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."
I assume someone had to go and evaluate the software for inclusion in the product. Is is that hard to whack a tarball onto a server and give out the link.
We hear so many of these large companies have problems with this. Why?
My little Linux and tech blog
For those that use this as a reason to NOT use the GPL...
What would have happened if they instead used a copy of WinNT4.0 without paying Microsoft? Microsoft would want blood, and would extract it via the BSA.
The creators of Busybox just want you to host the changes you've done to it. They wanted no money.
In other words: What would $proprietary_software_manufacturer do?
Good work, Mr. Toth.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
It's cheaper to use the "available" code when the executives in charge of the project cannot be bothered to familiarize themselves with the project AND stand to make a bonus the sooner it ships.
Are the files at the bottom of
http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp
not the right stuff?
Is this really such a big thing? Surely they only have to mirror the sources from their original location unless they've made modifications?
Shouldn't time an effort be spent on finding the guys who modify the sources, and make a profit, rather than those who merely fail to mirror and honour the distribution agreement because they're lazy?
This reminds me of the Debian upstream/downstream problem that rears it's head up now and again: if the sources are freely available, does every man and his dog have to distribute the unmodified version if they merely make use of it downstream?!
Matt
I've never seen busybox on any of it and I generally buy a dozen or so servers per year (mostly from serversdirect.com).
If they're taking the piss I'll look out for an alternative for future purchases.
Nullius in verba
Can anyone shed any light on why companies repeatedly do this with Busybox?
I can sort of understand their motivation (if not their ethics/commercial sense!) if they've got a highly modified Lunix kernel where they've made extensive changes to the networking stack to enable their "unique" feature or similar, but why with Busybox? Surely the path of least resistance is just to make the tar ball available (or realise, you've stuffed up, and start making the offer and send any that ask the tarball to play catch-up). Are any of these guys really making proprietary improvements with amazing IP involved to Busybox? It seems an unlikely place to do it..
Maybe they've ported it to the latest tiniest CPU, but they still get a time to market advantage their (particularly versus producing Busybox like functionality from scratch!), but even that seems unlikely to be worth fighting hard when you'll quickly realise you'll lose.
Why go to the hassle?
I suspect that this probably boils down to default policies and a lack of understanding of the GPL more than anything, sadly. By default most companies would have a "We don't make available ANY of our IP unnecessarily" and that hasn't yet gelled with the GPL. No one wants to stand up and make the call that compiling Busybox didn't involved much of the companies IP, and releasing the source is an obligation.. The people involved with the IP aren't the same people that make the 'legal' calls and so companies come across with these silly positions..
--Q
The myshare source files are made available under various open source code licenses, including the GNU General Public License (GPL). Please review the license terms included with each download for the rights, obligations and restrictions associated with the open source file.
Installation instructions
title / description download posted release notes
Myshare Home v.1 GPL Source Code
47.6 MB 06/11/08
Myshare Home v.2 GPL Source Code
158.1 06/11/08
Myshare Office v.2 GPL Source Code
220.8 MB 06/11/08 Looks like they just got them up last week (apparently 5 months after the GPL-Violations post).
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I didn't realize that the GPL allowed you to deny source code to someone on the basis of poor grammar or the use of a pseudonym. Oh wait...
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
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.
Fear that your competition will download it and leap-frog all "your" development "efforts" by using "your" code in their device.
I'm serious. If they UNDERSTOOD the process, they would ANNOUNCE that it was GPL'd and that anyone who wanted to could modify it or add features, etc.
Just like LinkSys found with their wireless routers.
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.
Hammertime!
c++;
Thanks for the clarification. 3a and 3b did seem at odds - hard to parse legalese I guess.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Refusing to send source to a valid owner is definitely a violation, of course, but if you sell a device that contains GPL code I don't think you are required to give the source to the public at large, just people who bought your product and then request said source.
You really ought to read the license. It's not that long.
