How Hardware Makers Come To Violate Free Software Licenses

H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "Veteran violation chasers Shane Coughlan and Armijn Hemel have summarized how license violations are caused in the consumer electronics market under time-to-market pressure and thin profit margins: 'This problem is compounded when one board with a problem appears in devices supplied to a number of western companies. A host of violation reports spanning a dozen European and American businesses may eventually point towards a single mistake during development at an Asian supplier.' They also discuss the helpful organizations which have sprung up and the documents and procedures now available."

Comments

like those DVDs

[Janek Kozicki]

like those DVD players that used mplayer but didn't release mplayer's sourcecode?

Re:like those DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the KISS DVR.

Re:like those DVDs

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Hey. You weren't complaining when region free DVD players stopped honoring the "intellectual property" of the DVD content "owners".

By the way, the players probably use the FFmpeg codecs and not mplayer itself, which lacks any real kind of gui. Speaking of which the FFmpeg codecs are themselves currently sitting under the Damocles sword of intellectual property in the for of the multitude of video codec patents. I doubt there's a single 30 line block of code in there that isn't violating someones patent.

In conclusion, our current IP regime sucks. I for one applaud these hardware makers, particularly in Asia, for cutting this twisted Gordian knot and just loading up their devices will all the features they can download. In my opinion as producers of real tangible goods, they are morally, socially and economically justified in what they have done. If anyone wants to complain, they can just go ahead and make their own, real physical devices and bring them to market.

Re:like those DVDs

[jonbryce]

That's only a problem if you live in one of the tiny minority of countries that recognise software patents. Most countries however recognise copyrights in one form or another, though they differ in when the copyrights expire.

Re:like those DVDs

[langelgjm]

Hey. You weren't complaining when region free DVD players stopped honoring the "intellectual property" of the DVD content "owners".

Region codes don't have anything to do with honoring or not honoring intellectual property of DVD content producers. They are technological measures designed to segment the market so that producers can price discriminate more easily. The only reason they would be related to copyright law is because they can also be construed as a copy protection measure, and circumventing that is a violation of the DMCA. As everyone around here should know, it's entirely possible to violate the DMCA without actually infringing copyrights.

If region-free DVD players are illegal, it would only be because the manufacturers of such players signed on to the DVD spec and didn't abide by it, or because they never signed on to the spec in the first place and are perhaps infringing on patents that the DVD Forum allows its members to use. That's a problem for the DVD Forum and its rivals to sort out, and doesn't really have to do with the content on the DVD so much as the licensing agreement surrounding the DVD spec.

Re:like those DVDs

[malkavian]

Yes. Socially laudable. However, they're big business that will use exactly the laws they're ignoring to ride someone else into the ground when it suits them.
Should Copyright and Patent law become sane (i.e. all this becomes legal), then they lose a lot of the 'rights' under law that they currently want to keep.
Interestingly, what DVD players don't honour the intellectual property of content holders? Again, the content providers are playing dirty; they use labour from a worldwide market, yet arbitrarily turn round and say "Ah, but you're not allowed to play content from one area of the world in another". That's not dishonouring their IP at all, it's not accepting that the DVD consortium don't honour their customers' rights to what they've purchased. There is no honour in blindly accepting the dishonourable.

100% with you, our current IP regime sucks, and needs to be replaced. Over time, I'm sure it will be, but for now these little (and not so little) battles need to be fought until someone, somewhere gets the ounce of sense necessary to make the right decisions, balanced correctly against all opposing fronts.

Re:like those DVDs

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Hey. You weren't complaining when region free DVD players stopped honoring the "intellectual property" of the DVD content "owners".

Region codes don't have anything to do with honoring or not honoring intellectual property of DVD content producers. They are technological measures designed to segment the market so that producers can price discriminate more easily. The only reason they would be related to copyright law is because they can also be construed as a copy protection measure, and circumventing that is a violation of the DMCA. As everyone around here should know, it's entirely possible to violate the DMCA without actually infringing copyrights.

If region-free DVD players are illegal, it would only be because the manufacturers of such players signed on to the DVD spec and didn't abide by it, or because they never signed on to the spec in the first place and are perhaps infringing on patents that the DVD Forum allows its members to use. That's a problem for the DVD Forum and its rivals to sort out, and doesn't really have to do with the content on the DVD so much as the licensing agreement surrounding the DVD spec.

The whole thing with region-coding is laughable anyway. Region coding was found to be illegal under Australian anti-competition laws yet every major electronics chain still stocks dozens of infringing units from Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc. al. And just about every DVD sold here is region encoded.

The authorities have not brought a single case against any of the multinationals.

Yet another data-point that shows so called "Intellectual Property" laws are about one thing and one thing alone: protecting the interests of large corporations over those of both the producers and the consumers of content.

Re:like those DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think the region code is to segment and price discriminate I can see one reason for it.

Take a song that someone has written, played, and then sold. Someone puts that song into a movie. Now in one country that song is out of copyright, the next one group own the distribution rights, in another country a different group owns the rights. So you buy your DVD from America, then buy it in France, and the DVD was made in and imported from Japan. Who gets the cut of money? In the end the original artist should. But many times they signed those rights away in the search for glory. So it ends up being 20 different groups owning the rights to 1 song.

I doubt they are slicing and dicing the money at all. But it is a consideration. Due to the way copyright works in different countries.

Re:like those DVDs

[tepples]

That's only a problem if you live in one of the tiny minority of countries that recognise software patents.

Most major motion picture studios are headquartered in one of those countries. Yes, copyright != patent, but imagine the MPAA bankrolling MPEG-LA's crackdown on makers of DVD players that bend or break the standard licensing terms.

Re:like those DVDs

[greed]

DVD region codes are orthogonal to DVD copy protection.

You can have a CSS-protected disk which plays in all regions.

You can have an unprotected disk with region codes.

The only way they become commingled is via contracts with the DVD CCA. To get your CSS decryption key, you must agree to obey region codes and user operation prohibitions. (And as the parent says, getting the patent licenses is tied in there, too.)

The DVDs I bought from Japan and have to watch via a region-free player in Canada honour the copyright holders rights completely. And the retailers: the mail order store in Japan got their part of the transaction, as did the Japanese and Canadian postal services. It's not like the DVD was cheaper to import than it would be had it been available in Canada in the first place.

Us movie viewers are not a party to the ridiculous territory contracts and exclusivity deals the studios have with various regional distribution houses. So we can buy something retail and import it, no problems. We didn't make a copy, so copyright doesn't apply. We--and the selling retailer--aren't a party to the territory contracts, so we're not violating those contracts.

The only laws which might apply are the obscenity ones.

Re:like those DVDs

[Mister Whirly]

Ah, but that would be counterproductive as it would cut down the number of players out there that people are buying legitimate DVDs to play in them. The MPAA doesn't care what player you use to play their movies, just that the movies are purchased from them. What would be their (financial) motivation for cracking down on DVD player hardware?

Re:like those DVDs

[tepples]

that would be counterproductive as it would cut down the number of players out there that people are buying legitimate DVDs to play in them.

If MPAA wanted its DVDs to be played on more players, it wouldn't region code any title that has completed its theatrical release cycle.

Re:like those DVDs

[Sancho]

Different pricing in different regions. In some countries, they can get away with charging a lot more, so they do. If imports weren't prevented from playing through the use of region-coding, people in those countries could just import a cheaper version of the same DVD.

Re:like those DVDs

[Mister Whirly]

I think region codes are just a way of having a sliding price scale. They sell them for more where the market can bear it, and less where it can't.

Re:like those DVDs

[mi]

You weren't complaining when region free DVD players stopped honoring the "intellectual property" of the DVD content "owners".

Excellent point!

I for one applaud these hardware makers, particularly in Asia, for cutting this twisted Gordian knot and just loading up their devices will all the features they can download. [...] If anyone wants to complain, they can just go ahead and make their own, real physical devices and bring them to market.

You are inviting honest people to compete with the dishonest on the price... That's simply not possible — the stuff that "fell from the back of a truck" will always be cheaper. The Intellectual Property regime does not prevent hardware makers from using other people's property. It is only illegal for them to use it without permission — and such permission is almost always granted, when sufficient monies are paid or promised. For example, the widely-used HDMI technology costs adopters from 5 to 15 cents per item.

In other words, the alternative to manufacturers "cutting this twisted Gordian knot" is not absence of products, but rather the slightly higher prices, so that the patent-holders get paid...

Re:like those DVDs

[tepples]

I think region codes are just a way of having a sliding price scale. They sell them for more where the market can bear it, and less where it can't.

If this were the case, then the version in the most expensive region would be mastered for All Regions.

Re:like those DVDs

[Mister Whirly]

That would be too obvious...

Re:like those DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

While it would be nice to see name-brand, region-free players, it's just not going to happen.

The multinationals *can't* make region-free players, even if they wanted to, because it would violate their agreements with the DVD Consortium. And if they violate that agreement the US government *would* prevent the import of their players. They'd probably rather give up the AU market than the US market, so the AU government is not terribly interested in forcing their hand.

I think the answer is to setup a DVD player mfg. in AU (with region-free players of course), then sue the government to require enforcement of the anti-competition laws. As a DVD player consumer you don't have a terribly actionable cause, but as a mfg. you certainly do.

Re:like those DVDs

[zapakh]

I doubt there's a single 30 line block of code in there that isn't violating someones patent.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged"

Seems it applies equally well to source code.

Re:like those DVDs

[bill_mcgonigle]

I doubt there's a single 30 line block of code anywhere that isn't violating someones patent.

TFTFY

Re:like those DVDs

[Philip_the_physicist]

Do you realise that in some countries region coding is not legally enforceable? For example, in Australia, using region coding on the player may be a violation of the Trade Practices Act (according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission).

Re:like those DVDs

[Enter the Shoggoth]

While it would be nice to see name-brand, region-free players, it's just not going to happen.

The multinationals *can't* make region-free players, even if they wanted to, because it would violate their agreements with the DVD Consortium. And if they violate that agreement the US government *would* prevent the import of their players. They'd probably rather give up the AU market than the US market, so the AU government is not terribly interested in forcing their hand.

I think the answer is to setup a DVD player mfg. in AU (with region-free players of course), then sue the government to require enforcement of the anti-competition laws. As a DVD player consumer you don't have a terribly actionable cause, but as a mfg. you certainly do.

Au contraire, there is no need to start manufacturing players to enable you to bring suit.

Unfortunately of course regardless of which position you find yourself in (consumer of local manufacturer) you still need very deep pockets to take on the multinationals and the government.... as I implied in my original post, the laws are there to protect the wealthy not the end-user nor the local and/or small manufacturer.

Re:like those DVDs

[dlanod]

Strictly speaking they ruled the banning of regionless DVD players illegal (well, anticompetitive but effectively the same thing given the ACCC's powers). So if someone wants to sell regionless DVD players and advertise it as such, they are free to do so. I know the first thing my wife and I check when we're buying a new DVD player is whether it can be easily made regionfree, and most can.

