SFLC Sues 14 Companies For BusyBox GPL Violations

eldavojohn writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit accusing fourteen companies, including Best Buy, Samsung and Westinghouse, of violating the GPL in nearly 20 separate products. This is similar to earlier BusyBox GPL suits. The commercial uses of BusyBox must be much more prolific than anyone could have imagined. Having dealt with hundreds of compliance problems and finding an average of one violation per day, the SFLC recommends one thing: be responsive to their requests (they try to settle things in private first) lest you find one of these (PDF) in your inbox."

Comments

WDTV

[BumbaCLot]

Is it affected?

Re:WDTV

[NiteMair]

Well, this was mentioned in page 8 of the PDF:

"Western Digital's WDBABF0000NBK WD TV HD Media Player;"

Re:WDTV

[Aggrajag]

Western Digital Techonologies Inc. is listed as one of the defendants.
Here's the pdf:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

Re:WDTV

[VoltageX]

Brad over at b-rad.cc is already working on alternative firmware, and there's a debian chroot if that's what you were looking for.

Re:WDTV

[sbbshoe168]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Christmas sales, there are exquisite gift, here are the most fashionable and most noble gift, please come to order.For details, please consult------ http://www.etradingitems.com/ ------- Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift. Nike shox $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 ---------- http://www.etradingitems.com/ -----------

Not such a great idea

[Megor1]

On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...

Re:Not such a great idea

[JonJ]

The SFLC confirmed BusyBox violations in nearly 20 separate products cited in the complaint and gave each defendant ample time to comply with the requirements of the license. "We try very hard to resolve these types of issues privately with companies, as we always prefer cooperation" said SFLC counsel Aaron Williamson. "We brought this suit as a last resort after each of these defendants ignored us or failed to meaningfully respond to our requests that they release the source code".

Seems like they were given enough chances to respond, it would've been the same with proprietary software.

Re:Not such a great idea

[NiteMair]

Are you sure these companies "embrace" open source? sounds to me like they really just raped it...

Re:Not such a great idea

[lwsimon]

Without the litigation, you lose the purpose of the GPL, though.

We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to. Else GPL is worth nothing. Before using GPL code you should just know what you are getting yourself into.

We use GPL code at my workplace. Just simple stuff like the linux kernel, busybox, just as a base system. But we do comply to GPL by allowing customers to request those pieces of software. (As far as I know none has ever done so)

Re:Not such a great idea

[datajack]

If they don't want to play by the rules, we won't miss them. If they do, then they will find a great resource and profit from mutual cooperation.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't ignore GPL violations. Otherwise, *everyone* will ignore the restrictions of the GPL license and use GPL'd software however they wish. The entire point of the GPL is to use the strong protections offered by copyright law to the advantage of the Free software movement. Without enforcement, the GPL has no teeth.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And Microsoft shouldn't sue any of the Mom-n-Pop computer shops for selling boxes with phony Windows license keys, as it would discourage anyone from selling boxes based on commercial / propriatary software.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Aggrajag]

If you don't agree with the license, don't use GPL'd software.

Re:Not such a great idea

[tomhudson]

action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...

Why - because if you take something that's GPL'd you have to offer the source? What's the big deal? It certainly costs less to make the source available to buyers than it would to write your own code from scratch.

What's a DVD cost nowadays - a dime? Heck, they could include it on a free USB key, or offer it for $1 (+ $10 shipping and handling) a pop in the written documentation:

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

You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying that allowing open source to be closed will encourage it? Really?
I think you've completely missed the point of the action.

Re:Not such a great idea

[nschubach]

I have to give credit to Sharp. I bought an Aquos 52" TV this past year and they included the GPL statements and a link to obtain busybox on their site. The link wasn't working at first and I emailed them to get the source and the link started working again the next day. Following the rules isn't all that hard to do. I don't see why there would be such a huge problem with companies providing a link.

Re:Not such a great idea

[10101001 10101001]

Without the litigation, you lose the purpose of the GPL, though.

We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".

Major correction. We do want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it". If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well. If it's BSD or some other open source license, the conditions might be different (attribution in advertising, possibly). Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.

Re:Not such a great idea

[grcumb]

We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".

No, you're dead wrong. The GPL allows exactly what you're describing.

It attaches a condition to that, though: It also says, 'Anything you distribute has to be available in source form as well.'

It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance. Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.

Re:Not such a great idea

[cl0s]

If you are only using it internally (like for a server hosting your website - as we do at my job) I do not think you need to supply any source code, the business is using it for itself. Once you start distributing that software outside of your business to customers or business customers thats when the rules start to kick in. I could be wrong but that's how I interpret the GPL (and have heard of it interpreted/explained).

Re:Not such a great idea

[darthwader]

In order for people to use open source software, someone has to write open source software. It does not appear by magic from the "software fairy".

The SFLC's primary purpose is to encourage people to write open source software, not to encourage people to use it. By encouraging people to write OSS, SFLC helps ensure that there is a large body of useful and relevant OSS available for people to use.

People who write OSS under the GPL are motivated by (among other things) the idea of sharing work: The price you pay to use my work is that you have to share any improvements you make, and you have to allow your users to share my work, too.

By bringing forward these lawsuits, the SFLC ensures that the author's sharing requirement is met, thus encouraging the author to make more OSS available.

Re:Not such a great idea

[bfields]

Yes. The SFLC have consistently been proponents of working with violators in private whenever possible; see, for example:

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/11/08/gpl-enforcement.html

If they're resorting to a suit, it's likely only after making serious efforts to resolve the conflict some other way.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: No open source license forbids the commercialisation of code. No restrictions on use is one of the basic rules!

Re:Not such a great idea

[MadnessASAP]

Out of curiosity, what's a TV doing with BusyBox?

Re:Not such a great idea

[stiggle]

Its not that difficult to comply with the GPL.
I've been emailing Humax for the last year (since I bought one of their digital TV STB) to get hold of the code in accordance with the GPL and they've either sent me a manual for a different device, told me that they didn't need to provide the code as I was unable to update the firmware myself so its useless me having any source code.

They do provide some GPL code for a box they sell in Germany though - but not the UK one, and there is no mention of using GPL code in their manuals.

