling theirs on eBay for whatever reason, here's another way to make some money ( $75 of course, since that's what Cable Comm is selling them for)

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Chandon Seldon]

Caldera (and praised for having the best desktop Linux)

I was there, and I'm pretty sure that never happened.

You're right that the "is the GPL enforcible" question did come up occasionally before the SCO trial started, and the counterargument you give is exactly what many people responded with. I stand by my claim that the question only really showed up with any frequency after it was popularized by SCO.

More importantly, I stand by my comments on the relevance of the question. Very simple, no-one wants the GPL to be invalid because it's the only thing giving them a right to modify and redistribute GPL-covered programs. The question isn't "is the GPL enforceable", the question is "if you're unwilling to comply with the GPL, what gives you the right distribute that copyrighted software?"

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

The flipside of that, however, is that proponents of proprietary OSes would then immediately cite the case as an example of the "dangers" of using Linux.

I never understood this line of logic. This is paramount to saying, "it's dangerous to steal and resell someone else's work." Sure it is. It has always been dangerous to base your business on theft so I never understood how it had anything to do with Linux; theft of any product is theft and that's hardly unique to Linux. Likewise, once you get outside the FUD circle, I'm hard pressed to believe that that corporate America doesn't already understand this.

If you modify the Linux kernel for your product and distribute a binary outside your corporation, you are required to distribute the source. If you don't want to release the source, don't base it on the Linux kernel. It is not like anyone forced Linux down their throat. I completely fail to understand how that's dangerous.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

>Even if they are required to distribute source, they are not required to distribute it at zero cost.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your 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;

c) not included as it deals with non-commercial use only.

They didn't provide a written offer accompanying the software (ie: The box). So option (b) is out. That leaves option (a). Which they didn't comply with because if they did there'd be no discussion, everyone would have the software with their boxes already. We'd all just be saying "PUT THE CD IN YOUR COMPUTER ALREADY!"

Even if they hand out the source now, it would be the author's discretion as to whether they feel this is "good enough", as it would still be a violation of section 3. I think any reasonable person would give them a pass, but only if they made it available for free (perhaps on a website or some other way, hell, I guess the USB keys would be OK if they had the source on them, since only one person has to buy it for $30 and can post it on sourceforge).

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on pretty much everything you've said in all your posts, it's obvious that you neither are a "former employee of USDTV", nor are you very familiar with the company or the topics being discussed in this thread. But I hope you enjoy the attention and precious mod points.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

i was too snarky above, elaboration is in order. there are some things you said that make me wonder:

Most of the (former) employees of USDTV (full disclosure: I was)

i doubt, see below

and after the second round of VC funding, the "chiefs" couldn't drum up any more loans. So now they're shutting down.

this sounds too inaccurate to have been written by someone who worked for the company, but, I dunno, maybe you were just being brief and it came out wrong, so far I still believed you

Tim Rikers (who does bzFlag) has been in contact with the company for some time

i still believed you here too, but it's odd for a former employee that you know this fact but seem unclear on so much else

They're very capable of doing something like MythTV.

clearly you don't know much about the product

The only for-sure GPL violation was the Linux kernel, although I'm fairly certain they have GNU bash in the firmware as well.

again it is suspicious how unfamiliar you are with the product, as other people who never even worked for the company seem to know more than you (yes, theres other GPL software, no, the settop doesnt run bash)

From what I could tell, Jim was under the assumption that he would be relocating closer to USDTV HQ when he responded to Tim Rikers.

hopelessly incorrect, you obviously know neither the people nor places nor circumstances, of course none of this prevents you from getting modded up...

But within a week, he discovered he wasn't working for USDTV any more.

again... i doubt you worked there, or even heard of any of the people involved, your surmise is wrong in all particulars and also in general - namely, Tim's request didnt arrive anywhere close to the bankruptcy event. moreover the "move" mentioned in the story was over a distance of a couple city blocks, something you MIGHT know if you ever worked at the company, either way you are not competent to comment on it and more importantly you happen to be wrong

Tim continued to contact USDTV

probably incorrect, but maybe Tim knows otherwise, I have no trouble imagining someone mishandled his emails especially after the first bankruptcy. either way, I doubt you know anything about it

I am surprised Tim hasn't updated the wiki page with his later attempts to discuss the matter with USDTV

i would love to hear Tim's story, it would be amusing to see how long it took for his inquiries to reach anyone who had a clue, you on the other hand appear to know nothing about it... tim i'm sure knows pretty well what the timeline was and i doubt it will line up with what you are saying

posing as an "involved party" for the purposes of achieving fame and karma is immature, you are unfamiliar with the product, the events, the timing, the people. there are a few opinions you express that i don't particularly care either way on, I havent worked there in a while and I have plenty opinions (positive and negative), though i am forced to conclude your opinions are based on pretend fantasy, not experience. there are people posting here who did NOT work for the company and they seem to know things you do not, would you care to amend your statement that you actually worked there, or can you explain how you actually know less than some people who did not?

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[zippthorne]

There are dangers though, and it's different than traditional licensing.

The cost of a proprietary license is money. It's an up front cost (or per-unit cost) that's fairly easy on accounting.

The cost of GPL is code. It costs nothing up front, but depending on how you use it, could cost valuable trade secrets. Since the value of those are nebulous, especially before the project is begun, accountants won't like the extra thinking they'll have to do.

The danger lies in its difference. It's not simply a drop-in replacement for proprietary code.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Brandybuck]

While the company has the responsibility to read the license, whoever sold/promoted/encouraged their use of Linux has a responsibility not to imply that it is unencumbered. The GPL is VERY encumbered, yet "unencumbered" is one of the definitions of "free".

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[The_Wilschon]

Cable Communications is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key.

Sounds to me as though Cable Communications is distributing the binaries, yet not distributing the source code for no more than the cost of reproduction. Unless I've missed something (which I likely have, as the whole summary didn't make a whole lot of sense to me), the proper target for a lawsuit would be Cable Communications.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[The_Wilschon]

In any case, there's on way that GPL version 2 requires them to provide a person anything aside from the source code to any binaries they distributed to that person, or (probably in this case) to anyone that person redistributed binaries to.

Actually, GPL says that they must distribute source code not only to the recipients of the binaries (provided they ask), but also to any third party that requests the source code. So, if they have given the binaries to absolutely anyone anywhere, even just one person (say Larry Niven), then anyone (say Osama Bin Ladin) could write them an email asking for the source code, and they would be obligated by the copyright laws of most nations to provide (Osama) with the sourcecode at no more than the cost of reproduction. This even though neither they nor Larry gave Osama any binaries. The relevant portion of the gnu faq on the gpl is:

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[sumdumass]

That sounds about right except there might be a loop.

If they are distributing a patch that isn't GPL and they are only adding it to the existing code soley as the IT staff of the owner of the box, they could claim the use doesn't have to make sure it is compatible because they are not distributing it.

Nah, I think that would kick in the dirivited works clause of the GPL. I think your right, good call.

Unless the patch is just a script that changes some settings though an interface built into it. Then I'm not sure if it would be automaticly covered or not. Still, good call.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[mgiuca]

Your question: "The GPL has never been tested in court, is it really legal?" is way over-hyped. It originated as FUD from the SCO case. Legally, the GPL is on really solid ground - even moreso than EULAs for commercial software. It's a copyright license. Either the user agrees to it and gets to take actions not normally allowed by copyright law in exchange for whatever terms are in the license, or they don't and are restricted by copyright law.

Much more so than EULAs - EULAs often ask for outrageous unlawful things.

But... even if the GPL needed a test case, this wouldn't be it. This case would be about whether $30 was a "reasonable" fee to distribute source code, and given that USB keys are like $15 the judge would probably rule that it's close enough to the cost of media to be OK. Even if the judge ruled that $30 was too much, the penalty would probably only consist of a requirement to charge $25 in the future and refund $5 to anyone who payed $30 and asks for the refund.

Yeah... I've always been skeptical about the "cost of media" thing. Maybe that worked in 1989. But nowadays it is entirely possible for anyone to distribute online. Charging for media is pretty dodgy when you could put it on a web server - PARTICULARLY if that media is far far more expensive than a CD (a USB stick?)

Why not distribute GPL programs on portable hard drives next time, and charge the full price of a hard drive?

Having said this, I think it's still a GPL vio. End users need to be able to get the source code out, and redistribte it any way they like. That doesn't sound like it's happening here.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[jimicus]

To which you respond by asking what they would think if the company had installed windows on all of these boxes without paying for a single license.

Technically correct. But it's the person citing it as a "danger" of using Linux who winds up with a nice long op-ed piece written up on every single ZDNet-owned news site. The people saying "what if you used Windows without paying for a license?" are simply repeating that on Slashdot - not the kind of place that's generally accepted as a source when the CTO asks what all the fuss was about.

Besides, the "danger" of having to release your precious IP is often perceived to be much worse than the danger of having to pay a few million to Microsoft, particularly in an economy which is increasingly based around IP.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[Anonymous Coward]

Another writer claimed that the heads of USDTV in Salt Lake were doing some shady things. Another 'thing' comes to mind. A little over a year ago, our local Wal-Mart was selling HDTV sets without tuners. The only way you could buy a complete 'HDTV' television from Wally world was to buy a HDTV tuner separate from the television. The only HDTV tuner that you could buy from Wal-Mart then was a 'DTV' set for about two hundred clams. Now that was a lot of cimolians for just a little set top box that should have come as part of the 'HDTV's that were really 'monitors' when they did not come with a tuner. Not content with that rip off, Wal-Mart went further. The 'DTV' set that was sold as an 'HDTV' tuner by Wal-Mart and its employees was made by this outfit in Salt Lake City, and was set up only to recieve signal from a few stations in the Salt Lake City area and none other. All these signals were called that filthy word...'content' and the even filthier word 'licensed content' and required a monthly fee to access. It was set up to require a telephone connection or it would not turn on, and immediately after turning on made serious attempts to access the only signal you would ever get from 'DTV'... the pay toll charges to Salt Lake to 'set up your account'....yes, 'account', a third and yet another filthy word. I took this abortion back to Wal-Mart and after promising litigation and regulatory attention finally suceeding in getting them to refund my money. I told them, and they agreed, at least the sales staff person did, that this unit should never have been put up for sale here in this market area when its only worldly chance of working was in Salt Lake City. The unit that I returned was promptly put back on the shelf for sale again. When sold, it was re-ordered. I believe that in my little town of less than 8000 souls and 16000 illegal immigrants, over a dozen or more of these 'devices' found willing victims that are now not only out two hundred dollars for the box, but in all likelyhood are out also twenty smackers a month in charges for 'signal' representing 'licensed content' that they have no possibility of ever recieving unless they moved to Mormon heaven. By the way, these monthly 'charges' come with the 'box license' that people 'agreed' to when they opened the box!....and are self renewing!!?? There was no manual in Spanish, so the poor immigrants don't even know how bad they were screwed yet. Such is the sad state of our 'intellectual' malaproperty laws in this totalitarian hellhole.

