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.
If they have not changed the code. Most of the hardware on todays STBs are fully supported by main linux kernel.
is this not old news? it's not the first device which uses busybox/oss apps and didn't initially release the source (until hounded to death)
"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 ..." ...upon request. Read the GPL.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
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
And even though, how can you sue for damage?
They, like the MAFIAA, obviously believe they are above the law.
Maybe the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ can help.
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
I don't recall there being a part of the GPL that says you have to put your source on a web server. If they send it to you upon contacting them that would suffice, right?
Most STB's (Set-Top-Boxes) are using some version of Linux and probably also busybox. Amino and Motorola (ex-Kreatel) does this.
They could probably deny you any source code and state that they, do not use any code in violation of GLP and that they only provide hardware and that it is the network-providers that are responsible for whats running on the boxes.
What's it to you, bub ?? Look away, turn the channel, or rooooooll another one, just liiike theeeee other one, if it bothers you.
It's an asinine thing to say but, if they just dropped their source for the shipping product in the /src dir like most linux distros do for whatever version kernel they're using, shouldn't it then put it in line with the GPL?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Sometimes companies with hotshot lawyers deliberately put their head in the sand regarding the GPL. They want to use the code but don't want to make their changes public for "intellectual property" reasons, even if it's something as trivial as a few patches to fix some bugs in Linux or some existing drivers. They will "educate" staff as to why they can do what they do with GPL software "legally." The hotshot lawyer has it all figured out, and engineers don't really need to know the details. The excuse is that they "buy their Linux" from a 3rd party so that means that all the conditions of the GPL are not relevant for some lawyerish reason. Oh, and the GPL is "contentious" about what you actually have to do regarding distributing source.
Well by posting it on Slashdot a much larger number of people now know they are doing this.
I for one wont buy their products.
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.
For a FOSS license GPL seems to be very unfree - imposing restrictions or rules... just a crock of sh!t really. GPL makes me angry. MIT or BSD for the win. GPL for the sux.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Correct me if I am wrong, or feel free to clairify:
If I use GPL code, I must provide the GPL code that I use.
If I code my own stuff using GPL, my code isn't automatically GPL too.
So if I make an game with security through obscurity, but use GPL code, I'm fine right? Or am I wrong, and all code I write using GPL code suddenly becomes GPL too?
God spoke to me.
I'd be a Pointy Haired Boss and comply with any request for GPL'd code by sending the requester the code...printed on paper. ;)
If you do not hold a copyright in the material being distributed, you lack legal standing to enforce the license. That may be the reason why they are ignoring you. You need to contact someone who is a pertinent copyright holder and who is interested in enforcing the license to his or her work.
"Make available" and "Advertise Availability" are two different concepts.
I don't think they're in violation unless they deny a request for the source code.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Please give more information about the sold product you're referring to here on Slashdot so we can give you more detailed information :=)
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 :)
security thru obscurity is bad in general, do it right! if your security can't handle source code examination it wont handle some hacker poking in the binary
FSF and gpl-violations.org are co-operating closely. gpl-violations and FSF have handled some cases regarding busybox before and have handled them successfully (i.e., out-of-court settlements have been achieved).
And a settlement resulting in GPL compliance - that's what enforcing the GPL is all about.
As Eben Moglen, legal counsel to the FSF for many years, put it (in a keynote address in October 2006):
---
When I went to work for Richard Stallman in 1993, he said to me at the first instruction over enforcing the GPL, "I have a rule. You must never let a request for damages interfere with a settlement for compliance."
I thought about that for a moment and I decided that that instruction meant that I could begin every telephone conversation with a violator of the GPL with magic words: We don't want money. When I spoke those words, life got simpler. The next thing I said was, We don't want publicity.
The third thing I said was, We want compliance. We won't settle for anything less than compliance, and that's all we want.
Now I will show you how to make that ice in the wintertime. And so they gave me compliance.