If you do not distribute the source alongside the object code, you must include an offer to ship the source separately, and that offer must be redeemable by anyone, not just the person who got the object code from you. (See GPLv2, Section 3. BB is distributed under GPLv2.)
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but lawyers are worse.
Yes, we are. Of course, the odiousness of pedantry can be mitigated somewhat by being correct.
GPL doesn't force me to do anything. What it does do is give the creator of the code that I am using specific powers. Powers that I have agreed to by using their code knowing the license requirements. I can choose not to honor those agreements, and if I do so, the owner can sue.
Some kid threatening to report me because I won't do what he wants isn't a concern. A copyright holder with a lawyer on retainer however IS a concern. Think of how many pissed off customers threaten to sue over any number of issues. Some of those issues are likely even legally sound basis for lawsuits. But compare that complaint volume to the actual number of lawsuits. If organizations responded to every single disorganized threat of action, they would spend more time on legal protection than on development. It's a matter of risk assessment, and reading the initial emails from 'mindbender' I see nothing that would compel me to even respond.
Like I said, me personally, I would have put the GPL code up from the start (I even just had this conversation with my VP of R&D on a number of OS libraries we will likely be using in an upcoming project). I am not saying that it is right to withhold GPL'd code, but it is realistic that Markus was blown off and that the company did nothing until there was actually a threat (the GPL code was posted 2 days after the lawsuits were filed).
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Actually, it gives any user of the software the right to demand the source code, unless the creator of the code gives them a separate license, which he/she/they didn't.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
1. They know they're violating the GPL and just want him to get lost
2. They don't know what the GPL is, that they're using GPL'd products, that they don't read the GPL right, they don't understand who he is, why it's any of his business, why he thinks he's got any right to their products source code and so on.
In the latter case, good communication skills that presents your case in a serious, professional and understandable manner that makes them realize their error or at least begins a closer investigation of the issue may be an advantage. Besides, it looks to me like his legal skills are severely lacking: 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 No, they do not. They can withdraw the product, pay any fines but they will never have to provide any source unless they want to. Personally I wish they'd take a more RIAA-ish approach, have each author sue for 150,000$ each. That should stop GPL violations really really quick.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
So basically what you're saying is that it's reasonable (though not necessarily right) for a corporation or its representative to break a license, as long as they don't get called out on it.
Sorry, that's just not okay, and may not even make much financial sense, because when the company is eventually sued by the owner of the license, each kid the company snubbed represents one count of license violation.
You can bet if I represented the owner of the license, I'd be finding as many people as I could, to push that damage award up.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
No, but it does make it much harder to get the issue through all the filters and up to management to get the issue resolved......
The issue should have been resolved before it became an issue: the company should have had a policy in place to distribute the appropriate source code on demand.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
It's section 37, right below the part about defacing pictures of the poor, innocent GNU in its natural habitat.
That's silly. How did you get the object code? They are obliged to make the source code available to users of their product. Not "I happen to have the object code here".
Come on, supermicro produced the source, but the SFLC is suing because they didn't include the scripts used to compile the source.
Pretty lame lawsuit.
1. They know they're violating the GPL and just want him to get lost In a civil law suit this would probably open them up to aggravated or punitive damages. 2. They don't know what the GPL is, that they're using GPL'd products, that they don't read the GPL right, they don't understand who he is, why it's any of his business, why he thinks he's got any right to their products source code and so on. Ignorance is no excuse; the GPL isn't so hard to read that a reasonable person couldn't either 1) figure it out or 2) know that they'd better get some legal advice. The hacker in the basement who borrows some code for his pet project might maybe get away with this, but any outfit bigger than a mom-n-pop outfit should know better. No, they do not. They can withdraw the product, pay any fines but they will never have to provide any source unless they want to. Personally I wish they'd take a more RIAA-ish approach, have each author sue for 150,000$ each. That should stop GPL violations really really quick. Agreed on all points.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
It's not that hard, as 3a, 3b and 3c are alternatives ("or" relationship). And the requirement to give anybody the code flows from the very obvious implications of 3c and the fact that the GPL prohibits you from barring further redistribution. Suppose vendor V sells a product containing GPL'd code to person A. Person A redistributes the GPL'd code to person C under section 3c, passing on the written offer from V as the GPL allows them to. Person C then takes advantage of the offer and asks V for the source code. If V could refuse just because C didn't get the code directly from them, there'd be an obvious loophole that'd allow companies to distribute GPL'd code without providing source. So 3b explicitly blocks that loophole, and 3a never had the loophole.
