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."

12 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. 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 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.
  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. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 strabes · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    2. 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.
  7. 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.