---
http://www.geof.net/blog/2006/12/10/eben-moglen
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 I understand it, your game "suddenly becomes open source", as you say.
You can still make closed source softwar which works "with" an open source one, like propriatary drivers and games for linux, and I don't know where exactly they draw the line (which is an important question for libraries, etc). Different open source licence behave differently on that matter.
Then there is obfuscation of the code. Dunno how it works, too.
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.)
You need to read the GPL actually. Because it doesnt says "require that anyone using and distributing the binaries of this software make source available to everyone".
Go read the GPL, GPL zealot.
Ok then. Punchcards it is!
Different product, but I've seen and heard indications that my Docomo P903iTV by panasonic is running on top of Linux. I can't find any mention of Linux in the manuals, let alone an offer of source for the kernel, etc., or any indication of a way to access a shell, etc.
There is a java API, called, I think, iAppli. I haven't found much on getting dev stuff for it in the manuals, but it can be found on the web. I think. I haven't actually tried it yet, and it doesn't look like they make it easy to figure out where to start.
While I'm complaining, the USB adaptor is "not guaranteed to work with Macs or Linux". The sales guy I talked to seemed almost proud to say that and seemed quite anxious to discourage me from buying the adaptor to see if I can even mount the internal flash or the microSD card. I let him discourage me because money is really tight.
If anyone knows anything about this phone, I'd appreciate some pointers.
Lousy Japanese market. The government promotes Linux. Industry likes Linux in industry as long as it's nowhere near the consumer market. Marketing is strictly under the thumb of Microsoft/iNTEL. Can't get a Linux eeePC (not that I'm that anxious to buy an iNTEL processor) in Japan because "this is Japan, of course!" (Implicitly, otaku are expected to be happy to pay the Microsoft tax.)
If you use GPL code then yes your code must be GPLed to avoid violating the license for the code you use.
You can however use LGPL code, which most libraries are.
For four years of collegiate computer science, I had to print up code that I've written to give to my professors. Not to mention the CS classes from highschool.
Semantics are fun.
Can't remember if the FOMA/MOVA phones are properly cell phones or some other kind of mobile. I suppose wikipedia might tell me something if I weren't more interested in sleep.
There is one-seg TV on the phone. I don't find it very fun to watch Japanese TV on a 3cm x 5cm screen. Radio would be more useful, make it possible to listen to their public radio language programs to improve my Japanese while I'm on the train.
What I really want to do is get a shell and amuse myself by writing and compiling simple C language programs on the train. Hopefully one of the open source phones will allow me to do that shortly.
My friend joudanzuki seems to want to dig deeper into his phone, but I doubt the UI is under the GPL. He hates the input methods and has some ideas how to improve them for using English.
I don't particularly care for the UI either, but I'd prefer to have a proper QWERTY keyboard. (Wouldn't turn my nose up at a Dvorak keyboard, of course.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
How can we decry copyrights as evil, when we keep trying to enforce the GPL? What if a company wants to use that piece of code, and not release the source for it? Information wants to be free, you know.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The GPL does not require you make the source availible to everyone. It requires you make the source availible to anyone to whom you provide the software. Since you said you have one of these boxes you must have the software on it and are thefore entitled to the source code from the provider of the box, where as say I am not.
There is no need at all for them to host the source on the web. They just have to make the source availible to you in the cononical form (not exactly the words in the license) if you request it. They can't print it out and say here you go in most cases because that is not a useful way to obtain a lot of source. They could do any number of things such E-mail to you, burn it to a CD and mail it to you, send you the infromation need to fetch it from their CVS etc etc. They would be even permitted to charge you for the costs of such efforts. If they wanted to mail it they could ask you to pay for the CD and postage.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I think it might help you to separate the meanings of "use" (meaning run the code) and "include" (meaning put the source code into your own work), and to change occurrences of "code" with "source code".