Very true. But out of the hundreds of anonymous threats of action that an organization may field in a month, how are we to identify those that are real threats from those that are just simple saber rattling?
The fastest way to determine threats is to look at the amount of energy someone put into developing their threat. If someone writes a very clear email, with a strong, yet respectful tone, and cites specific license violations, and put some obvious effort into doing so, they are with all likelihood better educated, more motivated, and present a much higher threat to the organization. If someone throws a random pile of characters, words and a link to a license into an email that would make almost any spell checker pop up a message box that says, "Warning, if you send this you will look like an idiot!" it means to me that they aren't willing to spend enough time on the issue to run a spell checker, so they likely aren't willing to spend enough time on the issue to do much else.
If we took threats like Markus' seriously, lawyers would start sending out letters in crayon that read "u bad give $$$" so that they could get back to the golf courses sooner.
To skip to my real problem here... I loathe lawyers. Had Markus not been an idiot and Mr. Vang not been a douche, the lawyers could have been left out of it.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Because I obviously can't use my mod points...
I lol'd.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
First, tell me what you think is such "poor grammar" in the message the chap sent that you would instantly toss it out:
Seems completely on par with the other business email I've received. Keep in mind that most people in the world are not native english speakers.
Second, what does his name have to do with anything?
As a person you are free to dismiss whoever you want for any reason you wish, but if you're a company you can't afford to.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Yup and if they feel like filing a law suit they could show standing. The point is you send an email to a support dept that looks like lunatic raving it gets silently deleted no reason to encourage the wacko no reason t bother the tier 3 guys with it. A reasonably written letter via the mail could have elicited the desired response those normally get read by somebody that does not have a performance review tied to how many ticketed processed per day vs how many rework requests.
No sir I dont like it.
I don't know if I would say it's reasonable, only that it is realistic. And I wouldn't say it's okay so long as they don't get called out on it. I would say that it is okay to prioritize risk management though.
A single kid making noise? The settlement cost would be less that the bandwidth bill for 6 months, and that is based on a really low likelihood of the kid getting out of his basement and pressing the issue.
A copyright holder with out an attorney? Not the biggest threat on the plate, but definitely something that is on the radar. Might be worth it to have a contingency plan in place so that if this treat grows the organization can deal with it quickly and effectively. No sense in blowing resources unnecessarily though.
A certified letter from an attorney demanding we correct our licensing deficiencies? Time to spin up that contingency plan!
A summons? Those files better be on the website before I have to explain to the CEO why we are being sued!
Again, just to make sure no one is going to confuse me for a GPL abusing bastard, in that case I would have ensured the GPL code was available on the website and have avoided the situation all together. I'm not saying this stuff is right, only that it is realistic, and that you will get a LOT further in the business world by writing respectfully than writing in SMS shorthand.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I think I have just come up with a new business plan:
... a hacker's dream!
1. Create Linux-based device.
2. Sell without providing source (PROFIT).
3. Wait until GPL violation is discovered.
4. Wait until outcry over GPL violation ensues (PUBLICITY).
5. Provide source code.
6. Linux-based device, with source code
7. ???
