GPL Case Against Danish Satellite Provider

Rohde writes "The number of satellite and cable boxes on the Danish market using Linux has significantly increased during the last couple of years. The providers Viasat, Yousee and Stofa all provide HD receivers based on Linux, and all of them fail to provide the source code or make customers aware of the fact that the units are based on GPL licensed software. I decided it was time to fix this situation and luckily the Danish legal company BvHD has decided to take the case. We are starting with Viasat, which distributes a Samsung box including middleware and security from NDS, and you can follow the case here."

Comments

linux is not freeware

[Scotch42]

at some stage, manufacturers will realize the hidden cost of using GNU/Linux in their embedded platforms... For commodity gadgets and tools, it will not be an issue to share the internals are the hardware will be the added value. But for unique items that should not be the case and therefore some other toolkit with no ogligation to share modifications should be preferred.

And I'm making my living with GNU/Linux tools only ;-)

More often, I see my customers using GNU/Linux because it's without licenses to pay for the final product. But they do not realize theyr obligation to share... And it'is very difficult to educate them.

Does fellows /.ers have similar issue with customer?

Re:linux is not freeware

[MichaelSmith]

Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code.

If I sell a computer with ubuntu installed I have offer ubuntu sources to the customer. Its not good enough that the source could come from canonical.

Re:linux is not freeware

[nielsm]

Regardless of what they use, even if it's unmodified software from another source, they are still distributing it. The GPL requires you to do two things if you distribute software covered by it:

1. Include the complete text of the license
2. Include a written offer to obtain the complete source code (or include the complete source code, or a location under the distributor's direct control where the user can download the source code)

And then of course GPLv3 adds the requirement that the distributor must provide a way for the user to install and run a different version of the software on the device.

The important part here is that the distributor of the binaries must also distribute the sources, you aren't allowed to just point to another party for that.

Re:linux is not freeware

[kdemetter]

Which comes down to just providing them the Ubuntu CD , which most would do anyway.
Unless you really made some changes to the source code , in that case , you also need to provide the source for those changes.

I don't see the problem : if you use GPL , you know this is what you have to do . It's what GPL is all about.

If you don't want to do this , you need another license type. Often , this is a possibility too ( for a modest fee ) . I'm not sure if Ubuntu has it though.

Simply put : GPL favors mainly the end users :

  by ensuring that derative products are also open source , you ensure that a product will stay open source.

However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .

Re:linux is not freeware

[MichaelSmith]

Which comes down to just providing them the Ubuntu CD , which most would do anyway.
Unless you really made some changes to the source code , in that case , you also need to provide the source for those changes.

The ubuntu CD doesn't include source. Under the GPL you have to offer source code for all GPL software you distribute, not just the code you changed.

Re:linux is not freeware

[LingNoi]

You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.

Re:linux is not freeware

[SanityInAnarchy]

some other toolkit with no ogligation to share modifications should be preferred.

Perhaps. But I don't actually see this problem a lot...

For example, if they're actually modifying the kernel, they could use whatever trick nVidia uses to get around the GPL and insert binary blobs. But most of the time, they shouldn't need to modify the kernel, or at least, any modifications they do make wouldn't be considered "secret sauce" anyway.

But in most of these cases, it's reasonable to put most of it in userland, and to link only against LGPL stuff, if that -- plenty of BSD and MIT stuff that might be useful.

And I'm making my living with GNU/Linux tools only ;-)

That makes your post particularly disturbing.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but you've given the impression that simply using Linux will force everything to be open source, and that's simply not the case.

Re:linux is not freeware

[EponymousCustard]

Nobody ever mentions Sky+ box (owned by rupert murdoch - probably at least a million of them in the UK) but I'm pretty sure that (1) it is built on linux (2) the community would benefit from some mods they do

Re:linux is not freeware

[BiggerIsBetter]

However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .

Only if you're deriving your work from other GPLed work. If it's entirely your own work, you're 100% free to keep the code closed-source and/or use whatever license you see fit.

I'm so sick of hearing people crying about how they can build on another's work at no cost, but then have to reciprocate. Either call the friggin whaambulance, or STFU and code it all yourself.

Re:linux is not freeware

[thebjorn]

...Simply put : GPL favors mainly the end users :

by ensuring that derative products are also open source , you ensure that a product will stay open source.

However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .

I'm not a GPL fan at all, but it is a straight-forward non-gratis license. The cost is providing your own source-code. It is up to you to decide if you want to "pay" that "price" -- but you have to pay to play, or else don't play (tertium non datur!). There is nothing different, in this respect, to any commercial license: if I wrote a software library, made it available on my website for download and licensed it for $649, you couldn't legally download it and use it to create your own product without paying me (no pay: no play).

Re:linux is not freeware

[MichaelSmith]

You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.

Okay lets read the license.

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge

.
The problem is that canonical may not provide that version on line for three years. They might be out of business then. So I have to host the source or pay canonical to do it for me.

Re:linux is not freeware

[JohnFluxx]

> For example, if they're actually modifying the kernel, they could use whatever trick nVidia uses to get around the GPL and insert binary blobs

It's not clear that what nVidia do is actually legal, and nVidia have a fairly strong case that it's legal because they have cross-platform code which originated in Windows. This brings a strong case that they aren't derived from the linux kernel.

Re:linux is not freeware

[blowdart]

"Pretty sure"? Google doesn't agree, in fact I can't find any proof or even discussion of what OS the Sky+ box uses. Under the hood it's an XTV device, which runs, according to XTV "IXI-Connect OS(TM)".

Re:linux is not freeware

[PAjamian]

That's because the source is too big to fit on a CD, there is, however, a source DVD image available for download.

Re:linux is not freeware

[harlows_monkeys]

Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code

Not quite correct. For example, I bought a router that includes GPL code. If I sell that router on eBay, I am not obligated to provide source code, even though I am distributing the binary code that is in the router.

Only if your distribution requires permission from the copyright owner do you have worry about distributing source code. When you buy a product that contains copyrighted code, and then simply redistribute that particular copy, you do not need the copyright owner's permission.

Re:linux is not freeware

[jimicus]

I don't think people are going to go back to rolling their own in the embedded market - anyone with any experience in embedded software development will tell you that Linux makes life a hell of a lot easier because all of a sudden a lot of things you would otherwise have to write from scratch are basically included. And it can be a lot of work to port a userland package developed for Linux to something like VxWorks.

Coming at it from another angle, every couple of years there's an article about how even in the Western world, some absurdly large proportion of companies use pirated software. What makes you think that the GPL will make them suddenly compliant?

What I think is more likely is that companies will start to take licensing seriously. For instance, my current employer is careful to architect our design so that anything we don't want to reveal to the world is a pure user-land tool without GPL dependencies. But in auditing our code, we've come across quite a few open-source projects which have borrowed from each other without first checking that their licenses are cross-compatible.

Re:linux is not freeware

[nadaou]

for the purposes of the GPL, a combined work is as good as a derivative work.

quoth GPLv2 term 2:

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

My take is that Linus is being a pragmatic fellow and choosing his battles here, even if deep down he suspects that nVidia is violating the letter of the license. These tricks to circumvent it are surely violating the spirit of it.

Re:linux is not freeware

[chrb]

However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .

The GPL can accelerate software development around a product. I think it was IBM's Linux head who made the point that the GPL is what ensures that IBM, Novell, Sun, Red Hat, etc. all cooperate on the Linux kernel rather than producing proprietary forks, or having to sign individual contracts with each other to license each piece of technology that they each contribute. The GPL simplifies the entire legal process, which in turn speeds up software development, which reduces time to market which ultimately benefits companies selling Linux solutions. Looking at the changelogs for the Linux kernel over the past 18 months it appears that the speed with which new features are added to the kernel is increasing if anything. And this stuff just appears in the kernel tree, completely bypassing the traditional legal process, with the participants having contractual obligations but not having to negotiate any contracts. It's a good system.

To say that the GPL doesn't favour developers or companies is completely wrong. It doesn't favour some developers or companies - the ones that want to take the work of others, modify it, and then sell it without reproducing the source of their modifications. If you look at the profits and market capitalisation of IBM and Red Hat - clearly they have benefited greatly from GPL software.

Re:linux is not freeware

[_Sprocket_]

Tivo.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Gwala]

> for the purposes of the GPL, a combined work is as good as a derivative work.

Except the GPL relies on derivative works for enforcement, so if it is not legally a derivative work; the GPL has no hold. The GPL applying via the 'shim' only holds when you cannot seperate the other half (the proprietary bit), or replace it with something else; and possibly only then if the seperated half derives enough from the original interface.

Re:linux is not freeware

[anarchyboy]

Ok but you only have to have the source code available, so as long as you keep a copy you can sit back and do nothing while canonical are still in buisness then if they go bust make your copy available. Also notice that you can charge for the copy of the source code to recoup your loses from burning and posting a dvd. Depending on what your distributing how many requests for the source are you realistically going to get espicialy if you havent edited the source yourself theres probably a good chance it would still be available from where ever you got it. If you do have a large number of requests for your source on the other hand from people who have bought your product, well clearly you've been sucessful in selling it to a lot of people so should be able to afford distributing the source.

Re:linux is not freeware

[cas2000]

at some stage, manufacturers will realize the hidden cost of using GNU/Linux in their embedded platforms..

what hidden cost?

it couldn't be more fucking obvious what the "cost" of using GPL software is - release the source under the same conditions (GPL) that you got it under.

these companies just want to reap the benefits of GPL software without living up their part part of the bargain.

they are parasites.

ps: you're right. linux is not "freeware". freeware is proprietary garbage that happens to cost nothing. linux is Free Software instead - high quality open source.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Flossymike]

Interesting. does that also apply to the Sky HD box and do you have any references to show this?

Re:linux is not freeware

[LordKronos]

Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code.

If I sell a computer with ubuntu installed I have offer ubuntu sources to the customer.

I'm just asking here, but
1) Does that apply if the customer only leases the cable box? The actual purchaser of the box would be the cable company.
2) Does it apply if the customer doesn't even lease it, but merely uses a loaner cable box (for free)? If so, does that mean that if I let other people use my linux based computer, I'm obligated to let them know it uses linux and that they can get the source code from me?

Re:linux is not freeware

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, as much as software companies like to squeal about it, most people don't see pirated software as a big deal.

They do, however, don't like to see a gift freely given in the spirit of cooperation being abused... "you were given that for free with the sole condition that you share it with others too." It's a very simple message - the sort of lesson that good parents teach children early on.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Hurricane78]

It's not a hidden cost. It's the (arguably hidden) protection from the company scamming you and locking you in, etc.
You just can't do some things, when everybody can read the source. But that doesn't mean that it is acceptable to do those things in the first place. To me they are crimes. And in closed source products they are only more easily hidden.

I'd go so far as to say, that if a company uses closed source, it is a big indicator, that they want to rip you off and somehow trick you in some crooked way. A big red blinking warning sign.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't think people are going to go back to rolling their own in the embedded market - anyone with any experience in embedded software development will tell you that Linux makes life a hell of a lot easier because all of a sudden a lot of things you would otherwise have to write from scratch are basically included. And it can be a lot of work to port a userland package developed for Linux to something like VxWorks.

The key part of the embedded market is that it is teh device and support, not the software per se, that is valuable. TIVO offers a user experience that's worth $14 a month to many people; even if I rolled my own TIVO the cost to replicate that experience is so high that it makes no sense to try to compete with them. Similarly a controller is often a critical part of a process system, and companies want assurances it will work properly; and aren't interested in the cheap knockoff with the same software. So Linux gives companies an inexpensive way to create a product where the value is in what they add, not the software. As a result, the GPL requirements are a small price to pay in exchange for its advantages in software development. In addition, there's nothing from preventing a company from mixing GPL and proprietary software in a product; they just need to keep each properly separate to avoid license violations.

Coming at it from another angle, every couple of years there's an article about how even in the Western world, some absurdly large proportion of companies use pirated software. What makes you think that the GPL will make them suddenly compliant?

Lawsuits; although I prefer education - many companies may not understand the GPL and need to learn what it requires. I'm amazed at the ignorance out there around such issues - for seem reason people equate found on the internet with free to use however I want.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Curien]

Does that apply if the customer only leases the cable box?

That's an interesting question. I suppose it hinges on the legal definition of the word "possesses".

does that mean that if I let other people use my linux based computer, I'm obligated to let them know it uses linux and that they can get the source code from me?

You have not distributed anything, so the terms of the GPL do not apply.

Re:linux is not freeware

[TheRaven64]

For example, if they're actually modifying the kernel, they could use whatever trick nVidia uses to get around the GPL and insert binary blobs

No they couldn't. The legality of nVidia's trick hinges on the fact that:

1. Their code is not Linux-specific (except the shim, which they do open source) and so can not be argued as a derived work of Linux.
2. They do not distribute the Linux kernel itself.

Point number one means that they don't need to abide by the GPL to distribute just their code. The second point is also important because, even though they don't need to apply the GPL to their own code to distribute it, they do need to apply the GPL to the combined work of Linux and their driver (and, therefore, a GPL-compatible license to their own code) if they want to distribute them together. This company is distributing Linux and so has to apply a GPL-compatible license to any modifications that they do distribute.

Re:linux is not freeware

[TheRaven64]

But in auditing our code, we've come across quite a few open-source projects which have borrowed from each other without first checking that their licenses are cross-compatible

That's not always obvious. For example, I've contributed the same code under an MIT license to one project and GPLv3+runtime exemption to another project. If you compared the project licenses, you might think that the MIT-licensed project copied the GPL'd code and relicensed it, but if you check the author of the code in both cases you will see that this was done legally (because I retain copyright and can relicense the code however I please).

Re:linux is not freeware

[gbjbaanb]

at some stage, manufacturers will realize the hidden cost of using GNU/Linux in their embedded platforms

of course, they currently see the obvious savings of using Linux in the first place.

They can switch to Windows CE (or whatever they call it now) and pay those licence fees to Microsoft if they prefer. Or they could contribute their source code to the Linux community, benefiting everyone just like they benefited in the first place.