Slashdot Users

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot users
Get their knowledge
From many years
In junior college.

Free Software Licenses?

[bonch]

Free software licenses? You mean copyright licenses like the GPL, which the FSF website says "assures the copyright over the software?" I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Hal_Porter]

That reminds me of this classic, hivemind confusing post

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6823&cid=886346

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Jurily]

I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else?

We also don't want double standards. As long as RIAA can defend their rights, so can we.

Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?

Perhaps because of the intent of the licences violated?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, bonch. You are either hopelessly confused or an intentional troll.

Copyright infringement is that, copyright infringement and *not theft*. It is still an infringement -- whether it concerns a work put under the GPL or the newest song by the Spice Girls.

No sensible person here is contending that. It's just this meme of "intellectual property" which we are contending. Copyright, trademark and patents are basically fine (although not as they are now. Especially: copyright terms are too long, patents shouldn't apply to software, maths or business methods, yadda, yadda).

(I am able to imagine a society without copyrights, patents and even trademarks: we wouldn't need the GPL there. But that is open to lots of debate, I know).
Clear now?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[digitig]

Slashdot isn't in favour of or against anything. It's a whole bunch of different people with different opinions. Although I suspect quite a lot of us agree that it's clueless to mistake the opinions of individual posters for the opinion of /. as a whole.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Ostracus]

"No sensible person here is contending that. It's just this meme of "intellectual property" which we are contending. Copyright, trademark and patents are basically fine (although not as they are now. Especially: copyright terms are too long, patents shouldn't apply to software, maths or business methods, yadda, yadda)."

Well the point I think that's being made is that if the tool is the same in either case and it's just who wields it that's the difference? Then copyright debates on slashdot should be focusing on the wielder not the tool.

Also I think the point should be made that a form of the GPL could still exist and have power under contract law.

"I am able to imagine a society without copyrights, patents and even trademarks: we wouldn't need the GPL there. "

As long as they're two or more parties with differing goals, there will always need to be contracts.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm... that post is dated 2000 August. I find your patience nauseating.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all open source fans are pro piracy.

I'm in fact against piracy, if someone asks me a free copy of office he will get Openoffice.

If he insists on getting Microsoft office I'll tell him to go buy it.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[10101001 10101001]

I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else?

You can't. You can de facto violate a license granting you privileges that copyright otherwise forbid, thereby nullifying the license and thereby committing copyright infringement. No stealing is involved.

Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?

Copyright is bad, period. The real issue at hand is fraud and abuse of existing copyright enforcement. Piracy is bad when you claim to be the maker of a work you're not a maker of, claim to be a distributer of a copy from a maker when you're not, or you try to force people to stop making copies or modifications of your copy. Violating licenses, like the GPL, is good when you make it clear that you're not the original maker and that you're trying your best to make code available for others to modify, even if you're not really sure you can mix all the code together under a license (thinking mixing GPL code and CDDL code) legally.

Oh, and obviously, bad != illlegal, good != legal.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[gnupun]

Copyright infringement is that, copyright infringement and *not theft*.

This specious argument has been bandied around by shameless pirates for a long time and it's simply not true. For example, if 90% of users of an application are pirates, the software creator has probably not earned enough from the 10% buyers to cover the cost of creating the software, in which case, it is theft. Did you stupid pirates think for one second that the retail price involves more than just the manufacturing cost?

In fact, retail price of software = manufacturing cost + distribution cost + creation cost + profit.

Here, creation cost involves time and money (eg: programmer salaries) spent in creating the software. And the software publisher has to recover this cost before it can make a profit. Without copyright, there is no way to recover the cost as hardly anybody is willing to pay for something that is free. The end result of removing copyright will be that nobody will bother creating good software.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Nursie]

We have different words for these things because they are not the same. This does not make either of them right or wrong, or justify doing one but not the other.

If you can't hold more than one idea in your head at a time then you're the moron.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[someone1234]

"slashdot" is not against the proliferation of open source code.
Feel free to download, modify and spread any GPL licensed source (we on slashdot would like to do the same with music and film).

Copyright is not a goal in GPL.
It is a tool, to preserve the freedom of being able to modify and distribute the modified versions of the code.
It is really amazing some people still cannot comprehend this simple thing.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[noundi]

Free software licenses? You mean copyright licenses like the GPL, which the FSF website says "assures the copyright over the software?" I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?

Very easy. In proprietary cases I benefit nothing from it. In FOSS cases I do benefit from it, in terms of me being a part of the public and that something was taken from the public. What? Are you going to point at me for not fighting other peoples battles? No? Didn't think so.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement is that, copyright infringement and *not theft*.

This specious argument has been bandied around by shameless pirates for a long time and it's simply not true.

This is not a "specious argument". It's just the law. In your country and in mine. Just as "slander" and "murder" are considered different by the law in most countries (and for a good reason). Both are punishable, but they are just defferent. Get a grip.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its probably not called patience... I would bet it is called bookmarking. I also wager he has used that link before as it is pretty keen.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Jedi Alec]

This specious argument has been bandied around by shameless pirates for a long time and it's simply not true. For example, if 90% of users of an application are pirates, the software creator has probably not earned enough from the 10% buyers to cover the cost of creating the software, in which case, it is theft. Did you stupid pirates think for one second that the retail price involves more than just the manufacturing cost?

Theft = criminal law
Copyright violation = civil law

Notice a difference? Or are you just another armchair (IANA)lawyer who shouts first and thinks later(if at all)?

As for your argument regarding 90% of the software's users being pirates...how many of these pirates would have actually bought the software if there was no way to pirate it? Without that particular figure your example is useless.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[PopeRatzo]

Not all open source fans are pro piracy.

Just the ones who think using the term "piracy" for sharing something you already paid for is bullshit.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the point I think that's being made is that if the tool is the same in either case and it's just who wields it that's the difference? Then copyright debates on slashdot should be focusing on the wielder not the tool.

Well -- I don't know what you mean by "copyright debates": you might mean two things:

• (1) Copyright is bad and should be abolished
• (2) Copyright infringement is not theft ("intellectual property" is just a handy metaphor, not a real thing)

I'd say most debates don't turn around (1) but (2).

Thus I'm OK with Sony or whoever has the copyright to that recordings claiming copyright to the recordings by the Spice Girls, same as the FSF claiming the copyrights to the Emacs Sources. No difference here.

It's the "RIAA" calling copyright infringement "theft" to dramatize things and trying to "realize" the mataphor of "intellectual property" I have a problem with.

Also I think the point should be made that a form of the GPL could still exist and have power under contract law.

The GPL is in fact a kind of contract.

"I am able to imagine a society without copyrights, patents and even trademarks: we wouldn't need the GPL there. "

As long as they're two or more parties with differing goals, there will always need to be contracts.

No disagreement here. I was talking about copyrights and patents, not contracts.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[PopeRatzo]

In fact, retail price of software = manufacturing cost + distribution cost + creation cost + profit.

"Creation cost?" Is that for the Word made Code?

"Creation costs" as you so speciously put it, are already monetized by the time the product hits the shelves. Further, if I've bought a copy of a movie, I've already paid my little share of the .01 % of the sticker price that goes to "creation costs" and if I want to sell that DVD or share it on a file sharing site it does not make me a "shameless pirate" any more than Company X ruining Company Y through the use of intellectual property lawsuits makes them "shameless murderers".

Now go fuck yourself.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[VJ42]

Copyright infringement is that, copyright infringement and *not theft*.

This specious argument has been bandied around by shameless pirates for a long time and it's simply not true.

At least in the UK, the courts have held a clear difference; in the case of Oxford v Moss, the courts ruled that under the 1968 theft act information is not necessarily intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[sorak]

Let's say that you lived in a time when slavery took place, you opposed slavery, and you spoke out against it....

Then, you go to a slave auction, buy as many slaves as you can afford, and then let them go...

Would that make you a hypocrite for buying slaves?

(And I am not comparing the current copyright law to slavery)

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[laughingcoyote]

Even if you are opposed to copyright, using "copyrights" to weaken copyright (by making it impossible for someone else to close the source) is not incompatible with that goal. Further, most here aren't against any form of copyright, but do believe that it has grown far out of control in scope, term, and enforcement. I don't think we'd be having this conversation, or that you'd even have any need to trot out this same old troll you do every time an open source license comes up, if copyright were a 5-10 year term, commercial-use-only type thing.

When you start suing people for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they downloaded songs that would have cost a few bucks, yes, people are going to see the punishment as grossly disproportionate to the crime and react appropriately. Most people consider downloading songs or software much like speeding-technically illegal, but not really particularly bad, and certainly widely done. You'd see the same reaction if they started charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speeding ticket.

Your position is, ultimately, a very simplistic one on a very complex subject. Copyright exists (at least in the US) to "promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts". That is its only purpose. It is not to ensure that anyone gets a paycheck, it is not to establish a property right (which is one reason I'm against the term "intellectual property", copyrights, patents, and trademarks are a limited exclusive-use right, not a property right. This is aside from the fact that they're also totally different things and lumping them together is confusing as to what actual aspect of "intellectual property" you're even talking about). It is in no way intended to "reward creative professionals". It's there to give them enough incentive to keep doing what they're doing, and not a bit more. I totally eliminating copyrights and patents would likely result in more creative output than any other way, the Constitution would not only allow but require that they be eliminated, as at this point they would be hindering the progress of science and art.

As far as your question on theft, you can't steal it. That has nothing to do with whether or not a physical act is involved. I can steal money by cracking into your bank account electronically, and that most certainly is theft. The reason it's impossible for "theft" to apply here is because the thing purportedly being "stolen" is a nonrival good.

The money in your bank account is a rival good, just like a steak in a grocery store or a car in a parking lot. If I take it, you don't have it anymore. If I took it without authorization, and it wasn't mine, I stole it. I could not, however, steal it by simply looking at it, even if you didn't like the idea of me looking at it. You still have it. So, no, you cannot "steal" a song or movie or program simply by looking at it when someone doesn't want you to, any more than you stole someone's tangible object by looking at it when there's a sign asking you not to.

I think one can argue that the current system is well beyond what's needed for that purpose, and may in fact be actively working against that purpose by keeping things locked up too long. Within 10 years, most creative works either have made a profit or never will. We don't need copyrights that can last over a century to provide an incentive, 10 years would be plenty.

Then, we get into the area of registration. People who want to make money from their work tend to register it or at least bother to put a copyright mark on it. Automatically copyrighting everything needlessly locks up content the author couldn't care less about, and creates tons upon tons of orphan works where you couldn't contact the copyright holder to ask permission even if you wanted to. Requiring at least placing a copyright notice, and offering registration for additional protection, is a good balance that would still do quite enough to provide an incentive-it just requires those who want that incentive to do a minimal amount of work to actually

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[mdwh2]

Ah, I was waiting for this straw man - someone should just write a script to autopost it to every open source licence violation story, so we can get it out the way.

