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
The requirement is: if you distribute the binaries, you need to provide the source too. If they are using an unmodified vanilla kernel, they still need to respond at least with "grab the code from kernel.org".
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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?
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.
Sounds like you need to take the GPL quiz. This particular issue is addressed in Question 1 of said quiz.
Don't worry, you're definitely not alone in any misunderstandings of the GPL...lots of people think they understand all the legal aspects of it completely when they don't. I used to be guilty myself. Now I just don't claim to know everything about the GPL ;-).
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
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.
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.
Dude, you misspelt shit. Seriously, though, so what? Who cares how the GPL makes you feel? This is about a company *choosing* to use the GPL. If you choose to use a GPL'd app you do so in full knowledge of the copyleft restrictions that in requires. If the GPL "makes you angry" you don't use GPL'd applications. It really is that simple. It's easy to avoid the anger - avoid licenses that anger you.
This is where the serious fun begins.
WTF?
The GPL applies only to GPL code ... in this case the Linux kernel and the Busybox code. It is a license that lets some people, who did not write that code, nevertheless use the code ... often without any fee. The only "restriction or rule" is that the code must not be hidden if you re-distribute it. Since you received the source code yourself, and you did not write it ... you are obliged to give it to other people under those same conditions.
Why should there not be such a condition? It isn't your code, you didn't write it ... and the source is already public anyway so how on earth does it hurt you to give the source out when you distribute your product?
"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 :=)
Ikarys, you either have a lot of fun trolling this way, or you've not looked into the history of the GPL and the other licenses. Your posting history shows that you enjoy doing these drive-by instigations, but nevertheless, some newer folks on Slashdot may not know enough to realize why some folks say this.
GPL was formed to protect developers and users against restrictive licenses that prevented them from seeing or modifying their programs. It's a bit paranoid, but with reason. The DRM being inflicted on software, the security by obscurity, the locking in of software by refusing to permit non-vendor software to be installed, the refusal to allow others to modify and publish the software, all have been a real problem with other licenses.
GPL has effectively prevent hardware/software lockins, by Netgear and Linksys. The new GPLv3 will block patent lockins, such as those espoused by Microsoft, and DRM lockins, used by Tivo. None of the other licenses would have prevented this. We've also seen very specific abuses of the other licenses already, such as the Microsoft abuse of the MIT license on Kerberos to break non-Microsoft published Kerberos clients. And the GPL has already helped several companies that I'm aware of from simply adding on their own modifications, refusing to publish their modifications, deliberately making it inoperable with other's versions, and locking clients in this way.
The GPL protects the freedom of users, and other developers. The sacrifice of what is not freedom over the software, but power over its modification, comes at the benefit of retaining such power over the rest of GPL freedom, and I find it very handy.
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.
You can't point at someone else's FTP site
You can, there's nothing that prevent you from doing this if it works. Or actually 99% of people will be happy with this and you can send the source on a CD to the other 1% that want to be annoying.
Here's what the GPLv2 says about this :
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,b) 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; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
wtf.n0x.org
Great post :) someone bothered to read my post history! - don't quite get the drive by instigation thing, but anyway...
The reason why it bothers me is I have restrictions on which licenses I am allowed to use - these are imposed on me from the commercial world... which is annoying to say the least, but understandable from my employers standpoint. I believe the license is the problem and not the employer in many of these instances.
MIT and BSD are real "free"... I can "freely" use the software without worry. Is that so wrong? I've reported and fixed bugs for various OS projects, I don't expect them to acknowledge me, I don't expect people to distribute my source if they use it.
I can appreciate not having hardware/software lockins.
I'm a bit amazed at the flamebait vote I got, my intent wasn't to piss people off, just to voice my dislike, and my preference for the other "better" (imho) free licenses. GPL feels very much like DRM... a set of restrictions which mean I can't use the software.
Just tried the GPL quiz. I did poorly I must say.
I'm still a bit confused about it, but it seems like they have to provide the sourcecode for the entire thing, except for stand-alone proprietary programs running 'separately' from everything else, and provided they aren't using GPL libraries.
It's interesting to me because I am using GPL stuff for one of my projects, but at this stage it's straightforward since the only people I distribute it to are my departmental staff who can have the source code no-worries, but it gets interesting because the software is then usable by the public to whom I don't wish to distribute the code (basically because of security fears).