Re:linux is not freeware

[gbjbaanb]

The problem is that canonical may not provide that version on line for three years. They might be out of business then. So I have to host the source or pay canonical to do it for me.

Would you really still be using that distro if Canonical has gone out of business or dropped that version? Really? I mean, some people used RedHat 6 once upon a time, I don't think they are still using it - they've upgraded to a later version. If you do supply code for a product that is EOL, are you also telling me that you don't have the code available to yourself to build any more of it? That you throw it away once you've built your software product?

Its not an onerous as you think, if you think about it.

Re:linux is not freeware

[init100]

and then only to those you distribute to directly. End-users aren't covered.

Unless you choose the "written offer" alternative. If you do not ship the source, but rather choose to ship a written offer for the source, the offer has to be valid for anyone that holds the object code of the product.

Re:linux is not freeware

[jimicus]

Indeed - though I believe the initial audit was carried out by a program which simply drills through the source code and looks for the text of some common licenses.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Lumpy]

Exactly. Panasonic uses linux in ALL of it's HDTV's the TV tells you it has linux, the manuals talk about linux and the GPL. and their website has links to what I need.

If a company cant do that, then they are scumbags. Most HDTV's and DVD, BluRay players run linux. In fact more people run linux in their home than windows because of how pervasive it is in the Embedded market. 90% of the companies out there can easily comply with the GPL, This one can easily do the same.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Antique Geekmeister]

No. They can't. NVidia very carefully does not _publish_ kernels with the modifications. They publish a downloadable patch that you must manually apply on top of your existing kerneal, and the agreement on that patch says you _may not_ distribute it as part of a kernel.

Sending boxes to people's homes pre-installed with non-GPL modifications would be a much more blatant GPL violation, because it would constitute distribution of the "tainted" kernel, rather than allowing people to taint their own kernels. They have similar problems with modifications to glibc, which is far more likely, since that's a component other set-top box and Linux appliance manufacturers have been caught violating the GPL on as well.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Artifakt]

Coming at it from another angle, every couple of years there's an article about how even in the Western world, some absurdly large proportion of companies use pirated software. What makes you think that the GPL will make them suddenly compliant?

        I wouldn't expect all of them to suddenly comply, and I have a low enough opinion of some companies that I fully expect they would deliberately never comply, even if it bites them on the butt repeatedly for not complying.

        There still is a difference. the ratio of costs and benefits for compliance is different, usually far, far in Linux's favor. If a company understands how that open source aided its own developers, and how much alternatives, such as the price of privileged access to MS's internal calls, would cost them, they ought to see that as somebody playing fair with them (in the limited sense that all the cards are on the table - no hidden aces up the Linux source's sleeve). Many won't, of course - but the more they abuse the license, the more obviously they become self identifying: They don't think anyone else ever plays fair, and they don't ever play fair with anyone else.

Re:linux is not freeware

[apoc.famine]

I wish I had mod points for you...Of COURSE the GPL favors companies.
 
If you use proprietary code, you reap all the benefits, but must do all the work. You pay for changes and improvements, and they happen at the rate you pay for them to happen.
 
If you license with BSD, the community might improve the code for you. And your competitor might take that code, add more to it, lock it away behind a proprietary license, market the hell out of it, and make a ton of money based off your work.
 
If you license your code with the GPL, you can still sell it and sell support, the community can improve your code, and you can add those changes back in, and your competitors can't take your work and resell it while locking all their changes away.
 
The GPL is all about collaborative coding. Whether between individuals, between individuals and companies, and between companies doesn't matter. If you want to harness the power of collaborative work, you need the GPL.

Re:linux is not freeware

[EponymousCustard]

Thanks for the info, I stand corrected.

Re:linux is not freeware

[kdemetter]

You have a point , offcourse.

But my claim was not to say no companies could benefit from it , just that the benefit is mainly aimed towards the end users , who can be ensured that the software will remain free.

BSD , is more favorable to companies , because they are allowed to do much more with it , as you stated. However , the end user suffers , because the project may become propietary.

In the end , it all comes down to rights.

Both GPL and BSD are good licenses , as long as they are used in the right situations.

Re:linux is not freeware

[drinkypoo]

The problem is that canonical may not provide that version on line for three years. They might be out of business then. So I have to host the source or pay canonical to do it for me.

But "host the source" can mean "I have the CD on hand and if you pay me for my time, media, and postage I will make you a copy". Also, web hosting is very cheap now, if you just need to shovel some source bundles occasionally.

Re:linux is not freeware

[SanityInAnarchy]

The second point is also important because, even though they don't need to apply the GPL to their own code to distribute it, they do need to apply the GPL to the combined work of Linux and their driver (and, therefore, a GPL-compatible license to their own code) if they want to distribute them together.

In other words, distros that do combine them, like Ubuntu, are actually GPL violators?

That's actually pretty hilarious.

Re:linux is not freeware

[SanityInAnarchy]

My take is that Linus is being a pragmatic fellow and choosing his battles here, even if deep down he suspects that nVidia is violating the letter of the license.

My take would be that Linus doesn't particularly care about the spirit of the license, either. As an example, he really doesn't care about what Tivo did -- he doesn't mind being able to see their changes, without having the ability to compile and actually run them on his own Tivo.

Re:linux is not freeware

[RiotingPacifist]

You have a point , offcourse.

But my claim was not to say no companies could benefit from it , just that the benefit is mainly aimed towards the end users , who can be ensured that the software will remain free.

You completely missed his point, his point is that the companies benefit because the software (and any improvements made by competitors) will remain free!

Re:linux is not freeware

[TheRaven64]

Yes, they would be in violation of the GPL, and one distro has been caught out as a result of doing that. Ubuntu does not, it distributes a script which allows the user to fetch the drivers directly from nVidia and install them. PC-BSD, on the other hand, is no limited by the GPL and so includes the FreeBSD nVidia blobs on the install CD.

Re:linux is not freeware

[MichaelSmith]

The problem is that canonical may not provide that version on line for three years. They might be out of business then. So I have to host the source or pay canonical to do it for me.

But "host the source" can mean "I have the CD on hand and if you pay me for my time, media, and postage I will make you a copy". Also, web hosting is very cheap now, if you just need to shovel some source bundles occasionally.

Oh yeah. My only argument is with people who say they only need to distribute source they have changed "because the rest is freely available".

Re:linux is not freeware

[sjames]

I don't see why. They would need to release their drivers at most, the rest of the system would be the standard user space utils (easy to put up a source mirror for that) and their proprietary software running in userspace (which they are not required to GPL). Being an embedded device, they could even implement drivers in userspace running as root so they can map physical memory and call sched_setscheduler to get top priority.

In general, the interesting stuff to the hobbiest/tinkerer will be in the drivers. The interesting stuff to the competition would be the non-free userspace that runs the system.

Compared to an upfront cost for the SDK (and perhaps training) plus the per-device royalty plus having less developers up to speed on the platform and the associated costs of compliance tracking, releasing a couple drivers and mirroring a distro on your website seems like a fairly small price to pay for a perpetual royalty free source license.

What they need to realize is that there IS a price, it's just not monetary. It is quite reasonable.

Re:linux is not freeware

[labnet]

So what is the go for niche developers.

Lets say I'm developing a commercial oven, and we use a Linux RTOS.
Now if I write a driver for a specific chip, I have no problem sharing that code, but my customers is part of their competitive IP. Does GPL mean this userland code has to be shared, or would you write an abstration layer, and just share the abstration layer?
eg
  (have to share)
  (don't have to share secret sauce)

Re:linux is not freeware

[labnet]

oopps.. 'Plain Old text' is not infact plain old text... the previous commant had an example

(Linux Kernal)(TCP/IP Socket)(secret IP) - have to share?
(Linux Kernal)(TCP/IP Socket)(my comms layer)(secret IP) - only share 'my comms layer' ???

Re:linux is not freeware

[sjames]

Burn a DVD for them and be done with it. Or just copy the iso for the DVD onto the system before you hand it over.

Re:linux is not freeware

[sjames]

Or burn a DVD of the source and include it with the product. Done. Or just keep the DVD handy and if Canonical goes away stick the iso on your website.

Re:linux is not freeware

[TheRaven64]

I'm not sure what your question is. Are you talking about a driver or userland code? If it's userland code, the GPL doesn't apply (at least, not due to the kernel) because it's mere aggregation. If it's a driver, then you must distribute it under a GPL-compatible license because the combined work of the driver + the kernel must be under the GPL.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Jeremy Visser]

Ubuntu does not, it distributes a script which allows the user to fetch the drivers directly from nVidia and install them.

Actually, it doesn't. The contents of nvidia-glx-* and nvidia-*-kernel-source (including the proprietary nv-kernel.o file) are packaged up inside the .deb files in the repository like other packages (albeit being in the restricted repository).

Proof here.

Re:linux is not freeware

[labnet]

So therefore, application code that is not a part of the kernal, is not subject to GPL?
eg. If I write a game that uses an unmodified linux kernal, the game is not part of GPL.

Re:linux is not freeware

[mrchaotica]

The thing is, if you just order a bunch of Ubuntu CDs from Canonical and then pass them along, you don't have to offer source code because the GPL never kicked in in the first place! It only applies when when you do something that would otherwise violate copyright law, which means you'd have to make the copies before distributing them.

Re:linux is not freeware

[mrchaotica]

You're right, but your compliant in still stupid. You need to look at the paragraph in the license just before the one you quoted:

a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.

In other words, include the damn source code with the product in the first place and you're already done! What's so fucking hard?!

Re:linux is not freeware

[mrchaotica]

It's not entirely up to Linus; there are hundreds of other people (i.e., every other contributor) who own at least some part of the copyright, and any one of them has standing to sue nVidia. The reason it hasn't happened yet is that nobody thinks the case is strong enough to be winnable, "spirit violations" notwithstanding.

(FWIW, I don't like what nVidia is doing either. Also, IANAL.)

Re:linux is not freeware

[Your.Master]

That's interesting, but isn't that a hole in the license? Couldn't a company set something up similar to Hollywood Accounting, except instead of laundering the profits away from the obligations it launders FOSS binaries away from the source obligations?

Re:linux is not freeware

[jedidiah]

Actually, the problem with Tivo is that the "experience" is not worth
$14 a month. That is why they decided to start suing people with their
bogus patents. They managed to saturate the market for people that were
willing to spend $14 per month per device for a "better experience".

I am a demanding user. I would rather build and maintain MythTV. Many
others like me would rather run MCE or SageTV. On the other side of
things you have the sheeple consumers that don't care about the finer
points or network transparency or 5 terrabytes of recording space who
will be content with whatever their cable company gives them.

If "the Tivo experience" were really worth $14 per device per month
then they wouldn't be running amok with patent litgation.

Re:linux is not freeware

[kz45]

"I'm so sick of hearing people crying about how they can build on another's work at no cost, but then have to reciprocate. Either call the friggin whaambulance, or STFU and code it all yourself."

I'm fine with this. As long as the GNU community stops calling it free, knowing full well that this has multiple meanings in the English language.

It's okay though. The more press Linux and the GNU license gets like this, the more companies will start moving away from the license because it's a liability.

Re:linux is not freeware

[kz45]

"You completely missed his point, his point is that the companies benefit because the software (and any improvements made by competitors) will remain free!"

and how will they benefit when anyone can take the source and sell it, giving them now competitive advantage?

It helps non-software companies that are using linux and other OSS projects to save licensing costs..and that's about it.

Re:linux is not freeware

[mrchaotica]

So therefore, application code that is not a part of the kernal, is not subject to GPL? eg. If I write a game that uses an unmodified linux kernal, the game is not part of GPL.

As a rule of thumb, that's correct (as long as they don't use some other GPL'd bit, like a library or something, either).

However, the true answer to that question is that the game is not subject to the GPL if and only if it is not a "derivative work," which is a legal concept that depends not only on the technical circumstances (e.g., whether the GPL'd and [possibly-]non-GPL'd parts interact via static linking, dynamic linking, or a well-defined and standardized API) but also the historical circumstances (e.g. even if version 6.0 shares zero lines of code with 1.0, but 1.0 was GPL'd and 6.0 mutated from it rather than being a completely new program, then 6.0 has to be GPL'd too) and even the cognitive circumstances (e.g., if the author intended the new part to be combined with the GPL part as a single functional unit, or if the author substantially used GPL'd source code as a reference (i.e., plagiarized it)) as well. Only a court ruling can give a definitive answer, and in borderline cases a lawyer would be required to get even a reasonably likely-correct one.

But don't let that put you off too much; all this is a consequence of copyright law itself, not something uniquely difficult about the GPL. As long as you're only interacting with GPL'd code in reasonably normal ways (e.g. merely using the public API) and/or uses the GPL'd code incidentally rather than leveraging it as part of your code's primary purpose (e.g., your program is not itself an operating system kernel, that encapsulates Linux to do the heavy lifting), then you're fine.

(IANAL.)

Re:linux is not freeware

[kz45]

"It's a very simple message - the sort of lesson that good parents teach children early on."

Funny, how one license violation is "no big deal" and another is "the sort of lesson good parents teach children early on".

Re:linux is not freeware

[kz45]

"You just can't do some things, when everybody can read the source."

For a company selling software, it's not just about reading the source. Using the GPL means that anyone can give out the source for free, sell it, or compile it and release the binaries. This essentially means you have no business (or it can easily be taken away by anyone with access to bittorrent or a $5/month hosting plan).

"I'd go so far as to say, that if a company uses closed source, it is a big indicator, that they want to rip you off and somehow trick you in some crooked way. A big red blinking warning sign."

Not really. I would say that if they use closed source, they will have a higher chance of surviving and being around in 5 years.

Look at the stats. There are only a handful of oss-based software companies surviving (and most are backed by much larger companies making money with something other than selling software). However, there are thousands of Misvs selling closed-source software and surviving (they aren't making billions of dollars, but they are making enough for the few people in the company to make a living..which means there will be support in the future).

Re:linux is not freeware

[mrchaotica]

I've contributed the same code under an MIT license to one project and GPLv3+runtime exemption to another project.