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[wilec]

"What is it with Utah businesses?"

See "Whats the Matter With Kansas?"

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Re:Possibility of GPL Validation

[oldscoolgamer]

DCH24, please send me an e-mail message. The address is usdmythtv[AT]gmail[DOT}com. I am willing to work a deal to get you a HiSense box.

Ask them nicely, sue them if they don't comply

[Anonymous Coward]

It's plain copyright infringement. They wouldn't get away with it if they infringed on Microsoft's copyright. There's no reason to let them get away with it if they infringe on the copyright of thousands of Linux contributors.

Re:Ask them nicely, sue them if they don't comply

[Chandon Seldon]

This isn't accurate. I'm not a lawyer, but I have actually read the GPL and payed attention to legal discussions related to the GPL.

First, only the copyright holder can sue for copyright infringement. Unless that's you, you have no standing for a copyright infringement claim. There are some other marginal ins you might have, but they don't really apply to this case.

Second, they aren't obviously violating the GPL. The GPL says they need to offer source code to anyone with binaries for the cost of distribution. A USB key + shipping + handling is $30. You could argue about what a reasonable "handling" charge is, but they're not obviously in the wrong.

In the end, this isn't an argument over software freedom or the GPL. It's an argument over $20. And, frankly, $20 doesn't matter that much.

Re:Ask them nicely, sue them if they don't comply

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously only the copyright holders could sue, but since busybox is usually in these firmware images and the main author of busybox does enforce his copyright, you can count on there being someone who can sue and is willing to sue if necessary. If busybox is not in there, I would expect that someone else who's involved with the Linux kernel is ready to go after them.

The USB key is the method to update the firmware update on these devices. It contains the binary firmware in a format that the box recognizes when it is powered on with such a stick in its USB port. If the USB key contained the firmware source code, there would be no argument because then someone would have made the source available online by now.

So.....

[LordPhantom]

Correct me if I'm wrong....but isn't this less of a license issue and more of an issue of a company having financial difficulties?

Re:So.....

[MrWGW]

Specifically its an issue of a service provider exiting a business, after having distributed Linux to people, and the new service providers failing to provide the source code as required by the GPL.

Re:So.....

[spun]

A little of column A, a little of column B, at least by my reading. They were called out on the lack of source over a year ago, claimed they were having technical difficulties and would release the source post-haste. They never did. Now, they were probably in some financial trouble even then, but how hard is it to tar up a source tree and throw it on the web?

Re:So.....

[dch24]

What they actually said:

As you have requested, we will make available for Internet file transfer copies of the software used in the USDTV receiver that is covered by these licenses. Unfortunately, your request has caught us at a bad time. The USDTV development offices are currently in the process of moving to a new location, so we do not at this time have a server to host copies of the software to download. Once our move is completed and our full Internet service is restored, we will set up a site with the requested software available. (... snip ...)

Thanks,
Jim Burmeister

Now, that's pretty close to what you said

claimed they were having technical difficulties and would release the source post-haste

But in my opinion, what's really going on here is a little bait-n-switch, a little corporate scheming, in the form of a company that violates the GPL and then declares bankruptcy. Corporate law at first glance would seem to indicate that there's no one to sue: the liability dissolves with the company.

From what I could tell, Jim was under the assumption that he would be relocating closer to USDTV HQ when he responded to Tim Rikers. But within a week, he discovered he wasn't working for USDTV any more. Tim continued to contact USDTV, and they have not done anything since. I am surprised Tim hasn't updated the wiki page with his later attempts to discuss the matter with USDTV.

At any rate, one of the last paragraphs of the open letter at usdtv.com says:

Our passion was to help families save money on their cable TV bills and provide a service that had a higher quality of cable networks.

At midnight Pacific Time tonight, I'll change the grammar error to "provide a service that had a higher quality than cable networks." If there were any intention of actually releasing the GPL source code used, I can assure you there are no technical barriers (as of Wed Mar 28 12:00:00 AM PDT).

What about other licenses?

[John.P.Jones]

I don't know anything about this company but I have a general GPL question that this may serve as a good example of...

What if they had licensed lots of other code and disobeyed the GPL by merging from them both? They couldn't release the code and they couldn't not release the code either. I suppose that the other license (the restrictive one) would win out. They could be sued for breaking the GPL but the result of the lawsuit couldn't be opening the code so what would you get from a defunct company?

Re:What about other licenses?

[qwp]

Most projects that do this keep a management system
on both of the branches of the code.

This way when they publish their GPD'ed code they just publish the entire code minus the
3rd party functions and sections.
The way I've run into it is they just have the third party stuff kept seperate from the OSS
content. That way you can still mainly work with the OSS stuff with out the copywritten stuff.
(just means you have broken functions all over the place)

Just my two cents..
and i hate computers.

Re:What about other licenses?

[AJWM]

They couldn't release the code and they couldn't not release the code either.

The solution to that is to stop distributing anything. If you end up with a warehouse full of settop boxes you can't legally (because of copyright) distribute/sell, that's your tough luck for not doing due diligence on your business plan.

Same goes for any successors in interest to the defunct company.

Re:What about other licenses?

[billcopc]

What happens is they release the product anyway because GPL license holders are not likely to sue, and even if they do, the cost will be minimal. How do you value damages on something you give away for free ? The GPL is difficult to enforce for individuals, only if someone like IBM or Sun could bring a legitimite business case with tangible losses and penalties could the GPL really have any weight.

It's nice when companies respect and honor the GPL, but if they don't, it's not like the average 12 year old Debian hacker is going to have resources and desire to sue.

Re:What about other licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that copyright infringement is also enforceable as a criminal offense, and that "damages" is not limited to losses by the author. Any money collected for distribution of the copyrighted code is the author's money unless there's a license that allows the distributing party to distribute it some other way. That's right -- it's the copyright holder's code, and if you make money by violating his or her property rights, the money you earned doing it is properly the copyright holder's money.

IANAL, but if someone steals my code, these two fronts are exactly where I'd make my case.

Re:What about other licenses?

[dgatwood]

That's not legal. If the GPLed components cannot function correctly (with the same functionality) without the non-GPLed components, the entire piece of software must be released under the GPL. That's pretty clear from the licensing terms.

Re:What about other licenses?

[maxwell demon]

How do you value damages on something you give away for free ?

It is only given away for free under the conditions of the GPL. The copyright owner might have been willing to give a non-GPL license in return of some money, thus usage of the code in violation of the GPL may have given the author as much damage as the developer would have charged for a commercial license.

But even if the copyright owner would not have been willing (or able, if he used third-party GPL code himself) to do that, it doesn't mean the author doesn't have monetary damage. You don't distribute modified GPLed code for free: You have to pay for the distribution rights in the form of source code of your modifications. Therefore IMHO the monetary damage is in the value of the source code you did not get, but would have gotten if the distributor had complied with the license.

However IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

Re:What about other licenses?

[russotto]

How do you value damages on something you give away for free ?

Statutory damages of $750 to $100,000 per infringement, that's how.

Re:What about other licenses?

[init100]

How do you value damages on something you give away for free ?

The FSF recommends that the primary request is for opening the code, not for monetary damages, just because proving monetary damages can be difficult to prove on an application you distribute for free. Thus, the primary options for the defendant is to open up the code or refrain from distribution.

It's nice when companies respect and honor the GPL, but if they don't, it's not like the average 12 year old Debian hacker is going to have resources and desire to sue.

That's why organizations like gpl-violations.org exist.

Re:What about other licenses?

[fyrewulff]

Who says a written program has to actually compile? If you spent the time, the missing functions could be replaced with OSS counterparts.

Re:What about other licenses?

[neomunk]

If you're distributing binaries, it probably compiled.

W H A T ?

[XO]

Just because you have a right to the source, how does this entitle you to a right to use a particular service for free?

Re:W H A T ?

[guspasho]

It doesn't. Unfortunately for your question, no one has suggested that it should.

Re:W H A T ?

[Romancer]

Because they just want to use their purchased hardware to get FTA (Free to Air) shows. You know, Free as in Free. RTFA! or even the summary!

And since the operating code on the system is protected under the GPL, then they should be able to get the source. The company made money off software that they did not themselves create in whole. They took the communities efforts and are now charging the public to use that code. This is why the violation of GPL software is a problem.

They cannot NOT sue.

[313373_bot]

"Copyright laws"? That's preposterous - if the former company did violate the GPL, it must be punished. But concerning the keys mentioned, I think it falls in a gray area: could they be forced to reveal, say, some encryption key or other sensitive information even if it is not directly related to said GPL violation, but on the other hand necessary to prove something in court?

Gouged?

[ClamIAm]

Perhaps the submitter has never read the GPL, but the license does, in fact, allow you to charge money when people request copies of the code. In fact, for a while Stallman made a living selling copies of Emacs by mail-order; there are plenty of sites that sell CDs of Linux distributions as well.

