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."

Comments

Are they distributing the software?

[jfinke]

If not, where would the violation be?

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[CppDeveloper]

When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Anonymous Coward]

The software is distributed with the voting machines.

IANAL, but that should mean that Diebold are required to supply the source to people/organizations that buy their machines.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[rbanffy]

I think they sell the electronic ballots. This _is_ distributing the software and, as far as I understand the GPL, it's also a copyright violation.

It would be sweet if by some courtroom magic we could use Diebold to fund lots of open source development.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[dotancohen]

When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.

Google Linksys, they were in a similar situation a few years ago. I'd love to see the same outcome this time!

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[dotancohen]

The software is distributed with the voting machines.

IANAL, but that should mean that Diebold are required to supply the source to people/organizations that buy their machines.

More likely, they will buy the alternative license for GhostScript: GS's own "AFPL" license.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[dotancohen]

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.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[jfinke]

Thanks! I had a brain fart there.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Americano]

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?

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Score Whore]

You're right. 1) At most they only have to provide this to the people that they've sold machines to. Anyone else can go roger a knothole. 2) Aggregation, as you note, doesn't lead to licensing infection.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[QuantumG]

Sigh. The GPLv2 makes it perfectly clear that the "offer to provide source code" method of binary distribution can only be passed on from a third party for non-commercial distribution.

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:

        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.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for 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.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

It's pretty straightforward english.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[LordNimon]

If Windows comes with Ghostscript, then Microsoft has already gotten permission to distribute it.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[h4rr4r]

They would have to give source for the version they used. Putting a gostscript.tar.gz in the c:/ would have been good enough.

Linking to a license text or source code on servers other than yours. This amounts to GPL Section "3c" (passing on a written offer), which is only valid for non-commercial distribution. They committed commercial distribution. So they should have just dropped a src tar on the machine or on a cd that came with it.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[eean]

If you distribute binaries you have to distribute the source or provide some mechanism for getting the source for 3 years. It doesn't matter what makes sense or not: these are the rules the GPL makes up.

There was recently a court case that said since that the GPL and other such licenses could make up any sort of rules they want essentially.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[michaelhood]

It doesn't matter what makes sense or not: these are the rules the GPL makes up.

Hrmph. That accurately sums up my take on the GPL/FSF, too!

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[characterZer0]

The outcome of the Linksys situation was that code was released giving people enough information to run Linux on consumer hardware. I can't imagine they have changed Ghostscript in any way that would be useful or interesting to consumers.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[cheater512]

The GPL does specifically state that you need to host the source for at least 3 years, if its modified or not.

Its so you will always be able to find a copy.
Older versions seem to be more difficult to find.

And no they only need to provide source to their customers for the GPLed parts.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Americano]

Sigh. [ . . . ] It's pretty straightforward english.

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.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[QuantumG]

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. :)

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

well hey, if you want to agree to the contract, then you are bound by it. I dunno what you're on about.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[CodeBuster]

Ok, bad example, their eyes would light up like Christmas trees. :)

One gets the impression reading Slashdot that a geek questioned about the GPL would have a similar response.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Americano]

Yeah, sorry. We've been discussing the GPL on Slashdot for a good decade now.

Understood. But to refine your example of a bible meeting further, I didn't ask "What is this GPL thing you're talking about?" I asked about how the "distribution" clause of the GPL would impact this particular scenario, because it isn't immediately obvious to me how it would work. Think of it more like going to the bible meeting and asking, "What's all this I hear about turning water into wine?"

It may be obvious and well-known information to people who are familiar with the bible, but to someone who has only passing knowledge of the bible, it's not a question that's so basic that the ramifications of the answer are immediately obvious.

That said, I do appreciate the information contained in your initial response. I understand the "RTFGPL, we've been talking about it for 10 years" frustration, just felt it was worth pointing out that my question was an honest attempt to increase my own understanding of how the GPL works in a practical situation such as this. I don't write code for a living, so software licensing is not a domain I'm familiar with.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[QuantumG]

If it is a good question. But if you ask a question about the GPL without first reading the GPL, then you're not asking a good question.

   

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Kingrames]

Likely Diebold is going to make the case that it's a matter of national security, which any god-fearing judge is going to accept.

Of course we realize it's a stupid argument and shouldn't be accepted but it doesn't change the fact that they can easily use a lot of scary words like "source code" or "open" or "free."

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[slimjim8094]

The code was Linux.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Americano]

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.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[GigaplexNZ]

The outcome of this may be that we get the source to the voting machines, so we can analyse it for election rigging. Far more useful than running custom Linux builds on Linksys hardware in my opinion.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[QuantumG]

You pay your doctor and your lawyer right?

There's a difference.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Americano]

And as an unpaid contributor to Slashdot, you are more than welcome to pass on by my question without a second thought, and let some other person take a stab at it if they wish. Instead, you seem to have concluded that my question was some sort of a personal affront that you couldn't let go unanswered.

If you're inclined to pontificate about the terms of a "good" question, then I'll exercise my freedom to state the terms of what I consider an acceptable answer. Your condescension only serves to alienate people who might otherwise be interested in learning more about the GPL & its implications.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Peaker]

The code was already found on a public FTP site by the founder of blackboxvoting.org

The code is totally insecure, and has many vulnerabilities.

Rest assured, there are multiple ways to rig the voting machines.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[jonbryce]

The outcome may be that you get the source to the ghostscript library that runs on the machine, which probably looks like the source to every other ghostscript library in the world.

Or rather, you probably won't get it. The election officials who ordered the machine will get it.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[jonbryce]

Distribution the output of the software ie the ballots, is outside the scope of the GPL.

Letting people use your computer which contains free software is also outside the scope of the GPL.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[QuantumG]

I'm trying to give you some advice here.

But hey, don't listen to me, go ahead and continue asking geeks questions that are answered already.. see how far you get.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Ajaxamander]

I have to admit that I had to look nearly every part of it, but "Go roger a knothole" is probably my new favorite expression.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[TheRaven64]

I suspect most of the frustration comes from the fact that complete ignorance of the GPL doesn't seem to stop people commenting on it (or on using it to license their code, sadly).

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, you're not alone.

I asked a similar question about open source begging pardon for ignorance and a couple particular condescending, pontificating 5-digit ID dickheads sat there having fun with my ignorance, one of them making fun of the school I attend while calling me "young padawan".

To the pontificators: Yeah, quoting Episode 1 is REAL geek cred, fuckin' windbags! When you're done jackin' off to Natalie Portman you can make yourself useful and offer pragmatic solutions which don't require having programmed on a cray since age 5. And take a fucking bath while you're at it! I may not be full-of-shit consultant, but I AM getting pussy tonight and I wouldn't trade it for what you have, suckers!

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Anonymous Coward]

to make it shorter

diebold is basically selling their machines with os + additional needed applications with -their- license

now if ghostscript really happens to be used by them with -their- license, this is a definitely severe violation of the gpl license, which says that you -must- distribute the gpl license for the applications which use them

they -can- license ghostscript from artifex, so they dont have to distribute their version BUT that costs - and looking at the dev list, they didnt licensed it from artifex!

basically its the same like downloading 10m+ mp3's over a p2p network and selling them on the fleemarket or similar for profit (even worse, as they try to put their own license on it)

and yeah, 10m+ mp3's might not make up for the same amount of loss in license money which artifex should have gotten by them

(10m by the calculation of RIAA/MPAA of course :) )

---
any mistakes in grammar and else by me are of course my own inventive creations and so belong to me - any copying of them results in a lawyer sending you letters :p

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[rohan972]

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.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[rohan972]

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.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. [ . . . ] It's pretty straightforward english.

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.

GFE

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Mozk]

I was about to say the same. :-P

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[QuantumG]

Yeah, good point. But hey, posting on Slashdot is like running in the special olympics......

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[DragonWriter]

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.

So, you have an internet connection that lets you get to slashdot, but not (among other places) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html?

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[CountBrass]

So what you're saying is that we should tolerate fuckwits like you who comment on stuff they know nothing about?

I think not.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[gnud]

without any mention of the fact that they just could have bought a GS lisence :|

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[dotancohen]

without any mention of the fact that they just could have bought a GS lisence :|

That's the whole point: it appears that they did not. I know, one has to open TFA to get that far, though, sorry...

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[drerwk]

Well you've gotten flamed.
But, if you have any real interest, it is not a long document. If you write software or consume software and are self selected by being on /. . Then you really should read it and think about it. Spend an hour doing so. Think back to school and how many hours you had to spend to appreciate some subtly of your course work.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Conficio]

One ting to keep in mind, the GPL does not require publishing the source on a website. It requires to offer it to the recipient of the distribution, attached with the right to redistribute under the same terms.

So Diebold's obligation is not to put it on a website for all public. They can deliver it on a CD or similar. But any of the counties and states that receive it, can re-publish it in any way they want.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[u-235-sentinel]

When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.