What made you decide to do that anyway? It seems like it might have been simpler to just contribute it as MIT-licensed (or dual-licensed) to both...?

Re:linux is not freeware

[andy_t_roo]

besides, you don't have to provide source with the binary, you have to provide the source if asked for it/have the source available -- and the reply would be "sure, go to ubuntu.com and click there and here to download it"

if you haven't changed it, then linking the person to provider of the original source would be fine.

Re:linux is not freeware

[mrchaotica]

if you haven't changed it, then linking the person to provider of the original source would be fine.

Well, if you're passing along copies somebody else made (the situation I was referring to before), then that's true (because copyright law, and therefore the GPL, never get invoked in the first place). But if you made the copies (which requires that you accept the GPL), then that's allowed only under certain circumstances:

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

...

c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Registered Coward v2]

Actually, the problem with Tivo is that the "experience" is not worth $14 a month. That is why they decided to start suing people with their bogus patents. They managed to saturate the market for people that were willing to spend $14 per month per device for a "better experience".

Much of that experience is that it simply works, out of the box. No need to find a guide service. If you have a problem, you get telephone tech support.

Contrast that to a roll your own solution, which is often frustrating and sort of provides what you need. Tech support? Yea, OSS is known for the high quality of support, especially to non-technical newbs.

I am a demanding user. I would rather build and maintain MythTV. Many others like me would rather run MCE or SageTV. On the other side of things you have the sheeple consumers that don't care about the finer points or network transparency or 5 terrabytes of recording space who will be content with whatever their cable company gives them.

You're right, most people don't care about those things. They want to record what's on TV, and TIVO does that quite well. If they did, there's be viable alternatives to TIVO.

The number of demanding users to TIVO users is so small that it's not worth building a business around.

TIVO simply works, and that's what people want.

I looked at Myth TV, but the hassle of getting and keeping it up and running simply wasn't worth it to me compared to simply plugging in a TIVO and forgetting about it.

If "the Tivo experience" were really worth $14 per device per month then they wouldn't be running amok with patent litgation.

Patent litigation is a whole separate issue from product quality or desirability.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Bert64]

It doesn't give them a competitive advantage, it gives them the same advantages you had (ie ready made code, no need to write from scratch), but if all they do is use your code unchanged then they are at a disadvantage - having at best a direct clone of your product but no value-add and probably very poor service if they don't employ any developers who understand the code.
If on the other hand, they employ developers to make improvements and fixes to the code, then you can also benefit from them.

Re:linux is not freeware

[kz45]

"It saves everything being tied up in legal limbo. Not only do you get to leach all the code you can eat, without licences/fees, but your developers can just submit any patches that suit your company's products/clients without having to bring in lawyers (yours and every other company/group involved in the project's) for a six month mutual licensefest."

Although lawyers won't be involved, it won't matter because you won't be able to make any sort of profit. There are thousands of small, closed-source companies making a living for the many developers and other people involved with the company. I can only think of a handful of companies actually making money with open source (and it's on support, which isn't that scalable as a business model and very difficult to do well as a small company).

I don't think you have any idea what it takes to run a business.

"Saves time, saves money, saves aggravation. Sets your developers free.

I hope you are joking.

Re:linux is not freeware

[kz45]

"It doesn't give them a competitive advantage, it gives them the same advantages you had (ie ready made code, no need to write from scratch)"

This isn't true. If I add my changes to GNU PROJECT X, my changes are my competitive advantage (because it differentiates me from another company trying to do the same thing). Because it's GNU, the other companies now have my changes + the advatages I had (the original code).

"but if all they do is use your code unchanged then they are at a disadvantage - having at best a direct clone of your product but no value-add and probably very poor service if they don't employ any developers who understand the code."

It also makes it easy for much larger companies to swoop in and destroy smaller companies trying to sell open source. When it comes to support/service, larger companies almost always have the advantage (because smaller companies just don't have the man-power).

also, why would you want to utilize code that automatically almost guarantees competition and reduces your chances of company survival? Once software companies understand this, they will steer clear of anything GNU.

Re:linux is not freeware

[TheRaven64]

One was a GNU project. They require copyright assignment and license the code under the GPL. The copyright assignment also grants me a non-exclusive license to do whatever I want with the code, including relicense it. I contributed it to an MIT-licensed project so it wasn't locked up by the GPL. If the FSF accepted MIT-licensed contributions, I'd have just done that, but they have stupid rules.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Bert64]

That XTV page is insulting...

XTV lets subscribers decide when and where they watch the content they choose and build their own personal playlist.

As a subscriber, i would like to record tv and then watch it on my linux based laptop when i'm working away on business (because the hotels typically have very poor choices of channels), yet their "official" systems provide no way to do this - only unofficial systems provide this...

From the subscribersâ(TM) viewpoint, it doesnâ(TM)t get any better.

As a subscriber, a dreambox seems to be considerably better than an xtv device.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Kjella]

If it works, it's not really a hole in the license as it all relies on the first sale doctrine. The only way to patch that would be to prohibit normal resale and only permit resale complying with the source requirements. It should be pretty easy to test.

1. Person A makes some copyrighted code
2. Person A distributes to B under GPL
3. Person B modifies work and creates widgets with modified binary
4. Person B sell them to C, complying with the GPL
5. Person C sells copies to D under first sale doctrine
6. Person D is denied source from C since resale doesn't use any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, B because they have no contractual relationship and A because he hasn't got the modified source.
7. Profit for B and C?

Re:linux is not freeware

[selven]

No - by default you do not have the right to redistribute GPL code at all due to copyright. Copyright applies to everyone, even if you never licensed the software. The GPL gives you rights to redistribute the software under certain conditions. Thus, if you set up one company to download GPL software and transfer the software to another company, the other company can still only redistribute under the GPL's restrictions.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Bert64]

Coming at it from another angle, every couple of years there's an article about how even in the Western world, some absurdly large proportion of companies use pirated software. What makes you think that the GPL will make them suddenly compliant?

Because by far and away the vast majority of these companies only use "pirated" software internally... The GPL does not apply if you are just using the software internally, it only applies if you are distributing it to third parties. Using GPL software would eliminate the vast majority of corporate use of non legitimate software.

Re:linux is not freeware

[Bert64]

Sure, anyone can give out the source for free but in many cases, especially with embedded devices, the value is in the whole package...

Take the dreambox satellite receivers as an example, the software is all gpl and there are various cheap chinese clones, however these chinese clones are considered inferior products.

Products using closed source software still get cloned too, look at all the chinese cloned cisco routers...

Re:Byte the hand that Feeds!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we need a "-1 WTF" option

Re:Positive move?

[blackraven14250]

I'm guessing sarcasm. If it's not, ignore this.

It may actually get media attention to Linux, which is always good. It's definitely not hard for them to provide source either; simply have something in the manual stating "source available at [url]". I don't see why this would be a problem for Linux, at all. If anything, it's free advertisement to communities that normally wouldn't have the first idea about its existence.

What's his copyright?

[mwvdlee]

Nowhere does TFA provide information on exactly which part of the GPL code the guy is claiming copyright ownership.

You can't sue for GPL violations if you have no claim of copyright over atleast some part of the GPL licensed product.

Re:What's his copyright?

[Zerth]

In some countries, law firms are allowed to sue on the behalf of copyright owners on their own initiative, much like how you can be brought up on assault charges by the state in some countries even if the person you hit wanted you to do so.

Re:What's his copyright?

[PAjamian]

There is likely to be a few things in there that are copyright the FSF and they would be more than happy to pursue copyright violations.

Re:What's his copyright?

[49152]

Maybe TFA has been changed?

But if you read the link 'follow the case here' it clearly states which part of the linux kernel he is claiming copyright on.

He also ask for other copyright holders to join him.

Re:What's his copyright?

[andersa]

It may be a breach of their contract with the client. By contract they are delivering a set top box to the customer and the license for the set top box software requires them to make the source available. Not a lawyer of course, so I don't know if they can just say - 'duh, give us the box back, then.'.

Re:Positive move?

[amorsen]

What does the community get out of the fact that YouSee, Stofa, and Viasat use Linux?

All the Danes on Slashdot probably know about Viasat's business practices, which are about as close to fraud as you can get without losing in court, so I don't need to warn anyone against signing contracts with them.

Huh

[JimboFBX]

So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well? If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?

If I pay a lawyer enough money will they always take my case?

Re:Huh

[dnaumov]

So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?

No, you don't have to print it all out. Including a download link to the source code somewhere in the documentation is definately good enough.

If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?

It doesn't matter. Does your software link against any GPL'ed software? If yes, you need to make the source to your changes available.

Re:Huh

[dissy]

So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?

No.

Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source, but only to the people you gave the binary to.
There can even be a fee for delivering the source (But not one greater than the cost of the binary the source is for, or something similar but not exactly that. Consult the GPL if that is an actual concern.)
Typically a link on a webpage, or an attachment by email reply, is fine. Generally the first option will be more convenient for you if you have anything but a very tiny customer base.

If you modified nothing, then the extent of your responsibility to redistribute is only to ensure the copyright notice stays intact. If you *really* modified nothing, this part is already done for you.

If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?

Nope. Goto 10 and reapply, specifically the 'if you *really* modified nothing' part.

If I pay a lawyer enough money will they always take my case?

Yup! That's about the only thing this article shows us.

Re:Huh

[BlueParrot]

So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well? If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?

If you sell somebody a box with linux on it you need to at the minimum include a statement in the user manual which more or less says "This box has some GPL licensed software installed on it. You can obtain the source-code from the following website and you are free to modify it under certain conditions. Please see the complete license for more details."

Alternatively you can include a CD with the source code, or load the source code into the box's harddrive ( provided it is readily retrievable ). Basically you just need to make the customer aware you use GPL software on the box and tell them how to obtain the source code from you. There's various ways to do that but the easiest is probably to either include the source on a CD or to upload it to your website and tell the customer they can retrieve it from there. The main problem with the latter approach is that the GPL requires you to keep the source available for some years (can't remember how many ) and thus you may find it easier to just give the user a CD with the source code since you are then not obliged to keep a server running.

Re:Huh

[MichaelSmith]

Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source

You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.

Re:Huh

[slash.duncan]

So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?

You don't need to print it out. In fact, that would be discouraged and may not meet the requirements of being in a customary format (too lazy to go look up the specific GPL wording ATM, but electronic format would be encouraged, dead tree format discouraged as it has to be converted back to electronic format for use), today. You do, however, need to make the sources available -- and no, pointing at upstream doesn't suffice, except "in the trivial case". (Again, I'm not going to go look up the details, but the idea is that individual users can share say Ubuntu and point to Ubuntu for sources, but commercial distributors and the like must make them available themselves.)

With GPLv2 (which the Linux kernel uses), you have two choices. If you provide sources at the time of purchase, say, throwing in a CD/DVD with the sources on it, you're covered, and don't have to worry about it when you quit distributing the binaries. Similarly with a download, if you provide the binaries and an archive with the sources at the same time, you're fine. Similarly if you distribute disks at a FLOSS convention or the like. Have a stack of disks with the binaries and another with the sources (or a computer with a burner setup to burn a disk of the sources on demand, assuming there'll be less demand for that than the binaries).

Alternative two is to include a notice /with/ the software offering the sources for no more than a limited handling fee, to cover the costs of providing them (and this cost may be audited if you decide it's several hundred or thousand dollars...). *HOWEVER*, if you do this, the offer of sources must be valid for (I believe it's) three years from the time of distribution of the binaries -- thus, you must keep the exact sources necessary to build the binaries as distributed (not an updated version of those sources) available for three years BEYOND the point at which you stop distributing the binaries, so users who get the binaries the last time they were distributed have sufficient time to decide they want the sources, and (covering the user-trivial case) so they can pass on disks using you as an upstream sources provider, provided they don't have to be a provider themselves.

It is the three-year requirement in this choice that sometimes ensnares distributions that are otherwise playing by the rules, as many don't realize that if they only include the offer for sources, it must remain valid for three years after they've stopped distributing the binaries. Take a distribution that may be distributing historical versions of their LiveCD, for instance, from say 2003. As long as they are still distributing that LiveCD, AND FOR THREE YEARS AFTER, in ordered to comply with the GPLv2, they must make the sources used to compile the binaries on that CD available, as well. So if they're still offering that historical 2003 LiveCD in August 2009, they better still have the sources used to create it available thru August, 2012, or they're in violation of the GPLv2 that at least the Linux kernel shipped on that LiveCD is licensed with. It's easy enough to forget about that part and thus be in violation, when they can't provide sources for the binaries that were current way back in 2003, but that they may well still be making available "for historical interest" on that 2003 LiveCD.

One many distributions become aware of this catch, they make it policy to ensure that they make available the actual sources at the time of distribution as well as the binaries, instead of simply providing the notice that people can request them later, so they don't have to worry about that 3-year thing.

Of course, if an organization is on top of things, and sets it up so they're tarballing all the sources for a particular shipped version and indexing them by product release and/or model number (and perh

Re:Huh

[49152]

Not exactly correct

You only need to provide source code when ASKED for it. There is no requirement in the GPL to pro-actively distribute the source code along with the binaries nor that they must be available for download on the Internet. The good old CD in the mail system is fine. You might even charge for CD and postage.

However, if you do not include source code in the distribution then you need to provide a written offer valid for at least three years to provide anyone who possesses the object code a copy of the corresponding source code.

The reason most compliant companies chose to either include the source or just put it on their corporate web page is because this is easier in the first place than to handle potentially thousands of letters asking for the source later.

Re:Huh

[49152]

Must be something wrong with my reading comprehension today. I now see you start your post with suggesting a written offer in the user manual. Which would be more than good enough to stay GPL compliant.

Sorry for the noise.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

But, for commercial Linux based hardware or software products, that still doesn't get one away from having to make available source for any GPLed products you distributed. The one exception to that, that I know of, is if you burn it into ROM, such that neither you nor the customer can upgrade it without physically replacing that chip, THEN you can ship GPL based hardware /without/ having to ship sources.