Care you point me to the place where someone accuses them of stealing, and calls for them to be fined at $150,000 per violation?

Can you also show me a story where Slashdotters were in favour of people who profit from copyright infringement? Slashdot isn't a single entity, if you hadn't noticed, but even if we take the viewpoint of the Pirate Party (which is generally the most "extreme" of the range of viewpoints on this issue), even they still support a 5 year copyright term for commercial use, they just think filesharing for non-commercial use should be allowed.

So let me try my own straw man, bonch: why is copyright good when it comes individuals filesharing, but bad when it comes to companies who rip off individuals?

You're as bad as Lily Allen - here in the UK, she's recently been lobbying in support of the Government's planned law to disconnect people who fileshare, yet she was then exposed as plagiarising articles from news sites, but even more significantly, she is a pirate herself: she was found distributing "mix tapes" of mp3s on her MySpace, including other artists' work, in order to promote her own career (they were still up on her website, until yesterday).

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'll agree you're really a Chimp, right?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[gnupun]

Copyright is not a goal in GPL.

Rather, the goal of GPL appears to be to use copyright to protect its assets while destroying the market for profit-based copyrighted works -- evil-genius scheme, if true.

It is a tool, to preserve the freedom of being able to modify and distribute the modified versions of the code.

Could you rephrase this statement, using ability instead of freedom, since freedom implies that the end-user of the software is in some way entitled to modify and distribute it. You are entitled to modify only that which you rightfully own. For example, I'm unable to modify the GPL license since I don't own it. The end-users of software most certainly don't have the right to modify the software since they did not design, implement or test it. But the right to modify can be offered as a privilege, as is the case in many real world cases.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[gnupun]

FYI, a normal pirate is one who knows pirating is wrong but does it anyway to enjoy the fruits of other people's labor without having to pay for it. A shameless pirate, on the other hand, thinks he has a moral, ethical and legal right to pirate stuff. Even scummier than the shameless pirate, is the counterfeiter -- he makes copies of copyrighted work and sells them for profit.

I've already paid my little share of the .01 % of the sticker price that goes to "creation costs"

If the DVD costs $30, the creation cost is only $300,000? I don't think that enough to even pay for the extras (actors) in the movie.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[multisync]

I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law

Ah, that ol' straw man. Here goes:

1. Slashdot isn't just one guy sitting in his basement posting all these comment, it's many people with many opinions, some of which differ from those of others. I would think someone with a 5-digit UID would have noticed that by now
2. Wanting reforms to copyright law to ensure fair use and the Public Domain are given as much respect and consideration as the needs of copyright holders is not the same thing as being "opposed to copyright law"

and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else?

You can't, but you can infringe their copyright, which is a different, but equally serious, thing than stealing.

Honestly, do you really not get the difference or is 4chan down this morning?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Nadaka]

Avast ye matey! I am pro piracy you insensitive clod.

Now for something serious.
Piracy is the crime of hijacking ships at sea. This happens frequently off the coast of Somalia, and infrequently in the Caribbean and south-east Asia.
Theft is the crime of removing something from another without permission/compensation. They key is that the property is removed from its owner or the service of the provider is consumed without agreed recompense.

Copyright infringement is neither. Words have meaning.

Besides that, why would anyone think that open source advocates are pro copyright infringment? Copyright is the foundation of all open source licenses, its what gives them power.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[russotto]

The end-users of software most certainly don't have the right to modify the software since they did not design, implement or test it.

The end users may not have the right to modify software. But the owner of a copy of software most certainly has the right to modify that copy.

(insert auto analogy here).

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Madsy]

No, there is no difference. And no it isn't stealing; it is copyright infringement and you know that, so why use that stupid analogy?
Still I think OSS software abuse is slightly more serious than private filesharing, notably because OSS software makers rarely make any money from their work. Licensees honouring the license is their "pay for the effort" sort to speak.
Abiding by an OSS license doesn't cost you a dime. Only a bit of extra effort and the occasional e-mail/snailmail received or webserver bandwidth in the case of GPL, or simply making sure that header files are intact for MIT/BSD variants.
That's why I put OSS 'freeloaders' even lower than people who infringe copyright by downloading songs/movies/games. In my opinion stealing someones acknowledgement/due credit is way more insulting than causing a potential lost sale.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[geminidomino]

If he insists on getting Microsoft office I'll tell him to go buy it.

I'd tell him the same thing, but not out of any sort of respect for bullshit copyright.

I just know if I gave him MS office, I'd end up having to support it. Fuck that!

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[fulldecent]

>> I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else?

-1, Slashdot should have a "stick post" that precludes comments like this

But to answer you: fair use, copyright lengths

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Timothy Brownawell]

The end-users of software most certainly don't have the right to modify the software since they did not design, implement or test it.

The end users may not have the right to modify software. But the owner of a copy of software most certainly has the right to modify that copy.

Which I suppose is why most software tries to be "licensed, not sold", despite looking very much like a sale.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[PitaBred]

Just because we dislike the way copyright is currently done doesn't mean we won't use their own weapon against them.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[shutdown -p now]

Copyright infringement is neither. Words have meaning.

They do, and that meaning is established by the use of words by native language speakers, and is documented in dictionaries. So go check your dictionary for a definition of "piracy".

"Piracy" in the meaning of "copyright infringement" has been in English language for the last 300 years. You may not like it, and you may believe that the original addition was politicized, but nonetheless it is an established meaning of the word as understood by virtually every English speaker today.

Besides that, why would anyone think that open source advocates are pro copyright infringment?

Reading /. for long enough will inevitably lead one to such conclusion. Granted, not all FOSS advocates are anti-copyright, but a surprisingly large number of them seems to be, and the vast majority of anti-copyright people on /. are also pro-FOSS, if you check their comment history.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[nomadic]

Can you also show me a story where Slashdotters were in favour of people who profit from copyright infringement?

Any story involving the Pirate Bay?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[kz45]

"Just the ones who think using the term "piracy" for sharing something you already paid for is bullshit."

If I use GPL software in a proprietary app, is it bullshit for me to get in trouble?

after all, it's "free".

Even if a company uses GNU software in a proprietary app, the code isn't any less "free". The only code you don't get are the changes the company made..which weren't yours in the first place.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

*head asplodes*

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Kalriath]

Uh, it is. Giving away and no longer having said something (regardless of what the fucking EULA says) is not piracy, however (i.e. fuck you AutoCAD).

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Whatever, whne hundreds of people works for 1-2 years or longer to make a videogame and then what, you think you "bought" these thousands of manhours for $60? Do you want to share their work with anyone? Then write to the software company and make them a fair offer to buy the source code and art assets.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I use GPL software in a proprietary app

That's not sharing, that's restricting sharing. If you were sharing the GPL'd code, you'd give people what you got -- source as well as binaries.

The only code you don't get are the changes the company made..which weren't yours in the first place.

If you don't want to share those, why do you think you should get access to the original source? Quid pro quo, huh?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[youarelying]

I thought Slashdot was opposed to copyright law and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else? Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?

"Slashdot" does not hold these positions, and you know it. Straw man arguments are lies.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

...intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.

Intangible is spelled correctly.
Perhaps you meant "...intangible property, and therefor[sic] cannot be stolen"?

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DVD costs $30, the creation cost is only $300,000?

Nothing of the sort is implied. You're an idiot.

Re:Free Software Licenses?

[VJ42]

...intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.

Intangible is spelled correctly. Perhaps you meant "...intangible property, and therefor[sic] cannot be stolen"?

I wasn't using [sic] to indicate a spelling error, I was using it to indicate uncommon usage; how many people have heard the phrase "intangible property"?

Chipset SDK suppliers

[stiggle]

Many of the chipset SDK suppliers don't tell their customers of their obligations to provide the source when requested by a customer.
So while the hardware manufacturer might be at fault, its the chipset maker who is more often the failure.

Cisco/Linksys using Broadcom chipsets. Did Broadcom tell them about using Linux & their obligation under the GPL to release the code.
Humax with their PVR - now they're less reliant on the chipset as the Cisco situation so are more at fault for not releasing the code when asked.

Re:Chipset SDK suppliers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure on page 327, subsection 32, appendix B of Tech document 9 of 13 fully document the GPL obligations that hardware manufacturers should be aware of.

Re:Chipset SDK suppliers

[sunderland56]

Why should the customers of the SDK have such an obligation?

Suppose I am computer vendor C. I purchase motherboards from manufacturer B, who uses a network chip from manufacturer A. With the chip, company A provides a SDK that uses some open source. Company B uses that in creating their BIOS and device drivers. I use that device driver in the setup program that I supply with my computer.

Now, why should I provide any sources? The code I write is proprietary. Certainly the code that company A used and modified should be publicly available subject to the license - but that should be their obligation, not mine. All of the code that company B wrote is proprietary - they are merely using the SDK - so I don't see that they should need to do anything either (other than possibly mention that their product includes open software from vendor A, and a pointer to A's web site).

It is precisely because of these restrictions that companies avoid using open source software. I work for C, and our company prohibits the use of any open source precisely because of these additional legal burden. So, the requirement of everyone along the food chain revealing the original source ends up hurting the open source software community.

Feed the troll time!

[QuantumG]

Woohoo.. I love doing stuff that is bad for me, it's the best kind of stuff.

Why is copyright bad in pro-piracy articles and good in free software articles?

Uhhh.. because its being used for different purposes? Why are automatic weapons a good thing in armed resistance to tyranny but a bad thing in shopping mall shootings? Are you so seriously retarded that you can't tell the difference between a goal and the tools used to achieve that goal?

Re:Feed the troll time!

[kspiteri]

1. e4 f5 2. c3 g5 3. h5++ shit!
That should be 3. Qh5++

Re:Feed the troll time!

[QuantumG]

Also Nc3, thanks.

Re:Feed the troll time!

[Anonymous Coward]

3 .h5++ if correct notation. It's unambiguous. Only the queen could perform such a move, so no need to be specific.

Re:Feed the troll time!

[Dragonslicer]

1. e4 f5 2. c3 g5 3. h5++ shit!

You sunk my battleship!

Re:Feed the troll time!

[jim_v2000]

Because if you aren't giving away your music and videos for free, then it's like shooting up a mall with an automatic weapon...what?

Surprise!

[cbope]

This is precisely what can happen when a western company outsources "engineering" work to countries with little or no respect of copyright or intellectual property. Of course the company providing the "engineering" work will poach as much as they can from the open source community without compensating the community (by publishing their contributions/patches or through donations) or even acknowledging that they utilized it. This also applies to non- open source tech as well. Many of these "companies" will basically steal what they can to get the job done at the lowest cost so that they can win the business of a major western company.