If you want to try and get anything GPL related out of Humax you can try emailing them
gnu@humaxdigital.com (who never reply)
support@humaxdigital.com (who say they don't need to provide the code and can't even C&P a name properly)

Re:Not such a great idea

[nosferatu1001]

I assume you have yet to see the latest range of net connected TVs?

Re:Not such a great idea

[interval1066]

We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".

Why not, as long as any GPL'd source "goes back into the pool", as it were.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they just forbid successful commercialization.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be said best as:

If you don't agree with the license, don't use the licensed software

After all, GPL is just another license. The set of rules is the same for the GPL and any other work of art which is distributed under a license. By using the general expression instead of explicitly mentioning the GPL you are putting emphasis on the fact that this legal action is exactly like any copyright infringement license, not some sort of fundamentalist GPL attack on businesses who adopt GPLed software.

Re:Not such a great idea

[burnin1965]

On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...

The issue at hand is that they do not embrace open source. They are using open source code under a license that requires they embrace open source as a condition of the license. They are now in violation of that license.

If we were to accept your logic then companies like Microsoft and members of the MPAA/RIAA are screwed every time they enforce their copyrights and licensing contracts.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance. Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.

Factually untrue, as any economist will tell you. The licence you release under has a very large impact on the market price you can feasibly achieve, especially when you are seeding competing distributors with every sale.

99% of GPL software projects have a market price of zero, are treated as having a market value of zero, and are sitting dead, abandoned, and inactive on sourceforge and various other places where unloved programs go to rot.

Re:Not such a great idea

[burnin1965]

We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".

If by "We" you mean companies who license closed source proprietary software I guess you are absolutely correct.

There are many companies that use open source in their products that was licensed to them under the GPL as the open source method provides significant value beyond paying for a license to the closed source proprietary alternatives. Unfortunately for the closed source proprietary alternatives this means they have competition, I guess they'll just have to suck it up and compete in the free market.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Ihmhi]

Reasonable lawyers resorting to suing as a last resort?

My God, the world is ending. Quick, I'll start looking up oceanic seismic sensor data for anything about the size of an Old One, and you look to the sky for the flaming hellfire!

Re:Not such a great idea

[burnin1965]

...without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance...

I'm not so sure the parent post you are responding to is a supporter of open source or the GPL. Its not quite clear who "We" refers to in the post and to me suggests anti-GPL. In that context the sentence makes sense.

We (proprietary close source software developers) don't want people embracing open source...

Re:Not such a great idea

[Chyeld]

My LG (LH30) LCD has a serial port that you can use to telnet into for 'remote' control. According to the manual, it's aimed for hotel usage - I assume for things like PPV and etc.

My goal is to hook that into the HTPC I'll get around to building right after I finish the great American Novel and switch from using a boring ol'IR remote to something WiFiy or Bluetoothy. Perhaps something that can also do HDMI CEC so I can play with the rest of the components too.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

What a useful answer to a reasonable and honest question!

Re:Not such a great idea

[similar_name]

On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to pirate open source...

FTFY

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth can you assert that this is true, simply by quoting what they say as the truth?

They settle for nothing less than compliance. If the company complies, they settle. If the company doesn't comply, they don't.

This make "They are really nice and willing to conduct a dialogue!" idiocy, when the content of that dialogue would simply be a very long and politely-worded and educational way of saying that there is only compliance or death.

Can a company do the same thing? State in license terms that infringement is punished by $25,000 per case, and be willing to extend all manners of dialogue and serious efforts of getting people to PAY $25,000, before they go to court and force them?

In all seriousness, how can you assert that someone only "resorts to a suit" after they have made "serious efforts to resolve the conflict some other way", when there is only ONE SINGLE way they have sought to resolve it, which is to force the company to comply with the license as they have written it without any input from said company? Isn't that solely based on a value judgement of the license as 'good', while simply having a different license would have made the SFLC methodology and approach to violaters of it 'evil'?

Re:Not such a great idea

[s73v3r]

Except that with the SFLC, they typically don't ask for monetary compensation when going after violators. If you come into compliance with the license, which you should have done before, then they leave you alone, and you don't have to pay damages, or remove your product from the market. Everybody wins.

Re:Not such a great idea

[pantherace]

Actually, use it all you want. Just don't distribute it.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Gadget_Guy]

Following the rules isn't all that hard to do.

I agree. I really don't understand why companies get themselves in this hole. Though I wonder what happens if you do manage to customise and replace the code for your TV and something goes wrong with it. Could you really blame Sharp for not providing support to TVs with altered firmware? It would be a tech support nightmare!

The only time that GPL does become a problem is if you used it during the development process for something that you thought would never need to be released and then find that circumstances change and you would like to do so. You have limited your options.

That reminds me of the case of the Topfield set top boxes, where they used GCC to develop their software but then ran afoul of the licence when they wanted to release a development kit to allow people to write their own applications for the box (or TAPs). I don't know why Topfield didn't want to release their customised GCC code (maybe they thought that it might lead to them being forced to release too much of their other system code they had written), but they ended up withdrawing the SDK. In that case, the public lost out.

Basically, if a company wants to use GPL software, they need to plan it out carefully. They should define the exact areas of code that they are willing to open up and ensure there is enough of a buffer between it and other code. In the case of your TV, ensure the MPEG decoding software is completely separate from the GPL network handling code. Spell out in all in the documentation including warranty issues and links to the GPL code. Don't make adhering to the GPL licence an afterthought. Then nobody can complain about GPL "gotchas".

Re:Not such a great idea

[lena_10326]

I bet only a few would even bother to notice the source if they made it freely available. People's curiosity tends to get peaked when they're denied access to something or when standard operating procedure deviates from the norm (SOP: GPL code = src level access).

Peaked curiosity leads to investigation.

Re:Not such a great idea

[10101001 10101001]

You appear to be correct, but the OSI's effective definition of open source seems to be a bit buggy.

Consider something I'll call a Reciprocal Self-Terminating License. It'll be basically identical to the GPLv2 except with a few changes. Specifically, all GPLv2 references will be replaced with RSTL#. RSTL# will be, at the header of the license, "Real Self-Termination License" with a whole decimal number. If that number is greater than one, any redistribution will decrement that number by one and release under the new numbered license (ie, if you have RSTL2, you'd redistribute as RSTL1). Merger of two or more RSTL# licensed code will result in licensed code having the lowest license number of the group. At RSTL0, you can only redistribute under non-commercial terms and the license will be stuck at RSTL0. This definition is probably incomplete, but I think you get the idea.