This is incorrect; all versions of the GPL require you to provide source code.

Where you appear to be getting confused is that version 3 of the GPL additionally requires that software embedded in a "user product" is provided with any "installation information" which is necessary to replace the software (e.g. if the device requires upgrades to be digitally signed, you must provide signing keys). However, this specific part doesn't apply if the software cannot be replaced by anyone, including the manufacturer (e.g. if it's in ROM).

Re:Huh

[PAjamian]

Including a download link to the source code somewhere in the documentation is definately good enough.

If you're distributing a box with Linux on it you can't expect the person who recieves it to have access to the internet to be able to download the source. You have to provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide the source code if requested for reasonable distribution costs.

Re:Huh

[LingNoi]

Where did you get this nonsense from? Of course a web address is fine. I've bought tons of stuff with linux embedded on it such as motorola's A1200, HTCs G1, etc and I never got a damn disk of source code.

Re:Huh

[TheRaven64]

How about from the FSF. For those too lazy to click on a link:

I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP?

Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details. Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.

Distributing the source online is only acceptable if you also (only) distribute the binary online. If you distribute the binary on a physical medium, such as a disk, tape, or set-top box, then you must provide a written offer good for three years of the source code.

Re:Huh

[TheRaven64]

Only if you compiled it yourself. Clause 3(c), as I recall, allows you to just pass on the written offer of the source from whoever gave it to you if you only received a binary. For example, if you downloaded .debs from Debian or Ubuntu without the source, you can pass these on and refer people to the upstream supplier for the source. They are required to keep the source for GPL'd binaries that they distribute around for three years.

Re:Huh

[dissy]

You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.

Just because such a comment will get you modded up on slashdot, does not make it true.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

If I write a driver for Linux, and it is GPLed, all that is required of me is to release the source code for that driver.
I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, nor a mirror of the FSF code base, nor am I expected to provide the source code to your pet GPL project, if I do not distribute any of that stuff as a binary!

It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.

If my driver is made from scratch, I must provide its complete source, and any glue code needed to compile and use it.
If it is a modification to an existing driver, then I must provide sources of the entire end-result. aka diff files are not enough, it must be the entire code for THE DRIVER, including my changes. But that is it. Not the source to all kernels, not the source to every possible distro that driver would work on. Just my changes.

Providing a distribution is different of course. You do need a source 'snapshot' of the entire distribution. But that is it!
If I distribute a version of Ubuntu with my driver, then I must provide the source to that Ubuntu release, as well as my driver.

Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim. Just source of what you are distributing binaries of.

Re:Huh

[LingNoi]

I see the following said about version 2..

However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.

However where is that stated anywhere in GPL 2 license? It's not. The thing that comes closest is in section 3 subsection b.

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,

If you're already providing a copy online then you're meeting the requirements. Mail is not "medium customarily used for software interchange".

Show me exactly where it says you must provide a physical copy if someone requests it. It doesn't.

Re:Huh

[Artifakt]

You might even charge for CD and postage.

You probably can charge a reasonable amount for handling as well, although there's always the risk with that pesky word reasonable that your definition of reasonable may exceed the court's definition.

Re:Huh

[mrchaotica]

Similarly if you distribute disks at a FLOSS convention or the like. Have a stack of disks with the binaries and another with the sources (or a computer with a burner setup to burn a disk of the sources on demand, assuming there'll be less demand for that than the binaries).

I'm not sure this is correct: I think you might have to force everyone who takes binaries to takes sources as well, or else you still risk being on the hook for 3 years if somebody who took only the binary (or someone downstream from him) decides they want the source later.

Re:Huh

[slash.duncan]

As in, put the sources on the same disk as the binaries? =:^)

To the best of my knowledge, no, no "force" is necessary. However, the sources do need to be not just available at the same time, but with a reasonably prominent message saying they are. IOW, if the LiveCDs are out for the taking, there needs to be either another stack of source CDs, or at least a sign beside the LiveCDs saying ask for a source disk and we'll burn one. It can't be simply up to the passer by to ask, without some reasonably sized sign saying to ask if you want a sources disk too, or it falls back to the notice on the binaries disk (which you better be sure and have included), thus triggering the 3-year clock.

Similarly, if there's a nice, prominently placed link on a web site to download the LiveCD, the link to the sources can't be hidden somewhere in the terms and conditions links at the bottom, or it falls back to the provide on request for at least three years clause. Neither does a link to the sources repository in general cover it, AFAIK. It has to be a link to the specific sources used to create the binaries on the distribution media, and it needs to be reasonably visible and logically attached to the link to the binaries. The links to the sources should be placed logically similarly to the links to the LiveCDs, say the next item in the menu, or once you click on the LiveCD link, it takes you to a lander page which for example lists the sources as one choice available among all the supported archs in either a list of links, or a drop-down menu.

Of course, browsing the FTP or HTTP files server itself, none of that is usually a problem (as long as the sources are available at all), because at that level, it's all a bare listing of directories and files anyway, and a logical directory tree makes it easy enough to find the sources. But besides being a mark of good community relations, this clause is behind the big distributions' policies of making srpms, etc, as available as the rpms that far more people use. And the whole policy, while it might seem niggling in its requirements at times, is one of the big reasons the Linux community is as active and vitally healthy as it is. Take away that access to the sources, or even simply make them harder to get (by encouraging the mail a request model, now discouraged by that three-year clause), and you quickly choke the vitality that is the ever living growing changing Linux community.

Re:Huh

[Bert64]

How much does a CD cost in bulk?
Just press a CD with the sourcecode and put it in the box with everything else...

Re:Huh

[mrchaotica]

As in, put the sources on the same disk as the binaries? =:^)

Exactly -- either that, or put the separate disks in the same package.

To the best of my knowledge, no, no "force" is necessary. However, the sources do need to be not just available at the same time, but with a reasonably prominent message saying they are. IOW, if the LiveCDs are out for the taking, there needs to be either another stack of source CDs, or at least a sign beside the LiveCDs saying ask for a source disk and we'll burn one. It can't be simply up to the passer by to ask, without some reasonably sized sign saying to ask if you want a sources disk too, or it falls back to the notice on the binaries disk (which you better be sure and have included), thus triggering the 3-year clock.

The thing is, I don't think the text of the license (either v2 or v3) supports this interpretation. It seems to me that even if the receiver explicitly refuses the source code at the time of receiving the binary, there's nothing in the GPL that stops him from being entitled to change his mind and ask for the source later. Moreover, if he passed the disk on to someone else, then that person would also have the right to request the source code from you, the person who made and initially distributed the copy. (The guy in the middle doesn't get that obligation because he didn't actually make a copy, which means copyright law and hence the GPL never applied to him.)

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe even including separate disks in the same package wouldn't work: what if the guy in the middle opened the package and only passed along the disk containing the binaries? It doesn't seem like that would be enough to invoke copyright law, which means the middle man wouldn't be responsible for providing the source, but the original distributor shouldn't be responsible for it either because he already made a good-faith attempt to fulfill the requirements of the GPL (under clause a). So who, then, becomes responsible for providing the source if the ultimate recipient wants it? Somebody has to be!

Re:Huh

[slash.duncan]

Good points. That's beyond what I (think I) know, but it's certainly interesting. I'd love to see Stallman's take on it, or [the name fails me, was the FSF lead lawyer for awhile but I think he has stepped down from that, I see his picture in my mind, but am about ready to go to bed and don't want to go looking for the name...].

13 whole days to lawsuit

[Seraphim_72]

You sure are generous. This smells more like troll than do gooder. I thought the States held the award for being sue happy. kudos to you for bringing it to the old country. IMHO you are poorly representing the GPL. We want friends and converts, not enemies. Email, call, send certified mail, not lawsuits. Sueing them makes you and us look like fuckwits.

Sera

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[rohde]

The company NDS that actually does most of the software on the box and tracked me down actually had 1 month to come up with an excuse for why the box violated GPL. I had direct contact with one of their representatives. They failed to give me any answer. I then contact the satellite provider using certified mail and wait 13 days for their answer. How long should I wait for this to be fair? The Danish providers have ignored GPL for years and I am pretty sure they know it. It would be nice of them to at least contact me and say we are working on it.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[RAMMS EIN]

``We want friends and converts, not enemies. Email, call, send certified mail, not lawsuits. Sueing them makes you and us look like fuckwits.''

Yes. On the other hand, how many notices do companies still need to get? They get the license itself (which they should have read - without the license, they would be infringing on your copyright by distributing your software), the short summary of the license (not legally binding, but makes the conditions pretty clear to anyone who bothers to read it), and, by now, plenty of cases have been filed and reported about (often against companies who do similar things, so if you keep up to date with what happens in your field, you probably know about it).

Yet, companies continue to barge ahead and use software without abiding by the license, simply because they can. If we continue to go after companies on a case by case basis, and start by being nice and notifying them before taking legal action, we will be letting many projects off the hook. That's fine as far as being friends with the people in these projects go (unless they are annoyed by the simple fact that they're doing something wrong and need to take corrective action - which is not unlikely), but what about the rest of the world? What about those who contributed to the software? What about the users of the modified software, who aren't given all the rights they ought to be given?

Think about it in terms of value. What's happening is that the contributors to the software are pouring some value into it. The conditions in the license state that the value has to be passed on to those who receive the software. Instead, what's happening is that some company is pocketing it all. Now, do we really want to be nice to them? I think the answer is "yes", but, at the same time, we must not fail to realize exactly how much these companies are ripping us off, whether they do it on purpose or through negligence.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Seraphim_72]

I put cash money down on a physical server with 1T of 15k rpm spinning disks 3 days ago. If said server gets here in 6 weeks I will be happy. The job that it is meant to fill might be ready in 3 months. To be frank, the world works slower than you do, get used to it.

Sera

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Seraphim_72]

How many do you want them to respond to?

This guy sent a mail, wasn't satisfied - in 13 days, then sued.

By all means nail the GPL violators, but yeesh give them a chance to come clean first.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Splab]

Good for you, but here in Denmark things works differently. 2 weeks notice is plenty of time, often people just go straight to Fogedretten and gets injunctions against the offending parties.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[SanityInAnarchy]

I put cash money down on a physical server with 1T of 15k rpm spinning disks 3 days ago. If said server gets here in 6 weeks I will be happy.

Erm... Why does your supplier suck so much?

Seriously, Newegg carries this kind of stuff, and I've never seen them take more than a few days. Granted, Newegg also doesn't provide the kind of service I'm sure your supplier does, but really, six weeks? WTF are they doing for six weeks?

To be frank, the world works slower than you do, get used to it.

An appropriate response here is often: s/get used to it/do something about it/g.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On an unrelated note, thanks for publishing the details of the case in English, and I hope you'll keep giving updates in English.

There have been several of these cases in Germany, and the details have only been published in German, which means 99% of the world won't get to hear about them.

Rich.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Seraphim_72]

Yeah. 24/7 with a 1 hour outage guarantee is worth 6 weeks wait. Having any hardware replaced within an hour 24/7/365.25 is totally worth the wait. NewEgg wont come close to that. We run a business here, not an anime fanboi site.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[tagno25]

Then you probably should have mentioned that you where not touching the product and that you where geyting it via a dedicated hosting provider.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Seraphim_72]

I am touching it. It will be in my server room.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[49152]

If they really need 6 weeks to deliver the server how do you expect them to be able to replace any part of it within one hour at a later time?

That does not make much sense.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Seraphim_72]

It does work however. The response tie is crazy fast.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[49152]

Just to nitpick a bit.

The correct number should be 97% or 94% if you limit yourself to the "Internet population" and not the global population.

You might find it interesting that about 70% of Internet users would not have understood the article in English either.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[donatzsky]

Perhaps you should read the timeline again; he hasn't actually sued yet. He is preparing to do so, but that's hardly the same thing. And who knows, perhaps that's exactly the bit of prodding needed to get Viasat to take him seriously.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[rohde]

Please read my web page as it pretty much answers why they decided to track me down. I'm beginning to think you did not read the prologue? I was in contact multiple times with the security investigators from NDS and made them aware of the problem. We had meetings and phone conversations. It is now 6 weeks since I pointed them to the GPL violations and no comments so far. Viasat distributes the box and is the official offender, but I am pretty sure they rely on the solution bought from NDS. This is why I first tried to talk with NDS.
If you are wondering why NDS sent security investigators it was most likely because I started digging into how the box is tied to your subscription card, thus making it impossible for you to use other brands of satellite receivers.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[RAMMS EIN]

``This guy sent a mail, wasn't satisfied - in 13 days, then sued.

  By all means nail the GPL violators, but yeesh give them a chance to come clean first.''

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that they've had that chance. It didn't start with that letter. The right of the company to distribute software it does not have the copyright to starts with a license from the copyright holder. So their first chance to do it right would have to either distribute the software under the terms of the GPL, or obtain a different license from the copyright holders.

Secondly, the mail your refer to is not the only warning they have gotten. In my previous post, I've already pointed out that there have been similar cases of GPL violations. They could have known about these. The author of the mail you refer to also says he has been in contact with the violating companies prior to sending his mail. Even if the violators had mistakenly assumed that the GPL allows them to distribute software in the way they were distributing it, they've had opportunities to realize this wasn't the case. Primarily, of course, they should not have made that assumption - they should have actually read the license they got.

Thirdly, 13 days is enough to at least get back to the sender of the mail and convince him that you are looking into the problem and willing to resolve it in a satisfactory manner.

Finally, I do not think that going to court at any point is unreasonable. It is what you do if you feel you cannot come to a satisfactory arrangement with the other party otherwise. Suing the other party does not preclude you from reaching agreement in any way. It simply means that a third party will decide the case if the two parties in conflict fail to reach agreement.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[MMC Monster]

They are guaranteeing =1 hour downtime 24/7 without physically holding the box?

How is that even physically possible? Does their service rep live next door to your company, and have no life?

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[nosferatu1001]

14 days, or 10 working days, is sufficient time to require a response - not necessarily a solution but to acknowledge that they have received the letter and X is doing Y or Z to resolve the issue.

