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."
The GPL itself says you should write to the FSF when someone is violating the GPL.
Here be signatures
IANAL but as I understand it the GPL requires that source is made available to customers, not everyone. Of course in this case they don't appear to be making it available to customers either.
most STBs that i am familiar with are largely stock linux builds, running a proprietry IPTV application on top. The GPL does not requre a standalone application that sits on the linux box be distributed as source code
that's a lie. You can't point at someone else's FTP site, there's also requirements for being able to reproduce binaries (this can include system images). They don't have to provide the sources for free, but they can't charge a profit for it.
Giving someone the binaries means you need to make the sources availiable to them, including build tools a lot of the time.
They are distributing the software and have to provide an offer of the source. I am sure this came up with distributions who were basing their distro off Ubuntu and assumed their customers could get the source from there.
When you think about it, it makes sense. Even if they base their software off a distribution from a known source that source might not be around when it is needed.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Maybe the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ can help.
He requested. Read the summary.
You could notify the authors (and copyright holders) of BusyBox.
Unlike Linus, they are pretty strict on companies infringing on the GPL, and have sued (and won) several times.
Take a look at gpl-violations.org or google "busybox gpl violation" for more information.
"Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
No you don't. If you distribute any version of a GPLed piece of software, you must make the source available upon request to the person you distributed it to. Modification is irrelevant. Modification only matters when you modify something for your own use and do not distribute it- then you don't have to provide source because there's no one to provide it to.
However, this does not mean you need to put it up on a webpage for everyone to download, or provide it on the disk. The GPL requires only a written offer of source code upon request, at a cost of no more than shipping and the media. I have no idea if this particular vendor is complying, but not having a link on their webpage does not mean non-compliance.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
If you distribute someone's code which is under GPL, then you have to make available the source code.
You don't have to make available your own source code unless your code is a derivative of GPL code.
In this instance, they should be supplying the source code to the kernel and any other GPL applications they have bundled. That's the whole point to OpenSource and the GPL.
If they have altered the Kernel or BusyBox, which are both GPL'd, they have to release those alterations when they distribute. They don't have to release their application unless it was built using a GPL library, and that sort of kicks in at about readline, most of the basic libraries are LGPL.
LGPL you can link to and include without, having to release the source code of your library. Though if you alter a LGPL file though, you have to release your alteration, when you distribute. You still have to distribute (or make available) the source code to the LGPL when you distribute the binary.
So, yes where is the source code is what a lot of customers may be wondering, and any developers who have copyright over the code, may also be wondering why their code is being used outside of the license they gave for the use of it.
A developer who owns the copyright to GPL code, can distribute the code under another license if they so choose, they don't GPL it to themselves, They are the copyright holder, they can use it anyway they see fit inside of the law.
Often you will see copyright taken by the project lead on a GPL project because of this, but it doesn't always happen. At which point you sort of run the gauntlet of tainted copyright code, unless you keep clear distinction. So, if you distribute your code under a different license, but part of the application is GPL'd and someone else's that could be problematic. Linus would find it hard to sell Linux under a License other than the GPL, because not all the code is his.
So, there are two groups that are put out here, the consumer and the developers of the GPL code. The rest of us can just munch popcorn, and watch from the sidelines, we don't have a stake in it.
The FSF will of course normally help, but the companies license is with the author of the software. The FSF can't do any enforcement and can't really help if they don't own the copyright to the code. Do clear work to prove the case and then contact the authors of the software with all he information you have. One important thing to do is to ensure you request the source code in writing in a registered letter and keep a copy of it.
It said it the original post that he contacted them and received no reply. So, yes you are right, but he has already tried that angle.
Thanks for playing.
# ls /src
ls: /src: No such file or directory
First place I checked actually =)
The system only comes with 60MB of non-volatile flash on a jffs(2) filesystem and 32MB are free.
If you use GPL'd source code in your application, the whole application needs to be GPL'd if you release it. This is the same situation with any source code: you can't for example take parts from Microsoft Windows source code and include those in your application without following the license conditions given by the original author.
Correct -- only the copyright holder can actually take this to court. They can do this with the assistance of their FSF legal representative though :)
I know you're joking, but section 6 of the GPL prevents this most commonly by using the phrase: "on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange."
The GPL is a very carefully written document.
I touch computers in naughty places
Last year BusyBox successfully enforced their copyrights in at least two instances. While the terms of the settlements have not been disclosed, I'm sure the SFLC will be happy to get involved again.
Just linking to a GPL'd library does not necessarily constitute derivation (see Limited GPL), and using GPL'd tools (eg: EMACS, gcc) to create your code does not necessarily constitute derivation. GPL is written in pretty plain language. It's worth reading; it's worth understanding your rights; it's very important to understand your responsibilities.
As the parent says, only the copyright holder can actually take any legal action.
For busybox, you can see on http://busybox.net/license.html that:
"BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the Software Freedom Law Center (you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net)"
This an effective process, but a slow one (expect it to take 6 months+ for any response on past experience).
For the linux kernel, lkml is perhaps an appropriate place.