A similar effect could be had if, for example, a company were to take source code, release it under a BSD license to a subsidiary or partner company, and that subsidiary/partner company would only ever released the code under a non-commercial BSD-like license.

From what I understand from the open source definition, in both the RSTL1 and the partner company situation, the code would be considered open source.

Re:Not such a great idea

[nschubach]

The TV menus, decoding, and such are, I believe, Linux driven. The firmware can be upgraded via a USB key.

http://mktg.sharpusa.com/newsletters/files/gpl.htm

Re:Not such a great idea

[JoshuaZ]

You and the individual you are replying to are talking about it being connected to price in different ways. The point that gcrumb was making was the GPL doesn't restrict the price at all. The point you are making is that there are practical economic consequences of putting something under the GPL. Different claims.

Re:Not such a great idea

[AHuxley]

Big corps love their copy"right", patents and trade dress.
Time to feel the lawyers and see how much cheap outsourced dev work on a few products will really cost them.
The code belongs to the developers and as such you have to give back/show code.
Dont like it, be MS or Apple ect and code in house/3rd world closed source.

Re:Not such a great idea

[adolf]

Er. Telnet has nothing to do with serial ports in these modern times.

Serial ports are fairly common on quality AV gear. They really are used for remote control in home automation and other settings, where infrared is generally less reliable and harder to work with. For example, gear from companies like Crestron can deal with these serial ports natively.

Re:Not such a great idea

[hairyfeet]

Which is why I still don't get it. if they didn't want to abide by GPL, why not simply use BSD? It is also free, and they wouldn't be having to deal with lawyers and BS right now. Now something like the MSFT USB tool we saw awhile back, where MSFT bought a tool from a third party that turned out to have copied GPL code and not told MSFT? yeah I can see something like that happening.

But these companies I doubt were just buying software from a third party, not with these tools being so deeply ingrained in their products. So why not use BSD? Is their no BusyBox style tool in BSD? And if not, why don't they just buy a proprietary license from BusyBox? It just don't make any sense to me.

Re:Not such a great idea

[hairyfeet]

I don't know about that, I think it would depend on the product. Take TiVo for example. if they would have done it the way RMS wanted and released their source code and allowed the TiVo to be "hackable" they would have been out of business in under 90 days because the next week the Internet would have been filled with "ZOMG! Get FREE TIVO and COPY ALL THE CONTENT OFF THE MACHINE with our new Lulz code!".

So depending on the device I can see not wanting to open the code. That said if it were me I just would have went to BusyBox directly and bought a proprietary license for their code, which I'm sure could have been arranged.

Re:Not such a great idea

[mtvsucks]

Your heart's in the right place, and I understand your frustration, but as a receiver of gpl software you don't have much of a standing. The company you speak of is infringing copyright by not distributing the source code with the binaries. Since you are not the copyright holder there isn't much you can do. You need to notify the copyright holder and hope they take action. Being pesty may get them to comply, but it's more likely it will take litigation to convince a company to look into their legal standing in the matter. If the copyright holder doesn't have the resources to fight the infringement, urge them to sign copyright over to the free software foundation.

As always, the fsf has said this better....
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html

Re:Not such a great idea

[Pieroxy]

BSD license is slightly different from GPL. You can distribute binaries, but those binaries have to be under the BSD license, meaning that you can't restrict people from distributing them (if they do the same).

Re:Not such a great idea

[Lucractius]

Not quite...

With the lovely additions in version 3 of the GPL licence /sarcasm

You have to provide the source code to any open source software (using GPLv3) that you use to provide a network service (eg: a custom web server).

Now whats interesting is that there was already a GPL licence for placing this kind of requirement on your code. The "Affero General Public License" had provisions in it to require this sort of thing. Did it get used a lot, Nope. For obvious reasons, its a bloody scary licence for anyone in the Open Source friendly world of Web2.0

There was a point to GPLv3, the hardware related additions were fine, but basically bundling the Affero GPL licence in with it, seems like a disruptive move. Kind of akin to the old "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" except the Extinguish part refers to a whole different kind of Extinction.

Makes me glad Linus told them where they could stick the GPLv3 with regards to the Kernel (Proverbially speaking of course)

Re:Not such a great idea

[jimicus]

Reasonable lawyers resorting to suing as a last resort?

My God, the world is ending. Quick, I'll start looking up oceanic seismic sensor data for anything about the size of an Old One, and you look to the sky for the flaming hellfire!

Depending on where you are in the world, AIUI many courts consider themselves the last resort and are generally not impressed by people not even attempting to resolve issues amicably.

Re:Not such a great idea

[jimicus]

I don't know about that, I think it would depend on the product. Take TiVo for example. if they would have done it the way RMS wanted and released their source code and allowed the TiVo to be "hackable" they would have been out of business in under 90 days because the next week the Internet would have been filled with "ZOMG! Get FREE TIVO and COPY ALL THE CONTENT OFF THE MACHINE with our new Lulz code!".

Hence why not everyone's adopted GPLv3 and why the Linux kernel itself does not include the "... or any later version" clause.

Though a lot of products also use Samba code and from version 3.2 (I think), that is definitely GPLv3. I suspect a lot of companies may maintain 3.0 versions of Samba for this reason.

Re:Not such a great idea

[jimicus]

Makes me glad Linus told them where they could stick the GPLv3 with regards to the Kernel (Proverbially speaking of course)

He didn't have a lot of choice in the matter anyway. The Linux kernel doesn't require contributors to assign their copyright to a single entity, nor is it licensed with the ".... or any later version" clause commonly seen in GPL software.

It could only become GPLv3 with the consent of every single contributor. Some of them have moved on to develop other things, others have died so that may take a while.

Re:Not such a great idea

[init100]

With the lovely additions in version 3 of the GPL licence /sarcasm

You have to provide the source code to any open source software (using GPLv3) that you use to provide a network service (eg: a custom web server).

Can you point out the section where this requirement is spelled out? If you would be correct, why is there a separate GNU Affero General Public License, that contains exactly this requirement, when (according to your claim) this requirement is already in the vanilla GPLv3?

