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."
Well, thanks for the personal attack because I prefer different "more free" licenses. WOW!!
"The GPL has clauses that say that you can charge a reasonable price for source redistribution (s+h charges, media charges, etc..). There is nothing that will put them out of business."
Competitors can also get their hands on the source code. Also, anyone that downloads the source can also compile it and release it for free. If it got popular enough, it would effectively put the company out of business.
"The difference is the GPL is trying to defend your rights as a user of the software by keeping all the modifications and source code open for everyone to profit from. The RIAA/MPAA is trying to defend their own rights by making sure none of their works ever reach the Public Domain where everyone can profit from them. If you can't see the difference, you're a shill or a tool."
I see the similarities. You are the shill and the tool used to spread the FSF's political agenda.
By allowing everyone to profit from something, the value rapidly approaches $0 and the result is that nobody can profit from it.
"The RIAA/MPAA is trying to defend their own rights by making sure none of their works ever reach the Public Domain where everyone can profit from them"
This is their choice. They created their works and have the right to protect it.
"In the case of MPAA/RIAA, they've launched lawsuits that were without merit, lots of them, and have been clogging the courts with these cases. Somehow I doubt that children would be violating the GPL, unless they were building products and shipping them, and the same goes for the elderly."
There were very few cases against children and the elderly. The RIAA was just using it as a scare tactic to get people to stop stealing their works.
I haven't heard of such a case in at least a year.
They also did have merit. If you are caught violating their license, you got sued (it's very easy. Just don't violate the license). The exact same thing is happening to companies violating the GPL license.
"This statement seems, to me, to be without merit, as this person merely would rather support the FSF over the MPAA/RIAA. This is not a matter of losing freedoms, merely who one would support in this matter."
you would rather take away the rights of the MPAA/RIAA than the FSF.
Freedom doesn't work this way.