Is the end-user - at a public terminal - entitled to the same rights under GPL as the owner of the computer on which the software runs?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
heh :). Thanks. It is simple, and I don't use them. I do contribute and use OS projects, but rarely anything with GPL. My wording was perhaps a bit emotive judging by the lashback posts. I really wasn't expecting that.
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.)
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.)
I think it's more that your post was utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. It was little better than the "M$ is teh suxors" every time there's a post tangentially related to Windows, or "Theo is an asshole" every time there's a BSD story. When the topic is license violation, someone's personal view on the license tends to be regarded as irrelevant at best and trolling at worst, particularly when peppered with "...for the win" and "...for the sux". Let's have a grown-up conversation.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Clever troll, you're almost right. Here's what the GPL, v.2 (the version Linux is licensed under) does say:
In this instance the complainant received the binaries, but did not receive the source code, and his attempts to obtain the source code have been rebuffed.
So you're right - the GPL doesn't require that Minerva make the source *available*to*everyone*. But that's an utter red herring. The complainant isn't asking for that.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Fair point :) thanks for the feedback. I've generally filtered for +5, so I've been a bit ignorant of what the bad/re-occuring comments are :)
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.
Doesn't that mean that every GPL-project needs to be very very careful and make backups of the source code of all releases, however old?
If someone downloaded binaries without source 15 years ago, you still have to be able to give him the source code for that version (if I understand everything correctly). How many projects are able to do that? Or can they just give her the source code for a more recent version? What if the project is dead?
And doesn't that mean that even Debian is not 100% following the rules? The man page for apt-get says in the description of the source command:
"Source packages are tracked separately from binary packages via deb-src type lines in the sources.list(5) file. This probably will mean that you will not get the same source as the package you have installed or as you could install."
I also don't find any other way to get the source for exactly the version of the package I'm using. Shouldn't I be able to compile from source the exact version of the binary that I have?
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
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.
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.
It's not a misunderstanding on my part. My current circumstance forbids it (corporate legal eagles drive policy). It may be driven by a misunderstanding further up the chain ;) but IANAL.
It has. MEPIS went though this exact thing. They were based off of Ubuntu but ended up having to host the source themselves.
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.
If someone downloaded binaries without source 15 years ago, you still have to be able to give him the source code for that version (if I understand everything correctly). How many projects are able to do that? Or can they just give her the source code for a more recent version? What if the project is dead?
No, you only need to provide source for three years from distribution:GPL, v2, Section 3b:
b) 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; or,
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
Because if so, two copyright lawyers have explained things wrong to me, and I am in violation of the GPL.
The only GPL source I have avail on my own website is the one program I modified.
I use other GPL software in the whole package, however my site simply provides URLs to the authors site where the source code is available for download.
I didn't make any modifications, so fail to see how linking to the authors source (the exact copy im running) vs the url pointing to a local copy of the source on my own webserver, except for whos web host gets the bandwidth bill...
Obviously the one program I modified I have to provide changes on my own site, since the author is not interested in adding the change in upstream, and is a fairly minor change to make it better work with the whole software package. To distribute the binary, I have to make my source changes available.
But I don't see whats wrong about not personally making available the sources of the other GPL packages, since if you want the source, you can still follow the links to get it.
I could see if the author had a habit of deleting older versions and only keeping the latest one on their site, but you don't often see that in the OSS world, its more of a windows and macos shareware world thing.
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
Sorry, you didn't follow "b" closely. If you don't have an official relationship with that FTP site, you aren't even close to compliance- item "b" clearly states you have to provide the copy. Pointing someone to an FTP site that you have no official relationship (they don't know about you or haven't stated that they're providing the sources for you) isn't sufficient, even though it may "work" and is "convenient". It's not really compliance with that term of the GPL licensing grant.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Actually, no. In the case of the example, the requirement for keeping source available for that instance is only for three years from the initial release of said binaries- of which, pretty much all the mainline distributions are in compliance.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
MIT and BSD licenses are "free" for the developer wanting to use the code. The GPL license is "free" for the user using the code and wanting to look at it to learn something or become a developer. With GPL code, some developers are a bit, pardon my language, fucked when it comes to using the code for anything they wanted. Still, they can, e.g. contact the developers of the GPL code for LGPL dual-licensing for them or something like that. It happens. On the other hand, with BSD and MIT code taken by $BAD_BIG_CORPORATION and distributed in a binary-only form, it's the users who are quite fucked. And guess what? They could stand on their teeth and clap their ears and still wouldn't be able to do anything about that.