Re:Not such a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no infringement price in the compliance required. Only paying the original price (that is, the source). Apart from the price they failed to pay in the first place, they're getting away with infringement for free.

Imagine getting caught in a stolen car, and being told that as long as you give it back or pay for it, nothing will happen. No jail time, no fine, no arrest record. Nothing.

Re:Not such a great idea

[molecular]

On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...

I'm really glad they're doing this. Otherwise we would be back to the old days when OSS-Developers where just releasing their stuff to the public domain.

GPL != OSS.
Unenforced GLP == public domain software.

Re:Not such a great idea

[bfields]

They settle for nothing less than compliance.

That's what enforcing a license means, yes.

In all seriousness, how can you assert that someone only "resorts to a suit" after they have made "serious efforts to resolve the conflict some other way", when there is only ONE SINGLE way they have sought to resolve it, which is to force the company to comply with the license as they have written it

By the time it gets to court, they're going to be asking for more than just compliance with the original license!

Isn't that solely based on a value judgement of the license as 'good', while simply having a different license would have made the SFLC methodology and approach to violaters of it 'evil'?

No. All paths lead to compliance with the license, but not all paths are the same: chances are they started out with private negotiation rather than a suit (or a raid).

Re:Not such a great idea

[mspohr]

I just bought a BluRay disc player for my rental home and it allows you to connect to the net and download stuff to a USB memory stick plus the discs themselves can link to the net and download additional content. It all runs on Linux. I didn't have time to fully explore but it all looks quite useful.

Re:Not such a great idea

[TheRaven64]

Only true for unmodified binaries. You can create a binary that mixes BSDL and proprietary code and distribute the end result under a proprietary license, you just can't claim that you wrote the BSDL part.

Re:Not such a great idea

[TheRaven64]

You are misreading the GPLv3. It does not make that requirement. The Affero GPL had an extra clause that said that you were not allowed to remove links to download the source from server software. The GPLv3 lists this clause in the section on additional restrictions that may be imposed on GPLv3 code without violating the GPL. This means that you can combine GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code in the same project, but does not mean that the GPLv3 has this clause by default.

Re:Not such a great idea

[TheRaven64]

BusyBox basically combines all of the GNU utils into a single binary, saving you a bit of disk and memory space for things that are common across all of them. BSD has included a program called crunchgen for a while that can combine binaries in the same sort of way. There's also BeastieBox, which is similar to BusyBox and based on the NetBSD 4 userland. I'm not really sure why BusyBox is so popular though. The space savings are barely relevant on any modern device. If you've got something with 4MB of RAM and 64MB of flash, it might be worthwhile, but on anything more powerful you may as well just use the stand-alone utilities.

Re:Not such a great idea

[hairyfeet]

Which is why I think for Linux to ultimately gain traction RMS and his SCoN! (Source Code or Nothing!) brigade are gonna have to go. Linux needs businesses. It needs businesses to infuse money by paying developers and buying support, it needs businesses to use Linux to pressure vendors to make Linux drivers, and it needs businesses to incorporate Linux into its devices as ultimately it will make more devices out there compatible with Linux.

But I think we can tell by how RMS went after a single company with his "Anti-Tivo" clause in GPL V3 that RMS doesn't want to have anything to do with business, period. Not surprising considering the reason he started GNU was an argument over a printer with a corporation. But life isn't black and white, it is shades of grey. It is all about compromises and finding common ground where everyone can walk away with something. To RMS and his SCoN! brigade there can NEVER be compromise...it is their way or the highway. And that kind of political zealotry never helps the little guy in the end.

Just look at the lack of a stable driver ABI that makes shopping for Linux compatible devices in 2009 a case of paperweight roulette for example. Every single time I have brought up that Linux needs a stable ABI somebody shows up with a link from Kernel Trap that ultimately says "its about freedom man!". Well your "freedom" makes it so small shops like mine avoid Linux like the clap, and large retailers like Walmart put giant warning stickers on their Linux PCs before deciding it wasn't worth it and got rid of Linux even on their website. Why? Because like when I tried selling Linux boxes they found that no way to tell by looking at the box whether a device worked or not equaled paperweight roulette where just like the game it is named after you lose more than you win by a long shot.

So I think Linux has gotten about as far as its gonna go on the desktop without some fundamental changes, and those changes will mean ditching RMS and the SCoN! brigade. The question then is will Linux be willing to drop the hardcore zealots and work out compromises?

Re:Not such a great idea

[Dan Ost]

I don't think that's true. You can use BSD code in products that have non-free licenses.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Pieroxy]

The BSD license is pretty simple, and nowhere do I see that mixed binaries must not retain the original copyright notice. In fact, I see the opposite.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the University of California, Berkeley nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

Emphasis mine of course.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Pieroxy]

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

If the words are not clear enough, then I don't know... Of course, you can use it in a product that has a proprietary license, but the BSD parts are BSD, modified or not.

Re:Not such a great idea

[makomk]

Samba needs the anti-Tivoization clause of the GPL3, though. Every so often, a security vulnerability is found in it, and non-upgradable devices running outdated Samba versions are a big problem.

Re:Not such a great idea

[jedidiah]

> Just look at the lack of a stable driver ABI that makes shopping for Linux compatible devices in 2009 a case of paperweight roulette for example.

Utter nonsense.

Linux has better driver support than MacOS for most things and it has a smaller marketshare. Most drivers are supported by the community and the requirement for a binary ABI simply doesn't exist. The few hardware vendors that directly support Linux are not visibly hampered by this "binary ABI problem".

It's just something for Lemming Trolls to whine about.

The fact that Linux has lower published marketshare numbers than MacOS is far more of a problem in this regard than this ABI nonsense.

Re:Not such a great idea

[Urkki]

On one hand the GPL violations are not so great...however action like this isn't going to encourage people to embrace open source...

However, it's going to encourage people to write and share code under GPL, when they see that if they make something good, somebody else can't just take it to make money. It also shows to potential users of GPL code that they don't need to be overly paranoid, as the first action of copyright holder isn't to sue or to demand a lot of money, but instead trying to settle privately and quietly and for free (as in beer).