I'm not saying the ideas of copyright and intellectual property as they are defined today are necessarily right, but I do acknowledge that they exist in some form.

Re:Surprise!

[bug1]

This is precisely what can happen when a western company outsources "engineering" work to countries with little or no respect of copyright or intellectual property.

You imply that western countries respect copyright or intellectual property.

Perhaps instead of blaming countries or cultures it could be simply be that companies dont have a reason to obey open source copyright until they are forced too.

If a company gets caught violating open source licenses the community is very willing to accept it was an accident, even blind ignorance is easily forgiven.

When a company is caught violating open source licenses it just means they have to pay for a lawyer to explain their rights and obligations to them, something they would have had to do anyway... so there is a chance that violating open source licenses will save the company money.

Until violators (and people like Darl McBride) are treated as severely as RIAA defendants then nothing will change, these people need to face bankruptcy or jail, there should not be a profit motive to destroy a public asset (which is what open source is).

Feed the argument time!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uhhh.. because its being used for different purposes? Why are automatic weapons a good thing in armed resistance to tyranny but a bad thing in shopping mall shootings? Are you so seriously retarded that you can't tell the difference between a goal and the tools used to achieve that goal?"

Not as retarded as believing that the same solution (copyright abolishment) will work for both the good and bad usage.

Re:Feed the argument time!

[PopeRatzo]

Tell you what, you get the military/industrial/intellectual-property complex to give up copyright and I bet you can get the open source people to go along.

Re:Feed the argument time!

[kz45]

"Tell you what, you get the military/industrial/intellectual-property complex to give up copyright and I bet you can get the open source people to go along."

Not really. The second copyright goes away, you can kiss the free software movement goodbye.

Nobody will be required to give out any source and the companies with the most money will easily be able to destroy anyone starting out (and the small companies will have little recourse..since the law that is actually there to protect them is gone).

The ends justify the means?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you are saying "The Ends Justify The Means".

Killing people is good if they are bad people, and bad if they are good people.

Lying is good if it's for a good cause, and bad if it's for a bad cause.

The problem with "The Ends Justify The Means" are twofold. Firstly, other people might start using the methods that you employ against your cause. That's less of an issue here, although I would be surprised if the proprietary software industry didn't unite after a while as it becomes clearer that the objective of the RMS movement is to destroy and make proprietary software unviable, because it's unable to link into an existing ecosystem that cannot be replicated without extreme hurdle costs.

Secondly, it can be perceived as hypocritical - for example, if someone who has argued strongly for raising taxes also dodges them with the justification "If I dodge taxes I am more able to work for the raising of taxes". I don't see how anyone within the OSS movement can accuse anyone else of hypocrisy for any reason, so long as they use the justification "I am against the use of this tool but I find it useful and so can use it in my fight".

Because I want there to be viable proprietary software, I don't like OSS people - but you can't have anyone like you. In my view the software industry should start lobbying individual countries to declare OSS invalid and fair game for incorporation into any product.

Re:The ends justify the means?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you extrapolated the example to go on a rant.

Re:The ends justify the means?

[houghi]

I am assuming that you use "software industry" where you mean "Closed Source Software" as the software industry includes a lot of OSS software and even companies.

In my view the software industry should start lobbying individual countries to declare OSS invalid and fair game for incorporation into any product.

If that works two ways, then I am with you. If OSS can use the software protected under licences of Closed SOurce, it would be great. It would mean that there is NO copyright on software. Not from the industry and not from the OSS front.

Otherwise you are a hypocrite for doing the "I am against the use of this tool but I find it useful and so can use it in my fight" reasoning.

I could easily say:
In my view the OSS community should start lobbying individual countries to declare Closed Source invalid and fair game for incorporation into any product. See, it works both ways.

The only difference is however that OSS asks to have the source open and CSS asks to have the source, well, closed. I rather have the second then the first.

With Closed Source, everybody stands on the bottom of the pool and everybody drowns. With Open Source, you can stand on the shoulder of giants.

Re:The ends justify the means?

[Lord Bitman]

But very few people on slashdot have ever argued in favor of the abolishment of copyright. copyright reform which eliminates abuses and shortens terms, sure, but if you want arguments for abolishment, /. will see more of that directed at particular forms of patent law (which can also be considered "patent reform", as it wouldn't usually abolish the whole system)

And rather than saying "the ends justify the means", we're saying "the means aren't in question, the means are neutral. We're talking about the ends. We've been talking about the ends all along."

  - I am opposed to laws which ban the sale or construction of X
  - I am in favor of laws which ban the malicious use of X
  - I would prefer if laws were written which banned only the action Y in which X were used, and did not mention X at all
  - I do not like the overall concept of Y
  - I like the overall concept of X
  - I do not think that X should be used to do Y
  - I rely on the use of X on a daily basis
  - I don't particularly like many aspects of X

none of these are conflicting statements.

Re:The ends justify the means?

[PopeRatzo]

Killing people is good if they are bad people, and bad if they are good people.

Now, what exactly is the problem here?

Re:The ends justify the means?

[uninformedLuddite]

In my view the software industry should start lobbying individual countries to declare OSS invalid and fair game for incorporation into any product.

And I nominate you for the 'Biggest Douche in the Universe'

The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

To protect its IP, the CE company that I work for does not allow the use of GPL or LGPL code in production software. It's a good thing that Linux system calls are excepted from the normal GPL rules, otherwise we wouldn't have seen its massive success in embedded devices.

Re:The Linux Exception

[HonIsCool]

In what way are Linux system calls "excepted from the normal GPL rules"?

Re:The Linux Exception

[ciggieposeur]

It's a good thing that Linux system calls are excepted from the normal GPL rules, otherwise we wouldn't have seen its massive success in embedded devices.

Could you elaborate on the "normal GPL rules" regarding syscalls? Because I'm not seeing why any exception would be needed. Has this been hashed out somewhere before?

(My thinking is: yes, user code can call kernel functions through a binary interface, which is similar to linking, but it's not *really* linked to the kernel; the same binary program could run on a BSD kernel too. I fail to see how syscalls would be any different than a GPL and non-GPL program communicating through SysV IPC shared memory. It seems like the "viral-ness" of the GPL would only come into play if the kernel + user-mode program together became a single program, which would require ripping out the kernel scheduler.)

Re:The Linux Exception

[taniwha]

the last 2 places I've worked at we've used it all the time - we're careful about how we partition code and we publish source when required and we blow patches back to the various projects if it makes sense for them (after all we win in the end).

It's not hard to comply if you build it in to your planning from the start

Re:The Linux Exception

[Aim Here]

They're not.

What the GP probably refers to is that the Linux copyright file does state that normal use of Linux system calls does not create a derivative work per copyright law. That's more in line with a clarification than an exemption - in that Richard Stallman would agree with it.

(If there are exemptions from 'Normal GPL rules' in Linux, it's in the nature of the allowances the kernel devs have for nonGPled kernel modules, such as the ATI/Nvidia blobs, where it's all a big legal can of worms as to what is, and isn't, a derivative work.)

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

That's interesting. Do you mind providing links?

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

Actually, you have a point. There seems to be no exception.

But then, if a company ships Linux with a layer on top of it, couldn't one argue that it is a derivative work?

Re:The Linux Exception

[Rogerborg]

Look, it's perfectly simple. If you compile in headers, then by the plain language of the license, you've created a derivative work. Any suggestion that you haven't done so is extrinsic to the license.

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

Interesting. So, if I want to circumvent the GPL on a library, I only have to create a binary interface layer on top of the library and use that layer? The layer itself of course would be GPL.

Re:The Linux Exception

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess he means they are not linking. It is considered "using" the product, so you are not bound by the GPL

Re:The Linux Exception

[HonIsCool]

A license does not decide whether a work is derivative; copyright law does. "Compiling in" a header file is also vague. If all the header file does it to declare an interface, it is difficult to "compile in" any code to derive from. Unless one wants that adhering to an interface is equal to creating derivative work. Then, presuably, one finds a good friend in Darl McBride et al, and supports the notion that Linux is a derivative work of Unix.

Re:The Linux Exception

[PAjamian]

That's exactly what a number of hardware manufacturers do with their driver code. The legality of this is debatable, the FSF would like you to believe that this is not legal, I wouldn't know.

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

I'm confused now. Is the GPL document clear on this or not? It's supposed to be a legal document, no?

Re:The Linux Exception

[Rogerborg]

Fair point about derivative works, but that's still extrinsic to the license, and you'd have to pay a lawyer to prove it. Ask IBM.

"Compiling in" is not vague at all though, at least in the context of a C/C++ compiler. "Header files" have no meaning to the compiler - it's all just source, regardless of which top level module caused it to be included verbatim. [citation]

Re:The Linux Exception

[Aim Here]

The GPL is very clear. If it's a derivative work of someone else's GPL'ed code, it ought to have a GPL-compatible license. If not, the GPL doesn't necessarily apply.

What's not clear is what does and doesn't constitute a derivative work in software. That's the job of case and statute law, not the GPL.

Re:The Linux Exception

[jedidiah]

The Linux userland is LGPL, not GPL.

This what allows Oracle to run on top of Linux as a commercial closed source product.

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

I see. So, depending on the country where a device is distributed, one might get sued for shipping a device based on linux and not GPLing the applications running on it?

Re:The Linux Exception

[Aim Here]

No. Because even if there was some country out there that thought that, say, every program running on Windows was technically part of Windows and therefore owned by Microsoft (and there isn't!), the clarification in the Linux copyright file suddenly becomes an exemption (since it clearly shows the intent of the authors) and the Linux devs would be estopped from suing people who took them at their word.

Hows today's trolling coming along?

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

What kind of a worthless argument is that? Read the Windows license. It's nothing at all like the GPL. Besides, Linus' comment in the copyright file does not necessarily have legal value. One judge might take into account, another might not.

By the way, I like you ad hominem argument at the end of your reply. It illustrates well the value of your comments.

Re:The Linux Exception

[david_thornley]

You wouldn't get sued for shipping Linux and non-GPLing the applications.

You could, however, get sued for distributing software in the US that was perfectly legal in most of Europe. You could also get arrested in the US for doing something in another country that was perfectly legal there (*cough*Sklyarov*cough*).

Re:The Linux Exception

[ciggieposeur]

"Compiling in" is not vague at all though, at least in the context of a C/C++ compiler. "Header files" have no meaning to the compiler - it's all just source, regardless of which top level module caused it to be included verbatim.

Right, but does a header file containing only constant declaration and forward declarations constitute "compiling in"? E.g. "extern int strlen(char * str);" vs "int strlen(char * str) { ... function code ... }". The latter case is clearly "compiled in", as in two modules including a header file that contained the implementation would each put the implementation in their respective .o/.obj file, which would (usually) cause the link to fail due to duplicate functions. However, the former case to me is NOT "compiling in" because without the implementation the link is guaranteed to fail due to the missing function.