8. PROFIT!!!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Actually, neither of you is necessarily correct - but a court could compel them to deliver the source code to all those who received the binaries, probably only by a certain date (you can't be expected to retrieve everything from the sales channel, and the GPL says that your sole remedy is to halt distribution... which implies that it is a remedy) and only when verified, but still under the usual terms of the GPL (they can distribute only physically and charge a fee, but they are restricted to duplication and shipping costs and the data must be made available in some reasonable form.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The GPL only restricts your freedom in a way similar to laws that prohibit slavery are restricting your freedom to take slaves. The GPL only takes away your freedom to take away the freedom of your users and the original authors of your code.
Dear Sir,
it came to my attention that your product XXX, which I purchased through YYY, uses software based on a licensed component ZZZ. The license (GPL) grants me, the user, the right to obtain a copy of the source, and places a specific legal burden onto your company to provide such a copy to users of your product for free, or for a nominal fee to cover copying and mailing. Please refer to ${URL} for specific terms.
As a user of your product, having been granted the right to obtain the source code, I wish to exercise this right. Would you be so kind to inform me how I can download, or otherwise access, the source code in question?
Thanks in advance,
${name}
${address}
${telephone}
Most tech support people will forward such an email to their manager, and the manager will send it to legal, where it will be reviewed, and a company lawyer will not dare to ignore an official, lawful request that is traceable, because they know that willful infringement is worse than ignorance, and now they know.
It may be realistic to assume that companies are going to "prioritize" the way you claim, but it's not good management.
I did get that you're not a GPL abusing bastard.
...that you will get a LOT further in the business world by writing respectfully than writing in SMS shorthand. In my past life I worked as a salesman for a Major Electronics Retailer (well, major in Canada, anyway), and the running joke was that you couldn't advance to the Corporate management level unless you had shitty spelling and horrible grammar skills. My experiences in a law office are similar. The clerks all have impeccable spelling and grammar skills and the lawyers can't spell for shit.Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
GNU more Mr. Nice Guy...
*Pulls on asbestos undies*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"Hello, this is mindbender. Yes, mindbender. Send your code to me, to mindbender. I don't care if you are a mere outsourced csr, for I will post messages about you and write about you on the internet if you do not do what I, mindbender, wish. Yes, I could have contacted your corporate office and asked for your legal representation but instead I chose to explain GPL to someone whose database of responses is limited to the simplest queries. Do not fail to heed mindbender's threats, randomly chosen tech support person, for we want what we want and we want it now."
Signed,
gnu/mindbender
What about all this guff about the appliccability of an EULA with commercial software? What about the fuzzy DRM or activation of software (XP was said to be given a crack to remove activation when people at the time complained about it, so that people would accept activation. We may find out if they do this, but what's the legal jig if they don't?).
The only place where GPL is "fuzzy" is where it gets bundled or where it gets a derivative. And that's ENTIRELY your legal definition of laws defined to cover books and music (which are inherently Open Source) being stretched to cover binary software (which is Closed).
Fix your laws.
Argument A would get tossed out immediately based on copyright law. The law is very clear: code is copyrighted by it's author by default, and never enters the public domain except by the copyright term expiring or by an explicit written statement from the author committing the work to the public domain.
Argument B would get tossed out as a matter of law. A party who has standing to sue can contract with someone to represent them in the suit. That's what's happened here, the BusyBox authors have assigned SFLC as their legal representative when dealing with copyright-infringement matters. If you think the court's going to tell the BB authors that they can't have an attorney handle their case for them, I'm afraid you'll be in for a suprise.
The problem is that the law is settled. That's why companies are so quick to comply and settle fast in GPL-violation cases once they realize that the copyright holder really is prepared to take them to court.
That's certainly preferable from a business standpoint, but far fewer people are going to be willing to contribute under than license, which leads to inferior products in general. There's a reason these companies don't use a BSD OS.
I would agree whole heartedly with you. Setting up a process up front with the GPL code is the best option. But if you are Joe-Blow the middle manager, and you are not intimately familiar with the GPL, and you get a poorly written email like that, what would you do?