OK, so your questions then become:
If you meant this: ... then the answer is this:
Q: "If I use GPL code, I must provide the GPL code that I use."
A: No, use (as in run) GPL code however you want, with no obligations on you.
If you meant this:
Q: "If I include GPL source code in my work, I must provide the GPL code that I included."
A: Yes. The GPL source code is not yours, and you do not have permission to include it obscured in your work.
If you meant this: ... if you wrote it, then you do with it whatever you want.
Q: "If I code my own stuff by running GPL programs like emacs, vi and gcc, my code isn't automatically GPL too."
A: Correct. Your code is your code
If you meant this" ... then your modified work must also be released as GPL code.
Q: "If I code my own stuff including GPL source code which wasn't mine, my code isn't automatically GPL too."
A: This is complex. If the code is mostly yours and there a little bits cut & paste from GPL source code of others, you are probably OK. If however the code is mostly the GPL work of others, and you have merely added or changed small parts of it
Q: "So if I make an game with security through obscurity, but use GPL code, I'm fine right? Or am I wrong, and all code I write using GPL code suddenly becomes GPL too?"
Essentially the same question as before. If you are just running GPL code such as Linux kernel, vi editor and gcc compiler and you are writing your game as your own work ... then your game is your code, and you can do with it what you want.
If however, your game includes, say, stuff taken from the SDL library http://www.libsdl.org/ then you have to work out a deal with the SDL authors, or make your game GPL.
It is really all quite simple to follow ... your own source code that you write is yours. GPL source code that others write is not yours, and you have to abide by the terms of the people who wrote it if you want to copy that work of source code into your own work.
Even schoolkids get this principle ... you can't copy someone else's homework and expect to get your own marks for it ... that is cheating ... do your own work.
Minerva didn't provide you with software. They sold you an appliance. IANAL. That being said, I believe there is a HUGE misinterpretation of what is meant by distribution of binaries. If I create an embedded Linux system, that runs only on hardware I sell, then I am not providing you with binaries, I am selling you an appliance. If I provide you with software to run on your computer, I am then providing you with a binary.
Note that this interpretation puts to rest the tivoization issue, and completely eliminates the need for GPL v3.
I respect Richard Stallman, but he is also a bit of a nut. While it is entirely reasonable to expect that I have the source to any software I run on my computer, it is absurd and counter to the progress of society to expect that companies provided source code when the companies value add extends significantly into the hardware domain.
Any other interpretation makes Embedded Linux significantly less appealing to companies that fall into that category, and for that reason, erodes the advancement of society rather than augmenting it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
E-mail busybox@busybox.net with the info. That will be read by a lot of the copyright holders, and they are the ones with the claim. When they contact the offender their words will carry more weight. And their lawyers' words even more weight.
I guess he thinks that being a fat cripple and an ex-Marine entitles him to slander good Marines. I hope those Marines sue his fat retarded ass and I hope he loses and has to pay them a shitload of money. Fuck that fat 4-wheeled douchebag.
I doubt they modified the source of either Linux or busybox. If they did then they should distribute the source. I have a feeling though they simply wrote an application that ran on Linux or even a Linux kernel module. IANAL, but I think you should have the choice to distribute the source code of programs you wrote regardless of what OS or software is on the device.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
you're like the guy on the Garden State Parkway who drives 65 in the left lane to keep everyone else from speeding. at most you should drop a note to the copyright holders, and then stay the hell out of it.
That is an Amino STB. Maybe check with them. Odds are Minerva is only reselling. Probably using a Sigma CPU, which by default ships with a 2.4 or 2.6 kernel based SDK. uclinux. Busybox is standard in that case. Ask Amino. Or Sigma Designs. A *huge* portion of the STB market is running uclinux or Montevista these days. Unmodified Busybox is standard fare. Is this really a violation? Is the violation in question simply that they did not provide him with an unmodified Busybox? (available elsewhere too) This doesn't seem so dark and nefarious to me.