And if the SCO group was somehow involved, it's interesting to note they would be 'claiming' you could be sued by them for using these machines to vote on.

Since they violate the IP that is :-)

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[NeoSkandranon]

Thirded. Best expression ever.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[stiggle]

The license for Ghostscript is ONLY GPL if the rest of the stuff it is being shipped with is GPL, otherwise you need a commercial license. So if they want to ship Ghostscript using the GPL license then that means the whole voting machine software has to be GPL. http://www.artifex.com/indexlicense.htm

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[HiThere]

If the code is under the GPL, and they distribute the code, then they are required to provide the source either at the time of distribution, or on request for the next 3? 7? (I should look this up, but I'm lazy) years.

If they provide the source at the time of distribution, then they have no further obligations, and only the purchasers are entitled to the source. If they don't, then I believe that anyone is entitled to request the source. (I'd have to check the license again to be certain of that part.)

Anyway, the easy way to handle it is to distribute the source with the application, and that's what I do. If, however, you sell lots, then it becomes cheaper to set up an ftp site...but you can also insist that anyone who wants to get the code from you mail in a request, and you can bill for "reasonable shipping and handling". (I read that as "you aren't supposed to make money on the shipping and handling, but it shouldn't cost you either".)

(I'm pretty clear about what applies if you ship the code with the application...but I'm less clear about the options I don't use.)

N.B.: This only applies to the GPL licensed code. Ghostscript is a separate chunk of code, so if they didn't embed it into their program, all they would need to do is ship the Ghostscript code as they had shipped it with the binary. This is likely to be a nothing suit. (OTOH, anything that gets in the way of the corrupt Diebold voting machines is good, and if it *should* result in their sale being prevented, even better. And they MAY have altered the code to print results other than what were calculated, who knows.)

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[HiThere]

There's no obligation to put it on a web site, but I believe that unless they distribute the source code at the same time that they distribute the application, they need to make the source code available to anyone who asks.

OTOH, that's just the source code to the GPL code. There's nothing that says their Visual Basic code has to be made available for all to ruin their eyes on. (Well, they were reported many years ago as using MSAccess as their database.)

Anyway, snideness aside, their code is their code, and licensed however they choose. Other people's code, however, is licensed as the other people choose. The part that's under GPL has a requirement that you make the source code available...either at the time of distribution to the recipient or on request by anyone, your choice. But after you've distributed it, you've already chosen. (But, of course, this requirement only applies to the GPL code. I once called an Eiffel program that I write from MSAccess. The Eiffel program was GPL [not that it mattered, I was just being purist], but that certainly didn't mean that I had to distribute MSAccess.)

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Americano]

So what you're saying is that we should tolerate fuckwits like you who comment on stuff they know nothing about? I think not.

Apparently on Slashdot, it's regressed from not reading TFA to not even reading TF Comments you reply to now, huh? I didn't "comment on stuff," I asked a question about how the GPL would apply, and in fact stated that I wasn't conversant enough with the GPL to understand what it would require of Diebold.

But don't let the fact that I stated no opinion about the GPL stop you from your bout of indignant nerdrage. Just be careful, please, you wouldn't want to spew doritos and mountain dew all over your keyboard. As one of the 'leet slashdotters in the know about the GPL, I'm sure you also know what a bother it is to clean up the sticky messes you've created at the computer.

Fuckwit.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[Conficio]

You are wrong here on both counts.

The GPL does state that you can

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,

to fulfill your source code obligation. "Accompany", I think, indicates you only have to make that offer to the person you distribute the code to. No mention needing to make it publicly available.

However, you can not restrict the right of the party you give it too to distribute/publish it as they see fit (with in the license of the GPL).

You are also (potentially) wrong regarding only offering the code that is already under the GPL. As often mentioned the GPL is viral in nature. If you mix your code with GPL code that fulfills in its entirety the function of the program than you have to deliver all source code, the one that you licensed under the GPL and the code you wrote yourself.

That does not mean you need to license under GPL any application that interoperates with GPL code, such as an OS. But if you link your code with a GPL library, then you have to license your code under the GPL. Remember, GPL does not equal LGPL.

Don't know what you mean with "called an Eiffel" program. So hard to say what your obligations are.

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[HiThere]

It's a program that I wrote in SmallEiffel for MSWind. I forget exactly what the re-packager called it, but it didn't need to be recompiled to work on MSWind as a compiler. Unfortunately that was discontinued. Even more unfortunately, SmallEiffel acquired new maintainers who aren't particularly interested in backwards compatibility. As a result even if I still had the code and an MSWind system I could no longer compile it.

I'm counting "Accompany with a written offer" as making the choice at the time of distribution...but I you appear to be right that one doesn't need to actually do the distribution at that time.

Also the Eiffel program was a stand alone program (rather like GhostScript in that regard) that I wrote which was called from MSAccess which passed it a few file names and said "process this!". It could have been run from the command line, but it was more convenient to do it this way.

Similarly Ghostscript is a stand alone program. Unless you modify the code drastically you can't say that it's a part of some other program. (Of course, they may have done just that. I don't know.)

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[rbanffy]

They are selling the ballots to local governments, aren't they?

Re:Are they distributing the software?

[sumdumass]

It wouldn't matter what their site claims are. Who is to say they received their copy VIA the site and saw the extra restrictions to the GPL that the GPL itself doesn't allow. If I received a copy that was GPLed, from a a product which was GPLed, then I could do anything the GPL allows with it regardless of commercial status or not.

As long as the implementation of the code meets the GPL guidelines which don't bar commercial use or distribution, there is little they can do about commercial use because the GPL already gives permission. You can't say you can only use this with this license if you don't follow the license.

On a related note:

[Smidge207]

I've been considering making a Firefox extension, or a greasemonkey script, to filter attention whore articles, such as those about Jack Thompson, Uwe Boll, John Dvorak, or those submitted by Roland. Filtering kdawson would be good too. Unfortunately, I have no experience writing extensions or greasemonkey scripts for Firefox.

On the other hand, if we filtered all of the stories that we complain about on Slashdot, there would be nothing left. Then where would we waste our time?

=Smidge=

Re:On a related note:

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that there are is a filter in your preferences that let you filter by "author".

Learn your preferences. Use them.

Then complain if you can't filter shit out.

I liked this video.

[generic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

Re:I liked this video.

[BenSchuarmer]

There's been a revision: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of

Re:I liked this video.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this one better.

Re:I liked this video.

[Anonymous Coward]

So generic is rated -1 offtopic and benschuarmer is marked 5 funny? This place makes no sense.

The thing is

[Jeremy Visser]

The GPL only applies when you distribute software. They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.

For one of the people who will be running the election hall on election day, when they get delivery of the election machine, is that counted as receiving a copy of the software?

The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.

If that is not the case, hit me with a cluebat.

Re:The thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.

Considering they *sell* the machines to the government, that most certainly counts as distribution.

Just because it's loaded on closed hardware doesn't mean that it's not being distributed.

For one of the people who will be running the election hall on election day, when they get delivery of the election machine, is that counted as receiving a copy of the software?

Unless Diebold is

A) a part of the US government

or

B) running the election

that's pretty much irrelevant. They're distributing the machine to the government, who sends them to the election halls, and *that* is what counts as distribution.

Re:The thing is

[tthomas48]

Many people have said this, but delivering software on a hardware platform is delivering it. This is why we have source code for things like the linux running on Linksys routers. The routers are mean to be as locked up as a voting machine, but because of the GPL they are forced to distribute the source.

Re:The thing is

[cl0s]

If that is not the case, hit me with a cluebat.

1. Swing
2. ???
3. *splat!*

Re:The thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.

the software on the machines they sell doesn't leave their company? how can they do that?

For one of the people who will be running the election hall on election day, when they get delivery of the election machine, is that counted as receiving a copy of the software?

does that machine work without any software? why the hell wouldn't you consider it's being distributed?

The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.

and PC's are closed and locked with screws. can you sell them with a pirated copy of windows on their hard drive?

Re:The thing is

[bmwm3nut]

This is something I never thought of before today. 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. This would be similar to if I modify a GPL webserver that stays on my personal server. I'm never distributing the software, just giving the output to someone (people who browse my site). Here Diebold isn't distributing the software, just giving the tallies of the votes to someone (people who count the votes).

Re:The thing is

[Gat0r30y]

A) a part of the US government

Well it looks like A) came true: DRE 700 for pres!

Re:The thing is

[SydShamino]

1. If I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you borrow my laptop, have I distributed Linux and am I required to provide you wish the source? 2. What if I let you borrow it for money, aka "lease" it?

3. What if I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you into my home or office to use my laptop; have I distributed it then?

I'm pretty sure the answer to 3. is NO. I'm not so sure about 1. or 2.

