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."
That's why we're very careful that any libraries we use in distributed software are licensed under BSD or MIT style licenses.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Those patent trolls...
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?
You use GPL source, you agree to the GPL. You use GPL libs/external executable, you MAY, but only a small number of terms actually apply to you in those cases.
The GPL is a distribution license; you only need to actually agree to and follow it if you plan on distributing it or derivatives of it to others.
Other than BSD trolls, I don't see how anyone could find the above complicated. Would you rather take proprietary EULAs? Those DO govern what you can do with the software itself.
If you want to be able to use source without having to give back, there is PLENTY of it under more permissive licenses like the BSD/MIT. Use those, don't bitch about the GPL.
Great Intellect...
No, actually it only tells you what you are required to do if you distribute projects that contain it. You can use with out distribution however you want, no restrictions.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."
Either you're a troll or your lawyers are idiots. the FSF specifically explains this isn't the case.
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Pls don't feed the copy&paste troll ... ... this very same 'story' has been posted way too many times *sigh*
...since Palm mentions muPDF in their documentation, and they don't have a commercial license for it. Anyone in the software industry, anyone using libraries they didn't write, should understand that there's a difference between "open source" and "public domain."
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
I think what you're looking for is covered under this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
If you use someone else's (copyrighted) code you must abide by the license restriction. If it would be too costly to do so then you can't use the code.
Developers should fully understand whatever license they release under. If someone wants to restrict usage of their code to only open-source projects they are free to do so. If they want to release for the benefit of everyone they are free to do so. If they want to try to make some money off their efforts they are free to do so. The key is understanding what you're doing when you choose a license.
New GPL code is not a donation to the community. It is a payment to those who have written GPL code in the past, released on the understanding that others will pay for it by contributing further code. GPL carries restrictions, learn what they are before you use or write GPL code.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Bullshit license? Listen buddy, nobody is making you, Palm, or anyone else use it. I am sure if you used a proprietary company's source code you would be bound to worse restrictions. I honestly don't see what is with you anti-GPL trolls. Here's the deal with the GPL, I am offering you code to inspect, compile, and distribute to anyone on the planet. The only thing I require in return is that if you DISTRIBUTE changes to the code that you contribute with your changes. You may not like it but tough. You didn't write the software and you have no right to tell people how to license their code. You are free to use a competitor's product if they provide what you want.
On that note I have said it a million times before. If you really want to use a GPL'ed product under a new license where you don't have to distribute your changes, stop being cheap and cough up the money. You do have options. Allow me to recap
- Use it under the terms of the GPL and show your changes
- Use a competitors
- Contact the author(s) of the code and offer to purchase a special license for your product.
On the latter, the author has the power to do that since they are the copyright holder and I am sure many would be happy to offer you a proprietary license for your company for the right price. You anti-GPL trolls need to get over yourselves and you are the same guys who accuse GPL fans or being cheap and not wanting to pay for software, yet you scumbags turn around and cry because you can't turn around you use whatever code you want without abiding by the license. Companies have legal departments and if they are creative enough to write elaborate EULAs, I am more than confident these guys can read a relatively simple license and *gasp* weigh their options.
Some of us are CDDL trolls, you insensitive clod!
How hard is it to just release a totally OSS version of your OS with all applications and stuff there and let people modify it and put it on your phone? I really don't see the point of trying to complicate things by closing the OSS. Release everything for free and you can take a lot more free code and not having to worry about paying lots of money when you are caught.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
[Citation Needed]
The industry is moving to BSD-style licenses because they're just now finding out that they can and will be sued if they blatantly violate the terms of the licenses on other persons' code? Is this seriously a revelation to anyone, and do you honestly believe that it's changing anything? I'd really like to see some backing to the statement "The GPL is dead," because last I checked there was a pretty immensely large body of GPL code still in use, and there's no indication of any significant portion of it fading into obscurity because ZOMG IT'S UNDER TEH EVIL GPL.
Is Slashdot for or against copyrights this week? You know, since the GPL is a copyright license and relies on copyright law to have any power.
Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry?
FATI (Freeloaders And Takers International) made public anouncements that no longer will they stand by and take software that demands they do more than stand by and take software !
FATI have declared they will setup a protest webpage at becomeafati.com where freeloaders and takers from all over the globe can declare their intent to idly stand and waiting for other people to give them what they want when they want it.
LATE NEWS: FATI are demanding somebody else setup their webpage NOW and place it under an anything goes style license.
Your source for this fact?
It doesn't matter to me what "the industry" does. "The industry" can do whatever it wants, and it has no effect on my ability to run open-source software on my own machine.
Extra points for red-baiting.
Find free books.
