Slashdot Mirror


Palm Sued Over Palm Pre GPL Violation

zaxl writes "Palm is being sued by Artifex Software over the PDF viewer in Palm's Pre smartphone, which may violate the GNU GPL. Artifex alleges that Palm has copied Artifex's PDF rendering engine, called muPDF, and integrated it into the Palm Pre's PDF viewer application without the proper licensing conditions. The entire application must be licensed under the GPL if muPDF is part of the application. It seems more and more cell phones are shipping with open source code, but in a closed manner."

7 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well by Chysn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project

    The GPL is for open source software whose authors wish to encourage the development of open source software. If you're not writing open source software, you look for another solution or write it your damn self. If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.

    --
    --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
    -- See?
  2. Re:Well by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please refrain from using GPL licensed code in your projects, then. Now that we've solved the problem for you, let's fix your first statement with regard to Palm: "Well, if Palm hadn't decided to include code licensed under the GPL and subsequently ignore the requirements of the license, shipping shitloads of infringing units, this wouldn't be a problem."

    I don't license my stuff under the GPL; I prefer BSD-style licensing. However, the copyright holder is free to choose how they want their stuff distributed. Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.

  3. Re:How hard is it? by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they would never sell any phones

    Sure they would, if they sold directly to their REAL customers, the end-user who uses the damn thing.

    The TelCo's will only go so far before they say ( and rightly so ) stop, this has to be locked down, we cannot risk the entire cell ecosystem on a phone that can be completely modified to do anything.

    This is entirely false. If it were true, then there is no way GSM providers would ever allow an unlocked device on their network. After all, there's no way they could ever be certain about such a device. And the only thing preventing a GSM baseband is patents.

    To allow a completely open source re-programmable phone is to invite disaster.

    Is it? I suppose to allow any fully open source, reprogrammable computer on the internet is an invitation to disaster. And yet the least open source of OSes, Windows, causes the most havoc. What's your logic in this?

    If your phone can screw up the towers, then there's something wrong with the towers. Eventually they will ignore your device, if it persists the company will register an FCC complaint. You aren't going to knock out a tower because of bad programming, at worst your phone will be ignored, and if you're unlucky you'll see a bunch of minutes or data billed on your account because it bugged out (after the battery dies in a flash.)

  4. Re:I'm confused by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Contrary to popular belief, comments on Slashdot are written by multiple users just like yourself (but different!).

    As it actually happens, the set of people who feel compelled to comment and moderate on "Pirate Bay" stories may not be exactly the same set of people that comment and moderate on GPL licensing stories.

    Of the users who comment or moderate on both kinds of stories, some might have what appear to you to be contradicting viewpoints, but you may need to stop looking at everything as black and white - maybe you'll learn something.

    I understand how "RIAA should not be destroying people's lives for downloading songs" could be interpreted by you to mean "Copyright sucks, and anyone should have the right to copy anything they want." But there's actually a not-so-subtle difference between those two viewpoints.

    I also understand how you might interpret "Corporations need to comply with the terms under which they licensed others' software by releasing their source code or remove the copyright software from their product" as "Burn the evil corporations at the stake", but again, these arguments are not the same thing.

    I hope this helps resolve at least some of your confusion.

  5. Re:Well by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, you would like the freedom to choose the Free Software license of your choice, but you don't think that the folks writing GPLed software should have the same freedom.

  6. Re:Well by pohl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your post has forced me to either respond or not respond. Damn you and your restrictive discourse.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  7. Re:Well by bostei2008 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... you must be new here? Or you're technologically impaired and know not a thing about Palm.

    This is not the place for you - go back to Digg/Wikipedia where you belong. This is a place for people with EXPERIENCE AND FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE to discuss things, not provide bullshit citations from some wiki that any moron can edit, for morons with the weakest google-fu on the fucking planet or just plain lazy fools without a clue.

    IOW - Sit down little one, adults are talking. Speak only when spoken to.

    ...stunned silence.... ... wow. What the hell ?

    You are the official elitist-asshole-of-the-day.