Re:Gouged?

[UbuntuDupe]

Yes, but:

1) The code must be *somewhere* freely available. Profiting off people's ignorance of where to get it for free, is fine. For example, selling Firefox in a regular software box at Best Buy for $35 + sales tax would be within the GPL, as long as you can download it somewhere for free.

2) If you're charging for the source code you have to provide, it has to be somewhere close to distribution costs.

Re:Gouged?

[RealSurreal]

Close but no cigar. 1) There's no requirement to make the source freely available anywhere. You can release software under the GPL and charge whatever you like for a copy. The requirement is that whoever buys a copy from you with a GPL license receives the rights to redistribute it under a GPL license - which means they can then give it away for free (as long as the recipient is bound by the GPL too) 2) Nope. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGP LAllowDownloadFee Oh and Firefox is distributed under the Mozilla Public License not the GPL.

Re:Gouged?

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as you can download it somewhere for free.

Read the license again. Carefully. There is no such requirement. You can't restrict what people do with the source that they receive from you, but you yourself do not have to provide a download option.

In this case however, the USB key that people have to pay for does not contain the source. The source is not being offered at all, not even at the "cost of physically performing source distribution".

Re:Gouged?

[Chandon Seldon]

The code must be *somewhere* freely available.

Absolutely false. The GPL source code obligation can be met by providing an offer to deliver source code on physical media, and the distributor is allowed to charge reasonable distribution costs.

If you're charging for the source code you have to provide, it has to be somewhere close to distribution costs.

Sure. A USB key costs $15 and shipping costs $6. If you challenge them, they'll claim that a USB key costs "over $20". In the end, the point's really not worth arguing - they're gouging a bit, but not in a way that seriously restricts any user's freedoms under the GPL. Hell, it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to argue a $9 handling cost.

This might, technically, be a GPL violation because the price for the redistribution of source code is a little high - but it's definitely not a serious violation.

Re:Gouged?

[jrockway]

> Oh and Firefox is distributed under the Mozilla Public License not the GPL.

That's incorrect. Firefox is tri-licensed -- LGPL, GPL, and MPL. You get to pick which one you want.

Re:Gouged?

[ivan256]

The code must be *somewhere* freely available.

Can you quote us the line of the GPL which specifies that?

(No, you can't, because it doesn't exist.)

Besides, even if they gave you the code for free, it doesn't mean that they aren't running some non-GPLed code to lock down the box. Thus having the GPLed code wouldn't negate their ability to charge you to unlock the system.

Re:Gouged?

[RealSurreal]

My mistake. I was going by this : http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en .html

Re:Gouged?

[drinkypoo]

Apparently you didn't read the link you made, and neither did anyone else. Try actually reading the following:

[...] "You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary."

IF you distribute binaries by download, which they did not, you may charge a fee as much as the fee to download the binary.

Since the binaries were distributed physically, with the product, or physically again, when the people come to your house to do the upgrade, you may not charge more than a nominal amount to cover copying for the source code.

Nice try, though.

Re:Gouged?

[pavon]

1) The code must be *somewhere* freely available. Profiting off people's ignorance of where to get it for free, is fine. For example, selling Firefox in a regular software box at Best Buy for $35 + sales tax would be within the GPL, as long as you can download it somewhere for free.

No it doesn't. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to distribute source by mail order only, as long as the price is reasonable as you mentioned. You could make a modified version of firefox, say iceweasel, and sell it at for $2000, without making the source availiable to anyone except your customers, and then only if they paid for shipping and handling and a small fee. Of course, you cannot prevent someone from redistributing the source for free once they get it from you, but you are only required to make it available to the people that you distributed the binaries to, at reasonable price.

Re:Gouged?

[AvitarX]

Is the source on the key?

Re:Gouged?

[drdanny_orig]

I'm amazed to be reading stuff like tha parent post on /. Just amazed.

Re:Gouged?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have distributed a binary (you can charge what you want) you must distribute the source at cost.

If you have never distributed a binary you can charge whatever you want for the source.

That's what the GPL says.

Re:Gouged?

[Romancer]

From the article: "Cable Communications is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key" that's a problem right there as they are not getting any copies of the code.

and second: "ProServ is selling USB keys." are they selling the key with the code on it, or are they selling just a USB drive that stores a key that has been created by the code. As in a compiled file? If it's just a standard USB key, then it only has a file on it that gets verified. not the code or utility to distribute keys.

If they gave one person the code, then people would be able to generate keys from that code and copy them to USB devices at will and there would be no discussion about this issue. that's how most GPL code becomes: "free to download somewhere" in peoples minds. it's not stated in the actual GPL but it becomes that way since the people that get a copy of the code usually put it up somewhere for others to just download. Instead of buying a CD or other physical copy, that can be charged for.

It's not really the price that is at issue here, it's about the lack of the code being distributed at all.

Re:Gouged?

[Danse]

1) There's no requirement to make the source freely available anywhere. You can release software under the GPL and charge whatever you like for a copy. The requirement is that whoever buys a copy from you with a GPL license receives the rights to redistribute it under a GPL license - which means they can then give it away for free (as long as the recipient is bound by the GPL too)

Ok, this isn't clear to me from reading the FAQ. The GPL states that they must provide equivalent access to the source that they provide for the binaries. The binaries were distributed with the machines, but the customer wasn't charged any specific fee for the distribution of those binaries, and therefore shouldn't be charged any fee for distribution of the source. Should that be interpreted some other way?

Re:Gouged?

[ArsonSmith]

I don't dissagree with you, but here is the relevent section of the GPL and they seem to be well within their rights:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

Re:Gouged?

[ArsonSmith]

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

and

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your 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; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

They are well within their rights to charge for the code what ever it costs.

Re:Gouged?

[UbuntuDupe]

Absolutely false. The GPL source code obligation can be met by providing an offer to deliver source code on physical media, and the distributor is allowed to charge reasonable distribution costs.

Right, like I clarified in 2). I'm sorry, I should have said "must be somewhere available at roughly distribution costs", but I was trying to be succinct, and the point I was making in 1) was just about how yes you can charge, and give a conceivable example.

Re:Gouged?

[GryMor]

This is incorrect and insufficient, you can not restrict it to 'your customers'

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        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; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

They can't use option, c) as they are a commercial distribution, they haven't done a) at this time. So they better bloody well have done b), which means the offer can be used by anyone and is transferrable (and for that matter, duplicatable). Additionally, a USB stick and a courrier is NOT a medium customarily used for software distribution.

Re:Gouged?

[dgatwood]

The GPL does not say "a nominal amount". It says "the cost of distribution". There's a difference. "A nominal amount" is vague. "The cost of distribution" is very well defined. If the cost of that USB key plus the cost for somebody to copy the data to it plus the cost of shipping comes out to $30 or whatever, then that's well within the bounds of even a strict interpretation of the GPL. However, it is also within the rights of anyone who pays for that $30 key to make it available to anyone else at no charge.

The dirty part is this: if company A is collapsing and transferred the rights to company B, then company B never distributed the binaries. As such, company B is not obligated to meet even the "cost of distribution" requirements. Thus, the beef is with company A, and if they go under, there's nobody to sue. As much as we'd like the GPL to protect against companies creating products that can't be fixed or upgraded by end users, that is only true if users and copyright owners are vigilant and take immediate action to compel the release of source code in a timely manner.

Indeed, this is why I think the U.S. needs a source code escrow law in which any publicly distributed software product must have a copy of its source code placed in escrow that can be released upon a court order in cases of insolvency.

Re:Gouged?

[fishbowl]

>"The cost of distribution" is very well defined.

At least it's "definable."

Judge: And how much did it cost you to distribute that?
Defendant: We do not have a record of that, your honor.
Judge: Agreed. $0.

Re:Gouged?

[init100]

So they better bloody well have done b), which means the offer can be used by anyone and is transferrable (and for that matter, duplicatable).

Not absolutely anyone, but anyone who have received binaries from you, even indirectly. From the GPL FAQ:

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Re:Gouged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the mid 80s, we paid $2500 (to the FSF) for a copy of emacs source code (via 8" tape). Too bad you weren't around to tell the FSF what the GPL means! We would have saved a bundle!!

Re:Gouged?

[Matt Perry]

Oh and Firefox is distributed under the Mozilla Public License not the GPL.

Actually it's licensed under both plus the LGPL. See this page for details.

Re:Gouged?

[jrockway]

The version of firefox from the firefox website is proprietary software, hence they chose the MPL. If you build firefox yourself you can use it under the [L]GPL.

Re:Gouged?

[Tim C]

$30 for the physical USB key and duplication plus engineer time to deliver it doesn't sound unreasonable to me, assuming that you're getting the source. Also, I don't see anything in the quoted text that says anything at all about physical distribution, so you really can't say "oh, because it says 'download' you're not allowed to charge unless it's a download".

Re:Gouged?

[mr_mischief]

They are only within the GPL if they are actually distributing the source to people who request it. Are they doing that?

You can't be forced to open source your code.

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is voluntary. You do not have to accept the license. However, if you don't or can't accept the license, you can't distribute the code. If you distribute the code even though you have not accepted the license or don't comply with its terms, you're committing copyright infringement, which is punishable by a bazillion dollars per illicit copy. Alternatively you can settle with the copyright owners who most likely want you to open the code and call it a day. But if you don't want to or can't open the source, you're free to accept a copyright infringement verdict.

Re:You can't be forced to open source your code.

[dch24]

Exactly right. The licensed code on the set top box is removed when you re-flash the firmware using the Free-To-Air update on the USB key.

What if they had licensed lots of other code and disobeyed the GPL by merging from them both?

The only for-sure GPL violation was the Linux kernel, although I'm fairly certain they have GNU bash in the firmware as well. The programs which are not open source -- well, they won't have to release source for those. But they must release the code for the kernel and any included GNU utilities.

Re:You can't be forced to open source your code.