I don't suppose someone here with a Pre would mind checking out that folder and seeing if the source for the PDF viewer is there?
Umm, don't you think that is probably something they checked before filing the lawsuit?
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Palm actually uses a bunch of GPL'd code (the Pre is Linux based) and they do make the code available. In fact, I think some of it even comes on the device itself.
I'm sure this is just an oversight if the code really is GPL and isn't available.
It's like a Rorschach Test. You see penises in everything because you're gay. Get it? :)
Yeah the "industry" would love all open source code to be BSD so they can use it with impunity. Honestly let's stop this FUD. It's simply not true. Code under the GPL is no different from code under any other license. If you don't use it in compliance with the license then you are in a copyright violation situation, and the law allows financial remedies for such a case. The fact that it is GPL is irrelevant to this. Also the summary is incorrect. Palm is in a copyright violation now and have three choices: 1. remove the GPL code, 2. license the code under a different arrangement, and 3. License their derivative product as GPL.
Why are you upset when copyright holders exercise their rights under the law to prevent a company from knowingly or unknowingly rip them off? How would BSD help this situation? Because the GPL actually has teeth we're starting to see the tip of the ice berg as far as willful license violations go. It's impossible to judge how much code is being used illegally in proprietary products. We're not talking GPL either. Any license. Microsoft code, code from some other source.
Do liberty and capitalism allow one the right to violate copyrights? The GPL exists to protect the rights and freedoms of the developers and the end users while allowing free redistribution of code. I know of no other license that does this so effectively. In my opinion, if all open source code was BSD, there really would be no open source community or ecosystem. Like Adam Smith said, sometimes you have to balance self-interest with self-interest. The BSD doesn't do that really well. Certainly there is zero incentive for a company to release code under the BSD if it's just going to be used directly against them. The GPL allows companies to foster communities and promote development, while maintaining a level playing field for all the players.
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.
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html seems to have the source and patches. Is this the end of it or is something missing?
You said "used" which I assumed was supposed to be "use". Use and distribution are two different things. Distribution is not a way to use software. Even if it was, the gpl is very explicit in its goal to only cover only distribution. Many people get confused over this point and think that they are not free to use GPL in a personal project that will never be distributed.That's why I responded: to clarify your statement in the general sense. Yes, in the case of palm they did distribute. But, I think its more important that people understand what the GPL says, then the specifics of any one case. This is why you will notice any actual reference to this case in my first post.
A great example of this is something like MySql. I can change the software to do what ever I want, and use it on my server to build a facebook killer, without being required to distribute the source code for it, even though its licensed under the GPL. Because, again the GPL only covers distribution, not use( or other uses if you insist on your ridiculous definition of use that includes distribution).
Also, you misspelled licenses. I'm usually the guy that people point out grammatical errors to, rather than visa versa. But, still, if you are going to offer advice about a subject, it helps your creditability to actually spell it correctly. Or at least use a web browser with integrated spell checking. Again, the point of posting was not nitpicking, but clarifying as posts similar to your last one have led to quite a bit of misinformation about the GPL license.
Once again:GPL covers distribution only, not use.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Umm, don't you think that is probably something they checked before filing the lawsuit?
You never know. :-P
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz
(info from post #30349382)
On the phone is a PDF called "Open Source Information.pdf". In this document they list the projects they used for the phone:
libgpg-error (only certain files are licensed under GPL), linux-hotplug, libsamplerate0, fuse, freefont, vpnc, sysfsutils, iptables, dosfstools, alsa-plugins, busybox, ipkg, netbase, oprofile, pmeloop, alsa-utils, PPP (only certain files are licensed under GPL), readline, setserial, upstart-initscripts, e2fsprogs (only certain files are licensed under GPL), module-init-tools-cross, module-init-tool, base-passwd, iproute2, usbmon, mupdf, libpurple, makedevs, update- modules, netcat, gdbm, cifs, rsync, update-rc.d, upstart, wireless-tools, udev, bootchart, fbset, dnsmasq, binutils, libgcrypt (only certain files are licensed under GPL), libfuse, Sysvinit, Linux Kernel, pulseaudio, procps, psmisc, mtools, UN Batang Korean True Type Font, faad2, e2fsprogs-libs (portions are licensed under GPL, other portions are licensed under LGPL), sysstat, screen
I don't know why there's a suit unless someone requested the code and was denied, but Palm clearly advertise the fact that they use the app. The document is 37 pages long, but it's not hard to find references to the software they use.
I like music
I don't win, as someone who writes software licensed under BSD/MIT.
I have to compromise.
Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).
Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
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...
Do I risk being labeled as an anti-GPL troll for saying that the people who aren't willing to offer one for any price are assholes?
You risk being labeled ignorant. A lot of GPL software has more than one contributor to the code base...