Re:The Linux Exception

[Dragonslicer]

Interesting. So, if I want to circumvent the GPL on a library, I only have to create a binary interface layer on top of the library and use that layer? The layer itself of course would be GPL.

Depending on how exactly you do it, maybe. There are a lot of specific details that would factor into it, and I don't know enough about the GPL and copyright law to give an informed opinion. At the very least, though, you wouldn't be able to distribute the GPL library with your code, so the end user would have to install it themselves. I've seen this done in a few cases with software that was written to use MySQL, though I'm not certain if it fully complies with the GPL or not.

Re:The Linux Exception

[ciggieposeur]

Interesting. So, if I want to circumvent the GPL on a library, I only have to create a binary interface layer on top of the library and use that layer? The layer itself of course would be GPL.

There are all sorts of ways to "circumvent" GPL on a library. One of the easiest is to expose the library functions as a separate command-line program and manipulate that through a pty interface. What you're talking about wouldn't work if your in-between layer was GPL, but if it was BSD it *might* work - that's still under debate and probably won't be known unless case law makes a precedent - but it is the way the nVidia and ATI drivers are packaged.

But we're talking about the kernel, not userspace programs. Does the kernel itself qualify as a library with respect to a userspace program? To me it seems like it does not.

Re:The Linux Exception

[TheRaven64]

It depends a lot on the contents of the header. If all that the header does is define an interface, then it can not be copyrighted (in the USA). You can, however, copyright an expression of an interface. This is where it gets muddy. If the header contains macros and static / inline functions that are included into the final product, then it can be classed as a derived work (but it might not be). If you are using a language like C++, which puts a lot of the implementation detail into the headers, then it is more likely that it would be.

In the case of the Linux kernel, you almost never actually make calls to the kernel, you make calls to libc. The library then makes calls to the kernel on your behalf, by putting the arguments into the correct registers and then issuing an instruction for entering kernel space (int 80h, sysenter, or syscall, on x86). This is done by a macro, and that macro could be part of the kernel sources and therefore covered by the GPL. Linux contains an explicit exemption so that, if this is the case, you do not have to abide by the terms of the GPL with respect to that macro (or function, or whatever). GCC has a similar exemption for the code in things like libgcc and libobjc. These libraries may be implicitly linked to your code and code may be implicitly copied from them into your code by the compiler. This does not invoke GPL-related obligations because there is an explicit exemption.

Re:The Linux Exception

[Aim Here]

Read the Windows license. It's nothing at all like the GPL

Who said anything about licenses? We were talking about derivative works in copyright law. If the law is ridiculous enough that that using OS functions constitutes being a derivative work, nothing in the license can change that (although you might get permission from the copyright holder to use "his derivative work", ie, the programs you wrote for his OS).

Besides, Linus' comment in the copyright file does not necessarily have legal value

It probably does. It can easily be described as a promise by the kernel developers to not sue under certain circumstances, which is covered by the legal doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

By the way, I like you ad hominem argument at the end of your reply. It illustrates well the value of your comments.

Ad hominem it may be, but spot on it is too. I just read this:

I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun. I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots. I do have an older account, with an ID much smaller than yours, but I don't see much point in using it these days.

and drew my own conclusions.

Re:The Linux Exception

[mvdwege]

You do realise that legal documents can never unequivocally cover all situations, right? That that is why we have judges, right? Are you stupid, or are you just trolling?

Mart

Re:The Linux Exception

[PitaBred]

Mind naming names? I like supporting companies that are responsible like that, if I have need for their products.

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

Very well. Let's leave it up to the lawyers and the judges then. Lovely.

Re:The Linux Exception

[Rogerborg]

I guess you missed the part about having to pay to prove the copyright status of a header. How many years has SCO vs IBM (et al) being dragging on?

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

I can dynamically link my code to one of the Windows redistributables and distribute the complete software without GPL-like restrictions, because the license allows me to. The GPL license does not automatically give me this right.

It's interesting that you think that Linus' preamble does exempt Linux from some of the GPL requirements. Personally, I thought so too, but quite a few people here (and online in general) have a different opinion.

I fail to see how the fact that "I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun." and "I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots" sheds any light on the relationship between Linux and the GPL. Maybe the reasoning is that if I were a proper slashdotter then I'd know that Linux and the GPL are near-perfect and I wouldn't be asking these irrelevant, trolling, astroturfing questions?

Re:The Linux Exception

[Aim Here]

"I can dynamically link my code to one of the Windows redistributables and distribute the complete software without GPL-like restrictions, because the license allows me to. The GPL license does not automatically give me this right."

Don't change the subject. We're talking about writing programs that make system calls to operating system kernels, not distributing programs that link with redistributable libraries. The GPL doesn't 'give you' the right to write a Linux program, any more than the Windows EULA 'gives you the right' to write a Windows program. The lack of relevant restrictions in copyright law gives you that right.

It's interesting that you think that Linus' preamble does exempt Linux from some of the GPL requirements.

It does, but only in your hypothetical la-la neverland where copyright is so broad-reaching that all programs ever written for an OS are derivative works for that OS. In the real world, it doesn't.

Maybe the reasoning is that if I were a proper slashdotter then I'd know that Linux and the GPL are near-perfect and I wouldn't be asking these irrelevant, trolling, astroturfing questions

Nah, the reasoning is surely that if you were a proper slashdotter, you wouldn't say that you were here to 'push our buttons'. And prove it by repeatedly ask these silly questions that are almost always based on ridiculous hypotheses and false premises (see above for two examples), to gauge our 'predictable' reactions.

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

I'm trying to communicate that the Windows license allows for other things than the Linux license, but this seems to be a exercise in futility.

If I distribute Linux with a GUI on top, many people (of the general public) would qualify the total package as a derived work. I cannot do such a thing with Windows. I can do it with Linux, but some restrictions might apply. What these restrictions are seems to be not 100% clear (except to you maybe).

Actually, I wonder whether you understand what this thread is about. I'm just curious to know where the distinction between static and dynamic linking and system calls to GPL-ed code (not Windows!) is specified.

Re:The Linux Exception

[Aim Here]

I'm trying to communicate that the Windows license allows for other things than the Linux license, but this seems to be a exercise in futility.

The futility is in the fact that you don't understand (or are pretending not to understand) that some things you can do with Linux or Windows code are outwith the scope of both Windows and Linux licenses because the copyright holder does not have the right to stop you doing those things. It doesn't matter at all what a copyright license contains, if you don't need the copyright holder's permission to do whatever act you were attempting to do. Writing a program that happens to run on someone else's OS is one of those acts.

Actually, I wonder whether you understand what this thread is about. I'm just curious to know where the distinction between static and dynamic linking and system calls to GPL-ed code (not Windows!) is specified.

Well the real distinctions between what those three concepts are is fairly obvious to a programmer. I suggest enrolling in a programming course if you don't know.

If you're talking about the legal distinctions between those, as far as derived works of software is concerned, the consensus is that use of system calls doesn't make your program a derived work. And the consensus regarding dynamic and static linking seems to be that it's a big vague messy legal can of worms, and that nobody really knows where the boundary lies. The specification of derivative works, such as it is, is in statute and case law. Look up 17 USC for the American copyright statutes, and, well, there's reams and reams of case law, a lot of it very inconclusive. Knock yourself out using the Lexis database or your local university law library. There's no simple and correct answer, because simple and correct answers tend to put lawyers out of work.

And no, I don't know what this thread is about. You keep coming up with new, and only tangentially related, subjects every post (this post mentions dynamic versus static linking regarding derivative works, which is a subject that can keep GPL-related trolls happy for weeks). Presumably that's your tactic for pushing my buttons.

Sigh.

Re:The Linux Exception

[LinuxAndLube]

It looks like we are finally getting somewhere. You say "the consensus is that use of system calls doesn't make your program a derived work". Can you give me an authoritative reference on this, or should I take your word for it? For example, has this been challenged in court?

By the way, in case you get lost regarding the subject of the thread, you can always consult the title of the original post.

Re:The Linux Exception

[taniwha]

One was Digeo (just disappeared sort of I'm afraid) - they hired Andrew Morton and basically paid him to work on the kernel for a couple of years - the other I probably can't comment on without asking first ....

Have the tables finally turned?

[ahodgkinson]

So does this mean that WE finally have THEM by the balls?

It would be nice for the OS community to serve back what it's been receiving. I'm thinking
of the patent trolls, copyright oppression, DCMA takedown notices and the like.

Re:Have the tables finally turned?

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Not quite sure how that would be the case.

The article, to me just says that, "When a vendor purchases a design from another company, somebody drops the ball on making sure the new vendor/customer of the design knows to release GPL-licensed source code from that huge mess of a codebase shipped with a design."

NO, this is NOT the reason

[AbbeyRoad]

The reason why they "violate" is because they just do not care.

It has nothing to do with deadlines or politics or competition or margins.

The code they are using is seen as "some free stuff I downloaded which happens to work - cool for me".

The point of a company is to make money, not to further ethical causes. If it doesn't SEEM like a massive no-no I don't think it would enter the head of even one person in this supply chain to question it. And by the time anyone does, its already 3 generations of products later and they are wondering why someone is bothered with a product that is nearly ending its life cycle.

I mean, if asked, they would probably ask if there is any tangible heavy institution that is likely to find out, or even to care if they did.

Ultimately, you need to also ask if it really matters at all. How often do you think this provided source code is really going to be useful to a mass audience? As you say: the products in question have a very short life span, and the changes must be small to be able to be completed in time.

FreeBSD benefits enormously from user contributions (both commercial and hobbiest), yet has no requirement to make changes public.

Oh it MUST matter you say - it's the PRINCIPLE.

Well it's YOUR principle.

The title should be rephrase:
"How Hardware Makers Come to Comply With Free Software Licenses" These are the extremely rare cases, and in truth any company that is spending time worrying about little things like this has probably so lost focus it won't be around for long.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

Ah, the BSD troll.

There have been a lot of cases (the linksys modding scene for instance) in which the lack of GPL would have meant no release of source or tools. There are a variety of other examples.

I also don't believe for a second that linux would have got where it is today, with multiple big-name companies supporting it and contributing to it if they had not been forced to reopen their changes.

Thirdly, lots of people don't like the idea of contributing to a project which can then be swept up and used by commercial entities without them being made to have the courtesy to contribute back.

At this point BSD is basically an also-ran. Great project, great OS I'm sure, but not on the same level as linux or supported in anything like the same way in terms of FOSS and commercial software. At least a some of this is down to the environment created by the differing licenses.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[smoker2]

Why don't they use *BSD code then ? And it's not YOUR principle, it's the principle written in the licence. So again, why don't they use *BSD code ? Surely the only sensible answer is that they don't even read the licence. they don't care. Yet if it's their code that gets reused there is usually hell to pay.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[someone1234]

>Why don't they use *BSD code then ?