Re:Not such a great idea

[hairyfeet]

Wow, I just love the elitist atttitude, especially from an OS that enjoys a whole 1%! But you kinda missed the point there pal, but thanks, because I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOOSH!

You wanna know why it don't fricking matter how "great" your support compared to Mac is? Here, let me give you an example: From this moment on your name is Joe, and you are my customer. You just bought an off lease box with Ubuntu on it, because it was cheaper than the XP box and you like the look and the "wobbly windows" thing. You follow me so far? Good.

Now you go to buy some goodies for your new PC at the local Walmart. Now don't give me the elitist "go and do research" bullshit, because you are Joe, not a Linux guy, and you are doing what normal guys do, and that is go shopping. Now quick, and WITHOUT research: Which of these Wifi cards work? Is the printers that are on sale this week functional? what about this all in one? And this nice TV Tuner at 45% off? will it work?

News Flash, Mr. elite Linux guy: You can't answer ANY of those questions. You can't answer them, I can't answer them, and Joe sure as fuck can't answer them. That is NOT a troll, that is a FACT. And here are a few more for you: FACT-My after market support costs as a retailer for Windows is pretty much ZERO. Because all the customer has to do is look for the Winflag and he is good. EVERY device out there being sold at Walmart has XP/Vista/7 drivers. So if he buys any machine from the last decade he don't need to play paperweight roulette just to buy a device.

FACT: on average you are looking at MAYBE 35% support for devices being sold at the big retailers like Walmart. Sure Linux supports more old shit, but don't nobody actually sells old shit at retail. New devices? Support is hit and miss and that is if you include "support" that consists of three pages of CLI gibberish, which Joe is never gonna touch, and often is supposed to be "tweaked" to meet you hardware/software combo, which of course Joe ain't qualified to do.

So please, hold onto that elitist attitude, and call anyone who has actual experience selling PCs a troll for pointing out what needs to be done. Go right ahead pal, and me and the other retailers will avoid your OS like toxic waste, refuse to support it at all (if someone brings a Linux box my "support" will be to offer to wipe it and install Windows, because it isn't worth the BS just to get device foo to function at my low price of $50 an hour) and instead will have our shelves lined with Windows XP and Windows 7 machines, which Joe understands, can actually buy devices for without playing paperweight roulette, and which works without breaking all to hell when you patch it.

It is actually quite simple dude: No stable ABI = no drivers on CDs, no drivers on CDs = no penguins on boxes, no penguins on boxes = paperweight roulette and confused and unhappy customers, confused and unhappy customers = lots higher returns and support costs, and finally lots higher returns and support costs = retailers avoiding your OS like the clap. And of course no retailers = itsy bitsy market share. So if that is what you want dude, keep it up. Windows 7 is working quite well and makes for pretty boxes and nice profit margins.

Reevaluation

[onefriedrice]

In other news, thousands of corporate gpl users reevaluate their use of gpl software. I know... Many gpl advocates are ecstatic at the idea of corporations not using gpl code.

Re:Reevaluation

[Aggrajag]

Yeah, right. "Hey, instead of using Linux, let's write our own kernel."

Re:Reevaluation

[Dr. Evil]

Yeah, because if you steal commercial code and hide it in your product, you're sooo much better off.

Re:Reevaluation

[Toonol]

Or they may take steps to ensure they're within the bounds of the license, just like they would have to for pretty much any other alternative proprietary library. I'm very glad that corporations use GPL code; they just need to understand it.

Re:Reevaluation

[FxChiP]

I'm a GPL advocate and actually, I'd be ecstatic if a major corporation decided to use GPL code -- as long as they adhered to the terms of the license and released the code along with the binary.

Other than that, yeah, if a company's not going to adhere to the license, I really would not want them using the code.

Re:Reevaluation

[David Gerard]

If this were a concern, they'd already be using embedded BSD everywhere. Which BSD is very good for, but Linux is ridiculously more popular. Why is that, d'you think?

Re:Reevaluation

[MSG]

In other news, thousands of corporate gpl users reevaluate violating the license.

Fixed that for you.

I feel dirty.

Re:Reevaluation

[SpaceLifeForm]

I'm a GPL advocate and actually, I'd be ecstatic if a major corporation decided to use GPL code -- as long as they adhered to the terms of the license and released the code along with the binary.

You mean, like Google?

Re:Reevaluation

[gnasher719]

In other news, thousands of corporate gpl users reevaluate their use of gpl software. I know... Many gpl advocates are ecstatic at the idea of corporations not using gpl code.

Any sane corporate user of software knows that software comes with a license, and at a price. If the software you use is licensed under GPL, the price is the cost and the effort of putting the source code on your web site for anyone to download. If the people responsible for software licensing are too stupid to read the GPL license, they deserve all that they get. Nobody wants corporate users who use GPL software because they are too stupid to read a license. And certainly nobody wants corporate users who use GPL'd software because they think they can rip off GPL software.

But any corporate user with more than half a braincell understands what the GPL is about and either uses GPL software or they don't, based on the quality and the cost.

Re:Reevaluation

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you are. With closed source software, you are far less likely to get caught in the first place, and secondly even if you do, you can always buy the company (and their IP) outright or just negotiate a license. No need to give away valuable secrets.

This is not rocket science, kids, it's called "capitalism", look into it.

Re:Reevaluation

[Bert64]

You can potentially buy off or negotiate a license with someone who wrote GPL code too, whoever holds the copyright on the code is free to make it available to you under different terms.

With closed source you're far less likely to do it in the first place, since not having the source will impair your ability to integrate it into your product... But it has happened.

With closed source you could be much worse off, the vendor may be too big for you to buy out, and may refuse to license the code to you at all. At least with the GPL you have a clear path in order to be legal, and so long as you comply with the GPL there's nothing anyone can do against you.

As for giving away secrets, that entirely depends on how the rest of your product interacts with the GPL components, and if it's really that important to you then write your own code instead of using someone else's.

Re:Reevaluation

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...that's NOT a foregone conclusion...

For example...if you did that with some of Microsoft's code, I can assure you that you can't "buy the company" nor will you be in a good position to negotiate anything other than an assraping from their legal department or from the BSA.

This, honestly, is little different here- and people that try to paint it differently don't have the foggiest what they're talking about or are trying to sell you something...