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
They have to provide the source themselves. They could say "send us $2 and we will mail you it on CD, or alternatively, download version 2.6.15 from kernel.org". Most people will be quite happy to download, but you must provide the source yourself for anyone who wants to be difficult
Either confusion still, or poor selection of words.
The GPL covers nothing about using the software. It grants you the right that copyright restricts, so you are allowed to make a copy into memory to run it, and all of that. And there are no restrictions at all there.
The only restrictions are when you plan to distribute GPL software, at which point there are a number of things you must do to be compliant with the license.
It's quite possible that is what you meant, and due to the restrictions placed on distributing it you can't use it in your project, but that isn't what you said :}
And with that out of the way, yes you are correct. BSD/MIT is the most free licence, as there is literally one restriction, and that is only to leave credit where its due.
There is nothing wrong with that.
However, those that choose to use the GPL for their work, realize they are trading in a small number of their freedoms, in exchange for a much much larger new freedom granted that is a lot more important to them.
They trade the right to do anything with it and total freedom, in exchange for knowing that legally anyone that wants to use your code, has to let you use their version of it if they change it.
And there is nothing wrong with that either, unless your plans are to go take someone elses software that they wrote, and make use of it without sharing back just the same.
You can always find a BSD licensed copy of what you want, and then won't run afoul of copyright violations, or failing that, you can code it yourself or pay a developer to do it under your terms.
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
Depends whether you think freedom to restrict other peoples' freedoms is freedom.
It's possible that if your distribution of GPL software is entirely non-commercial, your lawyers thought provision C applied to you. That provision is explicitly left unavailable to commercial distributors.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
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.
You can do what whatever you like with GPL software, just if you distribute copies of it to your customers (modified or not), you must grant them the same right to see, modify, and distribute the source code as you were given. That's all.
You also have to release to source to any code you link to GPL code. Since most companies use a mixture of in house developed code and code they licensed from third parties the they don't have the right to release the source code to, that means they can't use GPL code.echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I would hope not, I don't want to give source code to my friends when they use my computer to check their myspace.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
Yes, the two lawyers are likely wrong; if you distribute binaries then you must also distribute the source codes whether or not you have modified them. The mere act of distribution is the triggering action for that.
However it is true that unless s/he wants to keep his bandwidth bill down or have you maintain an off-site backup then s/he is unlikely to push the issue.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." â'Linus Torvalds.
So there is at least two valid reasons why it goods for to host even if you don't modify. One you pointed out yourself.
The issue is that then companies will sell locked-down "appliances" instead of computers.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
It's not compliant with item "b", but who cares ?
99% of people don't care as long as they can download it without any problem. For the 1% that absolutely don't want to download from an ftp server you can send them a CD.
wtf.n0x.org
There is no such issue.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
Not true. Section 3c of the GPLv2 states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ...
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I only missed question 6.
Just did the quiz and some of the answers are vague. For example #2, in question #2
II. He can distribute the modified source code alongside the binaries.
I took this to mean ALL of the source with modifications applied, but I got the answer wrong so I'm thinking that they really mean ONLY the modified files. It should be a a little clearer.
The fact that you are selling ("distributing") some hardware does not negate the fact that you are also selling ("distributing") some software. If you obtained that software under the GPL license, then you must comply with the terms of the GPL, including, among other things, if you are selling modified copies of that software (along with your hardware), then you must make the modified source available.
Think 'spirit' vs 'letter'. If you bought software (source) to put on your 'appliance', you would be paying a per-unit fee to the vendor you got it from. GPL software's equivalent to the per-unit fee is "share your modifications (in full source form) with everyone who uses your modified program (regardless of what device it runs on), so that they can (if they choose) make further modifications/enahncements/etc"
Ah but nothing forces you to use that GPL'ed library, you can write it yourself, buy it from some proprietary software vendor or get a MIT/BSD/whatnot licensed version.
- Raynet --> .