Is to imagine you have a faulty printer driver, and the source code is not available.
What would you do then?
[obligatory offering to Slashdot demi-gods]
1. Discover violation of GPL
2. Write to Slashdot
3. Rehash thousands of undistinguishable previous comments.
4. ??
5. Profit!
[/obligatory offering to Slashdot demi-gods]
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/
Having worked -very- closely with IPTV, Minerva and various (Set top box) STB manufacturers over the last year I can tell you Minerva isn't responsible.
The STB companies develop the OS, which hand it off to Minerva for testing. The only reason why Minerva is in the uname is because it's setup to work with Minerva's various hooks.
I see the box you're running is 2.4 kernel, which chances are pretty good you're running an Scientific Atlanta STB. They would be the ones you'd contact(They are also now owned by Cisco) So that is who I'd contact first.
Copyrights are to provide incentive to produce more works. The ability to get back any improvements to your free software is incentive to make and distribute, thus it is what was intended.
running GPL programs like emacs, vi and gcc,
Just FYI, Vim is not a GPL application. It has its own license, which the authors describes as a "charity-ware" license, although it is GPL compatible. Otherwise, a quite superb and informative post.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
The Busybox devs are a hyper-active active enforcer of the GPL, and it's amazing that anyone still tries to get around it with that project. These guys sue everybody who misues their work, and has been very successful in that effort.
Section 1 allows distribution of source code only, so not applicable.
Section 2 talks about modified versions, so according to your argument is N/A
Section 3 requires the offer or actual distribution of corresponding source code -- note that section 3.3 does not apply since this is commercial distribution.
So, Cowboy, read the GPL.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
the license is not a contract. Is there a third-party beneficiary doctrine for license agreements? I've never heard of one, but it's a long way from my area of expertise.
You'd think all the folks who want to rip off busybox would just together and write a BSD clone of it. Probably a lot cheaper than paying all those lawyers.
I'm not a coder, but I keep reading all these articles about company after company using Busy Box's code without following the licensing rules.
Busy Box's code must be pretty cool stuff, for so many people to want to "steal" it.
What is so compelling about it? Just curious here, but I bet others want to know, too.
Why does it matter if they use GPL software but don't themselves give out the source code when it's available elsewhere? As long as the source code exists someplace, like Sourceforge, why not get it from there like they probably did? I can see the risk of this attitude since it may risk the source becoming scarce, but this article just seems a little bit anal. I'd only really care if they made some fixes without offering them back, since that'd be just silly and dumb.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Sue the bastards! People can't just do what they want with the software. What do they think it is, free or something? Sue the bastards and keep suing them until they respect our authority! Freedom is about suing people who don't follow the rules! Gawd how I wish there were a clause in the GPL that would let me kick these f*ckers in the nuts.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
From that uname output, it sounds like it might be a Sigma Designs chip, perhaps 8634? Sigma Designs themselves do ship their modified source code to the GPL parts: Busybox, kernel, etc., to downstream product developers. (Let us ignore the "binary driver includes blob of opaque code wrapped in simple kernel ioctls" issue).
That source includes a note to the effect that they confirm it is covered by the GPL.
Therefore, the product developers (possibly Minerva) should have no difficulty passing it on to you.
See Popcorn Hour for another company who are possibly using the same chip, and might be more helpful about providing that code - if only to prove to Minerva that it is possible.
The company I work for just deployed Minerva middleware. Minerva does not chose the OS that goes on the set top boxes, the set top box manufacturers do. Minerva then provides an API that the set top manufacturers write interfaces to if they want their box to be compatible with Minerva middleware. (Most do since the other middleware manufacturers don't seem to work right, or at least at the time of our evaluation they didn't). The set top box, out of the box comes from the set top box manufacturer, you get OS upgrades that are the responsibility of the manufacturer. The set top box then downloads Minerva's java based software that also runs on the set-top-box and provides the bridge between the set-top-box OS functions and those functions implemented by Minerva. The manufacturer, (we've used three so far in labs, Amino, Scientific Atlanta and ADB) often distributes or names the OS for whatever Middleware the particular OS was tuned for. How this factors in GPL and licensing, I don't know.