Re:Reevaluation

[smidget2k4]

And if you're that worried about secrets, write your own damn code and don't use the GPL. Simple.

Re:Reevaluation

[Abreu]

Although it is disappointing that Google has not shared many of their improvements to GPL'd software, it is important to point out that, since said modified software is used exclusively in-house and not distributed, Google has not broken the license.

Re:Reevaluation

[koiransuklaa]

Remember the triple damages... That price will be included in the buying price of Microsoft, SAP, or however you decide buy.

Re:Reevaluation

[JackieBrown]

I don't see that definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Re:Reevaluation

[Lucractius]

I would rather see a company use BSD code and publish their changes.
Open Source + Proof of Company not being just a money hungry leech on society (in at least a tiny way)

Re:Reevaluation

[TheRaven64]

Yes, because there are no open source, non-GPL'd, kernels around. They'd obviously have to start completely from scratch.

Re:Reevaluation

[TheRaven64]

Brand recognition was the answer I got the last time I asked a company producing an embedded system why they went with Linux over *BSD.

Re:Reevaluation

[David Gerard]

Yep. So they can release their GPL derivatives. There's no way it's onerous to do so.

(By the way: under US law, copyrighted content counts as an exchange of value. The record companies wrote that in to make copy exchange count as financial value, but it applies to code as well. And in reality as well as law, I'd assert - they use GPLed software because it is of value, therefore they get value, therefore they are due to pay the price for doing so, which is to release one's modifications.)

Re:Not such a great idea -RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The SFLC always makes contact and in good faith requests a response, compliance with the licence terms or other remedy in a reasonable time period.

So actions like these encourage people to embrace open source in an entirely legal manner rather than corporate interests ripping off the open source community.

I can hear upper management screaming now

[macbeth66]

Unfortunately, this may be the kind of thing that makes upper management kill OSS in the shop. Who wants to risk a lawsuit? Forget that they have nothing to do with each other.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[TooMuchToDo]

Big fucking deal. Follow the license or don't use the code.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Penguinisto]

So, err, there's no risk of a lawsuit by stealing someone else's proprietary code? I sincerely beg to differ on that one.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Dr. Evil]

You don't need the license to *use* the code.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[FxChiP]

Hey, if it causes those upper managements to stop trying to sell the hard work of others (who don't even work for them!) for their own profit, more power to it. Any legal department would be able to tell you quite simply that the only thing you have to do when you release the product is release the source code you've modified (and not even that if it's a BSD-type license).

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[TooMuchToDo]

By use, I mean incorporate into your product or create a derivative work.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[bzipitidoo]

Fear drives management. There are many worse things to fear, such as the cost of using proprietary software, and the risks and costs of a BSA audit. Recall their attention to the bottom line, and they'll likely change their tune. Not all management is bad.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[NiteMair]

Which is still possible without releasing any source code.

The keyword here is "distributing" - even if you don't create a derivative at all.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[ducomputergeek]

It doesn't kill OSS, it kills the use of GPL'ed code. With our proprietary products, we were extremely careful that if we did use other code/libraries that they were either BSD or MIT style licenses.

Why do people forget that OSS is more than just the GPL?

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[grcumb]

Unfortunately, this may be the kind of thing that makes upper management kill OSS in the shop. Who wants to risk a lawsuit? Forget that they have nothing to do with each other.

Yeah, I can see how that would play:

"Wait, what? This software has rules? We have to follow rules?!? And we get sued if we don't???!! Sandra, call my congressman, and take a memo: No more, uh, G-L-P software until we get this fixed!"

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[LWATCDR]

But it will not stop that.
All you have to do is include a link to the source on your website and a GPL statment with the product.
You don't even have to include a link to the source you could "require" that they send you a written letter and pay for shipping of the source.
Which frankly is all just silly.
The source for BusyBox is freely available already so an extra link will not really make it any more free. Those are the rules but except for including the GPL in the docs for the product I see little value in the link to the source except to cross the t's and dot the i's.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[PitaBred]

Management only fears one thing worse than expenses: the unknown. The GPL ecosystem is completely unknown to a lot of the gray-hairs that don't understand that software is not a physical product like a coffee pot. The economy changes when your cost to replicate a thing is effectively zero. That's why a lot of companies pay a ton of cash to MySQL and other open-source software companies... they just don't want to have to think about the licensing, they want to do it the old way.

And then have their nephew install Office on every computer from the same, single, legal install disc.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[minsk]

Because the folks using BSD- and MIT-style licenses don't care if the license terms are ignored?

No, wait, they do care. Funny that.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you do. That is why bison and gcc come with GPL exceptions, and why every binary created with GNAT GPL Edition must be distributed under GPL.

Down with that myth. Using GPL programs can put restrictions on the output of these programs.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[sunderland56]

Wouldn't the use of BusyBox inside a DVD player be for debugging use only? In other words, great for the developer, but useless for the end customer?

In which case - why didn't they simply remove it from the shipping version? They are free to use it as an internal tool, just not ship it with the product. Satisfies everyone - engineers, upper management, and the OSS lawyers.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[stiggle]

Busybox is used for setting up the ethernet interface most devices seem to have these days and to manage the internal filesystem most devices have for caching & downloadable content. Well thats what its for in the box I have. I wish they'd activated the HTTP server in Busybox aswell as then I could have some access to the content on the box from elsewhere on my home network.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Svartalf]

Unfortunately for them, the "old way" doesn't remove the requirements to think about the licensing.

Under no terms should ANY manager or exec be led to think they don't have to worry about license terms- period. Even with "buying" you have all sorts of landmines within the licensing that buying doesn't even avoid.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's not like you could redistribute a proprietary app without following the license and not risk a lawsuit. Seeing as it is trivial to comply with all OSS it will actually reduce your chances of a lawsuit.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[burnin1965]

It doesn't kill OSS, it kills the use of GPL'ed code.

Actually the troll's logic was on the right track. Upper management wont see the difference between GPLed code, BSDed, MITed, Apached, etc.

