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."
The people who wrote it are always complaining about there being too many lawsuits, yet they engage in the same activity that they critisize.
I caught them, yes I did... Good job mate.
HAPLESS *BSD Raise or lower the AMERICA) mi/ght be
...not really. Commercial companies that use and contribute to open source projects are just opening themselves up to litigation due to GPL and copyright violations. Hopefully they'll learn that using closed, proprietary designs is the safest way to go.
Always use BSD.
I mean, if you got a lot of money, and you are infringing on the terms of the GPL license, why not just go for broke and get the whole dang thing tossed out of court? Right now, a lot of GPL cases are being settled behind the scenes but no one has ever really made a fantastic push to just gut the license.
Right off the wheel, if they were infringing, they could argue that:
a) Putting something into GPL is the same as putting it into the public domain because there is no control over distribution and no economic damages associated with infringement. Does Bells use of GPL code actually cause economic harm to the developers, and the answer is arguably no.
b) Third parties cannot file or sue on behalf of GPL'd items because they do not suffer economic loss. Basically, this would mean that in order to bring a GPL case, the authors of the GPL code would actually have to file the complaint.
Point a would basically render the GPL useless, and point b would at least make it impractical to enforce.
Seriously. why not just get the law settled?
This is my sig.
"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"
except..uh..that is what happened here. Stallman has come out many times and said that you are given more freedoms with "free software" (not that the software itself was free). I was merely stating my opinion on the subject, and because it differs from the slashdot groupthink..it was marked as flamebait.
When people talk about freedoms in america, are they talking about the freedoms of the stop sign or some other inanimate object?
"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 is where I have a problem. It's not free. There are many restrictions attached to the license, voiding the definition.
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
so when there is an article on slashdot about the RIAA, microsoft, the BSA, or DRM..and it's flooded with people basically giving the same argument I am but for pirating software..you will give the same argument..right? (just don't use it).
"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 whee"
How do you figure? Operating systems get popular when they allow for third-pary markets (see: windows). Every OS based on the GNU license makes it almost impossible for developers to actually make money. Since there are 10 variations, you are almost forced to release the source and the users generally don't believe in paying for software. I'm making broad generalizations here, but, I don't see too many app developers actually making money with it.
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.
Snitch. That's what he is, a snitch. Ratting out people due to a malformed sense of justice. The inability to mind one's own business. All we have is a network appliance being voluntarily purchased by willing consumers. But the poster has a twisted morality so he finks to the developers.
Disgusting.
This is the same sort of person who rats out their neighbor to the RIAA, who calls the BSA when their boss uses a pirated copy of MSOffice, who tattles to the MPAA when his mom rips a movie off of a Netflix DVD. The presence or lack of GPL has nothing to do with it, a desire to get people in trouble does. No one is being hurt. No one is being damaged, defrauded or lied to. No one is being stolen from. I bet this is the same guy snitched to the kindergarten teacher when someone was chewing gum.
The sources for Busybox are trivially available elsewhere. There was no need to snitch to get them.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Some associates of mine and I are working on establishing a "Certified GPL-Free" label for hardware and software products that will allow vendors to freely sell their products without encumbrances. Our certification process is long, but very thorough, and the (12 patents pending) software we are writing is very good at heuristically detecting GPL code infections right down to the assembly level. We even had someone take some GPL code and attempt to obfuscate it, and our software tagged it as a possible GPL match, due to the fact that it knows several obfuscation methods and can recognize them. We were very happy with that result.
Right now, we have several very major hardware vendors lined up to have their devices certified. We expect the label to be visible on product packaging starting in the third quarter of 2009 in the US and one to two quarters thereafter in the EU. There will be a marketing launch on the web and in trade journals in the 4th quarter of 2008. Certification will cost approximately $25-50K, depending, and will include up to $1MIL in coverage to pay legal fees to fight a supposed GPL infection. Vendors will also be capable of self-certifying if they purchase our system for on-site use and have annual process checkups and training by our team.
We're all very excited about it. Keep an eye out for it.