Slashdot Mirror
Bell, SuperMicro Sued Over GPL
Markus Toth writes "The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of the developers of the Linux-based BusyBox utility suite. The suits allege that Bell Microproducts and SuperMicro Computer each violated redistribution stipulations of the GNU General Public License (GPL).The Bell Microproducts suit pertains to the Hammer MyShare NAS (network-attached storage) appliance, which is sold by Bell's Hammer Storage division. I was the one who alerted the busybox developers about the GPL violation after providing a script for disassembling the firmware and instructions about mounting the contained initrd. As you see in my first post at the gpl-violations.org mailing lists where I posted all mails that I sent to and received from Hammer Storage, they refused to provide me the GPL sources several times. Looks like they will have to provide them soon; I will post any updates in the nas-central blog."
Are the files at the bottom of
http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp
not the right stuff?
Besides which, the complaints about lawsuits typically have less to do with quantity and more to do with quality. Otherwise the discussion threads would be much shorter.
From the article: The lawsuits announced today were both filed June 9 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
No, you're not being pedantic, you're being wrong. To quote from the GPL v2, section 3b (which covers distribution of source for binaries which were distributed without accompanying source), the vendor 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, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
Notice that the offer does not say the vendor must give only people who bought their product the source code. It says they must give any third party the code. Now, under section 3a the vendor only has to give the code to people who receive the product, but 3a pertains to the vendor distributing the source code with the product itself. If they don't include the source code with the binaries, 3a doesn't apply. And since it's not a non-commercial distribution, 3c doesn't apply either.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
And that's exactly why the SFLC must file suits and follow through.
If the only penalty is having to open up the source once a suit is filed (and the SFLC or associated copyright owners proceed to drop the suit) then there isn't a downside to closing the source and violating the license.
If there aren't any monetary damages, then any company can violate the GPL with impunity until they're "caught".
.I think it's hilarious how I was told I didn't know the definition of the word free and given a link. I copied and pasted EXACT definitions from that link..and I was marked as flamebait.Except, uh, that's not what happened here. What happened here is that you looked up "Free", decided it didn't apply to the author of the software, and therefore that "Free Software" was bullshit. But it doesn't say "Free Use Of Software". It says "Free Software". It's like "Free Willy", it doesn't mean you can take him home, it means he jumps over the rocks and goes out in the ocean and gets eaten by a giant squid.
True freedom...for the users and the developers comes from the BSD license. You can do as you wish with the software and nobody is going to tell you by force to open up your code. The original developers also don't lose any freedoms because the original source is still there. It's a win-win situation.Look, this is very simple. The choice of license is at the discretion of the author. If the author's principal principle is that the code remain free to roam about the world, they use the GPL. This reduces the freedom of the author, but it improves the freedom of the customer. If they want to retain maximum control, they use the BSD license. However, even the BSD license has restrictions (the continuance of the license.) If you truly want to make unencumbered software, you place it within the public domain. This relinquishes control of the software entirely.
Note that even after an author releases code under the GPL, they still have the right to release it under another license. What they don't have the right to do accept code from others without having them assign copyright to the original author, and then close that code, re-issue it under another license, et cetera. This part of the GPL is powered by copyright law, so it changes nothing.
Anyway, it really is very simple to see that the GPL provides the maximum freedom for the code. This is the best situation for the developer in many cases, if their goal is for others to benefit from changes made to their code.
The large amount of gpl violators getting taken to court in the past year or so will scare businesses into not using it.The problem with this analysis is twofold. First, as the size of the code base increases the benefit from using the GPL solution increases, and software is always getting bigger. Second, it's not hard to not get sued for GPL violation. Just follow the license in the first place. If your lawyer can't tell you what to do in order to follow the GPL, get a new lawyer.
The GPL V3 is even worse. It controls services..even though it is a distribution license.Tivoization is an attempt to bypass the intent of the GPL, and closing that loophole is the only sensible thing to do.
As before, if you don't like the GPL, don't use it. But so much of the best software out there is licensed under the GPL, perhaps you should consider the possibility that there might be something to this whole thing after all.
Sooner or later there won't be any more closed-source operating systems. There will probably always be closed software, but it will be only for niche markets and amusements. After a certain point it just doesn't make sense to reinvent the highway system, let alone the wheel.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is true as a user. It's not so true as a developer, except that developers tend to use more software than they write... Which makes them users, too.
When people talk about freedoms in america, are they talking about the freedoms of the stop sign or some other inanimate object?When someone orders a "Pepsi Free", are they expecting to not have to pay for it?
This is where I have a problem. It's not free. There are many restrictions attached to the license, voiding the definition.Again, it's not about your freedom, it's about the software's freedom. There are many resources which explain this.
As a USER, you are MORE free with the GPL software. You can do anything you like to it, except steal it (e.g. take credit for it, benefit from it without giving back, et cetera.) In fact, the only person you have to give the code to is the person who buys it.
Good software? maybe. The best? hardly. Most open source projects are cheap knockoffs of proprietary apps. PHP, mysql, and apache are pretty much the only open source projects I can say are good.PHP and mysql are clusterfucks. gcc, on the other hand, is pretty much the most versatile compiler suite on the planet, and it's often shipped with some of the best compiler tools (flex, bison, etc etc) around. THOSE tools are so good that even people who have the suits with better-optimized compilers (e.g. sunspro for SPARC) will still use those pieces.
But seriously, all types of software is being superseded by OSS "alternatives" over time.
as I said in my post, you release your code even in the public domain others benefit to the maximum. The changes that others' make to the code are not owned by the original developer.No, that is nonsense. It allows others to close derivatives of your code, thereby profiting from your work without giving benefit to others. That does NOT provide the maximum benefit to the user. If it's what you want, that's okay, but it clearly does not provide the user the maximum benefit. It allows people to make products with your code and then close it away from the user. That's not a benefit to the user in ANY way!
Every OS based on the GNU license makes it almost impossible for developers to actually make money.What? Operating systems aren't based on licenses. They're based on kernels and libraries (or something equivalent.) In the case of Linux, while the Kernel is under the GPL there is an explicit exception to allow programs which require it to operate to not be GPL'd, although things linked into the kernel must be GPL. In the case of the libraries, licenses vary but many of them are LGPL, which does not require that you license under GPL, thus you can still keep your code closed.
Since there are 10 variations, you are almost forced to release the source and the users generally don't believe in paying for software.This is a blatant lie, or you simply do not understand what is actually happening. Use vmware as an example. The part that goes into the kernel is open source. The important parts are all in the closed-source binary. The program is dynamically linked, and ships with fallback libraries in case you don't have the appropriate libraries or versions. There is no need whatsoever to take the steps you describe.
Microsoft made a mistake with Vista and it is time for another OS to take it's place in the market. It won't be linux..it will be OSX.OSX is a boondoggle. Apple decided they needed Jobs so they took NeXTStep instead of BeOS, and then ruined NeXTStep in the process of modernizing it. It used to be peppy on a 25 MHz '040. Now it's slow (as in, unresponsive) on a dual G5, or a Core Duo. BeOS was fast and peppy on their silly dual 66MHz system. If Apple becomes the dominant player, I'm going to be very surprised.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"