Which brings up a question I have had on my mind for quite awhile now since all these companies started getting sued for GPL violations, that nobody has really been able to answer: What is wrong with BSD? Is it broken, code sucks, bloated beyond repair, what?
Because it seems like from a business standpoint, especially after RMS wrote the "TiVo clause" into GPL V3, that the business world would just avoid anything GPL altogether, and stick with BSD code that won't come back to bite them in the ass. After all it worked for Apple and MSFT, so what is wrong with BSD? There has to be SOME reason why these companies keep snatching GPL and dealing with possible lawsuits when you can do whatever you want with BSD and all is golden, so what is it?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Clearly you're not a typical grammar Nazi or you'd know that the phrase is "vice-versa" and that you used creditability when you mean credibility.
Now cue the next grammar asshole to pick my post apart...
When did the subject change to the Watchmen?
After all, I am strangely colored.
Apache doesn't use the GPL... Apache uses the Apache license, which is much closer to the MIT license than anything else.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Anyone else notice this? -> Mikael Ricknäs (IDG News Service) 07/12/2009 07:53:00
Actually, it's irrelevant as to how many contributors there are for that - the ones who are blocking the idea for whatever reason are still assholes. (If the contributors collectively just can't decide on an amount and therefore say "you know, since we can't come up with a fair amount, you're out of luck"... well, that's not assholery, that's more of a "if you're this indecisive about something that should be beneficial, I'd hate to see how you guys react to a disaster" situation.)
In an ideal world, you should be able to buy a non-GPL license from any GPL project that you don't want to contribute your additions to for whatever reason. (The project's team should be able to ask what this reason is and charge accordingly.) This right should not allow you to then proceed to cockblock the project in any way - just let you distribute the program without providing your changes in source form. (If the original team manages to figure out how you wrote your additions and adds them, the license in question should provide them with immunity from a lawsuit from you.) This provides a simple means for injecting capital into GPL projects.
The problems are two-fold: 1) people are assholes; and 2) the mass delusion that once a project has been released under the GPL, it can not be released under another license without violating the GPL (...which I think may actually be true for second-generation GPL projects - the second-gen group would have to get a relicensing from the first-gen group in order to relicense it, right?).
"I see your post attempting to be succinct and insightful, and I raise you an unqualified insult"
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
That's because everyone isn't working towards a common goal. Open source is a means to an end, but that end is different for different people.
Some people just have the goal of creating software that others can freely incorporate into their own projects (providing freedom for developers and quality software for end users). BSD is fine for them.
Other people have the goal of creating software that will always be free for its end users to examine and modify (providing freedom for developers, quality software for end users, and freedom for end users). BSD is no good for them, they need the GPL.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Give it up. You're argument is circular. Just rewrite the functionality yourself then others can use your BSD licensed version. Respect the choices of others and the license "they" chose to support just as you want others to support "your" choice of license in the software you write.
The thing is the GPL isn't the "golden chalice" even for the FSF. That's why they have the LGPL. And nobody (that I've ever heard of, anyway) is going to criticize anybody for choosing another free license (like BSD) either. Choosing the correct license is a very important thing and every developer should think very carefully about it before they release. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard developers complain about being "ripped off" because somebody used their code in a "commercial product" without their consent -- only to find out that they had a BSD license. Or that they complain about being "ripped off" because someone charged money for their application without their consent -- only to find out that they had a GPL license.
People need to think about what they want to accomplish with their license. Sometimes something like BSD is the best. The advantages are wide adoptability. People can join your project easily. But someone may just stick your code in their own product. You'll be competing against yourself, but at a disadvantage since they can use your code and you can't use theirs. For a lot of stuff you don't care and BSD is great.
Maybe you care about end users being able to use the latest version of your code, but you don't care about unfair competition. In this case the LGPL is a great license. Anybody can use the code any way they want, but your users can fix bugs in your code or add new functionality, etc.
Maybe you care about making sure nobody can use your code to leverage an unfair advantage against others. Everyone who adopts the code in their program must agree to a common set of principles. This way nobody is at a disadvantage. The GPL is great for that. But remember that the more restrictive your licensing is, the less potential users you will have. And there is no question that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD license. However, for the reasons above (and many others) a very large number of people think it strikes a very good balance.
Personally, I don't like licenses that are more restrictive than GPL. As a user as well as a programmer "free" (as in software) is extremely important to me. It's worth more than money to me. I regularly fix bugs and add features to code I use. And I value the ability to ask my friends to help me out when I can't fix it myself. When I have had to use proprietary software (both as a user and programmer) I have almost always been very frustrated with the lack of ability to fix my own problems. I've decided never to write software that is more restrictive than GPL and I wish others would do so as well.