;) How many times have we all harped on our not-so-technical friends and co-workers about clicking on links from unknown senders?
Heck, if it were one of my non-IT coworkers/managers I would hope that they would delete it. Poor grammar/spelling, check. Unknown sender, check. Vague legal threat, check. Link to an unfamiliar domain, check. Must be a phishing email, delete it.
As for promotions based on a person's incompetence, there is a theory to it, the Peter Principle. You'll get some of that everywhere.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
...which is sold by Bell's Hammer Storage division...
I think the Screwdriver Storage Facility in my garage sounds more impressive.
You're required to provide sources upon request only to those you've distributed binaries to. You're not required to put them on the net, you can charge a reasonable handling fee, and you're not required to provide them to third parties.
So you'd be well within your rights to say, "Send $25 and the UPC from the box and I'll mail you a disk, or you can go download it from sunsite."
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
It's like saying that you shouldn't be upset when somebody shits on your lawn when you leave. You suffer no economic loss (actually the grass might become greener because of that so you have a gain), and you had no control over who can be on your lawn because you were away, so you should just shut up, right?
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
...One idiot manager forgetting to put code up. One asshole GPL guy. Suddenly you have a lawsuit... I seem to remember noting that letters were sent requiring compliance, and failure to respond to them was the trigger for the lawsuit. These guys ain't the RIAA, BSA, etc who blast their way in demanding restitution, they're blokes who've seen their code used and when politely reminded the users of their requirements have had no response.Mind you, if I was ever to find any of my code turn up in something like Windows, you can bet that I would instantly fire a lawsuit against Microsoft instead of negotiation - only because of their hypocrasy: they come down hard (via the BSA) on infringers so they shouldn't expect any leniency from me.
As a software engineer, I understand the importance of adhering to and enforcing a software license, however these constant lawsuits are eventually going to cripple the free software movement. Before I am tared and feathered, let me explain. Many companies are adopting OSS as a means of rolling out custom products faster. It is easier to use something that already exists rather than rebuilding it themselves. The problem is that as we all know, many OSS projects tend to be buggy or lacking in some obscure feature. What invariably happens is that along the way, is that some engineer decides to make a modification to a package in order to make it fit their unique needs (usually without authorization from the legal dept). Next thing you know you have a product that is heavily dependent on some customized OSS package that was never supposed to be used in such a capacity. Now the company is forced to turn over software that they invested in and are exposed to risk of litigation because of a breakdown in the dev process. Now I am not saying that companies should be able to rape OSS projects for free development work but there has to be a balance. I think the FSF and the Gnu people should work out some sort of process where corporate customizations can be evaluated for context and value of the original package. And maybe have a source review process where the OSS developer can review what was added without exposing trade secrets of the corporations trying to use the OSS. I think it is insane to treat corporations as the enemy. OSS developers should be working with Corporations not suing them. This is the sole reason I release all my code under BSD license. I want people to use my products not sit and wonder about whether I have released my software as a trap for a future lawsuit. This whole OSS litigation process reminds me so much of patent trolling it is scary.
The answer is very, very arguably yes. The Busybox developers hold the complete copyrights. Therefore they are able to sell you their library under any license terms that you and they agree on. If you find the GPL terms not acceptable for you, you can write down any license terms you like and negotiate with them; it is just a matter of money.
:)
You do have to have permission from the copyright holders to distribute copies. If you don't and distribute copies anyway then they can sue you for a large amount of money per copy.
There is a good chance that you could put the complete Busybox code into say a router that you build without having to publish the source code if you pay these guys a million dollars. The money that Busybox could have charged for use of their library under a non-GPL license but which they didn't get, that is the financial damage.
1 million USD might actually be a bit low. Considering that willful infringement can have up to 150,000 USD statutory damages per instance. Presumably they hope to sell more than 7 routers
a) They can still license their code under something other than the GPL for a price, so if you just take it you're depriving them of that.
b) True, but the SFLC can offer to represent the authors pro-bono, which I imagine is what's happening.