But the troll is wrong about this killing any OSS. If the knee jerk reaction of company A is to stop using OSS code while there competitor, company B, adheres to the licensing then company A will have to endure the additional burden of the profit margins necessary to support their proprietary supplier while their competitor company B will continue to reap the benefits of the open source code in their products simply by adhering to the licensing.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[tomuo]

From what I read of Busybox, it provides init and a shell, both of which are used implicitly during bootup of the device. There is no way to strip Busybox from the release or shipping verison. Everything else is certainly only useful to the dev.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Toonol]

The source for BusyBox is freely available already so an extra link will not really make it any more free. Those are the rules but except for including the GPL in the docs for the product I see little value in the link to the source except to cross the t's and dot the i's.

Well, it's entirely possible that they've added or tweaked busybox code for their own product, in which case they would have to do a little more work, but it's still not much of a problem.

The only reason I could see a company really avoiding it is if they've worked some sort of DRM or other 'secrets' into the code that they don't want to go public, or if they've closely intermixed the GPL source with, say, other proprietary code that they don't have the license to release. I'm not sure in that second case WHAT should be done, since they legally can't release the code, nor can they legally NOT release the code. That might require pulling the product off the market, and firing a manager that thought licenses didn't matter.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[PitaBred]

Doesn't matter. They perceive it as less risk because they're trading money for a service or product. Trading a nearly free service for a valuable product? What's the catch? Or they get wind of the "catch" and perceive it to be "give all of your software away free if you even look at the GPL!" and it gets shitcanned that way.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been on the receiving end of a GPL violation summon, and spending lots of time trying to fix the issue I believe I can explain the situation in a couple of simple sentence.

EU and US companies do not make hardware (although there are exceptions it doesn't really matter), so they do not have any real control on what's in the boxes they distribute under their brands.

Retail is a cutthroat business managed by goons who have no clue and no interest in technology, and for them free is "no cost", GPL takes more than two sentences to describe, it is over their attention span,they are not interested.

The Chineese/Taiwaneese OEM are strongly nationalistic and for them Intellectual Property is something you keep in China/Taiwan, foreign IP (including GPL) is irrelevant.
Moreover they do not control most of the IP they use, since it is done by the chip makers, and complying with the GPL would reveal how little value they add and how easy it would be to replace them. (and since they are also in a cutthroat business they expect their clients to go away for a 2% gain (well a 0.5% gain is actually enough).

The Chip makers have convoluted cross licencing agreements and are routinely counterfeiting each others patents, so they actually have no idea what they could release or not, so they do not release, and since they are "far away" from the end product they are also "far away" from the suit.

And particularly the "suit" that is responsible for any product, patent, gpl violation know that s/he will be in another job very long before anything "hits" him or her... (mostly him, equal opportunity in international IT, .. a long way to go).

So to answer the GP, the upper management is not screaming "follow the license or don't use the code" but "bring that product out right now ! and don't bother me with any commie(US manager)/Anarchist(Cineese manager) mumbo jumbo, anyway my lawyer explained to me that there are a lot of ways to interpret the GPL license... (meaning I have no idea what s/he was speaking about it seems complicated enough to confuse any judge, so it's cool we have more money than a bunch of long haired hippies).

And the only real thing we can do in the long term is:

STOP BUYING LOW QUALITY TOYS THAT WE WILL DISCARD SOON (sorry for screaming)

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[cerberusss]

Well, it wouldn't actually surprise me if some stuff isn't run as a compiled binary, but rather as a script. For instance some DVD players supply firmware upgrades via CD. Figuring out which firmware to load from the CD, checksumming, loading etc. is all very doable from a shell script.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[molecular]

But it will not stop that.
All you have to do is include a link to the source on your website and a GPL statment with the product.
You don't even have to include a link to the source you could "require" that they send you a written letter and pay for shipping of the source.
Which frankly is all just silly.
The source for BusyBox is freely available already so an extra link will not really make it any more free.

Dude, you have to make available also the _changes_ you made to the busybox code. e.g. some patches.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[LWATCDR]

Have you ever used busybox?
I doubt that they tweaked it but if they did contributing the code to maintainer would seem to be the better choice that putting a link on your website.

The problem with busybox and I don't really think it is a big problem is that each device will more or less use a custom version.
When you build busybox you have the option to pick and choose what commands you put in your build.
So do you need to have a link to your config or just the standard source package? What is the "source" in this case and what is a modification.
Frankly just including the config to be safe isn't an issue for most companies.
The problem is jumping through hoops to make sure you are not breaking the agreement.
It is extremely likey that these devices are using a stock busybox that they just did a menuconfig on.

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[LWATCDR]

If they made any patches. I really doubt that they did. Have you ever used busybox? It is great but the way most people will use it on a device is to use a menuconfig and include only the commands that they need for the device. That is about the only "change" most developers will make to busybox because that is really all they need to do.
Yes if they made any patches they should contribute them back but do we know that the did?

Re:I can hear upper management screaming now

[TooMuchToDo]

If it runs busybox, *you* can turn on that HTTP server yourself! =)

Bug report

[bengoerz]

Code Error: Wrong + Wrong != Right

Works for me.

[Penguinisto]

Unlike the patent trolls and the **AA, at least these guys do it right. You don't find a summons showing up without knowing that one is coming, there's no extortionist tactics, and they're not doing it for profit motive.

Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?

Re:Works for me.

[tdc_vga]

Actually, sometimes they do.

Just for reference, all Federal Court and several State courts require, and some will even provide them free of charge, mediation sessions before a case is allowed to go to trial. Statistically, aka. take it with a grain of salt, 98% of cases settle when taken to mediation.

Second, some laws do require notice before claims are allowed. The dreaded and oft hated DMCA requires notices in certain circumstances. Additionally, there are requirements on most statutes involving administrative agencies that all administrative remedies must be exhausted required and I'm sure there are more examples.

In conclusion, people do think of this. Maybe there are just too many law suits, or maybe people are afraid to talk to each other anymore?

Cheers,
TdC

Re:Works for me.

[PitaBred]

Because the **AA can afford better legislation than you can. How much cash did you use to buy off^W^W^W^W donate to your local senator last year?

Re:Works for me.

[selven]

Doesn't that one unfriendly, intimidating legal notice with more threats than the US banks have dollars count as a good faith effort?

Re:Works for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

when i began to read the first line ... trolls and **AA .. the first thing that came to mind was GNAA trolls

Re:Works for me.