Re:The thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you are right, this type of case is not covered in the normal GPL.

The GPL folks also seem to have realized this and if you are building webservices, then you can avoid this scenario by using the AGPL (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html).

I'm not sure of the details, but as far as I understood the AGPL also requires you to offer the source-code to users of your webservice.

Re:The thing is

[Richard_at_work]

There would probably be cries of 'circumvention!!!' and demands for the GPLv4 to 'fix' the 'problem' :)

Re:The thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Then that would be legal, as they aren't distributing the software. Same way you can use Apache and PHP without providing a copy of the source (or offering to) to each of your website visitors.

Re:The thing is

[squeeze69]

But my question is.. how can YOU (I mean in the U.S.A.) trust a software for elections w/o seeing it's source?? BTW. Your elections are a nightmare all over the world, internet,tv,newspapers.. Uh.. and... Please, forgive (and forget) any italian politician (no matter the party) flying around.. they are politicians after all they don't really know what they are doing.

Re:The thing is

[calmofthestorm]

The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.

That you can make from pictures foolishly posted online. Does anyone seriously doubt that Diebold machines are, at best, woefully badly made?

To put it another way (true conversation):

Nerd One: I don't get it, it's not hard to design a machine with buttons that counts ballots fairly in a secure manner.
Nerd Two: It's not hard, there's just no market for it.

Re:The thing is

[DragonWriter]

The GPL only applies when you distribute software. They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.

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.)

Re:The thing is

[Jherek Carnelian]

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.

Re:The thing is

[bmwm3nut]

Well, I think in the case of movies or music when you purchase the CD or DVD you're also purchasing a license that prohibits public performance (or maybe it's implied that you're not allowed to do public performance). I know that the guy who runs my gym is aware that he's not really allowed to play music off of his iPod during classes, but he does anyway. So in your example, the large portable theaters are a case of public performance (the definition of public performance is all insane - I remember during the Superbowl, you weren't allowed to have a party and have a screen size greater than 52" or it was considered public). But I'm definitely allowed to take my CD or DVD to a friend's house and watch that.

Re:The thing is

[aztracker1]

How elections in the USA are handled is determined by each state. There are some federal laws guide-lining (usually through funding mandates) how certain aspects are to be held. I like the optical scanned ballots that Arizona uses myself... much better, more efficient, and have a paper trail unlike the eVoting machines being "tested" here and there. I'd rather fill out a paper ballot, and have it scanned, than stand in extra long lines, waiting for people to figure out how to touch the screen and click next.

Re:The thing is

[Jherek Carnelian]

That's because public performance is considered distribution to the public.

Re:The thing is

[Ost99]

You don't buy a license when you buy a DVD. You buy a DVD.

No license is required to use a DVD you've bought.

Local law might limit what you can and cannot do with copyrighted material. You need a license only if your use falls under the "cannot do" category in your laws. Distribution usually falls under the "cannot do" category. Public performance too. But this is not a result of a restrictive license.

Re:The thing is

[jonbryce]

No. They have to actually sell you the Linksys router for you to be entitled to the source.

You are not entitled to the source for your internet café's Linksys, however the café owner is.

Re:The thing is

[BitFlipr]

Nerd One could be Thomas Edison who had an early patent on voting systems. If Nerd Two had been around then, he may never have done it.

If I recall correctly, Edison described it as one of his first and biggest failures, from which he learned a lot.

Re:The thing is

[cdrguru]

The problem with Arizona is they may not have results until later on Wednesday. By then, the TV News folks will have announced the unofficial winner. That will probably take place by 10:00 PM Arizona time.

This pretty much means that voting in Arizona is pointless. The results aren't going to be of much use.

Oh wait, what if the results from Arizona change the entire election? Sure, do you really believe that if Obama is the winner before Arizona's results are counted that there could possibly be a change allowed to occur? I doubt it. We run "media elections" where the winner is projected from exit polls. The real results from machines like Arizona has take too long to get and tablulate. So they don't count anymore.

Re:The thing is

[Bruce Perens]

No license is required to use a DVD you've bought.

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.

Re:The thing is

[squeeze69]

I see. Thanks for the explanation. I agree. After all the scanning is more fast and secure. In case of troubles the paper is a little bit more difficult to change or to hide than an electronic vote.

Re:The thing is

[zenyu]

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.

No license is involved in a DVD purchase, you buy a piece of plastic. What you can do with that piece of plastic is governed by local law and custom. You only need a license to do things not allowed by law. In the US, prohibited things include such infractions as watching it on a >9' diagonal projection screen, or allowing the general public to view its contents without providing them with alcohol.

Copyright regulations are only incidentally related to the "public exhibition" laws. These laws do not have anything to do with regulating the number of copies you make of the plastic disc nor the fate of such copies when you sell the disc. In the US they can be argued better under the commerce clause than the copyright clause, it's more like the laws that allow states to prevent the import of milk from other states; instead of a market regulation intended to help milk processing plants with a twelve day monopoly on fresh milk, it's a market regulation intended to fund the creation of movies via a twelve decade monopoly on the public exhibition of that movie. Twelve months would probably be sufficient and I think royalties rather than monopoly would be a better idea in the case of movies, as watching a movie is not quite the same thing as drinking a glass of fresh milk. But congress has wide latitude to regulate commerce between and within the states and could grant a 12 million year monopoly if they wanted to, quite separate from copyrights which in the US are limited in length to a term compatible with the public good.

Re:The thing is

[tthomas48]

The issue becomes a little more complex when it's an Internet cafe equally owned by the people of California.

Re:The thing is

[HiThere]

Case 1: You are engaged in non-commercial distribution, so you only need to be willing to tell me how to get a copy.

Case 2: This is commercial distribution. If requested you must provide the source...so you'd better keep a copy for 3 years.

Case 3: Home. Non-Commercial. Not sure about distribution. If so see Case 1. Work. Probably commercial. Not sure about distribution, but if so see Case 2...either that or already technically illegal under misuse of company property.

Note that in all cases you have no obligation to distribute the software unless requested to do so. Also the courts are reputed to occasionally use common sense, so when there's no obvious intent to flout the license they will often avoid hair-splitting details, and just allow approximate remediation. (If you can't provide the exact patch set that was running on your computer on that day, it's probably still ok if you aren't engaged in large scale commercial activity.)

Re:The thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

RIAA did not provide Diebold with a license to use their content, so it's completely different

Re:The thing is

[aztracker1]

Take too long to tabulate? They're scanned immediately, and the results uploaded electronically... it's as close to immediate as possible. And, one optical scanner can process 20+ ballots in less time than an eVoting machine takes. Arizona results are generally available right as the polls close, or at least as those in line are done. We aren't using punch cards here.

Re:The thing is

[Jherek Carnelian]

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.

That is because public performance is considered distribution and distribution is regulated by copyright law. There is no additional 'license' restricting use of a DVD beyond the law as defined by USC title 17.

Another way to look at it is that if you were to read an entire book out loud, or play a CD to a stadium of people, that too would be considered distribution and against the law. Yet books and CDs clearly do not come with any sort of license.

Ghostscript was found only on

[SupremoMan]

the voteMcCain models.

Re:Ghostscript was found only on

[calmofthestorm]

Oh so THAT's why only blue districts need anti-virus applied just before election day

Yes it does.

[maz2331]

The GPL is pretty strict about any distribution requiring source being made available. Embedded devices are no exception.

Re:Yes it does.

[athakur999]

The GPL only states you have to provide the source code to those who you distribute the binaries too. There is no requirement that the source be available the public at large. While most companies provide the source without any requirement to also have the binaries, this is not a requirement of the GPL.

Anyway, this suite is seems stupid. Isn't the whole point of the GPL and open source in general that the developer is explicitly giving permission to anyone to "modify, copy, or distribute" their software without prior permission? If this lawsuit succeeds than every Linux distribution out there is going to have to send a flood of emails out for every single open source package they provide to get explicit permission to distribute it.

Re:Yes it does.

[Em Ellel]

The GPL is pretty strict about any distribution requiring source being made available. Embedded devices are no exception.

Erm, the person who modded that as "Informative" needs some education - it is a misleading statement at best. Requirement for distributing source only applies to MODIFIED source. You are allowed to distribute unmodified code under GPL however you like:

From GPL:

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

Re:Yes it does.

[JesseMcDonald]

That section specifically applies to distributing unmodified source code; this thread was about distributing binaries.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ...

Obviously you don't need to offer the original source code to those to whom you're distributing unmodified source code; they already have it.

Re:Yes it does.

[FLEB]

From the above:

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium...

Re:Yes it does.

[One Louder]

Not correct - read GPLv2 Section 3 again.

If you don't provide the source *with* the binaries (Section 3(a)), then you must make the source available to everyone (Section 3(b)).

The third option, pointing to the upstream provider (Section 3(c)) only applies to non-commercial distribution, which this isn't.