If you do not receive one in this time, and have proof you sent and they received the correspondance, go ahead and sue - you have attempted to limit (mitigate) your costs, they chose not to respond.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[nosferatu1001]

So it takes 13 days to write a letter stating you are looking into this, and promising a response in Y days?

Hope I never have to deal with your company, ever - sounds like communication is not a strong point.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Sir_Lewk]

I've got this great bridge to sell you...

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[FranTaylor]

"IMHO you are poorly representing the GPL. "

How is upholding its terms "poorly representing" it? You have it precisely backwards.

If you are unable or unwilling to abide by GPL, there is a whole world of BSD software available for you.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[jopsen]

How many do you want them to respond to? This guy sent a mail, wasn't satisfied - in 13 days, then sued.

The were notified earlier and a lawsuit have not been filed yet!
They are just preparing the case and going public with the fact that they are...

By all means nail the GPL violators, but yeesh give them a chance to come clean first.

I agree... But if it was my code I would expect them to give some sort of reply within 24 hours, at the very least something like "we are working on it" or "we have send you letter to our legal department".
Don't let them play you around... If they try to make you do a lot of hard work and phone calls, that's just plain disrespectful and it would IMO be better to learn them a lesson by hitting them where it hurts... E.g. get an injunction so that they cannot distribute their product anymore.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[raynet]

I've seen similar contracts, basicly what the vendor does, is that they sell you two identical servers, one they ship to you, one they keep. When you call them about a problem, they take their server with them and if they cannot immediately detect and fix the problem at your end, they just switch the servers.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Antique Geekmeister]

So not having hardware for six weeks loses you that time from your "uptime" right up front. In my businesses, "delay to installation" is often counted as "downtime".

Buy spare disks at NewEgg's much lower price, start cycling in once a month after two years, and continue with that kind of schedule as long as the server lasts. You'll be ahead on price and massively ahead on reliability because large arrays tend to have multiple drives failing at the same time due to consistent wear.

"Four-hour" response time is a bad joke. It's typically 2 hours getting your call escalated from some call center in India to an engineer with a clue to actually start that 4-hour clock ticking, and it's vastly faster and cheaper to have the spare server or box of spares you bought with the money saved by skipping that insanely expensive service level. Yes, I do this, and it's very effective in a large installation.

If you have a teeny site where no one available has the expertise to do that 4-hour repair, pay for the external expertise. But be aware that for many people it makes little sense.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Artifakt]

And I deal with the IRS in situations where sometimes a physical document absolutely must be in the mail within 24 hours of my receiving it from a client or I am subject to fine. To be frank, the world sometimes works far faster than you do. Maybe you can accomplish good, meaningful work with processes taking 3 month cycles and more, but even some legal proceedings are nowadays based on a lot less time than that. One month and 13 days actually sounds like a reasonable time, and depending on the venue, may be giving the other side more, perhaps much more, than average time to respond.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[Artifakt]

A couple of months ago, I e-mailed my state Governor's office (Tennessee) over a problem. I got a personal reply from one of his assistants, giving me several contact names and phone numbers within 24 hours. One of those contacts called me faster than I could call them. I got a full solution for a problem that, as it turned out, actually spanned several departments of the government involved, within five days, including everyone involved identifying themselves, telling me what steps they planned to take and when they would do them by, giving me contact information if there was anything else, handling most of the problem by phone and following up with a written final document that resolved everything to my complete satisfaction.
        Ohh, but that's one of those inefficient government things, where they control the use of force and so don't have to cooperate, rather than a nice, efficient business situations where mutual, non-coercive conditions mean a swift resolution is the general rule out of enlightened self interest. (Go ahead Slash-libertarians, pile all over this). And no, I am not a contributor to either my Governor's last campaign or his party, but I will be next time.

   

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[quickOnTheUptake]

And I have to call bs on your only-30%-of-internet-users-understand-English number. This site seems to agree with the number you mention . You will, however, note that the world total adds up to 100%, which means they are only counting people once (i.e., counting people who speak the language as their first language) and are not accounting for the significant number of more-or-less bilingual internet users.
Indeed the note at the site makes it clear:

How many people can actually use the global language? David Graddol estimated a total of 750 million L1 (first or native language) plus L2 (second or nth language) speakers of English in his Future of English Report (pdf document) for the British Council. One of our subscribers, Martin Schell, has reviewed Prof. Braj Kachru's new book Asian Englishes which claims that India and China combined have over half a billion "users" of English.
Indeed, many people are bilingual or multilingual, but here we assign only one language per person in order to have all the language totals add up to the total world population (zero-sum approach).

In otherwords just because only 30% of internet users come from countries where English is the main language does not mean the only 30% of internet users understnd it, especially when you consider that Internet users will tend to be of a higher socio-economic status (thus more likely to understand multuple languages), that English is the most widely learned second language, and that a large majority of material on the internet is in Enlgish.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[SanityInAnarchy]

In other words, you could provide a similar service by simply buying two servers of your own. Of course, you'd need a highly competent admin to do the actual service...

It still raises the question -- is it worth the wait? WTF is the wait actually for, and why haven't competitors appeared with shorter wait times and driven them out of business?

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[SanityInAnarchy]

If I ran an anime fanboi site, I'd be stupid to use my own hardware in the first place.

I wasn't suggesting that you actually switch to Newegg. Antique Geekmeister makes a good point, but I was taking into account the service they provide above and beyond Newegg, Tigerdirect, etc. Rather, I was wondering two things:

• WTF are they doing that takes six weeks?
• Why hasn't a competitor appeared with shorter response time and driven them out of business?

Seriously, if you can't answer the first question, you have to assume it's some massive inefficiency at their end -- of the kind the free market is designed to crush.

What's more, the fact that you're doing this three months ahead of time hints at a pretty massive inefficiency in your business. The reason these so-called "cloud" models work -- that is, the utility computing models -- is because most businesses really can't know that far in advance what kind of load they're going to get.

I say "hints at" because I could be entirely wrong -- and I should clarify, I'm not suggesting you all switch to EC2. I'm only trying to highlight, again, that if the rest of the world moves as slowly as you, something is very wrong.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[jra]

Clearly, you should wait 2 weeks after you post the issue on Slashdot; that's enough notice. ;-)

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[dwandy]

We want friends and converts, not enemies.

The only friend a business has is money. You are not and will never be their friend. Successful businesses externalize costs: getting "free" source code is such an externalization. They will not willingly give up the advantage and for some it will take a lawsuit.

Personally I would take a stronger tact and sue for damages, not just compliance.

I don't believe that all these companies "get caught by the nasty hidden GPL", oh my!. They know full well what they are doing: they know that the worst case scenario is to be forced into compliance without additional penalty; so they try non-compliance first to try and gain competitive advantage (real or perceived). If they get caught (the 'if'!) they will comply without further penalty and will still consider themselves ahead for the time they had on the market. That's business.

Re:13 whole days to lawsuit

[petrus4]

If you are unable or unwilling to abide by GPL, there is a whole world of BSD software available for you.

Yeah; and it'd be too damn bad if there wasn't, wouldn't it?

I love it when you tyrannical pro-GPL jerks keep making rhetorical, "if you don't like it, you know what to do," statements. All you accomplish is publically demonstrating your character (or lack of) for everyone to see. Free As In Do As I Say.

So by all means, keep going. Feel free to make ample use of the provided rope, and continue to hang yourselves. With a bit of luck, you'll end up discrediting the GPL in the minds of whoever's watching, more or less completely.

That's actually the other reason why, truthfully, I find myself wondering why I even bother expending emotional energy where the FSF or its' drones are concerned any more. You're so brainlessly stupid, inept, and chronically socially disabled that you really don't need any help going over the proverbial cliff at all. You manage magnificently, entirely on your own.

Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GPL?

[RCL]

They use customized Linux ([archived page with details]) and don't even bother to provide the source with each copy.

What's worse, they change copyright notices of existing programs to their employees and do not include GPL license text in their "distribution".

Is it a GPL violation? They don't distribute MSVS outside of MoD and its numerous branches (state companies) - you can't neither buy nor download the system. Is it Ok to do the aforementioned things then?

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[Atlantis-Rising]

Put it this way: Are you willing to go to Russia and attempt to sue them?

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[spiffmastercow]

if they don't distribute it then its perfectly fine.

Re:Positive move?

[RAMMS EIN]

``This is going to be great for the uptake of Linux, and will really encourage people to use open-source tools instead of rolling their own proprietary black box. Keep up the good work!''

Rather than ... take the hard work of many hands, without compensating them or abiding by their terms, and using that to make your proprietary black box? Because that's what these companies have done.

The fact that the black box runs open source software means nothing when you don't get your Four Freedoms.

Linux detector

[buchner.johannes]

How would one find out that a box someone distributes runs Linux?

Re:Linux detector

[Norsefire]

Hold a Vista installation DVD in front of it and see if it growls.

Re:Linux detector

[Hurricane78]

So you are saying that I and my dog both run Linux?

I never knew...

Re:Linux detector

[e3m4n]

In the case of the linksys wrt54g they dumped the content of the flash and looked at the first bits of code to realize that the kernel was linux. Other cases have revolved around gaining shell access and discovering busybox on the unit (like some aDSL modems out there).

Re:Linux detector

[ColdWetDog]

Your dog must be pretty smart. Mine would just assume it's a frisbee and try to chase it.

Re:Linux detector

[mrchaotica]

I've been able to determine that a few flat-screen TVs I've looked at run Linux by navigating through the on-screen menu system until I found the screen displaying the text of the GPL. Of course, that only works for things that are in compliance...

Re:Dumb Idiots.

[tp_xyzzy]

Also, their lawsuit is not going too far, unless they personally are the copyright owners of the code. Just having a violation is not enough. The copyright owner needs to sue them for it. It's not enough for someone who have heard about the work to sue them.

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[RCL]

So the "creators" (an institute, affiliated to Ministry of Defense) aren't considered to be distributors in GPL sense when they ship their systems to another Ministry of Defense-affiliated entities?

P.S. Prior to 2009, they used to have an "order" form on their site, presumably for everyone - but right now it's gone.

Re:Positive move?

[fraktus]

In europe we have a lot of sat receivers built around Linux. I personally use a Dreambox. There are many variations on the distributions with different add ons and themes for interface. My favorite is the Gemini. The ecosystem is very well and alive and is centered around many forums where people exchange their experience

I wonder if this provider uses something based on the Dreambox.

The providers very often don't support using those Linux receiver because they have more options then the locked down proprietary receiver. By example my setup has a rotor so that I can pick many positions and different providers. Another cool thing is that you can stream on your local network the video and see it with VLC on any computer in your home, something that proprietary boxes never allow...

The problem is that there are several Chinese clones because if the software is GPL the hardware is not open sourced.

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[RCL]

Well, Microsoft has been quite successful in fighting copyright violations of its own products by Russian government and affiliated entities. Right now they all pay large license fees (that's why they dream to build nationwide Linux distro and already started converting schools to Linux).

But again, Microsoft has got a lot of money...

Re:Dumb Idiots.

[tagno25]

Also, their lawsuit is not going too far, unless they personally are the copyright owners of the code. Just having a violation is not enough. The copyright owner needs to sue them for it. It's not enough for someone who have heard about the work to sue them.

From http://duff.dk/viasat/ (TFA)

August 16th, 2009 - It has been brought to my attention that I do not state which part of the GPL code I am claiming copyright ownership on. I have some patches in the Linux kernel and a direct copyright notice in e.g. therm_adt746x.c. However my patches alone are not going to make a very strong case and it is my hope that big contributors to busybox and uClibc will help out making a bigger group of people who had their copyright violated. I have already contacted several people who have very clear violations of their copyright in the product, and we are looking to sue on their behalf too. But let me please be very clear about the fact that I would rather this case could be settled in a peaceful manner.

Re:Positive move?

[Runaway1956]

And, why, exactly, can you not modify them? Any box I've ever touched had an option to "update firmware". Granted, I haven't touched them all, but I can't imagine one without the option. If your box is using open source, people can build their own firmware - look at all the WRT firmwares available, starting with Tomato, DDWRT, OpenWRT - and there may be more.

A bright individual might roll his own, or not.

Actually - it might be to the ISP's advantage to allow this sort of thing. Some people are going to brick their boxes while tampering with them. Warranty is void, of course, if the box has been tampered with. So, the ISP gets the opportunity to sell another 20 dollar (or Euro, kroner, or whatever they use up there) box for 50 dollars.

Inform people that they have options. I'm all for that.

On the other hand, I wonder if pursuing these sort of actions might not scare vendors away from open source?

Re:Good Luck

[93 Escort Wagon]

Hopefully we will see less Danish satellite boxes using Linux.

Linux is a plague that tricks suckers in to throwing away their business and intellectual property.

The sooner people learn that Linux and the GPL is a cancer, the better off we will all be.

Given your busy schedule, Mr. Ballmer - it's good to know you have time to read Slashdot!

Re:Positive move?

[Mozk]

And, why, exactly, can you not modify them?

Because the device only accepts firmware with the proper digital signature? At least, that's how TiVo did it.

'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[IBitOBear]

In point of fact there is _nothing_ "hidden" about the cost of using GPL software in a product.

If you go the Microsoft Wince (I didn't name it 8-) route, you pay many dollars up-front, and some dollars per-unit.

You go GPL you pay nothing up front and pay full disclosure on the back end per unit.

The whole problem is the perception that this is "hidden" in the first place. When the tech people sell the GPL software to their managers they, in their naiveté, usually don't know to make a distinction between free(beer) and free(open).

Once the programmers, and indeed people like you, understand enough to present the cost/benefit analysis as it truly is, then this may stop happening.

Don't even think _hidden_, don't fool yourself or others. It's right there in the language of the GPL plain as day. Just like it's supposed to be. And thats the good thing that separates it from the BSD license which has no cost at all. That is the _whole_ reason to pick one over another as a licensor.

Hence "copyleft" instead of "public domain" etc.

Re:'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[jedidiah]

B*llsh*t. The GPL is perfectly plain.