[Anonymous Coward]

is removed when you re-flash the firmware using the Free-To-Air update

Of course then it is replaced with yet another firmware that contains GPL software, which is just as illegal without either the source or an offer to supply the source (and in this case the firmware is distributed by companies that aren't bankrupt, so there's someone who can actually be sued if necessary.)

It's too bad USDTV went under...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but (and I know this isn't the same thing) I bought a 30-something inch tube TV at Wal-Mart for ~$200 that displays OTA HDTV (ATSC) channels crisp and clear, and the ones broadcast on Comcast cable WITHOUT the digital package. It's called an "ilo SDTV", the "sdtv" being some bastardization of HDTV that means "ATSC tuner with a plain old tube that displays 600 lines per second instead of 500". Not a bad TV though.

Re:It's too bad USDTV went under...

[ReverendLoki]

It's called an "ilo SDTV", the "sdtv" being some bastardization of HDTV that means "ATSC tuner with a plain old tube that displays 600 lines per second instead of 500"

Actually, it means "Standard-Definition Television", which is just the plain-old 480i you've always been getting over the air. It's just given a shiny new acronym so the local electronics store can still sell them alongside all them fancy HDTVs and such.

Ho ho ho

[Mike1024]

This article is clearly spam for that proserv link in the writeup.

Don't editors check out the links before stories get posted? Oh, wait, this is slashdot, of course they don't.

Re:Ho ho ho

[nathanbeach]

I'm not sure a person with a website like that could figure out how to use slashdot for his/her own gain... NBB

Free as in beer

[Joebert]

Damn hippies.

Re:Free as in beer

[Joebert]

Free as in beer
(Score:0, Flamebait)
by Joebert (946227) on Tuesday March 27, @06:23PM (#18508625)
Damn hippies.

Damn hippy moderators.

Re:Who cares?

[geekoid]

Many people pay over 100 bucks a month on TV. There are people that have satallite AND cable.

Seemsd like a waste to me, but a lot of people do it.

Not necessarily GPL issue

[DoomfrogBW]

Basically what the article is describing is a USB dongle, similar to a Hasp. This is very common in the commerical world where you want to turn on/off features. I don't see why this company should be required to turn-over code nor without charging.

Re:Not necessarily GPL issue

[pla]

I don't see why this company should be required to turn-over code nor without charging.

Fine, they don't have to turn over the dongle-code.

They can turn over the box firmware so users can recompile it not to check for the dongle.

Additionally, depending on what this dongle contains, they may have no right to disallow copying them and giving out copies for free (or even for-profit in direct competition with the current sellers).

I'll agree that something doesn't sound right here, but it doesn't involve copyright violation by the end-users.

Re:Not necessarily GPL issue

[DoomfrogBW]

I agree that the dongle code may need to be turned over. The binary information contained on these dongles can be proprietary.. therefore not subject to GPL. But, why since it runs on Linux firmware, does their code make it into the GPL? Correct me if I am wrong, but if I develop on Linux, that does not necessary mean that I need to release my code GPL licensed. Am I reading the text wrong?

Re:Not necessarily GPL issue

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't have to release your code as long as it is not a derivative work of the GPL code you included, i.e. user-space programs that don't depend on GPL libraries (LGPL ones are okay) then you can keep your source code to yourself. But you do still have to distribute the source code to Linux (along with any changes you have made) since you are distributing the binary for Linux to run your software.

Re:Not necessarily GPL issue

[pla]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I develop on Linux, that does not necessary mean that I need to release my code GPL licensed. Am I reading the text wrong?

No, you have that idea right (same idea as why GCC can't force you to license anything created with it under the GPL). I meant that, since the box itself runs Linux modified to check for a dongle, you could easily (and AFAIK legally, but IANAL) just recompile a version that doesn't check for a dongle. Or even one that checks for a dongle with a copy of the GPL on it.

The GPL is irrelevant to its usability for OTA

[Edward Kmett]

Ok. I'm as much of an open source advocate as anyone, but I'm not sure I see what all of the hubbub is about or believe the proposition that this upgrade should be free.

Company makes a box that happens to run linux as the base OS. They should therefore redistribute any changes they make to the GPL'ed code they run. That I get.

What I don't see is how the GPL being involved in some of the software on the firmware entitles the people who bought the hardware to anything involving software that they used for the TV tuner portion of the box.

In one of the links they mention that they used the following bits of GPL'ed software:

      Linux kernel version 2.4.18
      glibc version 2.2.4
      libpthread version 0.9
      busybox version 0.60.0
      GNU tar 1.13.19
      gzip version 1.3

None of those, with the possible exception of the kernel would they have needed to modify to do what they were doing.

They went out of business, and they let people who were former subcontractors give away/sell the information needed to update the system so the end user can continue to use the hardware in some fashion.

I just don't see the relevance of the fact that some of the software is GPL'ed to the discussion at hand. You could argue that they need to make available a disk with the code for the GPL'ed stuff that they ran, but they are out of business, so good luck with getting them to honor that.

However, what is at stake is the ability to use their box to receive OTA signals. None of those packages deal with that. You can make a case that since they closed down they might want to try to give away their service to soften the blow, but the GPL issue is unrelated.

If I ran a computer company and sold computers preloaded with Linux that happened to come with some fancy proprietary biometric thumb scanner and I went out of business, I wouldn't spontaneously owe every one the source for some user-space application that controlled the thumbscanner.

If they modified the kernel, then sure the kernel mods are probably owed to the community. I'll bet that they aren't sufficient to perform all of the box's functions unaided however.

Without the service provided by this third party you are in possession of your very own Linux box running on funny hardware. The joke is on you. Good luck getting your money back.

Not sure, but..

[Jim Hall]

Looking at the links provided in TFA, it's hard to find the real violation here. For example, the link to HiSense quotes an email (March 2006) from the technical lead at USDTV, responding to a user request for copies of the source per the GNU GPL. He states that he would be happy to put up the files for download via a (web?) server, but they were moving offices and didn't have a box to use. Lame, but looks to be in good faith. Until they could put up a server, the technical lead listed the (unmodified?) software components covered by the GNU GPL:

• Linux kernel version 2.4.18
• glibc version 2.2.4
• libpthread version 0.9
• busybox version 0.60.0
• GNU tar 1.13.19
• gzip version 1.3

There is then a mention on the site (not part of the email) that the company has since hit financial problems, possibly implying they are going out of business. In fact, USDTV did go under. Technically, a violation of the GNU GPL for not providing the source on demand, but would be hard to bring to court. Especially since USDTV is out of business now. :-P

Under the GNU GPL, a developer who modifies or distributes code under the GNU GPL is required to redistribute the source code, "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution". However, a program that is separate from the GNU GPL code (for example, a program that runs on top of the Linux kernel) is not bound by the GNU GPL. So they company isn't bound by anything to release code or binaries to their subscriber box software. And in any case, $30 could be a reasonable fee for physical distribution, since they are sending a field rep to your home - if they were distributing source code to the GNU GPL components (which doesn't appear to be the case.)

Reading through the (long!) forum, the company appears to be distributing an updated kernel and their own subscriber box software updates - from a USB "key" (I assume a USB fob or somesuch.) Forum members report they haven't been able to read the USB key on a PC. I didn't go through all 19 web pages of comments, but I didn't see anyone complaining about trying to get the source code.

So after much searching, it appears the submitted article is someone complaining they aren't getting upgraded TV software for free, and using the GNU GPL as leverage in their argument. Am I missing something???

Re:Not sure, but..

[hamfactorial]

So after much searching, it appears the submitted article is someone complaining they aren't getting upgraded TV software for free, and using the GNU GPL as leverage in their argument. Am I missing something???

You're entirely correct, the article is nothing more than sensationalism. It's wrapped up nicely with a big red FUD bow at the top! AKA "the usual", around here.

Re:Not sure, but..

[Andy Dodd]

Also, while the above components may be GPL, there are two other issues:

a) Nothing requires you to provide binaries on demand. Still, any time binaries ARE provided, source for those components must be provided, and there HAS been a violation here.

b) Just because the kernel and glibc are GPL doesn't mean that there aren't any closed-source applications. HiSense could comply with the GPL and release source code for all GPL components and anyone wanting to update their system would likely still be SOL because the update is for a closed-source application that runs on the box.

Re:Not sure, but..

[LWATCDR]

I wounder if there is any GPL issues at all.
The source for all of the GPL components are freely available. Unless they modified them there is no violation I can see. If so anytime you give a friend an Ubuntu CD you are in violation since you are distributing Linux with out distributing the source. The question is if you distribute Linux or any other GPL program must you supply a source repository or are public repositories good enough?
If the software they run under Linux isn't GPLed then they don't have to distribute anything.
Frankly $30 to unlock the box seems like a fair price.

Re:Not sure, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the GNU GPL, a developer who modifies or distributes code under the GNU GPL is required to redistribute the source code, "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".

Once more, the infamous FUD misrepresentation of the GPL. The obligation to distribute source code falls only on those who choose to distribute the code at all (with or without modifications). A developer who modifies, but doesn't distribute, GPL code is under no such obligation.

flaunting-the-GPL dept.?

[Simon80]

flouting the GPL! FLOUTING!

Re:flaunting-the-GPL dept.?

[26199]

Hey, if you've got it, flout it.

correct me if I'm wrong...

[Secret Rabbit]

... but isn't the key NOT source code.

I mean sure, if the firmware is GPL'd then according to the GPL we have to have access to it. But, if a key is required (as in a crypto type key) then that would NOT exactly be covered under the GPL. Thus NO violation.

I'm not sure this is the case.

[raehl]

Where is the act of infringment?

The GPL requires that IF you distribute code, you also have to distribute source code, and the person you give that code to can then also redistribute it under the same terms.

But, if I give you code, and you change it, and then you don't give it to anyone, guess what, you don't have to give the source code out at all.

So, in this case, who owns the receivers? If the cable company owned the receivers, and were just leasing them to the customers, I don't see that there's any infringement taking place. They're not distributing the software (it's on their hardware), so they're not obligated to distribute the source either.