Doesn't that mean that every GPL-project needs to be very very careful and make backups of the source code of all releases, however old?
In addition to the other replies, note that this situation of providing an offer of source code only arises if you choose to distribute binaries only. The much simpler way to avoid this issue is to distribute source and binaries at the same time. I also believe it's okay, if you are distributing online, to provide a binary and source link on the same site (i.e., so the user can still download binary only if they choose to save space/time, but you don't have to worry about someone chasing you up three years later).
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/
"Dude, you misspelt shit. Seriously, though, so what? Who cares how the GPL makes you feel? This is about a company *choosing* to use the GPL. If you choose to use a GPL'd app you do so in full knowledge of the copyleft restrictions that in requires. If the GPL "makes you angry" you don't use GPL'd applications. It really is that simple. It's easy to avoid the anger - avoid licenses that anger you."
Music/proprietary applications have a similar license for protecting IP, yet when there are articles about thepiratebay on slashdot, most people are all for it and against the RIAA and MPAA. It's really that simple. If you do
The FSF is essentially doing the exact same thing that the recording industry has been doing for years..and the majority of people here agree with them.
But he said you will provide a CD to anyone who complains, realistically, you don't even have to link to the source code on ANY server, yours or not, as long as you provide the CD.
Providing the CD makes you compliant with the GPL, not linking to the FTP server, that's just convenient
"The DRM being inflicted on software, the security by obscurity, the locking in of software by refusing to permit non-vendor software to be installed, the refusal to allow others to modify and publish the software, all have been a real problem with other licenses."
If you don't like DRM licensed IP, don't use it. Just like the GPL is a choice to use, so is DRM and other proprietary licenses.
"GPL has effectively prevent hardware/software lockins, by Netgear and Linksys. The new GPLv3 will block patent lockins, such as those espoused by Microsoft, and DRM lockins, used by Tivo. None of the other licenses would have prevented this. We've also seen very specific abuses of the other licenses already, such as the Microsoft abuse of the MIT license on Kerberos to break non-Microsoft published Kerberos clients. And the GPL has already helped several companies that I'm aware of from simply adding on their own modifications, refusing to publish their modifications, deliberately making it inoperable with other's versions, and locking clients in this way."
It prevents lockins from naive companies that decide to use GPLd code in their proprietary apps. Even without the GPL, the original code could never be locked. If you release it into public domain, a company could take it and make their changes without releasing, but, the original code would still be there in all its glory.
Well if anyone asks you for the source code you're provided to give it to them yourself to comply. Realistically the only people who would do that are spiteful people trying to catch you out, and you could just send them the source yourself anyway and be compliant.
"But that is for YOUR code ... we are talking here about something else entirely ... your using GPL code which is NOT your own code. Since in this case you did not write the GPL code in the first place, and the GPL code that you received is already public anyway (obviously, since you received it didn't you?) ... then how does it hurt you to re-distribute the source code to others?"
How does it hurt the original author or the community if I make changes to GPLd code and don't release those changes? The original code is still there, but my additions (which took my time and possibly money) are not released.
You are not restricted in any way, except for the fact that you don't get my changes, which weren't yours in the first place.
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.
You aren't distributing the software, so I assume you're safe.
The same probably applies to the GP's post about terminal software, personally I think that users of the terminal SHOULD be allowed the source code, but legally I can't think of how it could be interpreted differently to your situation without a lot of confusion and loopholes.
The copyright holder, who licensed the software under the terms of the GPL.
how to invest, a novice's guide
It's worse. I don't CARE about "not paying". When I buy such a box (I have a DSM 320), I want the freedom to REPLACE the firmware. I want the manufacturer to make it EASY to replace the firmware; after all the firmware is based on GPL licensed material. This has nothing to do with "free as in beer".
I am perfectly willing to spend money buying the device. But I choose devices that use GPL software to allow me the freedom to modify those devices to suit my needs (for example, I want to add flash video to the DSM 320 -- it already has an internet connection,). This shouldn't bother the vendor (it did with Tivo, because Tivo sold a subscription, D-Link didn't), because the box has ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED.
So, make it easy, make it useful, and add a clause stating that the guarantee only applies if the original firmware has been restored.
