Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bell, SuperMicro Sued Over GPL

Posted by timothy on from the if-it-wasn't-for-your-meddling-hippies dept.

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."

33 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. How stupid can you get? by Marcion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:How stupid can you get? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The GPL isn't an easy to read document

      From this I presume that you have never tried to read a typical redistribution license for a commercial software library.

    2. Re:How stupid can you get? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's so hard to read about the GPL? It's a whole lot easier to read and comprehend than your average commercial software license. If a company's lawyers are expected to routinely understand complex contracts running close to a hundred pages of dense legalese, why should they have any trouble whatsoever with the GPL?

    3. Re:How stupid can you get? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GPL isn't an easy to read document

      Reading is hard, yo! they have like, long words 'n shit!

      Seriously, the GPL is about as simple as it gets. It has to be written in legalese so it's going to be a bit obfuscated no matter what, but come on. It's actually in some of the plainest English I've seen in a legal document.

      Of course, you do have to understand some technical terms to read it, and people have deliberately fucked around with the meaning of those terms, and tried to get around the GPL in other ways, so now we have a new version. (Or do we? Is that thing out or what? Was the plan for the GPLv3 to dither until no one cared if it was changed all along?)

      That is part of the reason why a lot of companies work with BDS Licenesed code, there are less legal reprocussions from using it.

      Or, you know, BSD licensed code. Go fingers, cutwhatchyalike. Seriously though, there's no nasty legal repercussions to GPL code if you just make the whole thing GPL. It's when you start closing parts of it that you have problems. Of course a lot of companies don't want to operate that way. But the cost of saving all that time is helping others save time. You can still differentiate on the copyrighted parts of the product (case design, web interface, et cetera.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:How stupid can you get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are both somewhat right. MySQL has an exception in their licensing policy that allows closed-source PHP applications to use MySQL.

      However, their general policy is as follows: the MySQL client library (which you need to link to, to talk to the server) is GPL'ed, so it can only be used in a GPL'ed application. If you want to use it in a non-GPL application, you need to obtain a license from MySQL AB. MySQL supports many more languages/interfaces than just PHP, so this is a real concern.

      So although you are right in saying that you can create a closed-source application using MySQL if you are using PHP, the other guy is right in saying that in general you cannot use MySQL in a closed-source application without obtaining a license from MySQL AB.

  2. For those that use this... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    1. Re:For those that use this... by fotbr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I still see this as a reason not to use GPL, preferring instead to use BSD-style licensed software or public domain software whenever possible.

      Because proprietary software producers would be just as bad, or likely worse, does not mean that the GPL is always the best solution, since it is still a restrictive license.

    2. Re:For those that use this... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only restrictive depending if you are a coder vs end user.

      If Im an end user, I can install it anywhere, copy it anywhere, give it to my friends without worry, hack it.... The list goes on.

      Most of the restrictions only exist to ensure community efforts. After all, you got it for free, so submit your changes you sell for free.

      --
    3. Re:For those that use this... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because proprietary software producers would be just as bad, or likely worse, does not mean that the GPL is always the best solution, since it is still a restrictive license.

      Well, then if you don't like the license, don't use the software. Using GPL software against the terms of the license because you couldn't find any other free code to use is hardly an excuse.

      If you can find BSD or public domain code that allows you to re-use it and not have to write it, go ahead. If you can't, then either write it yourself, or quit whining that it's unfair you can't use the GPL stuff without adhering to the terms because it cramps your business model.

      A lot of companies just figure they can have the best of both worlds -- get the OSS stuff because it already does most of what they want, and then treat it as proprietary software they won't tell you anything about.

      As the GP said -- this isn't about software released under the GPL or if people should use it. This is about companies trying to get something for free.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:For those that use this... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still see this as a reason not to use GPL, preferring instead to use BSD-style licensed software or public domain software whenever possible.

      Again, I'd say this isn't a problem with the GPL.

      It's a problem with commercial entities trying to use the GPLd software without abiding by the rules.

