Slashdot Mirror
Suit Claims Diebold Voting Machines Violate GPL
An anonymous reader writes "Diebold Inc. and its subsidiary, Premier Election Solutions, is using Ghostscript in its electronic election systems even though Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works,' Artifex claims in court papers filed late last month in US District Court for Northern California. The gs-devel list first brought up the possible GPL violation a year ago."
When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.
In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.
Changa hates change.
Moron. The machines in question are running win2k. The software they are distributing with their close systems is ghostscript, which is dual licensed. They either have to have the AFPL commercial license for closed distribution, which they do not, or they have to adhere to the GPL, which they are not.
According to the MPAA and RIAA, Diabold are stealing software. The fact their systems are flawed and they fight tooth and nail to avoid any inspection of their voting machines, also adds insult. Now we know why, they are thieving pirates.
It would be sweet if by some courtroom magic we could use Diebold to fund lots of open source development.
More likely, this will turn into MS FUD about how the GPL is cancer.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Seriously, why do people still publish under the GPL?
These ridiculous lawsuits scare the crap out of anyone who would want to legitimately use open source software, and they completely go against the idea of freedom.
Every time a lawsuit like this happens, it is a huge setback to the open source community. If someone wants to use your software, you have succeeded. Isn't that enough? Software will never be free until this damned license warfare comes to an end.
Dear Diebold,
Due to security problems, many states are no longer going to use voting machines sold by by your company. From a warranty standpoint, your product never lived up to our expectation, there for we want our money returned.
American Tax Payer
PS: Don't you also provide Bank ATM's? Should we be concerned about security of these devices too?
Real question here - I am not a lawyer, so I'm curious. Say for the purpose of argument, the Diebold machine runs Win2k, and happens to have a stock, unmodified copy of Ghostscript which it uses on that system for creating and printing a "receipt" of some sort.
Given that scenario, under the GPL, is Diebold still required to make a copy of the ghostscript code available, if they've made no modifications to it? Or could they simply put on their web site, "Diebold uses the open-source tool Ghostscript, v8.2.1, which can be downloaded from "?
It doesn't make sense that running the ghostscript app on their system would force them to provide "all the source code for their entire system," and it also doesn't make sense that if they're using the app unmodified, they should have to provide for some sort of hosting mechanism when there's already a definitive hosting platform for it and they're "just using" the app as distributed by that company.
So I'm curious - anybody have any insight?
Actually, if you look at the mail thread linked in the summary, they *ARE* doing this on Windows.
Someone looking at the setup noticed some Ghostscript files being changed so he mailed the gs-devel list asking for ideas.
Incorrect. The GPL governs copy, modifying, distributing, and sublicensing. If you do any one of those (outside of any rights you have under law that do not require a license from the copyright holder), you are permitted to do so only under the terms of the license. Some terms of the license are only relevant to certain of those acts (or certain combinations of them).
Note, particularly, Section 4, which states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." And note that that's an or not an and, so copying and modification are each covered, even without distribution. (This is particularly true of modification, as underlined in Section 5.)
(Its also, I would say, debatable whether a voting system, designed to run one application and, by design, not having components that can be used separately, would be a "mere aggregation" of separate works, rather than a single work derived from its components, for the purposes of the GPL -- remember that the GPL "derived work" vs. "mere aggregation" distinction isn't restricted to the copyright law definition of derived works, insofar as the copying and distribution would, under copyright law, require a license whether or not the work is an unmodified copy or a derivative work.)
But how would they (the GPL folks) handle it if the hardware was leased just for election day. I.e., the precincts pay Diebold $LARGE sum to deliver, set up, run, tear down, and take back the machines each election. Then Diebold isn't distributing anything. They're just providing a service.
How would the MAFIAA handle it if someone were to do the same with DVDs or BLU-RAYs and large portable theaters? I'm pretty sure that not only would the MAFIAA see such use as distribution, so would the courts.
While I appreciate the information you provided & thank you for it, please bear in mind that not all of us have read the GPL from start to finish, or have a copy on hand to cut and paste from. The condescension is not strictly necessary.
I asked that question seriously, because I don't understand the legal nuances of the GPL and hoped someone could answer the question - I've received several informative answers, yours included. When you answer questions in this fashion, you only serve to alienate people who are just looking for information or clarification.
Yeah, sorry. We've been discussing the GPL on Slashdot for a good decade now. It's required reading material. You wouldn't go to a bible meeting and ask "Who's this Jesus guy you keep talking about?" Ok, bad example, their eyes would light up like Christmas trees. :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well, now that I've been informed what constitutes a good question, I'll make sure that next time I have a question for my doctor, I read a relevant Anatomy & Physiology book first. And god forbid I ask any lawyer for advice without having first gotten a year or two of law school out of the way.
If you found my question to be lacking, you could have simply ignored the question and carried on with your business on Slashdot. However, by behaving as if the mere fact of a question about the application of the GPL is some sort of personal affront to you, what you've managed to do is make yourself look like a pedantic douchebag.
And then open source advocates will wonder why they have a problem getting the general public to understand what all the fuss is about... I wonder why.
It would be nice if that were true, but I'm pretty sure it's not true in U.S. law today. For example, I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to publicly perform that DVD (project it to a public audience) without a special license that doesn't come from the DVD store.
Bruce Perens.
While I appreciate the information you provided & thank you for it, please bear in mind that not all of us have read the GPL from start to finish, or have a copy on hand to cut and paste from. The condescension is not strictly necessary.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=GPL
First result: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The condescension was not strictly necessary, but not completely unwarranted either. This is not the Ubuntu mailing list, there to gently guide to towards understanding. There would be many here who think that if you're going to discuss the GPL, it isn't too much to expect you to read it first. If you don't, it is not up to us to make sure you feel good about that.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I'm trying to give you some advice here.
Once he pulled you up on your attitude instead of being embarrassed at not having just looked it up himself, you should have realised the futility of this.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/