Perhaps he lives in a country where they spell 'licence' correctly instead of the US?
ext2 stores data through the specific pattern of its fragmentation. Defragmenting would be like formatting your hard drive. Bad idea.
Actually, GPL stands for "General Public License", after the late General Reginald Franklin Public, who inspired Richard Stallman to much of his Free Software ideals when both were working on a then-classified national defense project (a device to automatically hack enemy computers that later was scrapped and reformed into the VAX line of computers).
The GPL has a "mere aggregation" clause. It states that for any program on any computer aggregate with a computer running GPL software ("aggregated") you have to release the full source code to any program running on it. This is why Microsoft has come up with the "Shared Source" initiative - they accidentally installed the GIMP without reading the license.
Note that you are now required to acquire and release the source code for Windows 2000 through whichever means neccessary.
Do note that Shared Source exists to satisfy the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause, which also sttes that the license you release the source code under must be GPL-compliant, which is defined as being "at least as draconic as the GPL". That is why the Shared Source license not only incorporates all of the GPL's restrictions but also prevents any company reading any Shared Source-licensed code file, for use in programming or as a reference or otherwise, from making any profits at all ever again (Shared Source License, art. 19.b.ii.).
Your company is committing felony copyright infringement and should turn itself in now before ACTA is enacted, which will equalize the legal repercussions for software and high-seas piracy, temporarily extraterritorialize the premises of infringers and set a mandatory bounty on the infringers' heads. If you don't want people to storm your premises and shoot you at their leisure, you should act now while the penalty is merely twenty years of prison time and a permanent ban from working with computers ever again for your entire company.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
... 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.
No?
Who is going to troubleshoot your software?
Who is going to fix it?
How are you going to gain technical credibility if nobody know it is your company who is doing that great software?
That is why companies are using GPL. At the very least bugs are easier to find and if your product is any good your own users become your best QA team.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You say, "there should not be a law...". Well, if there were no law, then the copyright holder would have no protections whatsoever. Absent a law, you have no ability or right to stop me from doing anything I want with respect to copying of a copyable work. Only the law grants you a limited monopoly. In exchange for that limited monopoly (benefitting, you, the copyright holder) there is supposed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Lose site of that, and there is no reason to have copyright. So, now that we agree that there should be a law, let's debate the nature of the law. So, explain to me why there *should not* be a law to force certain exemptions. What is a logical reason that such a prohibition should exist. I'm sorry, but, there isn't one.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
The second option is expensive and the third option will probably push the price of the device up (you need either more RAM or to pay ARM for the Jazelle extensions in the CPU core). The GPL'd option looks the least expensive. It's worth noting that iRex follows the GPL path and includes a GPL'd PDF reader on their devices. This has been forked by the community, and the community version is much nicer than the one that they supply. The rest of their software stack sucks (although the hardware is nice).
A lot of companies choose BSD licensed alternatives when they exist, but they are not always available. A lot of companies that choose BSD licensed alternatives contribute code upstream, because it's cheaper for them to do this than maintain their own fork. A lot of companies that use GPL'd code either spend time and effort isolating the GPL'd component so that they can avoid releasing their code, or just ignore the GPL and hope that they won't get caught. The latter option is quite common, but it's starting to become a lot less safe, so hopefully that will push more companies to seriously evaluate other options.
By the way, I recently interviewed the creators of a Linux-based handheld and asked them why they picked Linux over a BSD variant. Their answer had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of the platforms; they said it was simply to do with brand recognitions. If you say 'Linux based' then geeks buy it and non-geeks have probably heard something positive about Linux, even if they can't tell you what it is. If you say 'BSD-based' then a few geeks buy it and no one else knows what it means, so you don't get any marketing advantage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You can win by relicensing as GPL.
Not always possible. I've released BSD-licensed programs that depend on Apache-licensed libraries. The GPL is not compatible with the Apache license, so I can't change the license of my code to the GPL, even if I want to. I could ask the upstream author of the Apache licensed library to make it GPL'd, but why would they? They don't want people to integrate their code with less permissively licensed code.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Given Palm's recent thumbing their nose at Apple and iTunes, all I can say is, "ha ha".
What? If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, this is not the site for you. Digg and Reddit are for those that demand everything spoon-fed to them.
Here on slashdot, the subject we discuss tend to be a major part of our lives, as usually it's our JOB. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE'RE PAID TO KNOW THIS.
Elitist? No, I'm sick and tired of you too-lazy-to-work/study-for-yourself gimme-everything because I'm too stupid to look for myself people. If you can't do your own research and either confirm or outright deny what is said, you don't belong here.
It's been that way for almost a decade, well before Digg or Reddit ever dreamed of existing.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.