Now, if they SOLD the boxes to the end consumer, then they'd be obligated to distribute the source, but is that the case here? Or did people just end up with abandoned receivers when the cable company went out of business?

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[QuantumG]

It's an interesting argument.. but that's all it is. There's no legal precedent for what you're suggesting.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[dgatwood]

It's the same legal precedent that makes it illegal to hack your rented cable box. It's considered trespassing. If you rent a cable box, you do not have the right to open it up or modify it in any way. As the owner, they have the right to specify what can and cannot be done with their property. Therefore, they are under no legal obligation to aid and abet any action by their customers that would be in violation of their rights as the owners of the property. Indeed, by assisting you in doing so, they would be tacitly agreeing to allow the owners of their cable box to make modifications to those boxes, including those that could harm the box. As such, they cannot realistically be expected to do so.

It would be the same as a person renting a house demanding that the landlord help him remove an exterior wall. The law says that by transferring a piece of property, you transfer all rights to modify the property as the new owner sees fit. However, when renting it, you retain the right to maintain the value of that property, up to and including preventing the unauthorized modification thereof. Modifying a cable box could decrease its value to the owner (if the person doing the upgrade screws something up), and thus, they are well within their rights to not allow you to do so.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[cmburns69]

I stopped subscribing a long time ago, but when I purchased my box when I signed up.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[squiggleslash]

My gut feeling says no, this wouldn't suffice. The receiver maker needs a license to put the software on the receivers, whether they intend to sell them or lease them, much as they'd need a license if they wanted to put a copy of The Matrix on every receiver and sell them or lease them. "Fair use", the usual out that allows us to talk about the GPL not applying to private modifications, does not apply in this case, fair use isn't as liberal as people here tend to think it is.

The fact that the software has been distributed, whether leased or sold, means it needed agreement to a license. The user was given (whether on the basis of a lease or not) the physical software. They, therefore, under the terms of the GPL, should have been offered the source code. I would be enormously surprised if that isn't the case.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[QuantumG]

Sigh. A vague analogy does not a legal precedent make.

Think of it this way, if it had been Windows CE on that box, would you expect the company to be held to that license? Yeah, that's what I figured.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And what this guy just got done explaining was why it might not apply -- does the license require source code if you do not sell the product, but merely lease it?

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[dmyurych]

Mod parent down. Distributing software along with hardware, even if you are only licensing or renting the hardware, is still distributing software. Otherwise everyone could get around the GPL--make the source available restriction, by saying: "We're not distributing Linux we're just renting a hard drive to our customers that has Linux on it". On the other hand, I believe charging a fair price for the distribution media is allowable under the GPL. Is $30 a fair price. I don't believe they would have to make it widely available either, so they can restrict it to those customers who actually have that particular set-top box.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Most nerds do have to purchase their boxes.

Wait for it...ah, nevermind.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[QuantumG]

Does anyone sell software? Or do they just LICENSE it. Yeah, it's really not that complicated.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you said, and *people bought the receivers*. Case closed.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[MoralHazard]

So, in this case, who owns the receivers? If the cable company owned the receivers, and were just leasing them to the customers, I don't see that there's any infringement taking place. They're not distributing the software (it's on their hardware), so they're not obligated to distribute the source either.

You make a very tricky argument, here, about exactly what defines "distribution". I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're just drawing a distinction between distribution on machines being loaned/leased to the end user, versus distribution on machines where the end user actually buys the hardware. It seems to me, on face, that both are literally examples of "distribution". But the GPL (and a court, obviously) may support your distinction--the literal meaning might not be the whole story. The text of the GPLv2 (which I just reviewed on the FSF site) doesn't go into detail on this point.

However, I do believe that you are wrong, specifically because of the nature of how copyright law applies to the acts in question. I'm not sure if my position rests entirely on the literal definition of distribution, though. Let me see if I can construct an argument around this, and you can tell me whether it holds any water.

1) Consider the hardware boxes to be just another piece of media. Sure, they're functional in their own right, but the have internal flash or memory that carries GPL-governed binary code. In this sense, it seems like the sames rules should apply that govern other forms of media carrying GPL code, such as Linux-based live CDs.

2) Hypothetically, I could create a binary-only live CD (most of them are, anyway) and hand out copies of it to people. However, let's pretend that I stipulate to everybody receiving a CD that they don't actually own the CDs. I'm not giving them away, I'm just loaning or leasing those physical CDs. Maybe we write out a contract--you accept the CD as a loaner from me, but you're required to return it if I ask or at some designated future time.

3) It would seem that the contents of the hypothetical loaner CDs are clearly still covered by the GPL, in full effect. Although I could demand the physical CD-ROM back from a user, I couldn't also try to forbid them from making a copy and saving it, or giving it away to other people. In fact, even if we wrote out a special contract to that effect, it would violate the GPL to impose such conditions on them, which would in turn terminate MY rights to re-distribute GPL code in the first place. I couldn't prevent my users from exercising their GPL-given rights without losing my own license over that code.

4) The requirement that I pass on the right to copy and re-distribute GPL software is only one of the tenets of the license. Another tenet is that I must provide source code, upon request, when I distribute binaries. So in addition to #3, above, I would also be forced to provide the source code for my binary live CD when any of my users asked for it. And furthermore, I would be required to do so at a reasonable cost. If I refuse, or if I try to impose conditions on my users, I lose my own original right to give them the copies in the first place.

5) Given that the hardware boxes the cable company is handing to its end-users contain binaries of GPL code, it would therefore seem that the users maintain their rights under the GPL to demand the source code from the cable company at a reasonable cost. Unless the cable company meets this requirement, they have no right to distribute the GPL code along with their hardware.

So... Does that add up? I mean, I would contrast this against the case where the cable company installs edge routers in local neighborhoods that run Linux--those routers being sited in company offices and passing customer traffic as opposed to being given to customers to operate in their own homes. In that case, it would seem as if they were NOT distributing the software, since they maintain direct control over it, and therefore the customers w

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Ansoni-San]

Even if they weren't sold but leased, the fact that they are now abandoning them would count as distributing. Transferring ownership from themselves to their customers/former-customers is pretty much distribution. Now, if they went around and forced all their customers to update their firmware (which they would probably have to do for free to get everyone to agree), then they'd be in the clear. In my opinion, they're quite clearly violating the GPL even if the boxes were originally leased. I'll spare you the analogies.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[init100]

I don't believe they would have to make it widely available either, so they can restrict it to those customers who actually have that particular set-top box.

Except that such restrictions are quite useless. Since the customers would get the right to redistribute (per the GPL), any customer could put up the source on his webpage for all the non-customers in the world to get.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck decided that fuck needed some stars so that people wouldn't be able to see it? I mean, we all know what you fucking mean. So why not just fucking say it?

For people with signatures turned off or who can't see them,
"Who the f*** decided that sentences on the Internet shall no longer be formatted with two spaces after a period?!"

I otherwise agree with your fucking rant.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Sancho]

Of course this company is held to the GPL. The question is whether or not leasing constitutes distribution. If it does, then this company would be required to release the source per the GPL. If leasing does not constitute distribution, then the company would still be required to comply with the GPL, however as they were not distributing the binaries, they would have no obligation to provide the source.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[QuantumG]

Sigh. Suppose they were "leasing" the software without the box. Would that be distribution? I say it would.. as that's the way all software is distributed. So how does embedding the software in a box and then leasing the box make that any different?

It's just a nonsense argument.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Sancho]

If I loan my notebook to you (hint: it runs Linux) do I have to provide you with the source code? What if I rent it to you?

Consider the above questions if I have also patched the kernel myself to include some changes. What do you think the answers to these questions are?

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if there are similar standards in your country, but Germany has DIN 5008, which says "Satzzeichen stehen direkt hinter dem letzten Buchstaben des Wortes, dann folgt ein Leerzeichen" (Punctuation marks follow directly after the last character of the word, then follows one space.)

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[QuantumG]

Guess what the law would say? Yes, you, do.

The latter case moreso than the first because I have it in writing that you distributed the software.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[EdelFactor19]

umm whats the difference between code and source code? im pretty sure last time i checked they were the same. maybe they changed since i came home from work. personally i distribute binaries and source code. people like binaries because they dont want to code other than that a valid point.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[raehl]

I don't think that adds up.

You kind of touched on the problem with your argument, but then went past it.

The receiver is a self-contained unit that runs it's own software. The live CD does not run anything. In order to use the software on the live CD, you have to put it in some other device. And when you do that, you copy the software.

So, if I 'lease' to you a CD with software on it, and then you run the software on the CD, one of two things is true:

- My lease to you of my property with the copyrighted software on it either allows you to copy that software, or it does not. If it does, then I have infringed the copyright as I have no license which allows me to allow you to copy the software onto whatever machine you're going to ultimately run it on.
- My lease to you of my property does not allow you to actually copy the software, ergo, you commit the infringement if you copy it to your machine to run.

The difference with the receivers over the live CD is that unlike the live CD, where the program must be copied off the CD to run on your computer (even if it's only copied into memory for the purposes of running the program), the program in the receiver only runs on the receiver, which is still my property.

Let's put this another way. Let's say I create a business where I lease computers. Let's further say that I lease computers with Linux installed. You pay me $100 and I loan you a computer for a month. Am I obligated to give you the source code?

What if instead of giving you the computer, I have an internet cafe, and I instead charge you $20 to use my computer for an hour. Am I obligated to give you the source code then?

I'd say no to both cases, and under the same reasoning, would not expect that distributing the source to GPLd software running on leased hardware is required.

You bring up a good point with the Java applets though - I would argue that in that case, making the source code available is required.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[FLEB]

Offering only a front-end service that uses modified GPLv2 code on the back-end (IIRC) does not constitute "distribution". Renting a device could be seen as similar-- they're giving you a black box, with a front end interface, that you don't own. It just happens to be connected by a shorter length of wire.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[raehl]

"We're not distributing Linux we're just renting a hard drive to our customers that has Linux on it"

That wouldn't be very useful to the customer, as they would not have the right to copy the software off of the hard drive and into their system to run it.