      If you can find some BSD/public domain code which does what you need, fine. If you can't, that doesn't mean you should be able to just take the GPL software -- it means you should write your own.

      I don't really see a problem with companies avoiding GPL software because of the license. That doesn't reflect badly on the GPL, it reflects badly on companies who are trying to do an end-run around the license.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:For those that use this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      .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.'"
    6. Re:For those that use this... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stallman has come out many times and said that you are given more freedoms with "free software" (not that the software itself was free).

      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.'"
  3. Source not posted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Are the files at the bottom of
    http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp
    not the right stuff?

  4. Why NOT hand out the source? Its an app. by quarrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  5. Better late than never by RingDev · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the download page on their site:

    myshare Source Files

    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
    1. Re:Better late than never by Wizzar · · Score: 5, Informative
      I'd just like to add that the 11th was two days after the lawsuit was filed.

      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.
    2. Re:Better late than never by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which goes to show: a lawsuit is far more powerful than the saber rattling of an anonymous e-mailer with bad grammar.

      Just think, with proper grammar and some respect, Markus might have been able to motivate Mr. Vang to be a bit more interested in meeting the requirements of using GPL code. This whole thing might have been resolved with out lining the pockets of more lawyers.

      -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
    3. Re:Better late than never by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's too bad they already lost their rights under the GPL. Once the suit is filed the SFLC won't accept just publishing the source. To get distribution rights back is going to cost them some cash to cover SFLC's costs in addition to some punitive costs to make sure they remember never to do it again.

    4. Re:Better late than never by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

      And 9 days before it got Duped on slashdot.

      -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
    5. Re:Better late than never by stinerman · · Score: 4, Informative

      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".

  6. Re:Understandable response... by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Funny thing about GPL by zapakh · · Score: 5, Informative

    The people who wrote it are always complaining about there being too many lawsuits, yet they engage in the same activity that they critisize. This just in: The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy.

    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.
  8. Fear. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fear. by LehiNephi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If another company uses your code to make their product better, they're still bound by the GPL. Thus, once you have their source code in hand, you're in a nice position to leapfrog their development.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    2. Re:Fear. by strabes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that's exactly why open source is so powerful.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    3. Re:Fear. by Sancho · · Score: 5, Informative
      Linksys had their hand forced. Even after discovering the issue in 2003, and releasing the source code for object code run by the then-current devices, they still (apparently) didn't get the point. In 2005, this posting to gpl-violations indicated that Linksys released a product using GPL code and wasn't prepared to release the source for at least four months.

      I have to believe that their routers are some of the most popular ones out there, primarily because a buyer, if they so choose, and easily upgrade to a different OS (which is what I did with my WRT54GL, which now has dd-wrt - I love it!) You can bet that Cisco, who bought Linksys shortly before the debacle, wasn't happy. Being able to get high-end device features on a low-end device is not part of most businesses plans. I'm sure that Linksys devices were extremely popular due to this, but one has to wonder if Cisco lost any sales to small-to-medium businesses over it.
    4. Re:Fear. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's exactly why open source is so powerful. No. That's why GPL'ed code and other share-and-share alike licensed code is so powerful.

      BSD licensed, MIT licensed, etc code does not share in that power.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. Re:Maybe I'm wrong... by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:what product does supermicro use BB in ? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to the complaint, SuperMicro's "AOC-SIM1U+ IPMI 2.0 System Management Card" contins BusyBox; and while SuperMicro supplied the source, they did not supply

    the "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" and therefore did not constitute "complete and corresponding source code" within the meaning of the license.
    Sounds a little thin to me.
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  11. Re:Understandable response... by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's section 37, right below the part about defacing pictures of the poor, innocent GNU in its natural habitat.

  12. Slavery - Freedom To Take Freedom by mrcaseyj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. All I've got to say by Chas · · Score: 4, Funny

    GNU more Mr. Nice Guy...

    *Pulls on asbestos undies*

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  14. Not fear, rational decision making. by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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