FSF can't help, since they don't own any of the software.
You perhaps want to consider how you're wording your requests. If a polite (or impolite) request for source code has been refused, you might want to try a different track, pointing out that the hardware contains software that they have no valid license to distribute and is hence illegal, and would they like to discuss this further before you contact the copyright owner.
Under copyright law, there is absolutely no requirement for them to provide the source code. One possible legal conclusion is that they pay court decided damages to the copyright owners for illegal distribution to date, and cease further distribution. If they wish to continue distribution, it's likely that they're only available option is to open the source code, especially since their are often multiple copyright holders, especially in the linux kernel.
(Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, and some points will vary between jurisdictions.)
Irrelevant. If they distribute binaries without providing access to source they violate the GPL. The 'We only do hardware' argument is utterly bogus.
If they shipped copies of Windows on there in violation of the license do you think that Microsoft would accept such an argument? Same thing.
The GPL requires that if you make small changes to the code (that may or may not be beneficial to others) and you want to re-distribute the result ... since the vast majority of it is still the work of others then you are obliged to give out the source code as you modified it. BTW ... this is the only "cost" of using GPL code ... you are not allowed to obscure it.
It is not sufficient to say ... we got it from this link ... it must be possible for anyone who asks to get the code from you as you modified it, and they must be able to compile it and end up with the same binary executable as you are distributing. Those are the terms of using GPL code in the first place. If you don't like those terms ... don't use the code.
BTW: If the source isn't available anywhere ... then it isn't GPL code! GPL code is, by definition, released as source code to the public by its author. Clearly then if the author hasn't made the code available ... then it isn't GPL code in the first place.
more...
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Try /usr/src
You may want to send your legal department a copy of the GPL, and possibly a copy of the accompanying FAQ, which explains things in terms simple enough for non-lawyers or even just really confused lawyers to understand.
a) Provide the source with the binaries or a download next to the binaries - only needs to be available for those you give binaries to and as long as the binary download is up.
b) Provide a written offer for source - must be available for 3 years and for anyone, since the offer may be passed on under c)
c) Non-commercially and occasionally - to pass on an offer as given in b)
So you can give it just to those with binaries, but then you must give it or make it available for download immidiately. If you go for the written offer, anyone can ask for the source.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I think it's real easy:
If you're an end user of GPL code, you're always free to modify and improve it.
If you're an end user of BSD code, you can't do anything with it. Oh sure I can maybe somehow, somewhere find the BSD source code that the proprietary tool is using somewhere, but I still couldn't incorporate any changes in any way. With BSD you only have freedom if you use pure BSD software with source. If you restrict yourself to pure BSD software, the BSD license works like a really crappy version of the GPL. The BSD license benefits those who produce software, for each non-free software copy the company sells the company and its employees benefit and the end-users and society loses. Thanks, but it gives me no comfort to know this leash was made with Open Source(tm).
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Minerva is attracting your attention because they like to advertise themselves. The box is made from some reference design (the ones I'm familiar with are based on a Sigma chip) that a hardware vendor makes light modifications to (there are several candidate companies for your box). The Minerva software is put on top of that, and it's possible - but unlikely - that other software from your ISP or a system integrator acting for them - has been included. Sigma has opened much of its code, and the uclinux site hosts a Sigma variant (the Sigma chip is a SoC processor / video decoder). You will need an arm cross-compiler. You can then see for yourself how much of the rest of the code on your box has changed. Certainly busybox won't have. The GPL violation, in this case, is mostly that not everyone in the distribution chain is hosting the modified software. http://www.uclinux.org/pub/uClinux/ports/arm/EM8500/
Sorry, but exactly when did Title 17 begin including or referencing the GPL?!?!? Copyright law does not say anything about providing source code. It merely says that you must have a license. It does not dictate what the license says, nor does it say you must follow the terms of the license.
Quite simply, if you are not following the terms of a license when distributing a copyrigthed work, you are in violation of copyright statutes and can be held civilly and criminally liable.
If you buy a dvd or cd, you are granted a license to perform the work non-publically, and not make and sell copies. If you violate the license by publicly performing the work or copying it and putting it on a P2P network, you've violated both copyright law and the terms of the license. Criminal penalties apply to the violation of the letter of the law (no distribution or performance without license) and civil responsibility results from the breach of license terms.
More to the point, if you buy a volume licensed Windows CD, you can make as many copies as you need to within your business to support installation activities. You will still get busted by the FBI for uploading the CD ISO to a P2P network. Just because you are licensed for SOME redistribution or copying rights does not mean you have ALL rights and no criminal responsibility if you violate the license.
Your premise has absolutely nothing in modern copyright law to stand on, its silly and stupid.
I have a business proposition for you. Why dont you go into the business of selling "music appliances"?
See, now you dont actually need to license the distribution rights from the RIAA!
Good luck with that.
The rest of your post is just nonsense tripe.
You are a troll or an idiot or both.
And if they aren't making any modifications to said source code, they may be able to get away with referring you to somewhere else that the code is available...
Oh, and you're only required to give source code to people to whom you give binaries; not anyone else.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'