Giving someone a hard drive to run software in THEIR computer is not the same as giving someone a computer that runs software.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Brandybuck]

Mod parent down.

Why? Because you disagree? Someone should mod you down for being an ass!

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[MoralHazard]

My lease to you of my property with the copyrighted software on it either allows you to copy that software, or it does not. If it does, then I have infringed the copyright as I have no license which allows me to allow you to copy the software onto whatever machine you're going to ultimately run it on.

This may be a misunderstanding. My point was that the GPL forbids you from making a lease agreement in the fashion you describe. IF the act of handing over the CD qualifies as distribution, you're breaking the GPL if you refuse to provide source to the end user, contract or no. Remember, the when you accept the terms of the GPL (by copying or re-distributing the licensed work), you're making a promise UPSTREAM, to the guy who owns the copyright on the software. You can't void that promise by making a second agreement, a lease or what have you, with someone downstream to whom you're passing a copy of the software.

We have to determine first whether there is distribution going on. If an act qualifies as distribution, then the copier has obligations to recipient of the distributed code under the terms of the GPL. That said, I think you have a neat argument here:

The difference with the receivers over the live CD is that unlike the live CD, where the program must be copied off the CD to run on your computer (even if it's only copied into memory for the purposes of running the program), the program in the receiver only runs on the receiver, which is still my property.
Let's put this another way. Let's say I create a business where I lease computers. Let's further say that I lease computers with Linux installed. You pay me $100 and I loan you a computer for a month. Am I obligated to give you the source code?
What if instead of giving you the computer, I have an internet cafe, and I instead charge you $20 to use my computer for an hour. Am I obligated to give you the source code then?

Your claim is an interesting one: the definition of distribution is tied to the nature of the act of copying--as long as ownership of the media is retained by the entity that made the copy, they aren't really distributing copies.

But WHY should this be the case? As I pointed out earlier, the literal definition of distribution is to turn copies over to the control of other people, regardless of who owns the media. I doubt NetFlix claim that since they still own all the DVDs they're mailing to people that they're not "distributing" anything. This may not be legally accurate, but you don't provide any reason for why your definition of distribution is better than the literal one.

I would suggest that the spirit of the GPL also comes into play, here: in order to get some benefit (i.e., using GPL software as a basis for your company), you should have to give something in return (i.e., provide the same opportunities to others). With leasing, you are actually creating a copy in order to install the software on each of the machines you lease out to your customers, and you are actually turning it over to them. Why should you be allowed to reap the benefits of copying/redistribution, which you would otherwise be forbidden from doing, without any price?

And I don't know how legally valid this is, but version 3 of the GPL actually replaces the term "distribute" with words such as "propagate" and "convey". According to Eben Moglen, who wrote both versions 2 and 3, this change is intended to answer the type of question that we're debating here. In fact, most of the changes from version 2 to version 3 are intended to shore up potential loopholes in wording and practices that might allow an unethical person or company to cheat. That doesn't mean they ARE loopholes--nobody's admitting that the GPL version 2 doesn't include your leasing company, or even your internet cafe, in the definition of distribution. It's just that they're trying to make it MORE explicit in the future. Check out the

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[raehl]

I agree that the GPL does not allow me to lease a CD with GPL'd software on it for another entity to run without obligating me to distribute the source code as well. But I still don't agree that that necessarily means if I allow someone to use a computer, even for a fee, that I'm obligated to provide them source for every GPL'd program on the computer.

As long as ownership of the media is retained by the entity that made the copy, they aren't really distributing copies.

That's not precisely what I'm saying. The argument is more precisely, as long as the person copying the software and the machine running the software are owned by the same entity, then distribution has not occurred.

A way to look at it is this - we have a continuum of action, from having a copy of GPL'd code to selling a copy of GPL'd code to someone. Clearly in the first case, I'm not obligated to distribute the source code to anyone. And clearly in the last case I am.

So at what point do I go from not obligated to distribute to obligated?

If I modify the code and run it on the computer I modify it on, I'm clearly not obligated to distribute the source. If I modify the code and copy the source and compile it on my laptop, I'm not obligated to distribute the source. If I somehow compile a binary on one computer and then copy the binary to my laptop, still not obligated to distribute the source.

If my mother comes to visit and turns on my computer to find a recipe for brownies online, am I obligated to give her the kernel source if she asks? I think we're still at a no here.

What if I rent appliances? Am I obligated to give the source for any GPL'd firmware that these appliances run with?

I'm also not sure what you're getting at with your Netflix example, and it appears orthogonal to the situation here. If I have a copy of linux, I can then give you the copy of linux, and I do NOT have to give you the source code. Why? Because it's COPYRIGHT, *NOT* distributeright. The owner of the copyright on Legally Blonde can not use that copyright to prevent Netflix from distributing DVDs around the country by mail. Along those lines, if Redhat sells me a copy of Linux, I can give that copy to someone else and NOT have to make the source code available to them. I didn't copy the software myself, so I've had no need to agree to the GPL, because I don't need a license to distribute.

In fact, it appears here that the GPL may have a loophole. If you have not made copies of a piece of software, you're not bound by the GPL. So, let's say I'm a cable company. I buy 100,000 digital receivers with GPL'd software on them. The company I buy them from is the company that put this software on all these receivers and thus did the copying. They're required to give me the source code if I want it, and they send me 100,000 CDs with the source code, one with each digital receiver.

But I didn't copy anything, so I'm not bound by the GPL. I already have the right to distribute the copies. So now I give my receivers (lease or sell) to my customers. Now I'm not obligated to give the customers the source code (since I'm not bound by the GPL) and the receiver manufacturer isn't obligated to give out the source code to my customers either (since they didn't distribute the code to them.)

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, having read through this entire thread, I would agrue you are wrong. Distribution implies transfer of ownership. But leasing or renting do not transfer ownership in any shape, way or form. You do not have the right to anything about the property you are leasing beyond the functionality I agreed to when I agreed to lease you the property. Therefore I would not have to provide you with source code to the machine you are using simply because you are using my property in some form of agreement. If I then leave the property in your care afterwards, when the lease is terminated, and say, "it's yours' I would indeed have to provide the transfer of ownership.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Asgard]

All your argument has done is point out that the end user would have to get the software from the person who performed the copying -- you can't strip them of that just because you handled the device as a middleman.

I wonder then what happens if you refuse to disclose where the device came from.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[raehl]

All your argument has done is point out that the end user would have to get the software from the person who performed the copying -- you can't strip them of that just because you handled the device as a middleman.

But we did!

If you distribute the binary, the GPL only obligates you to distribute source in one of three ways. One of the ways is by distribting the source with the binary.

So, I give you the binary and the source. I've satisfied my obligations under the GPL and have no further obligation to give the source to anyone. You turn around and give that same copy to someone else. You didn't copy anything, so you're not bound by the GPL either. So now we have the someone else - where can they get the source?

Looks to me like they're screwed, as according to the GPL, no one is obligated to give it to them.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Asgard]

Who created the copy they end user now possesses? That entity would seem to be on the hook for providing the source, even though they already provided the source with the device. It is not a one-time obligation.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[raehl]

Who created the copy they end user now possesses? That entity would seem to be on the hook for providing the source, even though they already provided the source with the device. It is not a one-time obligation.

Yes, it is.

From the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

So there you go. Nobody in this circumstance is obligated to provide the source to the end user.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Asgard]

The person who sold you the box was obligated to supply it, in this case as part of the box.

Would not the act of stripping out the source code / the offer to get the source code from the 'black box' be a modification of it, that itself would require you to accept the GPL and be obligated to supply it upon request?

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[dgatwood]

IANAL, but I do have a strong background in communications law. What I said was not a vague analogy. I'm fairly certain you can find plenty of legal precedent that you do not implicitly have the right to alter something that you are renting. Further, I'm not suggesting that a company renting a box shouldn't be held to the license. I'm suggesting that the legal definitions of "transfer" and "distribute" are not what you seem to think they are.

In particular, I would point you to the WIPO Copyright Treaty. I believe that we are a signatory state. It explicitly does not recognize the authority of the copyright owner to place restrictions upon (and profit from) the rental of computer software on embedded systems. "Paragraph (1) shall not apply: (i) in the case of computer programs, where the program itself is not the essential object of the rental...".

Based on that, I would contend that, in fact, rented hardware is still treated as though it were in the possession of the renter. In every other form of property law, this is also the case, as far as I am aware. As such, in cases of embedded software on a rented hardware device, it is my studied opinion that the GPL would have no legal teeth whatsoever in this matter because the software has not, in fact, been distributed, sublicensed, or transferred to a third party.

If you can show statutes or case law that contradict that assertion, I would invite you to do so.

Re:I'm not sure this is the case.

[Anonymous Coward]

They also sold boxes that were free to air. I have one because I found it for cheap. It could also be used with their subscription service if you wanted it to. So yes it is the case that they sold these boxes to consumers. The only real difference between the two (FTA and subscription) is that subscription box wouldn't work without subscribing to USDTV.

Stop right there

[westlake]

Salt Lake City-based USDTV discontinued their service. USDTV used the Hisense DB2010 as subscriber boxes, with Linux based firmware [CC]. USDTV should have released the source and binaries as required by the GPL, in order for customers to create a USB key to convert their DB2010s to FTA HDTV boxes. Instead, they chose to hand the keys to former USDTV subcontractors. Cable Communications [CC] is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key. ProServ [CC] is selling USB keys. But 'Due to copyright laws you are only allowed to purchase one of these keys if you have proof of being a current or previous subscriber to USDTV.

First question that comes to mind:

How many subscribers would be able to flash the firmware without bricking their box even if they had the source code and binaries?