There is no BSD licensed multimedia player with equal or better qualities as ffmpeg.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Rogerborg]

I also don't believe for a second that linux would have got where it is today [...]

Where it is today is trailing behind the BSD based OS X. M'kay?

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that statement needs clarification, considering that *BSD is neither monolithic nor limited to the *BSD operating systems themselves. Keep in mind that Windows NT-XP (I'm not sure of Vista nor 7) use a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack. Would that count?

Also, Mac OS X is basically a Mach kernel, BSD CLI, and very pretty custom GUI (interoperable with X). Wouldn't that count?

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

Sure about that?

I'm not talking about desktop systems here. Look at the server room and the embedded markets and I think you'll see something quite, quite different.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

FreeBSD was mentioned in particular, and that's what I was addressing.

But I agree, there are quite a few places where BSD licensed code is used.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[AbbeyRoad]

Linux is not a religion you moron.

I have ALL OSs installed because I need to port software to ALL OSs.
This means Linux, Mac, WindowsXP/64/03/08, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc. etc.

There is nothing huge to distinguish any of these systems from each other.

They are ALL crap in their own way.

The only difference is in their Pundits: Linux people think that are
knights of some kind of OS crusade. They don't know it, but they
are marketing people employed by RedHat and IBM - employed
WITHOUT PAY that is.

Come to think - there is one good thing I can say about about
astroturfing scum from Microsoft - at least they ARE paid.

Linux pundits represent meaninglessness in its worst form -
they don't contribute source code, they don't earn money off it,
they don't do Linux support, they only spend money on games.

They only ever rave about how good it would be for OTHER
PEOPLE to use Linux, and how terrible it is that OTHER PEOPLE
aren't suing violators of the GPL.

-paul

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

"Linux pundits represent meaninglessness in its worst form -
they don't contribute source code, they don't earn money off it,
they don't do Linux support, they only spend money on games."

I do all of those things, except *only* spending money on games, but I do spend money on games.

Next unfounded rant please.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

FreeBSD benefits enormously from user contributions (both commercial and hobbiest), yet has no requirement to make changes public.

This is basically the difference between a nonprofit and a business. FreeBSD asks for charity and sometimes companies give them code, because it gets them goodwill and is occasionally beneficial for the companies to make sure others have what they're giving away.

The GPL is not a charity. They offer code in exchange for the promise of other code. If you want to use their code, you have to pay by releasing any changes.

So by analogy, your argument boils down to a belief that people will give to charity, so there's no reason to run a business in order to make enough money to get by. We can all close up our shops and live on charity provided to us by others. Why there's a soup kitchen just down the street, it pretty much obviates the need for the diner. And why should I work to make money for food when I can get it free at the soup kitchen?

Oh it MUST matter you say - it's the PRINCIPLE.

Some people work because they do support working for money in principal and are believers in capitalism. Most, however, work because they want the money to buy clothing and eat and have shelter and buy nonessentials. Most companies and individuals who contribute code under the GPL don't do it because they support the principal, but because they want the practical benefits, the free code from others going forward so they can use an ever better product. Do you seriously think companies pay full time coders to work on the linux kernel because they support the principal of the GPL over BSD? They do it because it will make them more money in the long term.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[petrus4]

The GPL is not a charity.

They offer code in exchange for the promise of other code.

In other words, the BSD is a vastly morally superior license, and of the two, is a far more pure manifestation of the older hacker gift culture.

I already knew that, but thanks for clearing it up for our viewers at home. ;)

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[dkleinsc]

The point of a company is to make money, not to further ethical causes.

Companies are bound by the rule of law. That's why GE doesn't have a division responsible for selling crack despite the high profitability of that market.

The reason why they "violate" is because they just do not care.

There's an easy way to make the companies care about OSS license violations: the C&D letter (followed by the appropriate legal action if they don't comply). It's been held up in the cases where it's gone to court. The FSF has a portion of their organization devoted to doing just that sort of wrangling.

Ultimately, you need to also ask if it really matters at all. How often do you think this provided source code is really going to be useful to a mass audience?

Absolutely it matters. And yes the code can be useful - not just for the specific hardware device (which could be around much longer than the manufacturer thought), but for any similar devices that come onto the market.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Rogerborg]

Windows Server, Solaris and Windows XP?

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[jedidiah]

MacOS is a variant of OpenStep.

It is it's own little world based on a forked version of NeXT. The fact that there is a BSD buried deep underneath is of little consequence or value.

While you could recompile Unix stuff for MacOS, the Apple faithful would tend to scream at you like pod person for it.

MacOS is successful specifically because for 20 years it was NOT unix. That and lots of advertising.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[petrus4]

There have been a lot of cases (the linksys modding scene for instance) in which the lack of GPL would have meant no release of source or tools. There are a variety of other examples.

In other words, thank God we've got Richard Stallman to use the legal system to beat people into submission, and force them to do exactly what WE want them to do. It might be unfortunate, but given that said people work for corporations, they're not as equal as we are, and hence, their wellbeing doesn't count.

I love the smell of freedom, don't you?

At this point BSD is basically an also-ran

Yep. Marginal, dead, and completely irrelevant; just like Netcraft said. I guess that's why FreeBSD is ranked 13th on DistroWatch. It might also have something to do with why NetBSD just had a new release last month, or OpenBSD having its' most recent release in May. It's probably also why Theo de Raadt gave a keynote speech about OpenBSD's development process in May, as well.

Because, you know, they're fringe, dead, irrelevant operating systems. Nobody uses them.

That's also why we've kept seeing stories like this crop up in the trade press over the last three months or so; because the GPL is just such an awesome, business-friendly license. Everyone just loves the freedom that their Uncle Richard has provided for them; I really can't imagine where we'd be if it wasn't for him.

not on the same level as linux or supported in anything like the same way in terms of FOSS and commercial software.

Yeah. Too bad World of Warcraft doesn't run on it. Having to surf the Web without Flash really hurts, too. Like you said, FreeBSD is so irrelevant, it doesn't even have 3D video card drivers.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

MacOS when it was not unix was only used by a handful faithful who are now a minority of the people who have macs, their problem if they liked a shitty OS.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[petrus4]

I almost actually forgot to mention something else.

You may not have heard about this, (after all, it was a largely irrelevant occurrence) but Steve Jobs partly based his new operating system on FreeBSD as well, not too long ago.

Of course, as we all know, Steve has always been a wacky, crazy, maverick kind of guy. I'm sure if he'd been able to see your post a few years earlier, it might have prevented him from making a truly disastrous decision.

I mean, after all, why would a major corporation want to base a new operating system on dead code?

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In other words, the BSD is a vastly morally superior license, and of the two, is a far more pure manifestation of the older hacker gift culture.

People have morals; licenses do not. Picking a license is usually not a moral or ethical choice, it's a business decision. Is it always morally superior to give without asking something in return? I say no. For example, is giving poison to children more moral than giving them $100 in exchange for a promise to read an educational book?

Generally the people picking a license these days are businesses, who do most OSS development. A large number of these companies use multiple licenses. For example, if you're creating a core underlying technology and you want to use it in your products and you want it to be as widely adopted as possible because the more it is used the more useful your products become, well BSD is probably a better fit (zeroconf is a good example). It can be implemented in more situations and you aren't really worried people are going to charge for use of it, since it is not a product in and of itself. If you're developing an application, however, which you plan to use within your company, the GPL may be a better fit, since that way any of your competitors that use it and make improvements come back to you for use as well and it discourages vendors from making a closed version with improvements and charging you for it. If you're developing software which is part of your core competency (for example, a search algorithm is you're a search company) or which you are going to be selling directly to end users, then a closed source license might be better.

The point of this being, all of those licenses are being chosen because they maximize long term profit for the licenser. How can one of them be morally superior if the motivation is identical in all instances? Oh, and as for the older hacker culture, the GPL in my mind fits very well since it is a hack of our copyright system, making copyright law work to do basically the opposite of the original intention.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[AbbeyRoad]

rather

    sed -e "s/don.t/do insignificantly small amounts of/g"

-paul

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[oddfox]

For further information on the TCP/IP stack and then some, you can check out this article here: linky.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[petrus4]

Ah, the standard FSF defense.

"Irrefutable argument detected. Error. Does not compute. Immediate action required to avoid imminent cognitive dissonance cascade. Seeking alternate options. Processing...

Proximity drone located. Moderation points available. Down-moderate irrefutable argument to prevent discovery. Working...

Argument down-moderation complete. Cognitive dissonance cascade averted. Systems returning to normal. Resume primary objective; assimilation of new drones and defense of the Collective.

Resistance is futile."

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

And that's supposed to fix your ridiculous rant is it?

You're still wrong.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

"In other words, thank God we've got Richard Stallman to use the legal system to beat people into submission, and force them to do exactly what WE want them to do. It might be unfortunate, but given that said people work for corporations, they're not as equal as we are, and hence, their wellbeing doesn't count.

I love the smell of freedom, don't you?"

Where do you get this steaming bullshit?

Everyone is equal under the GPL, equally bound to give out the source for any binaries they distribute. If you want to say that's less "free" then go ahead, but it's hardly inequal. You want to play with GPL code, you have to reciprocate.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Nursie]

Morally superior. Cute.

Is it morally superior to just give money away to whoever asks or to put it towards something that will definitely continue to do the public good, ensuring that those that gain advantage from it also help?

You're a zealot.
 

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[7-Vodka]

BSD is where it is BECAUSE of GNU, Linux and the GPL. It's called "Riding the Coat Tails".
First look at all of the GNU tools which make up BSD. Right there that should tell you that you've got a big blindspot in your argument. BSD is not BSD without GPL.

Now consider this, BSD is also getting a huge boost from the fact that it's so easy to port software from Linux. How much software is written for BSD and then ported to Linux? None. How much software is written for Linux then ported to BSD? All of it.

BSD trolls should go away and post on BSD stories. Leave the non-BSD stories to the big boys.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[ducomputergeek]

I don't know about an also ran. Our entire infrastructure is BSD based from the routers (Juniper) to our web servers (FreeBSD) to the database servers running PostgreSQL (FreeBSD & OpenBSD). We're now working on an embedded low powered version of one of our products and testing both NetBSD and FreeBSD depending on whether the final product is ARM or x86 based. And we're doing that expressly because license compliance vs. GPL is something we just don't have to worry about. Given the number of other things we've got going on, I'll take the one less problem...

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[petrus4]

Is it morally superior to just give money away to whoever asks or to put it towards something that will definitely continue to do the public good, ensuring that those that gain advantage from it also help?

This is the FSF's standard rhetoric for justifying copyleft, to which I will give my own standard response. The enforcement of reciprocity is motivated by anti-corporate hate, fear, and paranoia. These are not emotions which form a sound basis for anything positive.

If you doubt that these emotions dictate almost all of the FSF's behaviour, all you really need to do is look around. Said emotions are blatantly obvious in virtually everything the organisation does.