Re:Yes it does.

[ray-auch]

Wrong. Read it again carefully.

3(b) requires you to provide an offer that itself is redistributable to any third party. This is so that the recipient can redistribute the binary + your source offer. There is no requirement that you separately distribute the offer to "everyone".

Any recipient could post the your binary + source offer on a website for everyone to use (and you would have to honour the source offer), however if no recipient chooses to do so, "everyone" does not get the offer.

Re:Yes it does.

[totally bogus dude]

Check out http://www.artifex.com/indexlicense.htm

They dual-license the software under their own license for commerical (non-GPL-compliant use); and under the GPL for free.

Note that this is GPL and not LGPL. Even if they use an unmodified version of Ghostscript, if the voting machines are using the Ghostscript API then the voting software must itself be licensed under the GPL.

Alternatively, they can get a license from Artifex for commercial distribution, which means their application doesn't have to be under the GPL.

Obviously the voting machine software isn't GPLd, therefore they need a commercial license. The existence of this suit suggests Diebold didn't obtain a commercial license, but their distribution doesn't comply with the terms of the GPL.

Re:Yes it does.

[Em Ellel]

heh, guess I was flat out wrong... sorry

-Em

I Am Shocked On Several Opposing Levels!

[eldavojohn]

This is just another software patent case gone awry in a broken system with ... wait, what? It's against Diebold? Those thieves! They are stealing open source software and should be distributing the source code with the ... wait, what? It's a copyright issue? Copyright is bad, mmkay? We need to reform copyright to be limited until it enters public domain! All Diebold machines should be impounded ... wait, what? There's an election going on and that will inhibit American brand Democracy?

Screw it, I give up.

Overlook the matter

[Rik Sweeney]

Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works

In a later statement, Artifex said that they would overlook this violation if all the machines were reconfigured to auto-vote for Obama.

Re:Overlook the matter

[Gothmolly]

Aren't they already configured that way, or was it just the 2:1 media bias towards him?

Re:Overlook the matter

[Rik Sweeney]

Whoops, got modded as a troll. I reckon I can still claw this back though:

In a later statement, Artifex said that they would overlook this violation if all the machines were reconfigured to auto-vote for McCain.

There, that should keep everyone happy :)

Re:Overlook the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with dedicated threads for this, you stupid wanna-be-talking-head political wankers have to shit on every other topic here.

I will just be glad when the election is over so we can all return to discussing things without it devolving to "left vs right" and "us vs them" political debate. You guys are being led by your noses for fuck's sake. Stop parroting, stop regurgitating, and start thinking for yourselves. Goddamnit, this shit has gone on far too long. Get an education and get some critical thinking skills.

Just please, for the sake of all of us, stop fagging up every topic with this bullshit political tripe.

Re:Overlook the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the [Green Party, Libertarian, independent, ...] candidate, you insensitive clod?!

Re:Overlook the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

There, that should keep everyone happy :)

A guy walks into a bar, gets a beer, and announces, "Obama is a horse's ass!".
When he picks himself up off the ground outside, he walks back in, and says, "McCain is a horse's ass!"
After picking himself up off the ground again, he walks back in, and says to the bartender, "I don't get it. If it's not McCain country, and it's not Obama country, then what is it?"
The bartender says, "Son, this is *horse* country."

Re:Overlook the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The Diebold CEO retorted that his voting machines did not need modification to comply with this request, therefore the Artifex suit was frivolous.

Re:Overlook the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

In a later statement, Artifex said that they would overlook this violation if all the machines were reconfigured to auto-vote for McCain.

Isn't that the default configuration?

GPL was violated

[Changa_MC]

If you give people GPLed software to use you must also make the source (including all changes you've made) available to them. That is not waived just because you don't let them take the program home.

In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.

Re:GPL was violated

[Anonymous Coward]

But these are voting machines which means everything must be secret!

Re:GPL was violated

[Richard_at_work]

In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.

Looks like we have another person that doesn't understand how the GPL works - the voters get to demand nothing, since the software was not distributed to them. Only the people that received the hardware from Diebold can request the source code from Diebold, the voters are not receivers of anything in this case.

So, the question becomes - has anyone who purchased or rented a Diebold voting machine actually requested the source code, and if so what was the result?

Remember, Diebold doesn't have to conduct any of this in public - they don't have to make their code available to the world at large, just the people they distributed the binaries to.

Re:GPL was violated

[X0563511]

Except we are only entitled to the GPL parts. I doubt Diebold has made substantial improvements to Ghostscript.

Re:GPL was violated

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the people that received the hardware from Diebold can request the source code from Diebold, the voters are not receivers of anything in this case.

If you do not consider providing the use of the machines to be a distribution of software, then technically you are correct. The AGPL was created precisely for such grey areas. As ghostscript5 was GPL rather than AGPL, the source need be made available to customers, perhaps not to consumers.

However, do we know which version of ghostscript was used? Newer versions use the AFPL, and would be completely illegal for use in this context, with or without source.

Re:GPL was violated

[ITEric]

In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.

...the voters get to demand nothing, since the software was not distributed to them. Only the people that received the hardware from Diebold can request the source code from Diebold, the voters are not receivers of anything in this case...

Perhaps we confused about the nature of a representative government then. It seems to me that if the gov't that represents me receives the equipment, then it is the same as if I received it myself and the GPL would extend the same rights to me as to the gov't office that actually took possession of the equipment.

Re:GPL was violated

[sumdumass]

That isn't necessarily true. I'm under no obligation to give employees the cource code to the computers they are working from. Likewise, I'm under no obligation if I give one of them a laptop to use away from the building.

If Diebold rents these machines and created them specifically for the contract with the states, if could be that they are agents of the state, therefor employees of the state, and all the work they do to the machines is work done by the states.

Good thing Diebold is helping with the election

[Dan667]

Would not want anyone of questionable ethics that would steal or worse help by counting votes. /sarcasm

Re:Good thing Diebold is helping with the election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah really. Next thing you know, groups will be registering dead people or fictional characters like Mickey Mouse.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

does it count votes?

Re:But...

[chibiace]

no, but it runs linux and can cook you breakfast in bed.
yum install baconandeggs, anyone?

Re:But...

[silent_artichoke]

I hope that your Linux doesn't have a shell.

Re:But...

[BronsCon]

But... but... but...

how does one install yum?

Re:But...

[chibiace]

apt-get install yum?

How are they violating the GPL

[tjstork]

Let's forget that the outcome of this lawsuit means that Diebold will argue that the liberals made the paper trail go away.

Look, the GPL gives Diebold the explicit right to use that software, so long as they distribute it themselves. This sort of political nonsense only undermines open source. Sure, some left leaning authors might not like Diebold and want to "get them" in some way, but... all they've done is establish that the free software movement is really free subject to arbitrary whims and conditions. At least if they had used Microsoft Windows internally, they would have been free of any political considerations for license compliance.

Just give them money, and that's all they ask for. At some point, having to vote for democrats, worship mother earth and spin two times on your rear on tuesday doesn't look nearly as good as just giving some dope $20 per copy you sell.

and quite honestly, it would have been easier to write a voting front end using Windows. Windows is all about client apss and you could have a simple WinForms client application, printing under Windows is super easy, even in C++. It would be a very simple application and the source could be published, if they so chose.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Malc]

But not half as cheap and simple as using paper and pencil, and having thousands of volunteers counting in parallel. Oh I know, sometimes the electoral ballots are huge in the US, but really, why does it have to be such bloody rigmarole every time there's an election there?

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but does this story have anything at all to do with political bias, or are you just celebrating election day by trolling?

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You have just proven you know absolutely nothing about (1) Diebold's history of fraudulent activities, (2) the requirements of the GPL to make source code available, (3) the complete and utter unwillingness of Diebold to publicly release the source code to their voting machines. Good job. Please refrain from voting or reproducing.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Hatta]

Look, the GPL gives Diebold the explicit right to use that software, so long as they distribute it themselves.

What? The GPL gives them the right to use and modify the software, as long as they don't distribute it. If they distribute it (say, by selling a voting machine that runs a copy of the software) they have to provide the source. They have not provided any source.

all they've done is establish that the free software movement is really free subject to arbitrary whims and conditions.

The conditions are not arbitrary. They are clearly spelled out in the GPL, which is much easier to read and obey than any proprietary license.

At least if they had used Microsoft Windows internally, they would have been free of any political considerations for license compliance.

Read the second link in the blurb. The voting machines in question run Windows 2000. Guess what, GhostScript runs on Windows too.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[UdoKeir]

As trolls go, this one is far too unsubtle. You need to try harder.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconding, please remove your testicles or have yourself otherwise sterlized.

Alternative/ Remove yourself from the Gene Pool

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[tjstork]

They have not provided any source.
Are they withholding the source to the GPL code?

