Slashdot Mirror
Enforcing the GPL On Software Companies?
Piranhaa"I currently use an IPTV box that runs software by Minerva Networks. When you ssh into the box, you are greeted with a BusyBox v1.00 (ash) shell. It's clearly running a flavor of Linux (uname -apm outputs: Linux minerva_10_0_3_99 2.4.30-tango2-2.7.144.0 #29 Wed Mar 16 16:16:16 CET 2005 mips unknown). However, when you look at their Web site there is no publicly available source code. Since the GPL in both BusyBox and the Linux kernel require that anyone using and distributing the binaries of this software make source available to everyone, what would one do in order to enforce this? I've personally emailed Minerva and left voicemails with no reply."
..and this is why i'll never use *BSD because the community is full of GPL troll shits like you that waste time whining about forced freedoms rather then making a better OS.
So you won't buy their perfectly-good product because you read on slashdot that they don't provide the source code? Idiot.
I would assume there is no hurt - but I am just a worker bee. I don't have the luxury of replacing the word "I" with "company".
What I have learnt today is: only comment on slashdot if your opinion is positive... or not at all. :(
"Heh, joking aside I feel the frustration of companies taking advantage of GPL code. Especially when it's YOUR code."
I'm not sure how they are taking advantage.
The company uses your "free" source code in their app and what do you lose? You aren't losing money, you still own the original code, and the only thing you don't get is the company's possible changes (which weren't yours in the first place).
When the zealots of the community stop telling everybody that the GPL = free (which misleads many people into thinking..well..that it's actually free), Businesses will stop using it in their applications.
But, this isn't what Stallman and the FSF wants. They want a company to use the source (without giving back), build up a business, and get it taken away in the end because they are forced to give out all of the IP (making it worthless) that they built up upon the open source base. The changes should still be owned by the company, since they could have spent years and thousands of man hours developing them, but that isn't how the license works.
I hope companies are learning to steer clear of the GPL. What we need are a few ant-GPL advocates.