...when, after the hotshot lawyers convince them to blatantly violate copyright law, the authors drag their horn-haired asses into court. Suddenly, all the arguments fall flat when reality inconveniently intrudes upon their hotshot lawyer's fantasy world.
Injunctions, major payouts of damages and fees, and having their entire business held in the hands of some "long haired smelly" soon follow.
It's been proven time and time again that the GPL has teeth. Big, sharp, pointy ones. And some of the most tempting works to steal have owners who actually enjoy using those teeth to bite the nuts off anyone who even slightly infringes on the terms of the copyright.
You make a very good point. The REASON behind the demand for source code in the GPL, I believe, is to ensure that improvements are made available to other users. The GPL-mandated method of making source code available on demand is one way of achieving the goal. But submitting patches upstream is a very useful way of achieving the same goal (assuming upstream developers don't just reject people's patches).
It's probably unrealistic for a version of the GPL to mandate that users submit patches upstream though.
If completely new functionality is bolted into GPL'd code (rather than just a few tweaks or fixes being made), then the source for the "derived work" is more useful, and patches sent upstream may not do the job.
But it's good to see people following the spirit of the rules.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
But your not going to get some retroactive term enforced that skips the step of determining compliance to the license terms and revokes the license before someone agrees to it. Even if they later break their contracts and/or obligations.
Your confusing law and license here. The law prohibits you from distributing without a license and performing it publicly. When you buy a CD or DVD, you general don't even get a license. Yep, but what you won't have is the possibility of hit for all the legal copies you made that the license covered. Similarly, You can't violate the GPL and act as if it was never valid. You have to determine a breach or terms and then revoke the license in which case, any distribution from there on out would be a copyright violation.You add some code (your own) to vista that removes the license check.
You now distribute that combined code.
MS STILL have their code. They don't have YOUR code, but then they never had it anyway.
No please try it.
If you make a pie and I add some ice cream to it, can I now eat your pie? After all, some of MY ice cream is mixed in.
If I move in to your spare bedroom, you've lost nothing you needed.
Etc.
(NOTE: there's a reason why SOMEONE ELSE use the GPL license and that wasn't so you could make a derivative of it without letting them make a derivative of your work)
If you distribute changed GPL binaries you have to provide the source (with the changes already in it) with it (or on request). If you distribute unmodified GPL binaries you still have to provide the source code (for the unmodified binary) along with it or on request. Even if you are "just" distributing a Linux kernel/busybox compiled by someone else you have to provide the source for it (or a written offer for it)*.
The whole not having to GPL (and thus distribute the source) for any/every userland programs which are running on the Linux kernel issue is clarified in the license file that comes with the Linux kernel. As someone said - just because the kernel is GPL userland programs do not have to be. That doesn't get you off the hook for providing the source for the kernel if you distribute binaries though. If you are additionally distributing userland programs that have you received under GPL (like busybox) you will have to provide the source for those too (but you would have had to have done the later regardless of which license the kernel was under).
As mentioned in previous posts the GPL FAQ covers this and many issues and it is worth reading the GPL itself too to give yourself firsthand knowledge of it. The issue you seem to be thinking of is probably covered by the GPL FAQ entry about unchanged/unmodified binaries.
* There is a bit more to it than this but it's well explained in in the GPL FAQ if you missed it when reading the GPL itself.
For everyone one person out there who wants to extol the virtues of the GPL and its enforcement, there are at least 10 others sticking up their middle finger up back at you. Fortunately compliance is costing GPL supporters more and more for litigation and the common practicality is that it won't be worthwhile enough to litigate. This attempts to make the GPL unconscionably (which it is) strong (which it isn't) when in fact it is less enforcible than stopping people from jaywalking.