I understand that the GPL may be incompatible with the "give away the razor, make money on the blades" model; but there are plenty of non-GPL alternatives (that means YOU, Tivo).
But if I buy the whole thing, I want to use as I see fit. And, for a general purpose device, that may go well beyond, or sideways to the intent of the manufacturer (eg. not a GPL example, but XBOX as media center).
That's freedom.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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!
Close, but you missed one thing. The submitter did not receive any binaries from Minerva. He received his binaries from the company that made his IPTV box.
We have no idea how Minerva provided the code to that company. It is possible Minerva provided just source, and the box maker built the binary. Or it is possible that Minerva provided the binaries along with the source. In either of these cases, Minerva has fully satisfied their GPL obligations, and so owes nothing to the submitter.
The submitter needs to be asking the company that actually distributed the binaries to him for the source. Minerva is only on the hook if they distributed binaries to that company without source, opting for satisfying GPL via 3(b).
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.
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.
Since the article does mention Busy Box, I'll explain a little of what I know about it.
Busy Box is a collection of many common Unix shell utilities (sed, ln, ls, etc.). Each package has been scaled down in size and combined into one binary, BusyBox. BusyBox is often used on embedded Linux devices and distros, such as the Sharp Zaurus and the Linux Distro pdaXrom.
See the BusyBox About Page and the BusyBox FAQ for more information.
Dollar Highway Financial News
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!
Under Section 3 of GPL version 2 (still the most common version), you can distribute in executable copies if you also do one of the following: (1) Distribute the source code with it (2) Accompany it with an offer, good for 3 years, to provide a copy of the source code (3) If yours is a non-commercial distribution, you can pass on the offer you received (under #2). So, you can refer back to the original ONLY IF you are not doing a commercial distribution. As far as the GPP's question about somebody 15 years ago getting the binary version, you only have to provide it for 3 years after distribution. So, if you stopped distributing a particular version 4 years ago, you no longer have to distribute source code for that version. (See #2 above.)
Since that's not true (you don't have to prove anything), it's not a loophole. Major or otherwise.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
He'll need to insure that he HAS a copy of the source code to give them, though. He would be well and truly screwed if someone makes the request and the link he figured he could download the source code from is dead?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I think that would be three years from the date that the customer/end-user/whatever got it from you, not from the initial release. Otherwise, I could give the binary to my brother-in-law, wait three years, then release it more widely without having to provide source code.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
Appliance is a marketing term. If GPL software is distributed in binary form, the only pathway for a company to distribute those binaries is to accept the GPL and abide by its conditions. Unless you've developed some ternary processor, no matter how large or small, your "appliance" is still a binary distribution.
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"
You could be right - I've reread the original submission and I'm not sure that I read it as he got the box from !Minerva, but maybe Piranhaa can confirm...
Either way, Piranhaa received binaries, and *should* have receieved either source or an offer of source. And the original troll was a red-herring ;-)
This is where the serious fun begins.
No, you must either *accompany it* with the sources, which providing a clear link to on the same website would suffice for, or (for physical copies) accompany it with a written offer to provide *anyone* the sources for at least *three years* for a charge no higher than the cost of distribution.
I don't know exactly how debian does this, but I'm sure they figured something out.
FYI, I just did the quiz (though with the GPL and LGPL next to it for reference) and I got all 7 questions correct. So, though IANAL, I'm reasonable sure this is the correct interpretation.
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.As far as I can see from Minerva's website, they don't produce any end-user products. Their products seem to consist of hardware and software that a cable company or other TV provider would buy to provide the back end systems for IPTV, and client software for leading set-top boxes, that the TV provider could load onto the boxes the TV provider provides.
Hence, I infer that he got the box from soneone other than Minerva, probably his service provider.
"The majority"? Slashdot is a community consisting of ~1000000 members plus anonymous cowards. Some people post vociferously on GPL topics, others post vociferously on free-MP3 topics. Some people are conservative, some people are liberal. Some people like Macs, others use Linux, some use Windows. Pointing out conflicting attitudes amongst Slashdot posters is like admitting that there's no groupthink. Surprising to you, maybe, but hardly surprising to many of us.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Because the GPL doesn't acknowledge that free and non-free software can coexist.
Honestly, the fact that the Flash Player isn't free is less than ideal, but the fact that the GPL prohibits Ubuntu from distributing it in their main repositories seems a bit silly.