Read the second link in the blurb. The voting machines in question run Windows 2000. Guess what, GhostScript runs on Windows too.

Well, in that case then, Diebold is even extra stupid and probably should just get sued for that. There's absolute no reason you need ghostscript on a Windows box when GDI is perfectly capable of producing device independent output natively.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Shaleh]

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.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the GPL gives Diebold the right to use the software so long as they make the source code available to anyone to whom they distribute the software. The problem is, Diebold has been fighting tooth and nail for a long time now in order to NOT release that source code.

They either need to pay for the non-GPL version of Ghostscript or abide by the restrictions in the license of the free, GPL version.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Archangel Michael]

"'He Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage'"

Every vote needs to count, even people too stupid to know better get to vote.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Phroggy]

What? The GPL gives them the right to use and modify the software, as long as they don't distribute it.

Wrong, the GPL does NOT give them the right to use and modify it. They already have the right to use and modify it under normal copyright law, as long as they don't distribute it. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but it's actually a pretty important distinction, because it's important to understand that you have these rights with non-GPL'd software too.

The GPL only gives them additional rights concerning redistribution (including distributing modified versions), subject to certain conditions which they apparently have not met.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Hatta]

Are they withholding the source to the GPL code?

Would they be sued if they were?

There's absolute no reason you need ghostscript on a Windows box when GDI is perfectly capable of producing device independent output natively. .mdi is propietary. .ps is open and understood by just about every printer in existance. That's plenty of reason to use ghostscript.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[aztracker1]

Would be cool if you could fill out a form online, and print out a barcode to be scanned at the polling place. Have it so that anyone can check the code online, for the results. not tying a person to the code in question, but allowing for that person to validate themselves.

For those without a computer web accessible computers with printers could be used by people at the polling place. Would be pretty reasonable, and probably cost less than the specialized eVoting hardware.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to provide the source to the person who bought the machine/software, not you and everyone's dog.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[apoc.famine]

Today I used a step above and beyond: I used paper and felt-tipped PEN, and filled in the dots next to the people I wanted to vote for. Then I put my vote into a bin, to be optically scanned for an automagical count at 8pm tonight, and then hand-counted at leisure over the next day or so. The optical-scan is the one immediately reported, and the hand-count is the official one.

I really don't understand the problems with voting. How is it that my small town can figure it out, yet it seems that nobody else can?

Limit your voters to a couple of thousand per voting site, give each site a stack of ballots and a box of pens, and an optical scanner. Scan for immediate results, hand-count to double-check the accuracy. This isn't rocket science.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Rich0]

At least if they had used Microsoft Windows internally, they would have been free of any political considerations for license compliance.

Yeah - go ahead and try to distribute thousands of voting machines containing Windows without a license and see what happens.

If you want to distribute software, you need a license. You might pay money for it, or you might barter in some other way (such as providing source for all modifications to the software).

If anything the GPL grants far more freedom to distribute software than the Windows license does. Under the windows license you can't distribute the software at all without making all kinds of deals with Microsoft (for a pretty penny I'm sure) - the best you could do without cutting a deal is to buy a ton of retail licenses and install them on each machine. You can't even mass-duplicate paid-for windows installs without going through some hoops (OEM agreement, volume license, etc).

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[http]

Let's reiterate this one more time, and again and again until everyone gets it right:
copyright infringement != theft
copyright infringement != piracy
This is true even if the infringers are assholes like Diebold.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Dhalka226]

That is still vulnerable to permitting people to sell their votes.

Here's what the electronic voting machine at my polling place (Cook County, IL) did:

You walked up, punched in all of your various choices. At the end of the process you had a few screens of bulk confirmations digitally. When you confirmed, it went to a second set of confirmations. In an enclosed case next to the screen was a receipt roll and printer. Page by page, it printed out your votes in plain text for you to review. For example:

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
NO

US PRESIDENT
BARAK OBAMA & JOE BIDEN

These receipts were never provided to you, meaning there was no way for you to verify to an outside party that you voted in any specific ways. However they were presented for your review, and presumably they would be used in any recount.

I've been thinking about this system since then, and it seems pretty solid from a paper trail/verifiability standpoint. Obviously with any digital system there is the issue of the code in the machines itself, machine tampering, etc.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss where the parent explicitly wrote - and I quote - "According to the MPAA and RIAA, Diabold are stealing software." deliberately or by accident? The parent equates neither theft nor piracy with copyright infringement.

The parent does, however, point out that the RIAA and MPAA do so.

Perhaps I misunderstood you in that you were in fact perfectly clear with what the parent wrote, including the references to the RIAA and MPAA, and you merely wanted to emphasize the non-equality for those other readers who might not have caught that detail?

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[HiThere]

I rather like the Scantron(tm?)(sp?) system we used this time. You black out a section (i.e., fill in an arrow) on a piece of paper for each vote. You can see what you've done. The votes are fed into an optical scanner, which immediately counts them. Then the paper copies are saved as an audit trail. Simple, fast, elegant, cheap, and easy. And verifiable.

And it was debugged by IBM on high school exams, SATs, PSATs, etc. Years ago.

Re:How are they violating the GPL

[aztracker1]

That's my personal preference as well... I just mean if they were going to change it anyway, I think that being able to bring in a barcode, or set of barcodes would be nice... I think the optical scanners are the best option for at the poles voting myself.

Perfect /. story

[PearsSoap]

Actually, maybe if it was Microsoft Suit Claims Diebold Voting Machines Violate GPL.

Re:Perfect /. story

[ubernostrum]

No, these days it'd have to work in something about the software being rejected from the iPhone application store by Apple to hit the real Slashdot-buzzword bingo.

Re:Perfect /. story

[PearsSoap]

Or being banned from the G1.

most of US feel violated by corepirate nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of

remember freedom?

[Deanalator]

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.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:remember freedom?

[QuantumG]

Ha! The users of Diebold machines have no freedom to inspect, modify or redistribute the Diebold software. The copyright holders of Ghostscript just want Diebold to give users the freedoms they gave Diebold. When Diebold wants to open up their software, they can come talk.

Re:remember freedom?

[LWATCDR]

Your drinking Artifex's koolaid.
Artifex is ticked because they are not getting paid. It looks as if they are just using Ghostscript for printing. I guess they could put up a website with yet another copy of Ghostscript for people to download.

Re:remember freedom?

[Malc]

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.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

No, this is my actual belief.
The company I work for makes money with GPLed software, we distribute source, so can diebold.

Re:remember freedom?

[LWATCDR]

Oh I do agree but you are drinking Artifex's koolaid.
It is hard to tell but it looks like they just want money. They don't care if Diebold publish the source or not.
From the link.
"The alleged infringement "has contributed to [Diebold and PES] profits and is adversely affecting the potential market for and value of Artifex's copyrighted works," according to the court papers.

Artifex is seeking unspecified monetary damages in excess of $150,000 and also wants the court to impound PES equipment that allegedly violates Artifex copyrights. "
I just don't think this has anything to do with Freedom and everything to do with MONEY.

Re:remember freedom?

[Deanalator]

I think a majority of people who publish under GPL do so because it is the only license they know, and it's popular.

GPL is not only viral, it is weaponized, so you can use it to fuck over or shut down projects and companies you don't like. I doubt that is what most people have in mind when selecting their licence, but it seems to be all the licence is used for these days.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe that is what people are looking for, but it is a concept that I have never quite been able to grasp.

Re:remember freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Die in a fire.

Re:remember freedom?

[Belial6]

Only a moron would be scared to legitimately use open source software because someone else illegitimately used open software. That's a little like being afraid to closed source software because a warez site got raided.

The only companies that "don't understand" what they can and cannot due under the GPL are the ones that are using an "I'm stupid" smoke screen to try and hide their illegal behavior.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

No, this has to do with the fact that the software is dual licensed. If diebold want the close source version the must pay, since that is what they want they should pay.

Artifex has every right to be paid for someone using the software for commercial closed source distribution, they do have a license just for that. Diebold should be happy this option exists so they may use it.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

Who pays you to post this drivel?

The GPL is not viral, it is a very clear license. If you do not like it, do not use it or software licensed under it. Many people do use it and prefer it because it ensures that the software they wrote stays free.

Re:remember freedom?

[nabsltd]

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.

These lawsuits are no more "ridiculous" than Microsoft suing somebody because they were running 100 copies of Windows XP but had only paid for one.

In both cases, it's an infringement of copyright. If Diebold hadn't infringed copyright, they wouldn't be sued for it. OK, so maybe the RIAA would sue them while they were getting around to everyone else on the planet, but that doesn't count.

Re:remember freedom?

[LWATCDR]

If it is just a GPL issue with Ghostscript they have to do is offer the "customers" the right a copy of Ghostscript. Not really a big deal. Also is there a GPL violation at all yet? For it to be a violation one of the customers of these machines would need to request the Source.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

No, the violation occurs because they did not include it or any offer of it.
At the very least they must have a written offer to the customers.