If you kinda offer something for free, you'll kinda get some people exploiting your generosity.
So long, and thanks for all the code!
How do you know, without an answer from BusyBox, that BusyBox did not make its software available to Minerva under a different license from the GPL? Because a piece of software is licensed under the GPL does not mean that the original authors cannot distribute it under different license terms.
This scenario might be unlikely (especially concerning the kernel), but if there is no copy of the GPL itself (or any other license) distributed with the software, a user cannot be certain of which are the licensing terms.
Depends what you mean by "using"
If you write some code in EMACS and compile it with GCC, you are "using" GPL covered works, but the resulting work is not a "derivative" of those works.
If, on the other hand, you take some code from GCC and integrate it into your work, your work now IS a derivative work and so can not be distributed without the permission of the copyright holder (The FSF in the case of GCC) The GPL is that permission, but you have to follow their terms to maintain that permission.
IANAL etc.
If I use *and distribute* some GPL'd app, UNCHANGED from how I received it, and the source code is still available from the original distributor, do I have to distribute source code too?? Can I just point at the original distribution point? Ie. is that the code is available *somewhere* adequate, or do I have to become an additional source distribution point?
Remember, this question is about distributing UNALTERED binaries. NOT about binaries with new and different code in them, which would of course require distribution of the new and different source, too.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If I use GPL code, I must provide the GPL code that I use.
If I code my own stuff using GPL, my code isn't automatically GPL too.
So if I make an game with security through obscurity, but use GPL code, I'm fine right?
Or am I wrong, and all code I write using GPL code suddenly becomes GPL too?
Not quite. If you modify GPL code, or use GPL code as part of your program (say, by linking against a GPL library) then YES your code becomes GPL. If you distribute it in any way, in order to use the GPL parts you must also GPL your code. That's the point of the GPL. You can still license your code in other ways too, so that doesn't stop you selling your code. You are only required to distribute your code if you distribute the software. So if you run it on your own web-server only, for example, you can keep it to yourself. If you give it to a mate, you have to GPL license it to him.Umm, clay tablets written in cuneiform?
Yep, but what you won't have is the possibility of hit for all the legal copies you made that the license covered. Similarly, You can't violate the GPL and act as if it was never valid. You have to determine a breach or terms and then revoke the license in which case, any distribution from there on out would be a copyright violation.
There are no distributable copies of GPL software that do not contain the GPL itself and either the entire source code or a notice that the source is available. One violates the GPL at the derivative work stage by not including the GPL and source offer, and hence there is no distribution license by the time one gets around to pressing CDs or burning ROMs. Fair use allows everyone to make all the derivative works they want (at least in the opinion of the FSF lawyers), but at that point they have give up all distribution rights for those derivative works by not including the source or notice.
Now, you're right that it would be a completely civil matter if a company published GPL software with a notice that they would provide source, and then they never did. At that point they would be in violation of the GPL for not complying with the source distribution license, but they would not be responsible for all the software distributed before it became apparent that they were not going to give out the source. Any further distribution would presumably be illegal after 3 years (the minimum period after an initial release during which the source must be available) had passed since the first distribution, at which point it could be considered obvious that the license had not been followed, thus invalidating it. A Real Lawyer could probably establish a shorter "reasonable" time-frame outside of which the license could be deemed broken by failing to provide source code.
In this case, the lack of a prominent notice of source availability and lack of actual source would be sufficient to terminate the GPL for the derivative work that the company created, removing their right to distribute before they even shipped the first box.
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'
My experience with IPTV is that the OS is provided by the box manufacturer and Minerva is merely running their client on the box. Therefore you would need to check with the set-top manufacturer to see if they are releasing the code and not Minerva.