[it happens, sometimes, even to the geek who is sure he knows what he is doing]

Second question:

Where in the contract does it say that these set top boxes are user-serviceable? If they are not, then the code becomes of intellectual interest only.

Third question:

What makes paying for a USB key differet from paying for a CableCard to access and unlock subscription content and services?

Re:Stop right there

[dch24]

I'll bite.

How many subscribers would be able to flash the firmware without bricking their box even if they had the source code and binaries? [it happens, sometimes, even to the geek who is sure he knows what he is doing]

If by some mishap you have bricked your box, connect the appropriate Flash programmer to the JTAG port on the mainboard, and reprogram the flash. Repeat as necessary until the machine boots again.

I think it's necessary to have the source code so you could test an install of MythTV, for example.

Second question:

Where in the contract does it say that these set top boxes are user-serviceable? If they are not, then the code becomes of intellectual interest only.

Many customers received their Hisense box officially just a few weeks ago, when USDTV sent out a notice that leased boxes could be kept by the subscriber. They never signed a contract limiting their rights to modify the box (now that they own it).

Also, as long as USDTV is in violation of the GPL (and they are -- see discussion above), obtaining the source code is in the interest of all who would defend GPL software, since USDTV and TiVo have demonstrated a serious loophole by which many manufacturers might try to abuse the GPL.

Third question:

What makes paying for a USB key differet from paying for a CableCard to access and unlock subscription content and services?

I agree with you. A USB key that would unlock subscription material should be paid for. But this USB key changes a Hisense box so that it will not go into "Please Activate" mode at the next power outage. Further, the key removes some of the proprietary code from the box, so that it only receives free ATSC broadcasts. The USB key does not contain source code -- but that's my point: USDTV is still in violation of the GPL.

Re:Stop right there

[init100]

If they are not, then the code becomes of intellectual interest only.

Are youy trying to imply that this would make source distribution for the GPL:ed components unnecessary?

Re:Stop right there

[westlake]

If by some mishap you have bricked your box, connect the appropriate Flash programmer to the JTAG port on the mainboard, and reprogram the flash. Repeat as necessary until the machine boots again.

You have got to be kidding.

I have a Phillips head screwdriver in the kitchen. Will that be any help?

I think it's necessary to have the source code so you could test an install of MythTV.

I think Microsoft may be on to something here, pushing the OEM system install in the home PC market.

Re:Stop right there

[westlake]

Are you trying to imply that this would make source distribution for the GPL:ed components unnecessary?

I'll hazard a guess here and say that the GPL'd components of the USDTV firmware are the least interesting to the hacker and the most useless now---nothing more than the standard libraries he's seen and used a hundred times before.

If you are going to fight the good fight, make your battles count. The company has gone belly-up, and the code, more likely than not, is going to disappear into the void no matter what you do.

Dangerous to use Linux?

[AP2k]

I cant see what the problem is with using other's works and having to abide by the terms set forth by the author. "If you want my help, you are going to do it this way" is what it amounts to. Linux devs dont just throw their code out under GPL for shits and giggles.

I dont see it as a danger, but rather a very stern warning that you abide by the author's license terms if you use their work. If you have something trade secret-related that you cant just hand out to anyone that wants it, you can code it yourself.

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Or not rip .mp3s from store-bought CDs and share them around, after opening several layers of boxes with (c) all over them, for that matter.

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[init100]

Using your logic, why don't Linux hippies stop reverse engineering closed software when they see the "Do not disassemble" clause?

I don't think reverse engineering network protocols or file formats (which is mostly what the reverse engineering done by the "Linux hippies" is all about) can be counted as disassembling the software. Disassembling the software is just that, applying the reverse of the process of the assembler, to produce an assembly file from the binary. This is rarely, if ever, done to reverse engineer network protocols or file formats.

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[Dun Malg]

Using your logic, why don't Linux hippies stop reverse engineering closed software when they see the "Do not disassemble" clause?

Or is it another case of double standards? "Do what we want, not what they want!". Because "do not disassemble" clauses are an unenforceable crock of shit. Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under. Venture capitalists are free to hire a bunch of programmers to reverse engineer all that GPL software and create their own proprietary version of it, just as "Linux hippies" do with proprietary stuff. You obviously don't understand how any of this works. Maybe you should talk less and read more.

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[corbettw]

Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under.

In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).

This is called "having your cake and eating it, too."

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[neomunk]

Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under.

In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).

This is called "having your cake and eating it, too." No, the first case is a matter of a company trying to end-run around already existing laws that deal with the topic, at least as it applies to your analogy.
The second case is a matter of an author expressly permitting you, with conditions, to have addition rights with their work that normal copyright would not allow.

And as for a more proper cake analogy: The first case is saying "here's a cake, and don't you pay no nevermind to what's in it, don't be doin none of them dang 'tests' on it either, we know what you want. that'll be $249.99"
The second case is like saying "here's a cake recipe, but if you make cakes with it, you have to give out the recipe too. that's the rules for getting this recipe for free"

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[trianglman]

Actually, no. (obligatory IANAL clause)

Doctrine of First Sale (or at least the important part in this issue):

In 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997)[2] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good.

This would include taking it apart to see how it works.

On the other hand, taking the whole piece of software, or a significant piece of it, and selling it as if it were your own is a copyright infringement the same as copying a page from a book and saying it is your own work, thus where the GPL comes in. GPL gives limited allowance to 'infringe' on the copyright, as long as you follow few rules, without contacting the original authors.

Re:Dangerous to use Linux?

[init100]

In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).

This is called "having your cake and eating it, too."

The difference is that in the first case, further restrictions than those imposed by copyroight law are added in the license. In the second case, some of those restrictions imposed by copyright law are removed if you agree with the license.

Also, the GPL requirements on the distributor are orthogonal to the question whether the First Sale Doctrine trumps the EULA. The GPL imposes certain obligations on the distributor, while the First Sale Doctrine gives certain rights to the receiver of the good. IANAL, but I'd say that there is no contradiction between demanding that the distributor comply with the GPL at the same time as you ignore a restriction in the EULA that may be unenforceable and trumped by the law.

Re:Who cares?

[Grishnakh]

Satellite and cable? "a waste" is an understatement. Sorry, I just don't feel sorry for anyone like this who's getting ripped off in this deal. That would be like a CEO getting ripped off at his Hummer dealership: cry me a river. Or better yet, anyone getting ripped off when they turned in their leased car and have to pay thousands because of normal wear and tear. If you're dumb enough to lease a car, I'm not going to feel sorry for you when it bites you in the ass.

Wallace vs. FSF

[Anonymous Coward]

You should check out the Wallace vs. FSF case. It basically said that Wallace was out to lunch, although I guess he was challenging it on anti-trust grounds.

Everyone else, even Linksys, has folded when brought up on GPL violations for good reason--they think they'd lose in court.

Ask the MAFIAA

[Belial6]

"How do you value damages on something you give away for free ?"

As the MAFIAA.

How to Avoid the GPL Violation

[ubuwalker31]

1) Upload a .torrent of the source code to a tracker and provide a link (Cost: ~$0, upload it once from work, host at home)
2) Put a copy on your server (Cost: Variable and potentially expensive)
3) Provide an offer w/the GPL to provide the source code on CD for the cost it would take you to have a secretary burn a CD and mail it via FedEx/UPS, plus a small handling fee. (Charge $25 - Profit!)

Re:How to Avoid the GPL Violation

[apathy maybe]

Hand out the source code with every binary you hand out and not worry? I mean you can compress it and put it on the same fucking CD!

That way you don't have to worry about keeping it for three years, you don't have to worry about extra costs, and you don't have to worry about anything.

Just compress (using zip or gzip or bzip) and burn.

step one

[DragonTHC]

contact the EFF

step two, sue everyone involved.

Re:step one

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1 cut a hole in the box
Step 2 put your junk in the box
Step 3 make her open the box

Here's what you missed:

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Ok. I'm as much of an open source advocate as anyone, but I'm not sure I see what all of the hubbub is about or believe the proposition that this upgrade should be free.

Company makes a box that happens to run linux as the base OS. They should therefore redistribute any changes they make to the GPL'ed code they run. That I get.

Not changes.

They must redistribute THE FULL SOURCE, even if it's NOT changed, of whatever they're loading.

For (essentially) free.

Otherwise they have no right to do the copying involved in loading it.

The right to load it comes only from the GPL's terms, which require you make available to the end users the ENTIRE source if you distribute the object - regardless of whether it has been modified.

They went out of business, and they let people who were former subcontractors give away/sell the information needed to update the system so the end user can continue to use the hardware in some fashion.

And the "former subcontractors" ALSO are under the terms of the GPL. So if THEY have GPLed firmware to download in those dongles, THEY must also release the source to THAT firmware. (Not just if they modified it, etc.)

If they're selling the dongles for $30 they have to sell the firmware source for no more than $30 also.

Meanwhile, the previous company distributed the object so they are obligated to distribute the source. If somebody (like the "former subcontractors") bought that part of the operation, they also bought the liability for distributing the source that matches the object already distributed - which they must satisfy to keep the license rights alive. Otherwise they don't have the rights to the modified code.

If USDTV actually went bankrupt it might be argued that the obligation to distribute source to the previous version was extinguished in bankruptcy. But IMHO that doesn't extinguish Cable Communications' obligation to distribute source when THEY upgrade the firmware. If they do this for free they must distribute the source for free - if they do it for $30 they must distribute the source for no more than $30.

Also: The obligation to distribute the source can not be limited to the original purchasers of the box unless the source is distributed WITH the box. Once even one instance of the box has been through first sale without the source the GPL requires the source to be distributed to anyone on demand.

Re:Here's what you missed:

[Edward Kmett]

The issue that I raised was that the post in question seemed to implicate that the OTA functionality enabled by the firmware patch is something that should be thrown in for free and for which customers shouldn't be charged.

> USDTV customers are being charged $30 for a service and/or files that should be freely available to anyone who has a DB2010 in their possession.