Re:remember freedom?

[ichimunki]

it is a concept that I have never quite been able to grasp.

Try harder then. Seriously.

GPL isn't "weaponized". What does that even mean? Nothing, that's what. GPL is no more pernicious than basic copyright or any other license.

Re:remember freedom?

[Deanalator]

Of course corporate licenses are significantly worse than the GPL. I just think it's dumb that gs devs don't go after Linux distros etc when often times they also do not provide the source with the disk.

Not that I am a huge fan of voter fraud, but it looks to me that Diebold is being taken to court just because some of the gs authors don't like the company itself.

It seems hypocritical to be writing "free software" and then try to dictate who gets to use your work.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

What distro does not provide the source?
Most distros have src repositories. Those that point to the original sources are not commercial projects I would bet. Which is what paragraph 3c is about.

Re:remember freedom?

[h4rr4r]

It seems hypocritical to be writing "free software" and then try to dictate who gets to use your work.

No, they are not saying who can use it. Just that the software must stay free no matter who uses it.

You are not very bright are you?

Re:remember freedom?

[QuantumG]

Heh. If by weaponized you mean that it's a weapon against copyright.. why yes, it is, which is why it is called a "copyleft" license.

If you think copyright on software is acceptable then the copyleft philosophy is probably not for you.

Re:remember freedom?

[LWATCDR]

Have you seen the sales contract for these voting machines?
What about the tech guide?
What about the trouble shooting manual?
For all we know they do offer a the source for Ghostscript. I really think this is more about money then GPL enforcement. Heck I am all for following the GPL but as I said I think this is more about money then freedom.
I am even all for them getting paid. What I don't like is the wrapping a copyright dispute in the GPL when they really are not connected.

The one thing I have always wondered about is must you supply the source if you don't modify the source. If the source is already freely available then what is the point?

Re:remember freedom?

[TwilightXaos]

I believe you are in error, good Sir/Madam.

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:

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.)

Section 3c does not apply because they are selling the machines with the object code on them. Thus the machines must come with either the source code, or a written offer from Dibold to provide the source code. If neither of these are present, then they are in violation of the GPL regardless of weather receivers of the object code (purchasers of the machines) request the source code.

Re:remember freedom?

[goofballs]

Only a moron would be scared to legitimately use open source software because someone else illegitimately used open software. That's a little like being afraid to closed source software because a warez site got raided. The only companies that "don't understand" what they can and cannot due under the GPL are the ones that are using an "I'm stupid" smoke screen to try and hide their illegal behavior.

uh, no, there are real grey area issues here, and it's not a matter of stupid people don't get it and smart people do- from the gs-dev message linked, the gs folks 'do not consider bundling as an integrated component intended to work with other software as "mere aggregation" under the GPL.' the point to note is they do not consider it an aggregate- not that it isn't. it's a grey area - look at the gnu fact- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation : "Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide."

it's acknowledged right up front that this is a grey area legal issue.

Re:remember freedom?

[_Sprocket_]

GPL is not only viral, it is weaponized, so you can use it to fuck over or shut down projects and companies you don't like. I doubt that is what most people have in mind when selecting their licence, but it seems to be all the licence is used for these days.

Amazingly enough, companies can avoid malcontents shutting them down but simply following the license. It's not that difficult. And if following the terms of the GPL does present issues... use something else.

Weaponized, indeed.

Re:remember freedom?

[TwilightXaos]

How would the GPL work if there were no copyright on software?

For example, lets say you make a peice of software called TextWriter. I like it, so I take it and modify it, add some stuff and make it incomputable with your version but still use most of the same code and a similar GUI that you developed. I don't give anyone the source code, or anything else but a $100 binary executable. If there is no copyright on the software, you can say you publish it under the GPL all day and I don't have to listen to you, because you have no legal right to control what I do with the software.

Re:remember freedom?

[QuantumG]

If there's no copyright, I take your binary and, using my knowledge of the majority of the software you copied, reverse engineer your small number of changes and provide source code for them. There's nothing you can do, because there's no copyright.

Re:remember freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ack, but let me say it in other words:

You decide what you do with your stuff.
I decide what I do with my stuff.
If you want to do something with my stuff thats fine, but under my conditions. Remember, it's my stuff, not yours.

Re:remember freedom?

[jonbryce]

It is no different from them downloading their copy of Windows 2000 from thepiratebay.org and installing that on their machines.

Very few people would question why anyone would want to use the Microsoft EULA given those circumstances.

Re:remember freedom?

[jonbryce]

That's standard lawerspeak in a copyright writ.

Re:remember freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Pfft. You seriously need to explain how you came up with a nonsense view such as that.

How could it be, in your strangely distorted worldview, that people are not afraid to use Microsoft products but are "afraid" to buy a proper license for Ghostscript?

If Diebold want to sell their machines, they must have license for any software product not their own that they use in that machine ... otherwise that is like selling someone else's work and keeping the money for yourself.

Diebold do sell the machines to the governament.

So how on earth do you figure that it is OK fine and normal for Diebold to buy a license for Windows (that is used in their machines) but it is somehow magically not required for Diebold to buy a license from the Ghostscript authors (Ghostscript is also used in their machines)?

If Diebold do end up having to pay the Ghostscript license, which any sane person on the planet would view as only fair and reasonable, how on earth in your worldview does that otcome possibly make it "scary" for any company to use software that is dual licensed.

Ghostscript is dual-licensed. If you are going to use Ghostscript in a commercial application, you need a commercial license for it. Just as you do if you are going to use Windows in a commercial license.

The other type of license that is available for Ghostscript is GPL (open source). That means you can use Ghostscript for no charge if your use of it is also distributed under the same terms to other downstream recipients ... in this situation, you are therefore required to keep Ghostscript as licensed under the GPL (ie open source).

Perfectly fair & reasonable. But you do have only those two choices ... pay the commercial license, or re-distribute under the GPL.

There is no permission given to re-distribute Ghostscript as closed source and not pay a commercial license for Ghostscript. That would be copyright "stealing" as the RIAA & MPAA like to call it.

Re:remember freedom?

[Belial6]

Your link supports my point. Diebold was not confused about what their responsibilities were. You are trying to take a fringe case and make it into a quagmire. The fact is that the exact same example you used would apply equally to non-open source code. While the exact line of what is considered modified code might be considered gray (open or closed source). It is a very small gray line that you are only going to run into if you are trying to see just how close you can get to crossing it without getting sued.

So again, only a moron would worry about legitimate use, and only the dishonest claim "I didn't know!".

Re:remember freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, some people build on GPL'd software, but no one is able to build on closed. maybe we can debate whether free software is free enough, but surely we can agree it is freer than the most readily availible alternative...

We Tax payer want our money back!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[zip_000]

From what I understand their ATM security is just fine.

I've always felt that the poor security and poor implementation on the voting machines is intentional to allow for the possibility of fraud - or more to the point to allow for officials to say, "these have been hacked...by someone else!" after they are themselves caught hacking them.

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[phoomp]

Maybe not necessarily to allow for election officials to hack them, but perhaps to allow the losing side to claim hacking as an excuse for losing.

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[Nar Matteru]

From what I understand their ATM security is just fine.

uhh what?

Jeff Dean, Senior Vice-President and Senior Programmer at Global Election Systems (GES), the company purchased by Diebold in 2002 which became Diebold Election Systems, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft for planting back doors in software he created for ATMs using, according to court documents, a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of two years[7]

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[homer_ca]

Diebold's voting systems division was an acquisition of Global Election Systems. The ATM and votings systems share nothing but the brand. They also spun off their voting systems to a new company called Premier Election Systems, I suspect because all the scandal was hurting their brand in other lines of business.

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[Tatsh]

Their ATMs run Windows 2000 or XP, at least for Bank of America. All banks really care is that no one can break an ATM open easily. That why the safe is very thick and impenetrable by most guns and bombs.

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[TapeCutter]

An ATM is completely different to a voting machine. With an ATM one vested interest (the bank) controls the entire money counting system, do you want one vested interest in an election to control the entire vote counting system?

Re:We Tax payer want our money back!

[mdmkolbe]

The threats are different. With an ATM it's usually the man on the street attacking and the institution (i.e. bank) trying to stop the attack. With voting machines it's the institutions (i.e. political parties) that would be attacking and the man on the street that wants to see it stopped.

With different threat models, come different security methods. I'm sure ATM's are quite secure (at least up to the banks insurance amount). But the same techniques and assumptions don't work to secure a voting box.

Voters don't have standing here

[davidwr]

It's my understanding that anyone who has "object code" is also entitled to "source code."

This means the owners of the voting machines have standing to sue. If the machines are leased, depending on how the courts determine what distribution means when a lease is involved, the local governments may or may not have standing.