In the end, many are left feeling like an ideology is being forced on them. This has a somewhat negative effect upon the adoption of open-source in the business world. The code-sharing requirement is scary to many corporations, and introduces additional responsibilities, legal liabilities, and costs. Also, if said corporation is using one scrap of proprietary licensed code, things get 100x more complicated.
Although the GPL was created around the fear that corporations wouldn't contribute their code back (which they're not obligated to do with the BSD license), the end result is that companies simply don't use GPL code at all.
BSD-style licenses are nice, because they historically haven't impeded community development, but also don't scare off corporate users.
LGPL is a halfway-decent compromise, and has done a lot to help projects like KHTML/WebKit.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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!
You're missing the whole point. Its so much easier to just download the code and ignore the so-called licenses. The GPL tries to make a social contract and falls flat on its face because not everyone will agree to it even tho its fruits are available.
GPL'd code is a half-baked replacement for public domain code.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"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."
That clause refers to what must be shipped, or more accurately need not be shipped, along with the source (i.e. development tools.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
To a certain extent I can agree. Average Joe User isn't going to care about the source code, much less know what to do with it particularly in the case of an embedded device. However, to someone like myself that actually develops software which runs on embedded devices, the issue of refusing to release GPL covered source I would likely consider eroding the advancement of society rather than augmenting it. If GPL source code that I wrote ended up being used on an appliance distributed by some company, I might be interested in how the code I wrote was being used (eg. Is it used to fulfill the function for which I had originally wrote it? Have they used it to do something I hadn't even thought of? What, if any changes did they make to it?, etc.)
I may be wrong, but part of the point of releasing software under GPL is for advancing society by making sure the source code doesn't disappear into a basement somewhere on tape archive or the like. Which in the case of embedded devices could mean that otherwise useful hardware may be completely useless if the company that produced it were no longer. There are at least a couple not too far-fetched scenarios in which this could be a possibility.
According to GPLv3 "To 'convey' a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy is not conveying." This is essentially the same meaning of "distribute" under GPLv2.
However, v3 also states "If you convey an object code work under this section [6. Conveying Non-Source Forms] in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)." As I understand it, the Affero GPL goes further by including the requirement to "offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source".
Now in the case of say a router where there is essentially no user interface which would be considered "interaction" for anyone other than the owner/maintainer of the device, the distribution issue can get confusing/cloudy. Going further, if the hardware in question is practically impossible to reflash or otherwise modify for the end user, what good is the source code other than for academic study?
Providing a proprietary hardware device that runs an embedded GNU/Linux system I would argue is providing binaries. This is a semantical argument sure, but those binaries are part of the package and are required for the device to work as provided.
I would think that complying with GPL is not much different as far as difficulty for a company than complying with say the license requirements of WinCE or VxWorks.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
If you don't agree with it, you have the choice of writing the software yourself from scratch, or to base your code on other code that comes with a license that you like more, or to convince the copyright holder to allow the use of their software under different terms. Your choice.
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.
No. I believe if you want that, you can use the Affero GPL.
I am trolling
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?
Just tried the GPL quiz. I did poorly I must say.
I'm still a bit confused about it, but it seems like they have to provide the sourcecode for the entire thing, except for stand-alone proprietary programs running 'separately' from everything else, and provided they aren't using GPL libraries.
A lot of people do poorly. I take it once ever year or so. I just took it, and I got one wrong. I don't think I've ever answered it 100% rightly. Maybe next year ;-).
It's funny to me, because I got modded troll on slashdot back in 2000 or so. I claimed that the NSA misunderstood an aspect of the GPL when they hired a contractor to work on SELinux (the contractor included patent-encumbered code in their implementation). People claimed that the GPL is so easy to understand and that I was an idiot, and also that the NSA could not have possibly misconstrued the legal ramifications of the GPL.
If only I could meet the legal geniuses that flamed me ;-).
I'm glad to see that people are actually asking questions about the GPL on slashdot these days, instead of just assuming that they know how it works. It brings a tear to my eye.
Is the end-user - at a public terminal - entitled to the same rights under GPL as the owner of the computer on which the software runs?
Here's a very weird answer. No. This is a point of contention for a lot of people, myself included...