The USB dongle appears to be being offered as a sop to a disaffected public to enable OTA, not to address source redistribution concerns.

The GPL issue is something they can be hanged for in a different court. I am not trying to defend their use of GPL'ed code without making the source code available.

They do owe the community a distribution of the GPL code that they have used, modified or unmodified; I spoke in haste and did not mean to imply a lack of burden in that respect on their behalf. While I don't know if there is still a legal entity there to call 'them' any more anyways to carry on that burden, it would appear that the subcontractors may have inherited the GPL burden by taking up redistribution to recoup costs. This was never the point I was trying to make, however.

I was merely pointing out that the $30 USB dongle doesn't (at least by the sound of it) consist of purely GPL code and that half of these posts seem to conflate these two issues. Any non-GPL code may very well have ownership issues that prevents them from distributing it more broadly.

Remind me next time not to try to clarify conflated arguments where the GPL is tangentialy involved. Go GPL, ra ra, down with Microsoft. Mollified?

Re:Here's what you missed:

[LWATCDR]

"They must redistribute THE FULL SOURCE, even if it's NOT changed, of whatever they're loading."
So if I give out Ubuntu CDs I must redistribute the full source even if it is publicly available already?
If so then every LUG that distributed free CDs is in violation of the GPL.
If you don't change it and it is available from public sources why should you have to distribute it?

USB dongle not required, key sequence unlocks

[tedashcroft]

I do not know where this information about a USB dongle came from but it is not required. I have two USDTV HD tuners and all you need to unlock them is a sequence of buttons presses via the remote: red guide, program info, aspect, info, 1. That's all. It's that easy. Why USDTV is not providing this information is beyond me. I understand that there are some that may not be comfortable doing this themselves and would like a third-party company to come and do it for them, but for the general public, it sure seems a lot easier then waiting for a serviceman to come around. USDTV could have posted this key sequence on their website as easily as I have done here.

Re:USB dongle not required, key sequence unlocks

[Anonymous Coward]

That key sequence doesn't do what you think it does. At any given time there are 2 images on the boxes. The current one that is active and the one that was on the box before it. The sequence that you are using instructs the box to switch to the "older" software image.

Re:USB dongle not required, key sequence unlocks

[tedashcroft]

hmm... well, I admit that I only know what I have been told and have experienced and do not know the internal working, design, or engineering of the box... but I do know that (1) I was given that sequence by one of their lead tecs and told that it would unlock it and (2) have used it on two boxes that unlocked after I used that sequence.

GPLv3

[SanityInAnarchy]

Are the judges and lawyers who eventually decide and argue these matters going to be aware of these extremely fine technical distinctions?... Lots of uncertainty, here, as far as I see it.

Believe it or not, GPLv3 is designed to resolve exactly this kind of issue. It's designed to be much clearer about what is and isn't allowed.

Of course, a lot of people don't like this, because they can get away with certain things that the GPLv2 allows, that it wasn't intended to. Tivo-ization is the perfect example -- the GPLv2 was never meant to allow you to see source code, but not be able to produce a modified binary that works. If, when it was being drafted, they had considered this a real threat, it would have been written the way GPLv3 is today.

Which, I believe, does require that GPL-derived web apps be distributed with their source code in full -- meaning if you visit such a website, there should be a download link somewhere.

Re:GPLv3

[kscguru]

the GPLv2 was never meant to allow you to see source code, but not be able to produce a modified binary that works. (emphasis mine)

GPLv2 guarantees you the right to produce a modified binary that works on some system.

GPLv3, with the TIVO-ization clauses, guarantees you the right to produce a modifed binary that works on the original system.

The difference between those is huge! TIVO complies with GPLv2 (you could build your own TIVO box and install your modified source on it). USDTV seemed to comply with neither of these.

And this new GPLv3 doesn't clear up the GP's points about what is "distribution" (the 2nd GPLv3 draft only adds confusion, defining "distribution" as "conveying" without defining "conveying") - so that definition will still have to evolve via case law in the courts. Sorry FSF, y'all got too focused on fixing TIVO-ization and didn't actually clear up the ambiguities...

Re:GPLv3

[greed]

Of course, seeing as the FSF got started because someone wanted a working printer driver, the intent was to have the code work on the original system.

You're making up a 'fact'.

[raehl]

The fact that the software has been distributed, whether leased or sold, means it needed agreement to a license.

But no distribution (giving a copy to another party) has taken place. Only *COPYING* has taken place.

And it is obvious that the GPL *MUST* allow copying without distribution. If it doesn't, we're all violating the GPL any time we copy the program from one computer to another without also copying the source.

(It would seem that at least the GPL statement If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. permits copying without distribution - as if you start with a program and source code, whatever access allowed you to copy the executable would also necessarily allow you to copy the source code.)

So, while you're correct that the act of copying means the receiver maker either has accepted a license OR is infringing the copyright, the GPL permits the copying.

So yes, they've accepted the GPL, but no, copying the program didn't violate it.

Re:You're making up a 'fact'.

[ozamosi]

They distributed the boxes with software on them, and they distribute the software on USB-keys (when you pay for them).

Re:You're making up a 'fact'.

[raehl]

They distributed the boxes with software on them, and they distribute the software on USB-keys (when you pay for them).

Again, copying the software onto their own hardware isn't distribution. It's copying. The receiver is a self-contained unit owned in its entirety by one party. Copying software onto your own hardware must be permitted, and giving other people access to the hardware, even if for a fee, does obligate you to give them source code, anymore than you visiting my website obligates me to give you a copy of the source to Apache.

Re:You're making up a 'fact'.

[Scarblac]

Bullshit, go read the license (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). It's not that long. It covers copying, distribution and modification.

Without a license, you do not have the right to copy a work copyrighted by someone else. The GPL is the only thing that gives you the right to copy, modify or distribute Linux. Therefore, you need to abide by its terms, even if you only copy it.

Saying that means you must also always copy the source is idiotic, since that's not what the license says. But since this is commercial copying and/or distribution of a binary, they must choose to adhere to either 3a or 3b - accompany with the source, or a written offer to give any third party the source for a fee no bigger than the cost of physically distributing it.

Since that's for any commercial copying, and to any third party, it doesn't matter at all whether it's leased or bought.

Re:You're making up a 'fact'.

[ozamosi]

Look at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=228381&cid =18509269 - "selling and leasing". Or http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=228381&cid =18509175

I disagree on a couple points here...

[raehl]

They only have to distribute the source to those they distributed the binaries to, NOT anyone with binaries.

I don't think $30 for a USB key with the source code counts as 'a medium customarily used for software distribution'. You can't just pick an arbitrary means of distributing the source, otherwise someone could claim they've satisfied the GPL by offering the source code on platinum CDs in platinum-CD reader drives for $10,000,000, because that's what it costs to make one.

Re:I disagree on a couple points here...

[Xtifr]

> "They only have to distribute the source to those they distributed the binaries to, NOT anyone with binaries."

That's not true. If they distributed the binaries and source together, they're under no further obligation to anyone, but if they distributed the binaries without source, then 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 your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code". (GPLv2, section 3b, emphasis mine.)

> "I don't think $30 for a USB key with the source code counts as 'a medium customarily used for software distribution'"

I think a USB key is certainly a medium customarily used for software distribution", but I don't think $30 counts as "no more than [their] cost of physically performing source distribution." On the other hand, I don't think it's insanely out of line either. And technically, the fee only needs to be paid once, since the first person who gets a copy can legally post it on the net for everyone else.

I find their refusal to provide the source to anyone who asks far more troubling than the mere $30 price tag.

You are not talking about the situation here.

[raehl]

The new service providers are distributing a software UPDATE, because the software on the boxes attempts to phone home, and because the old home no longer exists, the boxes stop working.

The GPL DOES NOT require that the new service providers provide this NEW, UPDATED software to anyone. It ONLY requires that IF they provide this new software, they must also provide the source.

So there is nothing wrong with them charging you $30 for the software update and not giving it to you if you don't pay.

Breathy /. nonsense

[HalWasRight]

This is the second breathy nonsensical post on /. today. Nobody is being gouged for anything. Using GPL code does not obligate you to distributed update software. Using LGPL libraries does not obligate you to distribute source for your applications. Get over it people! Just because they used Linux doesn't mean they have to bend over to keep your precious STB alive! You think DirecTV is doing anything about my DirecTivo?!?!?! The other breathy nonsensical headline today was the tripe about HP "dishonoring" warantees if Linux was installed. Riiiiight. I can see them saying "Sorry, unsupported configuration, please reinstall the software we qualified the box with and if you are still having trouble call us back". That makes sense. But I saw nothing that implied that installing Linux in some way permanently invalidated your warantee. Nothing. Nothing except a bunch of trolls.

Re:Own hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

If the customer bought the hardware, it isn't the company's hardware anymore, is it? That is distribution.

distribution has nothing to do with ownership

[FreeUser]

In the context of copyright law, distribution implies distribution, nothing else. Certainly not transfer of ownership. Consider broadcast television, DVDs, etc. If a copy is made and presented to someone else in whatever form, it is distribution, whether its a one-off license to view (pay-per-view), an over-the-air broadcast, or a free DVD stuffed into a magazine. The former transfer no ownership, the latter ownership of media (but not content). In all cases it is distribution.

So yes, lending a laptop would technically constitute distribution, and I suppose if your friend demanded source code from you, you'd better be able to give them the URL where they can go and get it. But that's a rather silly, extreme scenario that isn't likely to ever result in a copyright dispute.

Certainly making copies of software and leasing them out to people all over the place constitute distribution, and thus fall under the relevant clause of the GPL for GPLed software. The only way someone could get around the GPL would be to run GPLed code on a central server and have non-gpled clients connect to it, thereby limiting distribution to non-GPLed code (As I recall, GPL v3 closes this "loophole"). But if you distribute GPLed code, then you must adhere to the terms of the GPL, and any "transfer of ownership", or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the code has been copied and distributed.