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.
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.
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?
Because the GPL ensures freedom for the people who use the software down the chain?
Why give out free software and not make sure it is free for all under the same conditions you gave it?
Why should someone have their opensource software closed up by someone else?
In making opensource software the idea is to make opensource software, not to make the basis for closed source software.
If you intend to never give source, do not use free software, write your own. It is not a huge burden to put the source on your webpage somewhere.
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?
If people are writing software with the sole aim of having it used by others, then there are licences for that too. People publish under the GPL because it represents what they believe in. There's obviously demand for it, which is why its used.
Sorry, I know I should feed the trolls.
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.