Hey there,
I'm completely against GPLv3. I agree with Linus's sentiment, and additionally, I feel that version is just for thieves, ie people who want digital media without having to pay for it.
I think there should be some sort of DRM in the future, because how else will content creators get paid for their work?
This is a capitalistic society, and I want to be able to pay for games, movies, and good software. GPLv3 takes away a company's freedom/ability to charge money, and thus takes away my freedom to pay for it.
Debate me all you want, but until the day that there is a platform like iTunes that is licensed under GPLv3, and there are content producers out there that will actual sell on said platform, I remain unconvinced.
Isn't Minerva like many IPTV vendors just a startup burning cash?
In which case would you want to sue them?
Do you really think there is money to be made by sueing them?
Ok, in an ideal world, I don't question what you have said. I think we might be saying the same things so hear me out.
The problem is that there are clauses about clauses within the GPL. Suppose I build a computer and install mandrake/mandriva linux on it, then sell it to someone, do I need to distribute the source code for mandrake now? No, because part 3c of the GPLv2 says I can just forward the offers given to me. Does this mean I have to take any care to show the offer in any way that it wasn't shown to me? No. I found the torrent files for the ISOs at a tracker site and assume everything is on them and the install copies the CDs to the harddrive.
So lets got with it a little further, When I goto Busybox.net and download the source for it for use in my application (my appliance) and run the configure, make and all that, I end up with a working binary. If I clone the storage medium and place that onto other devices for sale, have I distributed the source even though it isn't obvious to the user? Yes, I have even though it isn't readily apparent. Do I need to make it apparent to the user where the source is? No, I don't. All I have to do is make it apparent if I modified the program. Configure options and menu displays aren't derivative or changes.
There was two instances where I would have the legal right to distribute something. Or at least I could legitimately make that claim. Now suppose after using this for 5 years, someone attempts to save space and removes the configuration folders and source unannounced to the legal and compliance department. I am still under the assumption of compliance and still have the rights. Someone has to point out that I am not fulfilling my obligations to revoke my distribution rights. It doesn't happen retroactively because I was given a license. If my way is inadequate, improper or somehow otherwise in violation of the GPL, it needs to be pointed out and if there is a dispute, that gets hammered out in contract law. When it is found that I am in violation, then I lose my rights to distribute and it become copyright. If it is a blatant violation where I never intended to comply with either GPL for whatever reason, it might be possible to retroactively enforce the copyright without the contract law processes.
I think the big issue is that in reality, it is far more complicated then a "you didn't give the source or are somehow in violation of the GPL, you don't have a license to distribute". That would more or less be a summery of the course of events but skipping the processes to determine compliance and so on. If there is a dispute to what equals "satisfactory compliance", then it has to get sorted out and currently contract law handles that. Legally speaking, the obvious wording to you or me could actually spell out more when tested against a law or even someone looking at it from a different advantage point. In the first example, I passed on the source notices that where available to me when I downloaded the software which was either on a disc or simply not present. In the later, I accompanied the source code without making it apparent to the recipient of the software. Both are questionable but neither are automatic until it is pointed out properly that they don't satisfy the requirements. A specific procedure would have to happen if I don't agree to the assertions of anyone claiming I wasn't compliant.
FSF and gpl-violations.org are co-operating closely. gpl-violations and FSF have handled some cases regarding busybox before and have handled them successfully (i.e., out-of-court settlements have been achieved).
You're thinking of SFLC, which is run by Eben Moglen. Nither FSF nor gpl-violations.org are in a position to enforce GPL violations against Busybox, since the Busybox developers hold all their own copyrights. FSF does enforcement on the GNU project copyrights and gpl-violations does enforcement on Harold Welte's copyrights in the Linux kernel.http://www.mhall119.com
Isn't this a bit off? The GPL is for distribution of software. Not the use of it. If one has to distribute on the use of the GPL wouldn't all apache installs also have to distribute?
Ahh so your seeing where the conflicts can be. Good eye.
