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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- Alastair
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
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
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:
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???
flouting the GPL! FLOUTING!
... 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?
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.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
paintball