The copyright owner might only have a claim of "license violation" if an owner asked for and was denied the source code.

There's also the whole issue of "how viral is viral." If the printing code is done as an independent program, then Diebold might only be obliged to release it. After all, if I publish a BSD LiveCD that contains some GPL programs, I'm obligated to publish the GPL source but not the source to BSD-licensed code. The same would apply if the PDF-generating code were in a self-contained application in the "rom filesystem" in the firmware.

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[marxmarv]

The copyright owner might only have a claim of "license violation" if an owner asked for and was denied the source code.

Read Section 3 of the GPL, reproduced a few comments up. PES MUST inform their licensees as to how to obtain source for the Ghostscript module. If they did not do so then PES is not authorized under the GPL to distribute Ghostscript. If PES also has no license to distribute under the AFPL, then they're making unlicensed copies. Ergo, pwnt.

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[Anonymous Coward]

they are not entitled to redisitribute gpl software (even without changes) with another license (you do not have to give the source, if you didnt change anything (it can be gotten elsewhere)- but you dont have the right to change the license!)

as i said in another post, they have the possibility to get another license than gpl from the copyright owner though

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is automatic. Everything is copyrighted the minute it's created. This is the default. This is how the GPL works, it grants a distribution license under certain conditions.

Failing to live up to the requirements of the GPL isn't just violating a license, it's the same thing as not having a license. i.e. flat out copyright infringement.

This will just end with diebold negotiating a license with the GS people, it's very likely that they're just using a stock version of it which isn't linked into any of their closed code, so even meeting the GPL requirements would be fairly easy.

As easy as it is to hate Diebold, this seems mainly like a case of Artifex seeing dollar signs. It is likely trivially easy for diebold to meet the gpl requirements and was probably an honest oversight.

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not even a requirement for an owner of a machine to have requested the software.

1. To use and/or distribute the software, they need a license.
2. If distributed under the GPL, the license depends on making the source code + changes available.
3. Diebold is steadfastly refusing to release ANY of the source code for the applications in their machines
4. The GPL clearly states that if the terms of the license are not met, the only option is to cease distribution of the software.

The copyright owner most definitely has a right to sue, as Diebold is using their IP without a license. And since they are doing so for profit, they SHOULD be sued.

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[SeaFox]

It's my understanding that anyone who has "object code" is also entitled to "source code."

This means the owners of the voting machines have standing to sue. If the machines are leased, depending on how the courts determine what distribution means when a lease is involved, the local governments may or may not have standing.

The government is by the People, the machines paid for by the taxpayers. Doesn't that mean we all have the right to sue? :3

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[gnud]

Nope, not good enough.
Any distribution in source or object form must be accompanied by the license text, and either the source or an offer to provide the source (or, in the case of noncommercial distribution, directions on how to get the source). [My paraphrasing of the GPL]

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[Anonymous Coward]

Your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. The copyright owner licensed the relevant code subject to the conditions imposed by the GPL, namely that the binary be distributed along with an offer to supply the source code to the end user. Even if no end user actually requests the code, distributing the binary without that offer is a violation of the GPL

Re:Voters don't have standing here

[HiThere]

An oversight, yes. Honest? We're talking about Diebold here. I'm about as willing to presume honesty on their part as on the part of SCOx or MS. I can, in certain cases, accept the possibility, and the lack of proof of intent to deceive. If they want to claim honesty, though, they've got to prove it.

So... how does this violate the GPL?

[razathorn]

What am I missing here? How does distributing a GPL program that the sources is freely available for violate the GPL? Is there a concern that they have modified GS in some way and not contributed the changes to GS back to the community? It sounds like people are just wigging out because somebody making money distributed a GPL application in a perfectly legal way. If the issue is that GS has been modified (which I can't tell if it is or not), has anyone inquired to diebold to see if the source to the changed version of GS is available at no additional cost to those who acquire the voting machines? I believe that is the real question here.

Sounds like a lot of jumping to conclusions here.

Re:So... how does this violate the GPL?

[h4rr4r]

If you distribute you must give source, does not matter if you change it or not.

Re:So... how does this violate the GPL?

[jwkfs]

It sounds to me like they are distributing a GPL program without distributing the source code, which I believe is required regardless of whether the source is modified or not.

Re:So... how does this violate the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is stupid. What you say sounds like they rather go to court instead of just saying "go to http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ and download it there". And you are saying someone is suing rather than look up where he can get ghostscript from.

Re:So... how does this violate the GPL?

[h4rr4r]

That is a requirement of the GPL.
Your little guess is called paragraph 3c and only applies to non-commercial distribution. This was clearly commercial distribution.

Re:So... how does this violate the GPL?

[WK2]

If you distribute a GPL program, you are required to specify that you are using GPL software, and you must let your users know their rights to view, modify and distribute the source code. Additionally, you are required to give them the source, or offer to do so.

The GPL is more or less straightforward and easy to understand. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

Doesn't Sound Like A Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the totally inadequate summary it seems like there is no violation, except perhaps the minor one of Diebold not having their own ftp site with the normal GPLed gs code available (which they could fix in an hour).

I mean if Diebold didn't modify gs but merely used it on their machines they are only required to distributed the standard gs code. The mere fact that gs runs on the same machine doesn't make the rest of the diebold code a derived work. It's all about what is a derived work of the gs code.

Re:Doesn't Sound Like A Violation

[91degrees]

They don't even need a public FTP site unless they have a public FTP site for the binaries. Unless the software that uses ghostscript is a derived work, supplying the ghostscript source on the hard disk or on any reasonable medium with the machines would be enough to satisfy the terms of the GPL.

Re:Doesn't Sound Like A Violation

[logicnazi]

I should add to this that I suspect something more is going on otherwise no suit would be being filled. I was just saying that from just the info in the summary it didn't seem like a violation.

Re:Doesn't Sound Like A Violation

[pruss]

They could fix it in an hour. But they have already violated Artifex's copyright by their previous distribution, and if Artifex wants financial compensation for this, they are, I assume (IANAL), within their legal rights.

Moreover, if the license is GPLv2, then clause 4 kicks in: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." This may mean that Diebold has permanently lost their license to use gs. This clause, I think, is rarely enforced. Most of us who write GPLv2-licensed software would be happy to let an infringing party become compliant and continue distributing the software. Also, some folks think that if one just re-downloads a new copy of the GPLv2-licensed software from a legal distributor, one gets a fresh license. I have no idea if that's true.

Re:Doesn't Sound Like A Violation

[eison]

They don't need an ftp site. They just need to ship the source on the machines somewhere. You, the end user, don't need access to it - only whoever owns the voting machine does.

forced to distribute the source ..

[rs232]

"The routers are mean to be as locked up as a voting machine, but because of the GPL they are forced to distribute the source"

No one is forcing Diebold Inc. to use Ghostscript in its electronic election systems ..

Re:forced to distribute the source ..

[dubbreak]

No one is forcing Diebold Inc. to use Ghostscript in its electronic election systems ..

Exactly. I'm sure Adobe would license them a postscript package for a reasonable fee.

Double standard.

[Anonymous Coward]

""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,'"

Neither have these people This should be interesting to watch.

Doesn't Sound Like A Violation

[logicnazi]

Based on the totally inadequate summary it seems like there is no violation, except perhaps the minor one of Diebold not having their own ftp site with the normal GPLed gs code available (which they could fix in an hour).

I mean if Diebold didn't modify gs but merely used it on their machines they are only required to distributed the standard gs code. The mere fact that gs runs on the same machine doesn't make the rest of the diebold code a derived work. It's all about what is a derived work of the gs code.

Bad Summary: likely in-house license, not GPL

[Madball]

After RTFA (which does not even mention GPL) and the gs-devel post, it would seem that the lawsuit most likely centers around their in-house "AFPL" which apparently forbids commercial usage (regardless of source availability). One would have to find the actual filing to know for sure.

Re:Bad Summary: likely in-house license, not GPL

[Bruce Perens]

It could be GPL. Is Diebold making the source to Ghostscript, as used in their product, available?

They would have to do that if it's GPL. This would not require them to release source to other software on the disk. There is a difference between aggregation and the creation of a derivative work. A program that just calls Ghostscript to run isn't a derivative work of Ghostscript.

GPL issue ok, but whose issue is it?

[thetagger]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe under the GPL they only need to show the GhostScript source to the people who bought the machines (that is, whoever takes care of elections in the US, assuming someone does). Unless Diebold really used a non-GPL version of Ghostscript, I don't think the lawsuit is reasonable. And if it is about a the AFPL version of Ghostscript, it's not a GPL issue, obviously.

Re:GPL issue ok, but whose issue is it?

[Jason Pollock]

That was changed, it's now open to third parties requesting the source. Otherwise, the secondary market (used equipment) is locked down again.

Re:GPL issue ok, but whose issue is it?