The BSD license represents a gift which makes no assumptions or demands of its' potential recipients. People talk about pragmatism, of course, because that's necessary to impress corporations, but at the heart of the issue, the license represents a gift given by those who create software for its' own sake.

There is no hatred or terror of corporations such as Microsoft, or of a lack of reciprocity from others; there are simply programmers, following the same nature that they would whether Microsoft existed or not. As has been said, freedom is the only law that genius knows.

Maybe you're familiar, theologically speaking, with the concept of unconditional love. That is love which is given, irrespective of the nature of the recipient. It is, in other words, love which is not even partially distorted by fear.

Stallman has claimed that software licensing should not be considered in a vacuum, ethically, but should be consistent with our stance on other areas of life. Ironically, that is one area where we are in agreement.

You're a zealot.

You know, it's funny. I was just thinking the same thing about you. ;)

In all honesty, however, I cannot deny it. I was first exposed to FreeBSD in 1995, and came to feel very strongly about it almost immediately.

I am, admittedly, almost unheard of among BSD users.

I am unusual in the sense that, in addition to the others being much more phlegmatic than the Linux community, the usual BSD attitude is simply to allow the inherent integrity of both the system and its' license to prove themselves on an unaided basis, as there is a very strong, yet generally silent, belief that they are able to do so. Advocacy, therefore, is customarily considered unnecessary.

The difference between us, however, is that you're on the losing team. Richard Stallman continues making an embarassment of himself virtually whenever he is given an opportunity to do so. The current flap about Miguel de Icaza is only the latest outrage.

You will, of course, no doubt immediately leap to your Leader's defense in response to this, but what you or I think, as isolated individuals, is not the point, at this stage. The majority now officially consider Stallman as fringe, or worse. He has at least begun to lose (if not already totally lost) the degree of credibility which he had previously amassed with the computing public.

The FSF as an organisation, are also once again beginning the slide towards irrelevance. You only need to look at the unprecedent amount of derision their followers were exposed to here on Slashdot, in the comments attached to the story about Software Freedom Day.

For the last three months or so, we have also begun seeing stories in the trade press about how business is gradually waking up to the reality of, and abandoning, the GPL as a license; particularly given how much more of a legal minefield version 3 of it is.

The FSF represents a case where the Emperor genuinely has no clothes. The GPL as a license is based on erroneous, fear-based logic, and Richard Stallman has sought to create exactly the same kind of software monoculture (non-commercial, perhaps, but that is the only real difference) which his supporters rail at Microsoft for doing.

My primary m

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[petrus4]

BSD is where it is BECAUSE of GNU, Linux and the GPL. It's called "Riding the Coat Tails". First look at all of the GNU tools which make up BSD.

FreeBSD uses gcc, binutils, grep, tar, and maybe sed. That's it. Everything else in terms of both the core toolchain and textutils is their own version, and BSD versions of utilities required by the Single UNIX Specification are still maintained, that there are no GNU equivalents of. BSD also has its' own internal make; pmake with FreeBSD, and bmake for NetBSD/pkgsrc.

FreeBSD also actually uses the most GNU stuff. NetBSD has its' own port of tar, and OpenBSD has its' own ports of sed and grep. Porting OpenBSD's versions of those tools is something FreeBSD is seeking volunteers for, as well. All three also have their own C library as well, and it is vastly cleaner, lighter, and better integrated with their respective kernels than Glibc, as well.

Also, BSD not having a non-GNU compiler is not for lack of trying, I assure you. It is well understood how important and necessary it is to have a compiler that is outside the FSF's control; it has simply been difficult given the scope and complexity inherent in a compiler. There are a number of different candidate projects which look promising, but it is slow going, and the FSF's own non-standard extensions to standard C do not help.

I am fed up with the naked, blatant FSF mind control I keep seeing on Slashdot. The attitude here, about the BSDs riding coattails, and about how everyone in the entire world owes Stallman their soul, is baseless and pointlessly vicious. You only serve to emphasise the point; that the BSDs' developers are putting every effort into being free of the GNU project, and many of them very much look forward to the day when they have developed replacements.

I seek an end to fear. I seek an end to hate. I seek an end to paranoia. The Free Software Foundation promotes, and stimulates, all three of those things.

I do not hate the people who express the distortions and misconceptions which Stallman has taught them to believe; quite the opposite. Many of you are well-meaning, passionate individuals, as am I. The FSF has enslaved your minds, and continues to tell you to engage in fear, hate, and paranoia.

Stop fearing Microsoft. Stop hating them and the rest of the corporate world. Stop engaging in paranoia about reciprocity, again because of fear that the corporate world are going to erradicate FOSS in general. They are not.

This is why I continue to read and post to Slashdot, when according to all logic and sanity, I should have walked away long ago. I know cults. My parents were in Amway, and it destroyed my family. I studied Scientology and other such groups for years afterwards, trying to understand how it had happened.

I have a continuing need to try to save the people here who the FSF deceives and manipulates, on an ongoing basis. Until the FSF ceases to exist, I will remain here, and I will continue to fight.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[Sir_Lewk]

The only difference is in their Pundits: Linux people think that are knights of some kind of OS crusade.

Says the BSD troll. Try looking in the mirror for once.

Re:NO, this is NOT the reason

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The BSD license represents a gift which makes no assumptions or demands of its' potential recipients. People talk about pragmatism, of course, because that's necessary to impress corporations, but at the heart of the issue, the license represents a gift given by those who create software for its' own sake.

Let me give you another example. Is it better to give the gift of a valuable and important painting to a private collector with no strings attached or to a non-profit museum, who is bound by their charter to not sell it and to publicly display it for all to see? Do you really think gifts without strings attached are always better for society and morally superior? If so, the previous poster's accusation that you're a zealot is completely justified. You're buying into a dogma about the BSD license that even most of the contributors to the BSD would find silly. I've worked at several companies that put out significant code in the BSD license and none of them consider it to be a gift for society. It's just the best license to make money for that particular chunk of code we are writing.

The GPL as a license is based on erroneous, fear-based logic...

The GPL is a trade-off and has been a very successful one for motivating corporate contributions in an entire spectrum of the market where the BSD license is not suitable. Obviously, without the GPL other, similar licenses would have emerged and some have. Regardless of the motivations of Mr. Stallman and the FSF, the GPL fills a niche and provides significant benefit. Projects at one company I worked would be closed source today if there was not a GPL style license that made it a good business case for publication.

For the last three months or so, we have also begun seeing stories in the trade press about how business is gradually waking up to the reality of, and abandoning, the GPL as a license; particularly given how much more of a legal minefield version 3 of it is.

Yeah, we do see the occasional story, but they are jokes in real industry. Stories about how scary the GPL is are 90% aimed at companies that don't actually contribute or understand the value proposal. There is a tiny subset of the industry where new versions of the GPL are not as suitable for them, by design, but most contributors see that as a good thing as it is protecting their own investments. There is not some migration away from the GPL going on, no matter what sensationalist, half-informed nonsense gets printed.

My primary motivation here on Slashdot, for at least four years now, has been to try and communicate this to otherwise well-meaning, positively minded, and conscientious individuals, who have fallen prey to a combination of distorted, deceptive logic, and a handful of the tactics customarily observed among destructive cults that operate in other areas of human experience.

It sounds like you need to get a life. I mean, seriously, that's just sad. You don't come to Slashdot to enjoy discussion and learn, but to lecture people about software licensing? It's a license. There is not some perfect license for all instances and a bunch of imperfect ones used by people too stupid to understand that the one true license should be applied all the time, whether you're a BSD or GPL zealot. Both are the best fit for different uses. Fixating on one as evil is just, well silly.

violation where I worked

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at a company where I saw the GPL license removed and replaced with an internal copyright. It was an embedded system using a GPL UI toolkit.

I think the problem started with developer ignorance on copyright and licensing, then moved to self-preservation. The same cycle then went up through the management. To hide the error from the highest management, another UI toolkit was written which they said they were doing for better features and performance - it turned out to be worse and in the mean time the project changed license to LGPL.

The blowback from this may not be good long term..

[Anonymous Coward]

If manufacturers think they are going to be bitten by OSS licenses, what will happen is that they will do one of two things:

1: A wholesale move to BSD licensed software with no restrictions on redistribution. This isn't good, but not bad.

2: Punt the whole idea of OSS to the curb and go with closed sources solutions. Closed source is attractive to a lot of companies in the respect that they pay the licensing fee, ship the products, and not worry that some program was mis-licensed somewhere in the chain. The license fee also idemnifies them from any patent issues that might come up from upstream in the chain. Windows CE at the low end is only $3.00 a device. There are companies that were so concerned about the GPL v3 that they ditched Linux wholesale and went with closed source solutions for fear that they would have to give all corporate trade secrets to anyone that asked.

Give credit where it's due..

[Anonymous Coward]

mistake?

An important thing to remember is...

[Hurricane78]

...that those companies usually did not intend to break the license in a bad way. After all there's next to no cost in doing it the right way.

So please contact them in a friendly way, and remind them that the rules to get this software for free, is that you have to continue letting others getting it for free. In case of the GPL, even if you modified it. If they don't want that, which is also OK, they have to use another, possibly commercial, product. Or perhaps BSD (which, when you look at Windows, works also well).
But remind them, that the reason they can actually get it free, is that others gave their code away for free. If everybody would do it like them, and not give away the code, then nobody, including themselves, could get any free software anymore.

Only if they then ignore you, and deliberately continue to do it, sue the hell outta them with no mercy whatsoever.

Sun Tzu already recommended this strategy in the 6th century BC, in his book "The Art Of War".

Re:An important thing to remember is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well bugger me.

They had the same silly justice system in 6th century China as in USA today?

Re:An important thing to remember is...

[jim_v2000]

"If everybody would do it like them, and not give away the code, then nobody, including themselves, could get any free software anymore."

There's plenty of free software out there that I can't get the code for. What you mean is there would be no open software.

Veteran Violation Chasers? Really?

[PingXao]

For years Harald Welte has been the only serious chaser I know of. These two have been keeping their work a secret, I guess. More power to them if they're actually tracking down GPL violators, whoever they are. This task is thankless and unappreciated. Most authors can't be bothered.

Re:Veteran Violation Chasers? Really?

[antientropic]

For years Harald Welte has been the only serious chaser I know of.

As you can read on the About page, one of the authors of this article, Armijn Hemel, is actually the other half of the gpl-violations.org core team.

Re:Veteran Violation Chasers? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

For years Harald Welte has been the only serious chaser I know of. These two have been keeping their work a secret, I guess. More power to them if they're actually tracking down GPL violators, whoever they are. This task is thankless and unappreciated. Most authors can't be bothered.

Yes, really, and it is not really a secret. The gpl-violations.org website says (if you click on 'Who?'):

The "core team" consists of Harald Welte and Armijn Hemel.

Would someone care to explain to the world where..