The end users are king and you are expected to release the source code to any derivative works of GPL code.

It's always been pretty simple and quite plain.

The GPL is a "hack" of bog standard copyright law.

Re:'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[kz45]

"In point of fact there is _nothing_ "hidden" about the cost of using GPL software in a product."

It's not hidden, it's just not in the best interest of most companies to include GPL software. This article is a perfect example as to why.

"If you go the Microsoft Wince (I didn't name it 8-) route, you pay many dollars up-front, and some dollars per-unit."

With a Microsoft license, you only need to pay money. Most companies understand this.

"The whole problem is the perception that this is "hidden" in the first place. When the tech people sell the GPL software to their managers they, in their naiveté, usually don't know to make a distinction between free(beer) and free(open)."

The problem is that the entire community (including the FSF) continues to call it "free", which has multiple meanings in the english language. I wonder of they could counter-sue the FSF for calling it free. It seems deliberate to me..to get more companies to adopt it.

"Once the programmers, and indeed people like you, understand enough to present the cost/benefit analysis as it truly is, then this may stop happening."

More and more companies will stop using GPL software because it's a liability.

"Don't even think _hidden_, don't fool yourself or others. It's right there in the language of the GPL plain as day. Just like it's supposed to be. And thats the good thing that separates it from the BSD license which has no cost at all. That is the _whole_ reason to pick one over another as a licensor."

THe BSD license offers more freedoms to the user.

Re:'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[mrchaotica]

Don't even think _hidden_, don't fool yourself or others. It's right there in the language of the GPL plain as day. Just like it's supposed to be. And thats the good thing that separates it from the BSD license which has no cost at all. That is the _whole_ reason to pick one over another as a licensor.

The BSD license has a cost as well; it's just even more abstract than the GPL's cost. With the BSD license, the costs are in terms of:

1. either the risk of competitors appropriating your improvements to gain an advantage if you distribute your changes or the loss of community help if you don't, and
2. the less extensive and suitable selection of BSD-licensed code available in the first place because of people who chose the latter option in point 1 before you.

Re:'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[Ginger Unicorn]

The BSD licence offers more freedom to developers. The GPL offers more freedom to end users.

Re:'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[kz45]

"The BSD licence offers more freedom to developers. The GPL offers more freedom to end users."

To end users, the BSD and GPL license are the same. They can use the software for free and won't get in trouble for sharing (or downloading). This is the same with nearly all open source license.

Re:'Hidden Cost" my ass...

[Bert64]

People making such decisions are acting irresponsibly if they are making such decisions without being in full possession of the facts.

Probably impossible for them to comply

[jonwil]

Reasons why they may not be able to comply with the GPL:
1.3rd party hardware info they cant share (sattelite receiver chips, hardware video decoders, smart cards/smart card slots etc)
2.Sharing the GPL bits may help hackers figure out how to talk to the smart cards (either in the box or in a custom hardware rig) and from there hack the DRM and get free service.
3.Protecting the channels (for example, kernel source may show how video gets passed to the hardware video decoder or the TV encoder, both of which are places hackers could insert code to grab the video in order to make illegal copies and share them online, even just being able to run code on the box lets you do a lot in terms of hacking the box either to copy the content for sharing or hacking the service itself to try and get channels without paying for them). Or even simply being able to use the provided info (from the GPL source) to build a 3rd party box capable of receiving the channels and properly decoding them.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[Spad]

1. If any of the 3rd party materials violate the GPL then as distributers of the device it's their responsibility to ensure that the whole thing is legally compliant, just as they would with any proprietary code, before they start selling it.

2. "It might affect our profits" is not a sound legal defence.

3. See 2

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[Dog-Cow]

Those would be reasons they don't want to comply. Not reasons they are unable to.

It seems to me that a simple solution is to make it legal to pirate (to use the vernacular) any content received with these boxes. Actually encode into law that any media transmitted to these boxes automatically enters the public domain for as long as the software's license is violated. They'd clean up really fast or lose their market.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[PAjamian]

If they do not comply, regardless of the reason, then they do not have any license to redistribute the GPLed software at all.

If they cannot comply then they will end up having to pay punitive damages to the copyright holders of the software that they illegally distributed and cease any further distribution of the software.

You cannot simply ignore the GPL because it doesn't fit with your other contractual obligations. The copyright holders were not a party to those other contracts and so the existence of them does not free the distributors of their GPL obligations.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[mvdwege]

Tough shit. They should have thought of that before grabbing someone else's source and modifying it. There is such a thing as due diligence, you know.

Mart

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[DaleGlass]

GPL compliance isn't optional.

The GPL is very clear about what it requires, if you're unable or unwilling to comply with the terms, then don't use code licensed under it.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[jonwil]

Yes, GPL compliance is not optional. But in a number of cases (this case, the case of the Wii game that violated the GPL on SCUMMVM, the case of the drivers for the memory card slot/card on at least one model of Motorola linux phone and possibly others), the penalties for violating the GPL (including any "you have to stop selling the product" penalties) are smaller than the penalties for violating other license agreements.

For example, in the case of the memory card slot drivers (MicroSD IIRC), the penalty for violating the SD card association NDAs that (at the time) applied to the SD card specs could very well have been a complete ban on selling any products with an SD card slot (not just the linux phones every phone Moto makes). And the penalty for violating the Wii SDK NDA would have been at the very least a ban from producing any games for any Nintendo console if not more. And in the case of this sattelite decoder box, the penalty for releasing all the stuff needed to comply with the GPL could be a loss of the rights to produce decoder boxes that use the NDS Videoguard encryption (or worse, providers choosing to abandon NDS in favor of its competitors due to the increased risk of hacks)

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[Courageous]

GPL compliance isn't optional.

This is not correct. An entity finding itself in a position to comply with the GPL or not can indeed choose not; it's just that there will be many consequences. One such consequence could be being forced to rewrite one's software to a non GPL platform, and perhaps, pay damages to the original GPL copyright holder.

C//

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[DaleGlass]

Ehh, you're splitting hairs there.

It's like saying that given a choice of "Your money or your life" you can choose not to give the money. Sure. But the bandit still gets it after he shoots you.

Having to release your source under the GPL is GPL compliant obviously. Having to stop distributing the product also is. And paying damages may well be a lot more expensive than going to the author and buying a license. I will be very surprised losing a copyright infringement lawsuit ever has any advantages over respecting the license. Just look at the judgements getting handed out for copying a few songs.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[Courageous]

Well. It's split hairs because you're familiar with the rules. An oft-repeated slashdot theme is "forcing" a company to distribute its source, or in some cases discussion of hostile access to source and repuplication of their source without permission. I'm not accusing you of this, it's just that I've seen a great deal of misconception of the legal consequences of a GPL violation around here, ...

C//

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[DaleGlass]

An oft-repeated slashdot theme is "forcing" a company to distribute its source, or in some cases discussion of hostile access to source and repuplication of their source without permission.

Citation please. I lurk on slashdot a lot and don't remember seeing such a thing, at least recently.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[Courageous]

Citation please. I lurk on slashdot a lot and don't remember seeing such a thing, at least recently.

I don't particularly remember it recently, either. Perhaps the Slashdot public is getting more astute about copyright and contract law? Be that as it may: I've often seen poster or posters positing down this path, and from more than one angle. For example, I recall reading a recommendation once that someone publish some source code, not really theirs to give, under the GPL, because it was irreversible when done. Not so. Only the true and original owner can release rights like that.

But it can't really surprise you that a long time poster like me has seen it all, right? :-)

Anyway, my point is the current reality: a company faced with compliance has its choices. Consider the fringe case. An employee (or even a manager!) inappropriately integrates some GPL code into a much larger 1,000,000 line system. Let's suppose a valuable proprietary work. You don't really think the larger company is legally bound to do anything, right? They're not. They merely have to cease the infringement, and perhaps pay damages, depending.

C//

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[DaleGlass]

Anyway, my point is the current reality: a company faced with compliance has its choices.

I didn't say it didn't have choices, I said it couldn't choose to ignore the license, because it's not a true choice.

If you're in a situation of copyright infringement, you can:
A. Stop infringing
B. Pay for a license
C. Release the source under the GPL/etc (if it applies to the situation)
D. Reach some other kind of mutual agreement with the copyright holder
E. Ignore it, and do nothing.

But E is not a true choice. The copyright holder will have a clearcut case against you, and that'll result in having to go to court and pay for the lawyers. And once in court, you'll have to stop infringing, pay for a license, release your code under the GPL, or reach some other agreement.

Any time you choose option E, you end up spending more money, then it's GOTO to options A to D. Option E is never the final state.

Re:Probably impossible for them to comply

[Courageous]

I understand you clearly, Dale, and agree.

A is not really complying, though. Which is, as you say, splitting hairs. As an aside, the FSF always wants compliance item C, and generally takes an encouraging enlightened approach in their contacts with infringers. Or so I hear.

I wonder how many companies, having found themselves in violation, have selected A, for real? I bet very few.

C//

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[Anonymous Coward]

If the creators are legally a separate organization, they would be obligated to offer the source to the Ministry of Defense who would presumably be their customer. They aren't obliged to offer the source to random internet users. Of course it may be the case that under Russian law the obligations of the GPL are not entirely binding - AFAIK they do have Westernized copyright and contract laws these days, but who knows about their laws on national security?

Re:Positive move?

[GreatBunzinni]

If the company picked up the source code for the linux kernel, altered (extensively or not) to their liking, built an OS based on that kernel and started distributing the binaries without any hint it was linux and much less publishing the interfaces and even the source code then how exactly is it any different than "rolling their own proprietary black box" ?

Moreover, if someone picks up a copyrighted work and intentionally breaks the license agreement that made it possible for them to access that copyrighted work to begin with then that person just set him/herself for a lot of legal pain. That is true for any type of copyrighted work, including open source and any flavour of proprietary software. So no, it doesn't affect the uptake of linux, as any copyright dispute involving proprietary software affects the uptake of proprietary.

Why don't they use *BSD?

[harlows_monkeys]

I don't understand why the embedded systems world hasn't embraced one of the *BSDs, to avoid this kind of thing?

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[DaleGlass]

Well, if I was doing a router I wouldn't go with BSD, because:

1. If you contribute back, any contribution is going to be free for all. Which means that if Linksys contributes something, Netgear automatically gets to use it without any strings attached in their next product. If it happens that Linksys got something almost right, and Netgear managed to polish it to perfection in a few days, then Netgear just gained a really cool feature, courtesy of Linksys, and Linksys doesn't get to see how they did it.

2. If you don't contribute back, you now have to maintain an internal fork. This is not very easy, since the people doing the public development don't know or care about what you're doing, and are perfectly free to introduce changes that completely break your modifications.

3. If you release your changes under the GPL, the BSD supporters will whine about it for weeks.

4. A lot of stuff out there is targeted to Linux. There's lots of software that doesn't build cleanly on Solaris due to applications using GNU extensions. I imagine the same goes for BSD as well.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[Ded Bob]

Well, if I was doing a router I wouldn't go with BSD, because:

1. If you contribute back, any contribution is going to be free for all. Which means that if Linksys contributes something, Netgear automatically gets to use it without any strings attached in their next product. If it happens that Linksys got something almost right, and Netgear managed to polish it to perfection in a few days, then Netgear just gained a really cool feature, courtesy of Linksys, and Linksys doesn't get to see how they did it.

Basically, it is sharing with all people regardless of who they are. Some companies do not have a problem with this because of your second point. To keep from having to maintain an internal fork Netgear would also be contributing back to the project. They would effectively be cross-sharing via the project.

Also, this condition does not apply to these Danish companies since they are accused of not sharing any code.

2. If you don't contribute back, you now have to maintain an internal fork. This is not very easy, since the people doing the public development don't know or care about what you're doing, and are perfectly free to introduce changes that completely break your modifications.

However, most projects (regardless of license) tend to be receptive to these changes.

3. If you release your changes under the GPL, the BSD supporters will whine about it for weeks.

I am sure some people will ask for a dual-license or to have the changes BSD-licensed. There may be some complaints too, but while wrapping BSD code with the GPL may be frowned upon, it is allowed under the licensed.

4. A lot of stuff out there is targeted to Linux. There's lots of software that doesn't build cleanly on Solaris due to applications using GNU extensions. I imagine the same goes for BSD as well.

Most software works on FreeBSD without patches. If patches are needed, they probably already exist in the ports tree.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[mrchaotica]

Basically, it is sharing with all people regardless of who they are. Some companies do not have a problem with this because of your second point. To keep from having to maintain an internal fork Netgear would also be contributing back to the project. They would effectively be cross-sharing via the project.

What you've really done is turned the situation to a Prisoner's Dilemma for no good reason. And that means the game-theoretic equilibrium result is both Linksys and Netgear forking, not sharing.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[badkarmadayaccount]

The Solaris Container system with linux-compat mode, and the *BSD Linuxulator have something to say about No4.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[Ded Bob]

Basically, it is sharing with all people regardless of who they are. Some companies do not have a problem with this because of your second point. To keep from having to maintain an internal fork Netgear would also be contributing back to the project. They would effectively be cross-sharing via the project.

What you've really done is turned the situation to a Prisoner's Dilemma for no good reason. And that means the game-theoretic equilibrium result is both Linksys and Netgear forking, not sharing.

Except it becomes more expensive to maintain a fork than to push the code back into the central project, however, it depends on how much and where the code will be changed. For example, if it is a separate module, then they may keep it proprietary. Nvidia is a good example of this even when the GPL is involved. If changes propagate throughout the base, then the companies will tend (granted not always) to donate the code back to the project in the hope to lower the cost of maintenance.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[Ded Bob]

If you're going to expect cross-sharing to happen, you might as well go with the GPL, which makes it explicit. Otherwise you're giving with no guarantee that the other guy will give back. Under the BSD, Netgear gets to pick what they share and what they don't. Obviously they'll share stuff of little value to decrease maintenance costs, and not share code of high value, trading maintenance cost for exclusivity.