In the case of a public terminal, the 'user' (and by user I mean non-owner) technically never agreed to the the terms of the license. They don't 'own' the binary version of the program, they are just along for the ride. The GPL only stipulates that owners of a binary copy of the program get access to the code. Once they have code, though, they are free to give it away to their friends...
The bigger point of contention for people lately has been web services. If facebook uses a GPL'd web server (or even some GPL'd web service implementation like phpBB) and makes modifications to it, but never releases the binaries to anyone, it can still use that modified server to provide services to people. You only get to use the http interface to the server, not technically the server itself, and so you have no right to the code. Of course, if facebook doesn't do a good job with NDAs, any one of its employees could release the modified code to the world. Facebook may fire the employee, but couldn't sue them. Technically the employee didn't do anything wrong in this example (unless, like I said, Facebook made the employee sign an NDA or some other legal document beforehand that stated the employee would not share modified source code...then Facebook could sue their pants off for violating that agreement).
This whole shebang was, iirc, brought up in the early drafts of the GPLv3. It is hard to say what the right answer here is. I kinda lean towards the 'openness' side of the issue. I submitted a patch to the web server, and if a company modifies the webserver to suit their needs, I would love for them to be required to share their change with the world. The GPL is all about this flow of ideas. Companies, naturally, need to make a profit. If they tweak some software to provide a unique service, they want to protect their investment by not giving the investment away to competitors for free. I guess we'll see who wins in GPLv4 :).
Reid
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Thanks for your considered reponse. I appreciate it.
I submitted a patch to the web server, and if a company modifies the webserver to suit their needs, I would love for them to be required to share their change with the world. The GPL is all about this flow of ideas.Motives can be important, I guess, but the law generalizes. In my case I plan to release my software to the public as a sourceforge project or something, but not in the form it is now (since it's a veritable mess and very customized for the people who asked me to do it). So I don't want it public yet.
In spirit, I accept that the GPL wants me, basically, to release my code to the outside.
I think, though, it's poor form for commercial entities to go ahead designing and releasing GPL based software without thinking ahead and accepting that they have to supply source code to their paying customers.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
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.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.
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'
The source code is already available. If the hardware uses busybox 1.n.n then the company doesn't have to make the source for that available. It already is available.By way of example regarding why one cannot make available something that is already available, the parallel is that I cannot make you a moron, because you already are a moron.
* Either a patent has been appiled for this post, or it is (c) Zero__Kelvin.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The 'hardware' is just a miniature computer. The value is what the software running on it does.
Regardless, if someone releases some software under GPL3, they are basically saying that they do not give permission for someone to distribute modified versions of that software in any form, including embedded in some sort of hardware device.
If the software serves some meaningful purpose on that device, then you are distributing the software. If it doesnt serve a purpose, then the vendor can either write their own code, or buy some code from someone willing to give them permission to use it in that manner.
Lots of people seems to think thatj ust because you dont have to click "Yes" to an EULA or pay money to get it means that you can do any damn thing you want with someone elses GPL'ed code - it doesnt - just like with any other software, you comply with the terms you received it under, or you dont use it.
I think, though, it's poor form for commercial entities to go ahead designing and releasing GPL based software without thinking ahead and accepting that they have to supply source code to their paying customers.
This is precisely the GPL tradeoff.
A lot of times a company can save itself some time and money by using an already-implemented GPL'd program. If a company goes this route, it pretty much has to define its product in one of two ways: hardware, and/or service.
Hardware company examples include Linksys (WRT54 routers), D-Link (Network Attached Storage devices), Sharp (Zaurus PDAs). I would be hard-pressed to call any of these companies 'hardware and service,' as they all pretty much release the hardware and then don't bother offering patched firmware (at least, none of them do it very often). They only make money off of the initial hardware sale, so they have little motivation to fix bugs -- especially when the community can do it for them.
Service companies include RedHat, Canonical, etc. Their bread and butter is selling you technical support and patch services, preferably every year. They do have a lot of motivation to give back to the community, precisely because if no-one else fixes a bug, their customers will walk away. Until recently, RedHat was probably one of those quasi-GPL-violators in my mind: the Red Hat Network was probably built using GPL'd building blocks, but the code was never released (until last week, woohoo!). Note my use of the word 'probably,' here -- I haven't gotten a chance to peruse the satellite server source code yet, I'm mostly speculating :).
