Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USDTV Subscribers Gouged For Linux USB Keys

Posted by kdawson on from the flaunting-the-GPL dept.

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."

6 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Possibility of GPL Validation by MrWGW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Possibility of GPL Validation by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Possibility of GPL Validation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Ask them nicely, sue them if they don't comply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Gouged? by RealSurreal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. I'm not sure this is the case. by raehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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