Since I am not tying any requirements to the code, I am sharing the code. To place an obligation on the code that someone must share back with me would not be sharing. It would be closer to barter in my opinion.

However, most projects (regardless of license) tend to be receptive to these changes.

Receptive how? If you're keeping your development process closed, the project doesn't know what you're doing, and if they do, they don't know how, so they couldn't accomodate you if they wanted.

The "receptive" part is that I know of few projects that would not be receptive to a company attempting to donate code to the project. It may not be accepted, but the project is probably not going to get angry about it.

Yes, they can. An example is a list of requirements Nvidia needs to support their module on FreeBSD amd64. The company just needs to explain why they need hooks or what the code they are donating provides.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[CalcProgrammer1]

Yes, however, Netgear, using GPL software, would then have to contribute their enhanced version back. Linksys could then take what Netgear improved and use it. What this would really do is put more of a strain to produce better HARDWARE on both companies while creating an even software platform and allowing customization. In the end, we all win. If you remember, Linksys tried to use Linux on their WRT-54G and were forced to release the source. From that source came some of the best router platforms in existence for home routers, such as DD-WRT. GPL keeps companies from having to reinvent the wheel and focus more on new features rather than trying to race to clone competitors' systems from behind their company's walls. GPL benefits the most important group out there, the consumers and end users. I would love DD-WRT on my old Netgear router, I have it on my new Linksys one, but I would really like both routers to run it. If Netgear would've GPL'ed their software, I could be running a nice firmware on my router.

Re:Why don't they use *BSD?

[petrus4]

1. If you contribute back, any contribution is going to be free for all.

Bwahahahaha. This was a Freudian slip par excellence. I think next time I notice one of the usual GNU drones talking about how the GPL is the most free and altruistic possible license, I might have to actually remember this post.

Market share and mindshare

[itsdapead]

What does the community get out of the fact that YouSee, Stofa, and Viasat use Linux?

It gets valuable proof that Linux is a serious industrial strength system, making it hard for critics to portray it as a homespun system for hobbyists. Even (especially?) if Joe public hates these firms, businessfolk will respect them.

Market share also means that component manufacturers will have an incentive to support Linux (I doubt these firms make their own chipsets).

The programmers working on these devices will get Linux experience, and put it on their CVs. "5 years Linux experience with major company" reads better (to a suit) than "hack with Linux a bit on my own time".

Perversely, even a well-spun lawsuit might help (it shows that Linux is valuable enough to be worth defending). Especially if the publicity points out how little it will cost the culprits to comply vs. how many millions they would have been liable for had they breached a license for proprietary software, and points to all the other big, ugly firms that comply without going bust (even 800lb gorillas like Apple and IBM manage not to cross the line).

Quite honestly, though, the community still gets the benefit of market share if some of the users fail to comply. Its one of those awkward questions - do you want "four freedoms" and an OS that nobody uses, or "three-and-a-half freedoms" plus a fighting chance of being a major player in a field where the competition offers "minus six freedoms"?

Re:Market share and mindshare

[jonaskoelker]

What does the community get out of the fact that YouSee, Stofa, and Viasat use Linux?

It gets valuable proof that Linux is a serious industrial strength system

And as Joe Public, why do I care?

As Jonas "The Zealot" Slashbot I care about Linux gaining renown in the industry and (eventually, hopefully) the wider population. That's all fine and good, and you say some very nice words about why Jonas Slashbot should be happy.

But why Joe Public? What does he care about? American Idol, and that the equipment he watches it on works well, is easy to use, and is cheap. I think that is your parent's question.

And I hope, wearing my Zealot hat again, that the answer is that with Linux(-based systems) you have better reliability, usability and price. Hopefully :-)

On the other hand, you might argue that what's good for Linux is good for the people at large, because it destroys a monopoly and monopolies are (according to microeconomy 101) always bad for the people. This sounds like it might be your position---you come close to outright saying it, in my mind, but who am I to say?

In any case, I think "better, easier, cheaper" is an easier sell that "Willingness to pay [...] willingness to sell [...] market clearing price [...] monopoly [...] area between graphs is not maximized [...]".

</ramble>

Re:Market share and mindshare

[amorsen]

It gets valuable proof that Linux is a serious industrial strength system

It's used on set top boxes. Not exactly the epitome of reliability or performance, and certainly not "industrial strength". Also, the companies were doing their best to hide the fact that Linux is used.

Re:Market share and mindshare

[fly1ngtux]

Quite honestly, though, the community still gets the benefit of market share if some of the users fail to comply. Its one of those awkward questions - do you want "four freedoms" and an OS that nobody uses, or "three-and-a-half freedoms" plus a fighting chance of being a major player in a field where the competition offers "minus six freedoms"?

I agree with you to some extend. However, I have this question in my mind."How about driving a car with 3.5 tires?"

Re:Market share and mindshare

[jedidiah]

> And as Joe Public, why do I care?

As a "consumer" sheep you don't really need to be. When phrases like
"industrial strength" are bandied about it is pretty obvious that the
consumer sheep are not the intended target. Of course the intended
target are those companies and management that make the devices that
consumer sheep aren't interested in really having any insight about.

Ultimately this will lead to better, more interesting and more robust
devices but even that may be meaningless to "Joe Public".

Although it's nice for those of us that do care and might look under
the covers or read the ingredients on a label.

Re:Positive move?

[RichardJenkins]

Yes, but the progressions from Meeting->Dinner->Wait->Lawsuit seems a bit quick to jump into court.

Maybe he's just too pissed at this companies behaviour (which does seem pretty bad), but it seems to me the reasonable approach would have been to send a few letters explicitly asking for the code and seeing what -if anything - they respond with. If they don't give a satisfactory response then you think about using the courts.

Lawsuits are only good for lawyers. They should be a last resort.

Re:10 days notice is a little short

[andersa]

In Denmark, registered mail sent before 1800, is guaranteed to arrive the next morning except if you sent it on friday, in which case it arrives monday morning.

I work for NDS...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I call bullshit on his story of "NDS investigators". What we do, we do well, and what we don't, we stay out of.

As far as technical details: no kernel changes were made; the drivers are non-GPLed, using a small GPL'ed wrapper layer. The NDS software, which on these boxes runs entirely in user-space, is linked against the LGPL'ed uClibc. Busybox is used on the STB. All of the "glue" (such as busybox, boot scripts, etc) are provided by the broadcaster, STB manufacturer, and/or chipset vendor.

The bootloader is not based on any Linux code.

Re:I work for NDS...

[rohde]

Well if you call bullshit on my story with the "NDS investigators" then please back it up. You should probably be able to figure out who they are and get their side of the story. If not then I can supply you with their business cards.
You say that no kernel changes were made. Could you then please explain why it is named 2.6.12-4.0-brcmstb?
You also know that doing a static link against LGPL forces you to at least share object files?
Who actually does the "glue" is really not interesting in the case as the provider (in this case Viasat) must comply with GPL. It is not my job to contact every company on earth to get hold of the parts.

Re:I work for NDS...

[rohde]

Btw I forgot to thank you for pointing out the fact that NDS has thought about the GPL and for confirming the box indeed carries GPL'ed software.
The module you are referring to is probably callisto_gpl.ko. I find it noble that you like to use GPL'ed software, but try to come up with clever ways to work around the intentions of GPL.
But since everything apparently is thought through I do not see any real problems in complying with GPL. Then the community can perhaps start thinking of ways to get around all the obstacles put inside the box to disallow changes to the software.

Re:I work for NDS...

[Aggrajag]

Looks like it is using same kernel as Zinwell's STB's and they have been more
than unhelpful with people asking them to comply with GPL.

Re:I work for NDS...

[Thomas Charron]

And just one more thing to confirm the BS reply.

Could you point out exactly where you're providing notification, per the GPL? Additionally, could you provide a URL or something which provides the sources which you directly compiled?

Otherwise, all you've done is confirm that you saved a hundred grand or more running Linux, without giving back a penny.

Re:I work for NDS...

[MartinSchou]

They (NDS) aren't required to notify the end users of the product they sell. They sell it to the cable and satellite providers, and he already pointed out that NDS notifies those companies. NDS' distribution requirements do not extend beyond the people they distribute to.

Re:I work for NDS...

[Thomas Charron]

b) 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.

Re:I work for NDS...

[MartinSchou]

Be that as it may, they are still not required to call up every single person who have received their product from the company they actually sold it to and say "Hello. You've never heard of us, but we're the people who made the box in your living room that says Viasat/Stofa/YouSee, and we're calling you to tell you that you can receive the source code for it."

NDS have no way of contacting the end users. Thus they can't provide it to the end users. You might as well demand that RMS send me an email, telling me where to get my hands on the Emacs source code, because I might be downloading a Linux Distribution that includes it!

If I were to contact RMS about it though, he would provide it to me. But expecting it to go the other way around is rather silly.

Re:I work for NDS...

[Thomas Charron]

You don't have to contact them to make them aware of their rights. However, they are a third party, and the sources should be available to them, legally.

Re:I work for NDS...

[MartinSchou]

How would they do that? They sold a product to company A and informed company A that their product uses GPL software and what that entails. Company A says "alright" and then repackages that product. That means any and all stickers that they may have put on the box are removed, the manual is checked, anything they don't like is removed (like a GPL notice) etc., and then the product is sold to consumers

So again - how is NDS supposed to make the consumer aware that they have this right?

Re:I work for NDS...

[Thomas Charron]

Again, you don't have to inform any and all downstream 3rd party individuals of their rights. However, if one of the said third party individuals contacts you, as the original poster has done (admittedly, this article is all based on third person as far as we're concerned), they are a third party at THAT point.

It's sidestepping the point to say you cannot inform all third party individuals of their rights. You obviously can't. However, they do indeed still HAVE this right, even though you have not contacted them directly.

Re:I work for NDS...

[LostCluster]

Seems to me like they could get around this simply by setting up a mirror for the source they downloaded that was covered by GPL, and requiring that their licensees that sell the end product include a paragraph in the user manual letting them know what the URL of the download server is. That's all TiVo does to cover their use...

Re:I work for NDS...

[mrchaotica]

Btw I forgot to thank you for pointing out the fact that NDS has thought about the GPL and for confirming the box indeed carries GPL'ed software.

But it's not very useful coming from an Anonymous Coward, unless you intend to subpoena Slashdot...

By the way, I'd like to humbly suggest as a general bit of informal advice: Please proceed as politely, obligingly, and scrupulously methodically as possible, so that your case is as strong as possible. For example, even though you may be quite justified in expecting a response to a letter in 13 days, give them 30 days (or more!) to respond anyway so they have no excuse to even try to complain about it in court. As another example (the one which prompted this post), taunting an (alleged) representative of the defendant on Slashdot could give them an opportunity to argue that you're acting maliciously rather than in good-faith, and thus be counterproductive.

Re:Positive move?

[Provocateur]

Well, it seemed that he HAD tried the diplomatic route, not just once, and now the companies are 'forcing his hand' to use this last resort.

Doesn't anybody RTFCATFA (read the f***g comments about the f***g article) anymore? What is this world coming to??

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[Munchr]

Even if it is a GPL violation, you probably couldn't successfully sue. Most governments are protected by the concept of Sovereign Immunity. The US has even used this to protect its Air Force from a lawsuit alledging that they cracked a software program to avoid paying for a license.

Re:Positive move?

[David Gerard]

Considering they first sent around inspectors to spy on him for daring to open the box ... fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard.

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[jopsen]

Yes, when you don't distribute it not a problem...
If I remember correctly the GPL states that you must grant people you distribute your derivative work to the same rights as you have, e.g. GPL... It doesn't say that you must distribute to everybody. Just that those you distribute to may distribute to everybody.

So why not use BSD?

[Aggrajag]

I've seen this same happening with a lot of different STB's and I really do not understand why none of the manufacturers base their products on *BSD kernels.

Re:So why not use BSD?

[petrus4]

Companies use the GPL over the BSD licenses for two reasons, I suspect.

a) Social pressure. The GPL is incumbent, not IMHO because it's genuinely a better license, but more primarily because of the rabidly cultic nature of the FSF and its' followers. As a result, companies think that if they want to be popular with "the community," they have to use the GPL whether they're really comfortable with its' terms or not, and with version 3, it has also become a lot more difficult to know exactly what those terms are.

b) The second reason why I believe business stays away from the BSD license is actually a lot darker. Corporations don't want to have to compete on product merit, these days, because that means they have to invest actual work and expense on research and development, and it's also a lot more risky than simply churning out the same generic thing, year in and year out. The approach these days favours uniformity and stagnancy over innovation, because uniformity is considered a guarantee to producing more consistent profits; and as we all know, making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it.

The GPL effectively kills any possibility of competition between vendors, because with it, any improvements made by any single vendor have to remain open, so nobody ends up obtaining a unique selling position. It is a sad testament to the level of evil which currently exists in the corporate world, when we realise that contemporary corporations would actually prefer to ensure that there is no chance of their competitors gaining any kind of competitive edge, rather than being able to have the ability to potentially gain an advantage themselves.

Conglomeration and the cartel is becoming the standard business model in the 21st century; not competition. The truly delicious and hilarious irony, of course, is that Stallman's intention with the GPL was anti-commercial. What he has really done, on the other hand, is hand business the means to create potentially intractable oligopolies, at least where software is concerned, on a scale never before seen, which as an outcome, is the direct opposite of what he was hoping for.

kernel modules

[crow]

The whole argument that kernel modules must be GPL is seriously flawed. A kernel module is just another application that the OS can run, albeit by a different API at a different security level.

There is some issue of compiling against the kernel header files (which I believe are GPL, not LGPL), but arguably, they're defining the API, not generating code, so the resulting code should still not infringe on the Linux copyright or be considered a derivative work.

Re:kernel modules

[gnud]

If you typed out all kernel header macros manually, and declared all linked functions manually, you might be able to argue that.

But your code would STILL depend on code that only exists as GPL (as opposed to libc/system calls). It would be a clear derivative work of the linux kernel, in my opinion. Especially since the Linux kernel has no published module API. IANAL, of course.