Anyway, a company *can* make and save a lot of money by going with the GPL, so long as they fit one of those scenarios (or some other that I'm not thinking of). If a company wants to be a software license company, though, then the GPL is definitely not a wise choice ;-).
Reid
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Except for one small detail: the GPL doesn't require that the source code be available. It requires that the party doing the distributing (or redistributing) make the source code available. Read section 3 of the GPL v2 or section 6 of the GPL v3. The clearest statement is in GPL v3 section 6d, where it says clearly "Regardless of what server hosts the corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.". The servers hosting the BusyBox code aren't obliged to keep version 1.n.n up, and if you depend on them and they take it down you are the one in violation of the GPL by not being able to provide access to the source code as required.
Correct. Cunning, huh? Thus the path to critical mass is blazed.
Right! So the average mobile phone vendor just needs to buy out their OS vendor and the people like Real that license closed source codecs to them. And then give all that code away by putting it under GPL, thereby ensuring that they have little chance of making money out of their investment.The company retains the right to buy out or replace those 3rd parties if they wanted to use the GPL code badly enough.
And they have to do that just because they hired some zealot and he checked in a bunch of GPL code without telling them.
Sounds totally fair to me.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Well, the BusyBox people aren't bound by the GPL's terms. They're the copyright owners, they don't need a license to distribute their own works. They could stop tomorrow, take everything down, close up shop without any further legal obligations to anyone. Only the people who redistributed their code are under any legal obligation to continue providing the source code.
And GPL v2 is even worse. Under it offering access from a network server is not sufficient to satisfy it's section 3b requirements. If you distribute via section 3a and distribute only by offering download from a server then you can offer the sources from the same server and location as the binaries and be OK, but 3b doesn't allow that option in GPL v2. If someone asks, you have to provide the source on a distribution medium. Telling them to go to someone else isn't providing the source code to them on a distribution medium, I'm afraid.
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
Yea, Minerva only creates the software to run on it. It consists of a Widevine DRM backend and Minerva is responsible for the rest. The hardware itself is created by Sigma Designs (who make a lot of the other IPTV and motorola boxes)
It hurts the community in the same way it would have hurt you if the GPL software was instead proprietary. You'd have to spend your money or time to either buy the code or re-invent it. The GPL community, in return for letting you use their free code (which took their time and possibly money, to borrow your phrase), only asks that you do the same, so future generations of programmers can benefit from your "time and possibly money".
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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 ;)
You are correct, and so is the quiz. Note the wording of the question, "which of the following is *not* an obligation of FooCorp" (emphasis mine). Specifically, you *don't* have to make your source code available, you only have to release your modified version of LGPL'd library LibIdo.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
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).
wtf.n0x.org
I invite you to read Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?, from the GPL FAQ. If you were redistributing my code under the GPL and tried to pull that stunt, I would consider your actions to violate the license.
how to invest, a novice's guide
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).
Read what I said, the offer to send the source by mail to whoever is asking is still valid. So I don't see how letting people know that the source is also available on some ftp server could be a violation of the license.
wtf.n0x.org
Copyright laws do not go out of the window depending on the medium. Owners still have the right to decide what can and can't be done, regardless of whether it's an 'appliance' or not.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Apache doesn't use the GPL licence, but rather the "Apache Licence". It comes included with OpenBSD for that very reason. Gcc is the only GPL-based code in OpenBSD, and the very reason why they're moving towards the Portable C Compiler (PCC).
Also, the reason Linksys was forced to distribute the source code for their WRT54G routers was for the exact same reason as the article.
I did, especially the part where you said people who expect you to follow the license are "annoying" and where you asked "who cares" if you follow the license. I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is still "the original author". It doesn't matter if the King of England or the Empress of France thinks that downloading unmodified source code from someone else's FTP site is okay. You're violating the license, and that's copyright infringement, and that's not okay.
Which part of that is difficult for you to understand?
how to invest, a novice's guide
wtf.n0x.org
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
Or do you prefer what Apple did? They got BSD, made it less stable and secure, plastered their UI, locked it and are selling it as OSX. Is that better?
Not that many people would want source for the older versions. But that is the legal requirement.