That would depend on the definition of "commercial" and how it pertains legally to the situation. If I build the machine for personal use and sell it later at a yard or garage sale, it that the legal definition of commercial? In my area, a yard sale certainly isn't a commercial operation. If you look at it like a capitol good, well, I can sell up to 7 cars a year without it becoming commercial and requiring a dealers license so the comparison there appears to be no. So would I be in violation, I think not. You can think so, there is where contract dispute comes into play. Would I be honoring the terms of the deal?
There is also the part in section 3 where it says, "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." I should be fine like that because everything I distributed was available as the major components of the operating system. In fact it was the operating system. Do you agree? Here we go into contract resolution again to attempt to determine the meaning of the clause. Something we have to remember, Intention usually doesn't matter because the only access to the intentions presented to me (or anyone else) would be what was in the license.
This brings us back to the original problem, am I in the right or wrong and how do we determine that. Actually, it isn't as much me being right or wrong, but the process of determining that fact which is important. That is back to contract law, have I fulfilled my obligations?
Thanks for pointing "my mistake" out ;)
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable. Note how it ends "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". So you don't have to distribute Linux source code when you distribute the source for a Linux application, but you still have to distribute the source for what you are distributing. In your PC example, if it is determined to be a commercial distribution, you would be obligated to provide the source for _any_ GPL program on the box you are selling.
http://www.mhall119.com
The potential problem here is that if you have a device, and you burn GPL Software to a ROM on the device, then give that device to someone else, that is distribution, and so copyright applies. There's no difference, legally, between a circuit-based rom, and a cd-rom. However, this particular case is not necessarily a GPL violation. Someone else asked a poignant question - Did Minerva modify the source? If they use binaries built from unmodified source, they can probably abide by the GPL simply by giving users a link to download the source from any server which hosts the same version of the source (e.g. from the main Linux or Busybox developers' ftp servers).
From busybox.net: gpl@busybox.net is the recommended way to contact them re suspected GPL violations.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Your right, "However, as aspecial exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs," Means that I don't need to distribute the source for the operating system because anything from the CDs will be installed on the computer. Again, good eye. (read this as a whole)
Note how I think and claim I would be in compliance. Now prove that I'm not. If you go into a copyright court arguing that compliance wasn't met, I can simply say it was. The court won't determine under "copyright law" whether I had complied with terms of a license or not, they are only concerned with if I have a license. That is not the job of copyright law. That is the job of contract law. So first, we need to determine that I'm either in compliance or not on a legal standard, then questions of copyright can be asked. This however can be done in the same court sometimes if the violation is blatant enough, just not with the same sets of laws as copyright law provides.The problem isn't whether or not I complied, it is coming to a legal conclusion on that like I said previously. In my examples, I am purposely misinterpreting things that aren't stated as clearly as you understand them to be just to show that someone could dispute whether or not they are in violation of the terms of the contract/license. The words "unless that component itself accompanies the executable" doesn't infer much in and of itself when attempting to look at it in the abstract of the situation. The previous parts gave me exceptions and this simply means that if I break it apart and distribute something by itself, I have to give the source (again, a purposeful misinterpretation).
The fact that you had to explain that to me means that it is possible to be in violation while not understanding that you are. If there is a dispute, it is settled in contract law before copyright kicks in. And even then, there is the question of intent and obvious violations. You see, the point I am attempting to make isn't that I don't know the GPL, but that I can read it in certain ways and be wrong but still be under the impression of compliance. Unless I admit to violating it, you have to prove my wrong doing before you can revoke any license. It doesn't matter that the GPL say nothing else give you permission, I accepted the GPL as I understood it and I'm in compliance as I understand it. Now if you disagree, prove it (contrat law).
If they haven't done modifications to BusyBox (or other GPLed software), they don't need to provide the source themselves. They can simply point people to the homepage (counts as 3rd party server).
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8