[QuantumG]

They need to provide the source with the binary on media commonly used for source code distribution, or they need to provide a written offer to provide source code to any third party.

Re:GPL issue ok, but whose issue is it?

[geminidomino]

<MODE="Devil's Advocate">

If you're referring to section 2b, the actual text says

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License"

You'd think that semantically, the two would be equivalent, but a sufficiently clever/slimy lawyer could, conceivably, argue that the description "under the terms of this license" modifies "all third parties" rather than "licensed as a whole." In other words, the trick becomes establishing who is a third party under the term of the license...

Re:GPL issue ok, but whose issue is it?

[QuantumG]

Nah...

3. 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;

No changes required.

Bad new for Diebold

[The Late BP Helium]

This a major blow to Diebold. They'll have to make the election results public this year.

Well what do you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently elections aren't the only thing they steal.

They don't have to make the source available . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . to everyone. People tend to forget that part of the GPL.

Only to those whom they distribute the software to and who request the source.

Thus, they only have to distribute it to those who request it and whom they have distributed the software to which, in this case, is whomever they sold the hardware to, since they do not distribute the software separately. Since it is a very limited group of organizations that have purchased the hardware, you'll have to get one of them to request the source.

And, if they are somehow "licensing" the machines, and not selling them (which I doubt) then they are not in violation at all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Is there even a case?

[91degrees]

Diebold probably didn't offer the source code or include it, but since they only need to make the offer to the recipients (i.e. the various states that bought the machines), there's really no way of knowing whether they did or didn't make this offer.

Even if Diebold completely and deliberately violated the GPL, without at least some sort of prima facie evidence that Diebold distributed the code without making this offer, a GPL violation would surely be hard to prove, or even provide sufficient evidence for the case not to be dismissed outright.

Because....

[maz2331]

GPL authors generally do not want to put code out there to be used as a no-cost alternative to commercial development libraries and programs, while getting nothing in return.

Basically, the "license fee" for GPL code is that the person/company reselling it must give back changes and/or distribute source. And they must abide by any attribution demands as well.

Or negotiate a commercial use license. MySQL does that.

Oh, don't be so paranoid

[toby]

The stakes are very low, and powerful interests really don't care who wins.

Relax!

The U.S. government has become very corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

True: "I've always felt that the poor security and poor implementation on the voting machines is intentional to allow for the possibility of fraud..."

Articles and a free movie about the the unprecedented organized vote fraud:

Rolling Stone magazine has an article about vote stealing in 2008: Block the Vote: Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president? That article is also available as a PDF file.

The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law has another article: Voter Suppression Incidents 2008. A PDF is available.

See the free online movie Stealing America: Vote By Vote. The evidence presented in the movie shows that both of the previous presidential elections were stolen. The evidence is that the corrupters plan to steal the 2008 election, too. We will know in a few days.

Neither of the articles mentioned discusses how votes are stolen using computer fraud. Slashdot has run 17 stories in 2007 and 2008 about computer vote fraud and electronic voting, listed here in reverse order by date. Note that the evidence in the Slashdot stories also is that the last two presidential elections were stolen:

West Virginia Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes.
Black Box Voting 2008 Election Protection Toolkit
How To Spot E-Vote Tampering?
Hard Evidence of Voting Machine Addition Errors
New Jersey E-Voting Problems Worse Than Originally Suspected
The Cost of Electronic Voting
Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic?
Ohio Investigating Possible Vote Machine Tampering Last Year
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries
Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad
All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit
Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election
Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling
A Flawed US Election Reform Bill
House To Vote On Paper Trail and OSS Voting Bill
U.S. To Certify Labs For Testing E-Voting Machines
U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines

who is entitled to the source? only the customers

[Anonymous Coward]

They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.

Considering they *sell* the machines to the government, that most certainly counts as distribution.

So they are obliged to give any modifications to the source code to the government, as that is their customer. No one else has any standing to request it.

And they are only required to give it if asked.

Re:Are they distributing the software

[blackest_k]

Well your opinion is yours and mine is mine.

  DD-wrt and Tomato firmware versions are very useful, giving far greater control over internet access from my IP even traffic shaping certain troublesome Lan IP's. Is there better default router firmware for the home market (or even small business LAN).

There are two cases with the voting machines fraud or no fraud.
If the machines can be shown to be rigged, it will not be shown. It will be top secret.

Case number 3:2008cv04837

[Anonymous Coward]

See Artifex Software Inc. v. Diebold Inc. et al for details on the suit which has the number 3:2008cv04837.

Re:Case number 3:2008cv04837

[Anonymous Coward]

The Presiding Judge in the case is Judge Edward Chen, who worked 15 years at the American Civil Liberty Union ("ACLU").

id say sue the bastards

[nimbius]

but can you sue a government company?

Re:who is entitled to the source? only the custome

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are obliged to give any modifications to the source code to the government, as that is their customer.

*sigh* No, you're wrong.

This is only true if they're delivering the source and the binaries together.

If they don't include the source, they must include a written offer of the source, and the written offer must be valid for *everybody*, not just their "customer".

Please do a little reading before you make an ass of yourself, this is getting quite tiring.

umm DieBold no longer exists

[Anonymous Coward]

considering that DieBold no longer exists who are they sueing.

But yes they have no proof so how do they even know that there is a GPL violation

The Diebold product is not a "mere aggregation"

[John_Sauter]

It could be GPL. Is Diebold making the source to Ghostscript, as used in their product, available?

They would have to do that if it's GPL. This would not require them to release source to other software on the disk. There is a difference between aggregation and the creation of a derivative work. A program that just calls Ghostscript to run isn't a derivative work of Ghostscript.

There is a contrary point of view, which is that Diebold is releasing not an aggregation (like a book of short stories) but a complete product. That product is composed of many parts, none of which can be removed without making it incapable of performing its essential functions. The product is therefore "derived from" (in the sense of copyright law) all of its essential parts. If one of those parts is licensed to Diebold under the GPL, then they must license their product to others under the GPL.

That contrary view is not the view that most people take, but I believe it is a reasonable argument under the law.

Re:The Diebold product is not a "mere aggregation"

[Bruce Perens]

You just might be able to make a court believe that for a single-purpose embedded system. It would make history if you did.

Cool!

[Jane Q. Public]

Does this mean we can retroactively negate all the votes made on them because they were made illegally???

Who Cares?

[Khyber]

McCain had the honor and integrity and dropped out of the race.

The only gripe left is software patents, which may be null and void soon enough since slashdot doesn't seem to care reporting about it (with my list completely open to every topic.)

maybe

[Larryish]

would 5 1/4" floppy be a reasonable medium?

Best government Diebold can choose?

[jonaskoelker]

If you obey the GPL by not distributing the licensed code, that means the public can't oversee the vote counting process because it isn't being told how it's done or where.

That's kinda' bad. It's bad almost to the point of letting Diebold appoint which ever president they want, meaning you're not a democracy any longer.

Okay, so you might want to do the same procedure for three independent vendors and use the average. That's like letting Hitler, Mussolini and Franco appoint a president of the USA as long as they agree on who to appoint.

The public MUST have oversight. The public MUST have access to descriptions of how the voting process works, end to end. Reasonable governmental effort SHOULD be put into making the process easy to understand and well-known to most people. The process MUST be simple enough that most people can understand it.

Otherwise, the public as a whole can in no way know that the vote counts bears resemblance to the votes cast.

That is, whoever gets to count the votes is the dictator for life. You have lost democracy. Do you want your civil liberties identified? [yn] _

I don't think this threat is real, right now. But the need to defend against it is still there. You don't put a bullet-proof vest on after the bullet has been fired.

Re:Best government Diebold can choose?

[bmwm3nut]

I agree with you that letting people see the source is the only way to verify that things are done right. I'm just questioning if there's the GPL has any legal way to make them show the source code, or really what constitutes "distributing".

The COPYRIGHT OWNER has standing

[Anonymous Coward]

they are the ones that are harmed.

Or should only Michael Bolton be able to sue over his CD's being shared?

Re:who is entitled to the source? only the custome

[ray-auch]

No, you're wrong. The offer only has to be passed on with the distribution. The offer itself has to be redistributable (so the recipient can redistribute what they recieved), but nothing in the GPL obliges the distributor to distribute the offer to "everyone".

Easy money for a lazy corporation?

[smchris]

This is the machine based on Windows and Access, right? Did they outsource the main code to a high school class?

I can believe it though. I worked for a place that bought a specialized Oracle system. You could print your uber-complex reports to dead tree but there was no way to save or share them. Set the place up with "print-to-postscript" and a ghostscript reader.
 

Re:Are they distributing the software

[characterZer0]

I use OpenWRT. It is great. You missed the point. With Linksys, the code in question was a modified version of Linux. That is what got released.

In this case, the code is a probably not modified version of Ghostscript. If it gets released, it won't help anybody.