Obviously, YANAL.
What ultimately happened with Actiontec/Verizon? Did they release source for the FiOS routers?
... a) Putting something into GPL is the same as putting it into the public domain... No it's not. Putting something into BSD is more akin to putting it into the public domain.
...because there is no control over distribution... Actually, there is: Copyright Law - it clearly (apparently....can't read legalese too well) states what you can and can't do, and one of the things you can't do is to distribute something which isn't yours without permission. Without the GPL you have NO RIGHT to distribute the code whatsoever.
... and no economic damages associated with infringement... Perhaps there is. Suppose I write some code and let you use it under a licence that says you don't have to pay me a penny provided that if you distribute my code (in any form - original or modified) you let anyone who gets the code from you have a copy of the source for the distributed code. If you don't want to have to distribute your sorce code you come to me and say can you drop that requirement of your licence; in that case I say sorry, no, but I have this alternative licence you can use: it says you will pay me £200 for the code plus 1% royalties for each copy you distribute.So, if you had wanted to distribute without giving the source code away, I have incurred an economic damage if you use my original licence.
Also, you may like to thank Hollywood and the music industry: a music track that costs something like £0.50(ish $0.99) to download legally which if downloaded illegally will cost you £375(ish $750 - statutory damages) [if caught]. Is that the real economic damage of an illegally downloaded track; is that how much the music industry has actually lost per download? May I suggest you put your argument to the RIAA and see what reply they come back with?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
For years I had heard claims and counterclaims regarding whether you only had to give source to customers who had the binaries. Your post seems to clear this up well - it's not already being distributed with source code and if it's commercially sold you must give the source code to anyone who asks (not just those who bought the binaries).
Am I the only one who, while browsing ones slashdot RSS-feeds, keeps reading that Bell and SuperMario where sued by the GPL?
Or, I can develop my own software, and maintain my competitive advantage over my competitor.
Anyone who produces products has to decide what is more valuable - being able to use free software from the community, or being able to keep your software secret. If all you are going to add to the software is something that anyone else could create without much effort (i.e., software is not your key differentiator) then open source is the way to go.
But if you're going to make a massive improvement to whatever software you might take, something that is going to cost you a lot of money to develop (and would thus cost a competitor lots of money to develop), it makes the most sense to keep it to yourself.
Put more simply, a product that is 90% open source software from the community and 10% improvement is probably best released as open software - you get 90% for the cost of 10%. But a product that would be 10% software from the community and 90% software you develop yourself, it makes more sense to also redo the 10%. Trading away 90% for 10% would just be a bad business decision.
paintball
Because 99% of them get away with it. I've seen gpl'd code used all over the place, mostly not entire apps but big sections of cut and pasted code that is then compiled and linked in to some larger, proprietary app. Happens far, far more often than you'd think.
That's fine as long as it's not distributed.
Ah, hell, a big Novell muckity-muck was telling people to do this the other day (trying to get away with redistributing anyway). Novell, how we hate thee.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
New tactic to skirt the GPL: Comply with nothing but the BusyBox license. Put up BusyBox on your FTP site and buy a year until GPLViolations gets a new group to cooperate.
I know, they're not that smart, so GPLViolations will continue to enjoy success. But the point is nobody else seems to be enforcing the license.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Perhaps he should have written it in flawless German, then?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
From the GPLv2 preamble:
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.Most people who buy hardware from Linksys (and various other distributors GPL-covered code) never find out about the freedoms they're afforded by the GPL. When are we going to see enforcement of section 1 of GPLv2? It reads:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.http://outcampaign.org/
Oh really? How? The terms of the GPL are very clear, and people keep getting sued because they persist making up their own rules instead of following the actual rules. The GPL is only effective because the risk of lawsuits is real.
