Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
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.
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.
It doesn't. Unfortunately for your question, no one has suggested that it should.
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.
> 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.
My other car is first.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... 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.
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?
paintball
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?
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"
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...
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
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.