Re:kernel modules

[Kjella]

The whole argument that kernel modules must be GPL is seriously flawed. A kernel module is just another application that the OS can run, albeit by a different API at a different security level.

Any #include also defines an interface but then the GPL would be rather useless, or calling a function in machine code if includes don't apply. Nor would it be anything like the fairly broad understanding of derivate works found outside software, like say a book where the author has rights to a coffee mug with the character. If you consider a driver more like a custom library for that hardware, it certainly sounds like it's a derviative such as other applications using libraries. There's a reason they put in a clause to exclude "the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs", or it's very possible that the viral nature of copyright law would require there's GPL all the way down.

Sue them like the pirates they are!

[MartinSchou]

These are companies who love swinging around the big copyright infringement stick when they get the chance, so get AntiPiratGruppen to help you sue the pants off of these companies. Oh, right. The Anti Pirate Group are only interested in helping the film and music industries - not the common man.

In this case it should be very easy to show just how many copyright infringing copies the companies have shipped. And they've shipped it for profit as well (the money saved on using GPL software are money earned as profit).

And while the GPL software doesn't have a fixed cost (there are no price tags on the software for non-GPL licensed versions), it shouldn't be
too difficult to figure out what it's worth: Get all the developers to add up the time they think they've spent on the code, multiply by the average cost to hire software developers in Denmark (based on Prosa's salary statistics I'd estimate about 33 euro/hour).

Now, that just gives us the money they've saved. If that's all they're fined, they'll do it again and chalk it up to the cost of doing business. No, multiply this amount by twice the likelihood of someone finding out. I.e. if the likelihood of being discovered doing this is ten to one they'll pay twenty times the cost.

That and they have to follow the GPL license that they violated in the first place.

Re:yep, it's rife

[LingNoi]

Report them anonymously to GPL violations.

http://gpl-violations.org/

Re:Positive move?

[Courageous]

Yah. That was stupid. If they'd wanted to do that, they should have done what every other company who wants to do that does, and ripped a BSD kernel.

C//

Re:Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GP

[drseuk]

Dear Commies, Your nukes are in breach of GPL licence terms and pose a threat to penguin-kind. Please rectify the situation or destroy the offending code immed ...

I for one welcome...

[Timothy Brownawell]

...our soon-to-be BSD-using foreign satellite provider overlords.

Wait, so all they have to do is...

[lagfest]

Change some text in the eula, give a link to whatever distro they are using and provide an object file so that it can be re-linked to an updated version of uClibc. that's one meaty lawsuit you got there mister.

Re:Positive move?

[Antique Geekmeister]

And this is the whole point of "Trusted Computing", Microsoft's much applauded "security" suite that fortunately seems to be have shown as seriously flawed that I'm just not seeing anyone developing for it. The signature/authentication/encryption chip was built into the motherboard or the CPU: there was a very tight toolchain to have signed tools open other signed tools to access data, designed to prevent non-authorized tools from reading media but also able to protect data files.

The problem was it was also clearly designed to control bootability and hardware access, although that got little attention: if you don't have a Microsft signed key boot loader, kernel, and application set, you can't boot the box or open a hard drive. Period. And even other company's keys would reside in Microsoft's hands, since they would hold the backup copies of everyone's _private_ keys.

It was nasty, nasty, nasty stuff. and I'm glad it seems to be stillborn.

thx

[paxcoder]

I'd like to thank you for your efforts on behalf of free software lovers who are grateful.
It's modified GPL (v2 only), but GPL non the less and a case pro-free software.
Rooting for you, be sure to win :-)

Legal lingual nitpick

[jonaskoelker]

Moreover, if someone picks up a copyrighted work and intentionally breaks the license agreement

(IANAL, TINLA, someone beat me with a cluebat if I'm wrong so I don't misinform the world.)

In this case, i.e. the GPL, there is no license agreement. A license is a set of permissions given to "you", the licensee, by the copyright holder. A license agreement is a contract between (typically?) "you" and the copyright holder. Your gain from the contract is a license to use the software. Their gain is (typically) your promise to not do certain things you would otherwise be allowed to (reverse engineering being a common one; saying bad things about the company which made your web authoring tool is another one, which I hear FrontPage has going for iself).

Briefly: A license is a one-sided gift. A license agreement is a two-sided bargain.

[why is this distinction useful? Heck if I know. Probably has something to do with contract law, civil procedures and the amount of money that can be extracted from you]

Re:Linux and Apple?

[itsdapead]

While Apple is heavily involved in several Open Source projects like WebKit, CUPS etc. they do not use Linux in any way.

They may not use the Linux kernel, but OS X includes a metric shedload of GNU and other o/s code including, for example, samba, bash and gcc, which are also critical parts of many Linux-based OSs. (and how many suits make the distinction between the kernel and what you get in a full distro?)

The point is that, while IBM seem to have renounced their wicked ways and become born again FOSS evengelists, Apple are still notoriously secretive, litigious, and protective of their IP (and maybe not particularly liked by the FOSS movement) yet even they manage to at least provide source code.

rules were known

[OrangeTide]

The rules for using Linux and other GPL software is stated right up front. The proliferation of this particular kind of open source requires open access for any who receive it, any other kind of proliferation is useless to the community and undesirable for the authors. (else they would have put a BSD/MIT license on it)

There is no point in encouraging people to use open-source tools if they can't be bothered to follow the licensing terms. Becoming popular for having people ignoring your license is not a very exciting goal. the BSDs have far less restrictive licenses that are far more commercial friendly. You would think more businesses would use BSD if having an open system was a problem, some do but most don't.

Re:Positive move?

[Magic5Ball]

Actually - it might be to the ISP's advantage to allow this sort of thing. Some people are going to brick their boxes while tampering with them. Warranty is void, of course, if the box has been tampered with. So, the ISP gets the opportunity to sell another 20 dollar (or Euro, kroner, or whatever they use up there) box for 50 dollars.

You're aware that the act of distributing and provisioning new hardware pieces is not usually a profit centre for a service provider, right?

And, more importantly for humanity, why would we encourage situations, such as your scenario, where raw materials and energy are needlessly consumed for no tangible benefit?

*Buh*

[lisaparratt]

Everyone's assuming that these people are using Linux like they would on the desktop. They're not. As a general rule, if it needs hardware access, the drivers they write will do little more than punch through register access/irq response down into userspace, where the GPL means diddly squat.

I for one welcome....

[hasbeard]

our incoherent anonymous overlords.

Re:my experience with gpl and lawyers

[mrchaotica]

Anyways, what it came down to is our legal department recommended against using linux because of having to provide source code, their slant on it was that if we didn't offer the latest linux on cd for reinstallation purposes, we'd have to keep the source code around somewhere for offering to distribute it because it matched whatever out of date version we had in our kit. In the case if we then actually DID distribute it and even the smallest piece subsequently failed to build, we would then have to help the customer fix the smallest piece that would fail to duplicate his slightly out of date binary debian installation and thus have to possibly duplicate THE ENTIRE DEBIAN PROJECT.

Your lawyers were wrong; GPL compliance is not even slightly that hard.

1. You don't have to ship the "latest" anything; just take a snapshot of the source code at the time you compiled the version running on the box, burn it on a CD, and shove it in the damn package. You're done! You don't even have to maintain an FTP server or mailing address at that point; you've already fulfilled all your obligations from the get-go. It's not fucking rocket science...
2. The "we'll have to help the customer fix it if it fails to build" argument is so completely wrong that I don't understand how the idiots could even manage to come up with it. Back in reality, the GPL says exactly the opposite: that it disclaims any warranty, merchantability, fitness of purpose, etc.

Re:my experience with gpl and lawyers

[jedidiah]

If you can't provide the necessary source to comply with the GPL then you
don't really have the necessary source to rebuild your complete environment.
You aren't really in a good position to ensure anything with regards to QA
of your entire "product" because you can't recreate the entire user
environment.

If you are in a position properly test your product based on BSDL or GPL work
then you are in a position to pass that source along to any customer that asks.

Re:Linux and Apple?

[hardwarefreak]

They may not use the Linux kernel, but OS X includes a metric shedload...

I believe the quantity you were searching for is 'metric fuckload'. One metric fuckload is greater than a metric shedload by a factor of 10. And there are at least two metric fuckloads of GNU code running around all over the *nix landscape.

Parents, see what happens when you send your kids to public schools? They can't even learn fucking quantities... ;)

Re:Positive move?

[JohnBailey]

On the other hand, I wonder if pursuing these sort of actions might not scare vendors away from open source?

Doubt it. How do you scare off a company that is already using a product within the license terms, and profiting from it? In the embedded world, Linux isn't some new thing that is trying to make a name. It's a well established well known option that many make full use of to speed development and cut costs significantly.

Re:Positive move?

[Bert64]

The dreamboxes also record data unencrypted, even if you are recording an encrypted channel... The "official" boxes typically keep the data encrypted on disk such that you lose access to it if you cancel your subscription, and you are limited to the storage capacity of your box - you cant hookup extra drives, create backups to dvd or use network shares.

It's easy enough to clone a dreambox and nothing wrong with that, it's the fake boxes that are the problem (boxes falsely branded as official dreambox devices)... You could even take the dreambox software and recompile it to run on an x86 pc. Fake boxes occur regardless of the software being open source or not, a lot of cisco routers get cloned in china for instance, and they run official ios images.

Re:Positive move?

[Bert64]

Picking up Linux and modifying it to suit your needs is often much cheaper than the alternatives of licensing a proprietary system or paying developers to write one from scratch... The advantages of using Linux need to be weighed up against having to release sourcecode.

If people use Linux and play by the rules, then you get a huge amount of improvements from a large number of companies using it, further increasing the usefulness of linux.

Stop that.

[FatLittleMonkey]

Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source

You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.

I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, [...]It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.[...] Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim.

C'mon Dissy, don't be deliberately stupid, it's a lame tactic, you know that wasn't what Michael meant. You read the same thread that I did, you originally said (in essence) "if you use GPLed code, with mods, you have to source the mods", Michael replied, "no, the whole code." (Which you probably meant anyway.)

Don't pretend he was arguing that every GPL-toting vendor has to distribute every single bit of GPLed code ever written. Everyone can see he didn't, it just makes you look silly. How hard is it to just say, "Yeah, Michael, that's what I meant"?

Re:my experience with gpl and lawyers

[Kjella]

2. The "we'll have to help the customer fix it if it fails to build" argument is so completely wrong that I don't understand how the idiots could even manage to come up with it. Back in reality, the GPL says exactly the opposite: that it disclaims any warranty, merchantability, fitness of purpose, etc.

But the one thing they can't disclaim is that the source might or might not match the binary. Technically they don't need to help but if the user then brings out the torches and pitchforks and start yelling "GPL violation" and claims it's some broken source snapshot not matching the binary it could get annoying. I've never heard of it happen in practice with a serious company, but if you read the GPL with lawyer eyes it's a possibility. If the lawyer from a CYA perspective then requires you to keep all compiler versions, compile flags, library sources etc. necessary to prove that you have delivered the corresponding source I can understand how that's a lot of overhead.

Still have to offer it

[krischik]

Even if not modified they still have to offer the source.

Is all this righteous effort going the wrong way?

[nvatvani]

Hosnestly, when it comes to businesses and GPL some small dose of "okay, I'll pretend I didn't see that" is needed!

GPL will only be popular is more businesses use their fruits, and business can sometimes only be fruitful by relying on GPL code.

GPL is competition unfriendly as far as businesses are concerned because whatever enhancements a business makes to the code, they are forced to publish it and let their competition burst with laughter.

Also, looking at the Danish Satellite Company, they seem to be offering non-existentially threatening products.

Wouldn't it be better if this focus of GPL abuse is shifted to say .... Comcast and other companies that threaten net-neutrality .... for example? I mean those companies would be an existential threat to GPL (among others) wouldn't they? So why focus on the Danish Satellite Company BvHD?

This happened to the MEPIS Linux distro

[Sits]

As you suggest, you have to provide the source even if you have not made any modifications to the GPL code if you are doing commercial distribution - it is not enough to point to an upstream source.

This issue pretty much happened a few years ago. The MEPIS Linux distribution was "forced" to comply with the GPL by distributing the source code itself rather pointing to an upstream distribution (found via linux.org).

Actually Linux kernel has an explicit notice

[Sits]

The Linux kernel has an explicity notice saying the userland is exempt: here's a COPYING file from 2.4 series of the Linux distribution. The link is to the file in a git Linux kernel history repository Dave Jones created (alas the git dates are incorrect) so you can see when the notice was added by looking at the history of the file...

Re:Positive move?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Translated from the Danish:

(Old lady's voice) "Joe?"

"What?"

"There's someone at the door."

"Ohhhh. Oh kay."

(The rocking chair creeks as Joe leans forward and gets up. He grabs his cane and shuffles to the door.)

(Opening door) "Yes?"

"Here's your source code for your Linux-based HDTV decoder!"

"My what for my what?"

etc. ad nauseam.

Am I wrong in stating, then....

[ibsteve2u]

...that if you intend to feed yourself through proceeds derived from your own work, you might consider avoiding open source tools like the plague and go BSD with your final product - or even seek a standard patent and copyright - lest you get skinny 'cuz somebody who is as eager to see the GPL enforced as M$oft is to see its patent rights enforced detect 24 bytes that are common to a GPL product and come haunt you?

Re:my experience with gpl and lawyers

[RivieraKid]

If the lawyer from a CYA perspective then requires you to keep all compiler versions, compile flags, library sources etc. necessary to prove that you have delivered the corresponding source I can understand how that's a lot of overhead.

Wouldn't any serious, professional software company already capture all of that in their change management system? It seems to me that most companies serious about writing software would already be able to fulfil even that requirement as part of their normal due-diligence/QA processes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

FFF

[itsdapead]

...and I thought the FFF system of units stood for "Furlongs, Firkins and Fortnights".

Plus, I was trying to be polite by not using the unexpurgated term "metric shitload".

Re:FFF

[hardwarefreak]

I was purely aiming for +2 or +3 Funny. Looks like I missed the mark.