Many companies are adopting OSS as a means of rolling out custom products faster. It is easier to use something that already exists rather than rebuilding it themselves. What invariably happens is that along the way, is that some engineer decides to make a modification to a package in order to make it fit their unique needs (usually without authorization from the legal dept). Next thing you know you have a product that is heavily dependent on some customized OSS package that was never supposed to be used in such a capacity. Now the company is forced to turn over software that they invested in and are exposed to risk of litigation because of a breakdown in the dev process.Oh, cry me a river! If your company can't get its act together, then it's best for everyone that your company's competitors---who actually do follow the rules---eat your lunch.
Now I am not saying that companies should be able to rape OSS projects for free development workIn effect, that's exactly what you are saying.
but there has to be a balance.Why? Between what extremes? What would be the impact?
I think the FSF and the Gnu people should work out some sort of process where corporate customizations can be evaluated for context and value of the original package. And maybe have a source review process where the OSS developer can review what was added without exposing trade secrets of the corporations trying to use the OSS.What? Who would do the evaluation? How do you judge "value"? Who is going to bear the cost of this process? Why are trade secrets being intermingled with GPL-covered code? What's would the BusyBox gain by doing this? What would society gain?
The FSF and the GNU people have worked a lot of things out. They created the rules that leveled the playing field for all of us. Those rules are codified in the GPL. You apparently don't like the rules, and whine when they are enforced.
I think it is insane to treat corporations as the enemy.Red Hat isn't the enemy. MySQL isn't the enemy. Ingres isn't the enemy. Google isn't the enemy. Microsoft is an enemy, but only because they have a history of trying to screw, well, everyone (and there's no credible reason to believe that they've stopped). The "enemies" are those who persist in acting selfishly to the detriment of all of us. If anything, I'd argue that the BusyBox developers have been too lenient: Linksys routers (to my knowledge, which is a bit out of date) still aren't shipped with copies of the GPL included.
OSS developers should be working with Corporations not suing them.They are. Many work for corporations. Many are corporations.
This is the sole reason I release all my code under BSD license. I want people to use my productsThen the BSD license is a good match for your goals. Good for you. Not everyone values fame as highly as you do. People who release software under the GPL generally do so either to spread the freedoms that the GPL provides, or because they want to modify and re-distribute software that is already covered by the GPL. I see no reason to prejudice the latter group by letting Bell, SuperMicro, or anyone else get a free pass.
Being a corporation has nothing to do with it.
http://outcampaign.org/
The week the MyShare was released. I also notified the gpl-violations. They (gpl violations, I never heard back from the busybox guys) were too busy suing other companies to follow up until November of 2007 I guess :)
:P
Yes, I want a cookie
The GPL, DMCA and EULAs all have one thing in common: the use of government granted copyrights to dictate what the user can or cannot do with the software they have legally aquirred. In a just world I should be able to give a copy of the software to a friend, with or without the source code.
GPL: License to sue
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
QUOTE Now maybe if Markus has written a halfway compelling email, he would have received a more informative response. UNQUOTE
His English was flawless. But look at yours: have you ever make friends with English grammar?
This is why businesses are still so scared of the GPL - people keep trying to enforce it.
Property is theft.
ROFL: you are criticizing my grammar, then ask if I "have ever make friends with English grammar?"
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The people who wrote it are always complaining about there being too many lawsuits, yet they engage in the same activity that they critisize.
The above argument is not valid because the word "they" is used twice but each use of the work does not refer to the same set of people. To be valid you would need to show that the SAME PERSON is performing both actions. To do that you would have to use a proper name. The problem here is that you are judging a large group by the actions of a small subset of the group and there can be many small subsets.
It's like saying "Americans are for both low taxes and higher government service. No not at all. for the most part it's poor Americans who hant bigger handouts and rich Americans who don't want to pay for handouts. Different sub-groups.
to the underused things under said unclean undergarments :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
if you were sensible enough to register the copyright you could also go for statutory damages which as we have learnt from the riaa cases are pretty damn high.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register