[Anonymous Coward]

the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion came from?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/092409dnmetbombarrest.1b177db8b.html

Yet another camel jockey hell-bent on mass-murdering unsuspecting civilians. Do you towel heads really think that the American public is going to sit by helplessly if you succeed in another attack while our government tries to sooth us with false notions of diversity and harmony? No one who isn't a Muslim buys that shit. No one. Keep at it, fuckers, and just see what happens to you. The lot of you should be thrown into internment camps pending deportation to the 3rd-world shit-hole from whence you came.

Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the CE company I work for does use GPL code, only just GPLV2. We heavily invest in Linux too.

BSD's popularity

[Anonymous Coward]

I also don't believe for a second that linux would have got where it is today, with multiple big-name companies supporting it and contributing to it if they had not been forced to reopen their changes.

Sure.

Thirdly, lots of people don't like the idea of contributing to a project which can then be swept up and used by commercial entities without them being made to have the courtesy to contribute back.

And some people don't care where their code is being used. PHK, who developed the MD5 password hash, now has his code running on every single Cisco box, is one of them. Same for the OpenBSD guys, who developed the Blowfish-based password hashes, as well as OpenSSH (which is in just about everything).

Do you think the TCP/IP stack would have spread as quickly as it did if it wasn't licensed under BSD? Do you think Sun, AIX, HP-UX, etc., would have pulled in the code if it was GPL?

At this point BSD is basically an also-ran. Great project, great OS I'm sure, but not on the same level as linux or supported in anything like the same way in terms of FOSS and commercial software. At least a some of this is down to the environment created by the differing licenses.

Apple ships more Unix desktops than any other vendor out there.

NetApp: FreeBSD
Juniper: FreeBSD
Isilon: FreeBSD
Force10 Networks: NetBSD
Cisco: rumoured to be FreeBSD: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/freebsd-at-cisco-21312

Just because you're not running it on your desktop (or server), doesn't mean you don't use BSD everyday behind the scenes. The projects are doing just fine.

Re:The blowback from this may not be good long ter

[mdwh2]

Punt the whole idea of OSS to the curb and go with closed sources solutions.

But hang on, if they don't care about violating licences, then what happens when they do this with a closed source solution? I think a commercial company is far more likely to be aggressive at pursuing a lawsuit, than open source authors.

and not worry that some program was mis-licensed somewhere in the chain.

How does this follow? Are open source authors more likely to mis-licence? This is especially a surprising claim, when we're talking about a story where it's the open source software that's being infringed, not the other way round.

old debate

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always a debate RE free as in beer vs free as in speech. Most people care about free beer, literally and metaphorically. This has always been a challenge for free software advocates, and probably always will be since how can most people care about a freedom that they don't understand?

Even in your metaphor of mall shootings and uprisings against the government, the motives of shooters is never fully altruistic. There is always some self interest that makes the ideals of a situation confused.

Going after China? Good luck.

[malevolentjelly]

Every western company has to step carefully around the Chinese market. If you're working on a proprietary product, you NEVER license source over there. If a Chinese company decides to rip you off, you've got no recourse.

When you sell software in China, no matter what type, you can only sell a single seat license-- they will break your protection and run it on a hundred.

China's government protects its companies from fair business practices, anyway. Many of the malicious hacks that come from the Chinese government are purely economical- just stealing plans, prototypes, and source code from prominent western businesses.

So, good luck, guys. If these big powerful multinational companies can't get China to pay for what they do to our IP market, I'm not sure what you GPL folks can do. They will say anything they need to say to avoid respecting your license.

Missing Line

[Dareth]

Slashdot users
Get their knowledge
From many years
In junior college.

BURMA SHAVE!

wOOOOw this is True

[chelroms]

this problem are many in cellphone business... http://www.techandgizmo.com/

Serverizing

[tepples]

So, if I want to circumvent the GPL on a library, I only have to create a binary interface layer on top of the library and use that layer?

Only if the GPL code and GPL-incompatible code run in separate processes, and any communication between the two processes uses a well-documented protocol with low coupling so that others can replace the GPL-incompatible process with free software.

Re:Serverizing

[Anonymous Coward]

An example of what you describe would be almost anything over TCP-IP under "GPLv2 without 'any later version'"?

Re:Serverizing

[tepples]

An example of what you describe would be almost anything over TCP-IP under "GPLv2 without 'any later version'"?

The GPL FAQ explains that as long as the GPLv2-only program exposes a documented interprocess interface ("the mechanism" in GPL FAQ) with loose coupling ("the semantics"), the programs shouldn't be considered "combined" in a way that triggers the copyleft provision. For example, if I write a web application and publish it under GPLv2 only or GPLv3 only, it can communicate over a socket with a license-incompatible web browser because TCP, HTTP 1.1, and the recent HTML 5 draft are well documented. Interfaces based on CORBA, DCOM, Cocoa Distributed Objects, etc. tend to have higher coupling, and their status is far less clear.

Pod person?

[tepples]

While you could recompile Unix stuff for MacOS, the Apple faithful would tend to scream at you like pod person for it.

So what do they call you when you recompile Mac OS X stuff for UNIX? An "iPod person"?

MacOS is successful specifically because for 20 years it was NOT unix.

Neither is GNU, which stands for "GNU's not UNIX".

Let's say...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I was making some music playing hardware, and I accidentally left a testing copy of an MP3 (that I legally bought!), in the final image.

Do you think the RIAA would say, "Oops, it was just a mistake, and since you supply it to so many western companies, it's no big deal. Let's just shake hands and forget about it."

Why should GPL software authors do any differently?

I just had an epiphany; GPL software authors need a GIAA to extort the living crap out of people who abuse the GPL and then kick us back the scraps while they keep 80%! I should patent "new" idea right away!

There is a UNIQUE GPL Aspect

[alexhmit01]

If I contract Company X to provide me with component Y, and I go about my business, all is fine. If Company X stole Y from a third party Z, Z sues myself and X. In all likelihood, some degree of damages gets awarded (ignoring that if Z is small, we simply run out their legal budget and then sue them for a frivolous case), and X has to pay for their damages, and I have to pay. Very rarely will an injunction be issued to stop me from doing business, as the courts will assume that compensation will work. In the case of a patent, they get the injunction, and we probably pay 3 times "fair value" for it to go away, but life moves on.

In the case of GPL, there are ZERO monetary damages, combined with possible multiple owners and statutory violations. The distribution without a license means I either comply or get sued for violation, but there is likely nobody to negotiate or settle with.

In the case I outlined, Company X screwed up, an employee there took a short cut and supplied me with Y, and Y is critical to my business. Perhaps through no fault of my own, I now have a tainted product. There are no monetary damages to award, because the GPL'd product is "free." There is no single IP owner to work out a license with, because it's a convoluted mess. This means that the only remedy is an injunction that stops my business, or my complying with the license, which might be prevented by other components.

Innocent Company me gets caught in the cross hairs. While you are right that I derived benefit, because we are in the world of injunctions and not compensation, even my indemnification is worthless. If I get sued for $500,000 for non-compliance, and I'm indemnified by X, I can claim from X, but there is no solution other than stop.

That's why the GPL and similar licenses are terrifying and viral. If the component stole proprietary code, there would still be damages, but the damages would be worked out by the courts in financial terms while we all conduct business, so we can sell our widgets without concern, we just have an open ended liability. That is MUCH less scary than an injunction with no ability to resolve.

Re:There is a UNIQUE GPL Aspect

[Anonymous Coward]

No such case has ever happened.

I do not expect any judge to issue an unresolvable injunction.

If you are indemnified by X might well be able to claim enough damages from X to replace the component.

Re:There is a UNIQUE GPL Aspect

[nuggz]

You assert that with the GPL there are zero monetary damages.
Many would dispute that assertion.

The only payment they are requesting is your improvements to their code, if you made no changes this is a non issue.
If you made changes you have already chosen to pay some value for those changes, therefore value of those modifications is not zero.
If you don't want to release the changes, even after being informed of your legal obligation to do so there could be multiple motivations. One is that you don't want to give away your modificatiosn for "free" as you think they have value.

The fact that there may be multiple owners of the IP in question is irrelevant. They own it, you need their permission to use it. You can't simply take possession of a timeshare because there are 50 different owners.

As far as remedy, it's simple, either comply with the terms of your agreement with the copyright holders or take your chances in court. Since their terms are agreed to by thousands of others and widely accepted within the industry it would be hard to argue that they are unreasonable.

Generally if someone sells you stolen property, it remains the property of the rightful owner, and you are limited to action against the person who defrauded you for your losses. Copyright licensing is the same thing.

If you think the GPL is that bad, wait till you learn about patents. You could independantly and honestly develop your own solution, and still have someone come and shut you down because you infringed on their patent that you didn't even know about, and they're not obligated to settle with you for only financial compensation.

Re:The blowback from this may not be good long ter

[IICV]

So either:

1: They take open source code, modify it, and keep their modifications closed source.

2: They license closed source code, modify it, and keep their modifications closed source.

I'm not sure why the open source movement should try to appease these hypothetical companies; no matter what, the outcome is the same: no consideration for the use of open source code.

Re:The blowback from this may not be good long ter

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one issue with most OSS projects, and that is patents. Most commercial products not just chuck you a license, but also indemnify the customer from any patent or copyright issues.

Company "A" uses an OSS version of a utility in their appliance. Some "IP" company has a dubious patent that covers something the OSS utility does. Company "A" gets sued for megabucks + injunctions not to sell their core item that makes them money. Same with any company who uses that OSS product.

Company "B" pays the licensing fee for some closed source code for an embedded utility. The patent troll sues. The provider of the utility gets hit, but the customers are protected because of the contract and the fact they did not know about such a violation. Of course, the troll can sue the licensees, but the chances of having a judge deem the case as having merit, much less going to court is a *lot* less than without the indemnification agreement.

Of course, the GPL v3 comes with its own bag of worms. Anyone who gets any part of the redistributed code gets to know every corporate trade secret that went into the device. For stuff like Tivos, who cares. However, for stuff that does some type of automated manufacturing process where the secret is the catalyst mixture, timing, and so on, this would expose a company to offshore copycats who can, in 3-6 months, offer a competing product for a lot less money due to not having labor or environmental laws in their nation.

Moral: Keep the OSS for general use, but if shipping a product with embedded features, go BSD or closed source. You won't have people outside your office demanding your trade secrets due to GPL v.3, or C&D court orders because some OSS product violated a patent, and someone has a court summons from Texas alleging it.

And if I steal a car and sell it to you

[Anonymous Coward]

you lose the car when it's retrieved.

You therefore do not like this idea?

Or are you a hypocrite?

Re:Veteran Violation Chasers? Shane Couglan's work

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

And Shane Coughlan has also been doing this for years: shane's page on fsfe.org. His work was previously discussed on Slashdot: Tasks of a Free Software Legal Department.