[fulldecent]

>> Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?

because ignorance of the law is no excuse for the law.

Re:Works for me.

[Penguinisto]

because ignorance of the law is no excuse for the law.

...which in criminal cases works fine. Civil cases are another story.

Re:Works for me.

[VGPowerlord]

Because the **AA can afford better legislation than you can. How much cash did you use to buy off^W^W^W^W donate to your local senator last year?

A cool 100 Grand. Unfortunately, she doesn't eat candy bars.

Re:Works for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first

Because, idiot, that would mean that nobody would have to comply with the GPL UNLESS AND UNTIL he is contacted by the copyright holder and told to comply.

Think about how stupid you are and how stupid the mods are for modding that +5.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[mirix]

They gave them fair warning. If they don't defend the GPL it loses it's strength.
If you are unable to follow the licence, you shouldn't be using the code, simple as that...

Rule of the long tail.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's free, it's either crap or its a legal mine field. This is why my company is 100% OSS-free and always will be so long as I am CTO.

Re:Rule of the long tail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations?

Re:Rule of the long tail.

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this so hard for corps to get? the gpl is basically like any other proprietary license except that the 'fee' for use is any additional code that you add yourself to a particular binary. It's really not a big deal. If you can swallow microsoft's EULAs then gpl shouldn't cause you to break a sweat.

Re:Rule of the long tail.

[esampson]

Considering that it is used in over 20 of their products (N.B.: I have no idea how many products BusyBox is used in. These 20 products are just the ones produced by a certain set of companies that are non-compliant. I would speculate that BusyBox is used in far more products where they are compliant) I think we can probably throw out the idea that it is crap.

Considering that it is very easy to comply with GPL as many other posters have pointed out we can throw out the idea that it is a legal mine field. The SFLC didn't even come after them demanding compensation for the previously shipped units. They simply asked them to come into compliance and it was only when they refused that the SFLC filed suit.

But who gets paid?

[i_ate_god]

I don't know much about this product, but in general...

If there is a community supported project then

a) Who gets to sue companies/people who violate the project's GPL or other open source license
b) Who gets paid should the lawsuit be successful
c) Who gets in debt should the lawsuit not be successful?
d) Who funds the lawsuit?
e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?

Re:But who gets paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

a - b) The copyright holder or his/her appointed representative
c - d) The copyright holder or the organization which volunteers to file the lawsuit on the copyright holder's behalf
e) No -- the copyright holder is in charge of who gets sued

Re:But who gets paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: The copyright holder(s). That is, the name of the person or people who wrote the lines of code. Even in a community project, someone still wrote each line of code.

Re:But who gets paid?

[Hurricane78]

Well, IANAL, but as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.

And logically, that one gets paid or gets the debt, and funds the lawsuit, as a result of being the one who sued.

About e): Well, I guess same as someone can “troll’ by taking the free software (work of others) and selling it for money. But that’s kinda the point of GPL, no? Dunno.

Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us?

Re:But who gets paid?

[bcmm]

IANAL.

a) Any author of part of the software gets to sue (unless they had to assign copyright to the project*). In short, whoever owns the rights to the work! It's just copyright. The SFLC often gets asked to help by the people who's work has been stolen. I do not believe the poster above me who says that anyone can claim to own it.
b) In the past, the end result has been future compliance, and various "undisclosed contributions" to projects (no idea how you keep the amount of a donation to an open-source project a secret).
c) I Don't think the good guys have lost yet, but I guess SFLC would be out the (donated, I think) money it funds the lawsuits with.
d) SFLC funds the lawsuit (that's part of its purpose); they have a fund including $4 million from OSDL.
e) Trolls would have to get code accepted into the project to have a case, and then wait a bit and hope the violators upgrade to the latest version. That, or contribute to lots of projects in the hope someone infringes one of them (I'm not sure the community would mind). I doubt the SFLC would help a random small contributor, and as mentioned above, past SFLC lawsuits have resulted in contributions to the project involved, not payoffs of individuals.

*Having individual contributors keep the copyright is a great safeguard against a project leader taking a project closed-source. It is, however, also why Linux can't switch to GPLv3 even if it wants to.

Re:But who gets paid?

[aBaldrich]

as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.

IANAL, but I've read many papers on the subject. The original author holds the legal copyright. He is the only one to have the right to copy the code. Then he allows other people to use this right in a limited way (this is the licence). If a second person changes the code, he owns the the changes' copytight: but the original code's copy right is still owned by the original author. So if a company misuses the modified code, both the original author and the secondary author can sue that company. So,
a) IDK, it depends on the country and the laws.
b) the authors (a part of the money goes to the lawyers & stuff)
c) IDK, I'd believe the same person in a.

Re:But who gets paid?

[burnin1965]

e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?

No.

Open source software is acquired through some method of distribution, that is a good portion of what the licensing covers.

You don't develop your own software and have some troll come along and take you to court for having the concept of their open source software that may or may not exist included in your code. If you are in violation of the open source license that made the code available to you its because you put it there.

Re:But who gets paid?

[reub2000]

From TFA: "The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), [...] and Erik Andersen, one of the program's principal developers and copyright holders."

Re:But who gets paid?

[Urkki]

Well, IANAL, but as anyone can claim to be the owner, I think anyone can sue.

And logically, that one gets paid or gets the debt, and funds the lawsuit, as a result of being the one who sued.

About e): Well, I guess same as someone can “troll’ by taking the free software (work of others) and selling it for money. But that’s kinda the point of GPL, no? Dunno.

Anyone who is a lawyer here to enlighten us?

As others have written, by default the authors own the copyrights to their specific creations.

The only possibility for "trolling" would be blackmailing, ie. discover product with GPL software, and demand money or you will inform the copyright holder about the violation.

Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Guspaz]

A little over two years ago, I discovered that my VersaTek modem was using Linux/BusyBox. I requested the source, and the company refused saying that their Chinese OEM didn't give it to them, so that they couldn't give it to me. This is, of course, still a violation of the GPL in the same way that selling a stolen stereo doesn't change the fact that the stereo is stolen.

I mailed a report of this to the BusyBox author, and this morning the SFLC sent me an e-mail letting me know that VersaTek was being included in this lawsuit. They don't mention the specific VersaTek product that I notified them about, but it's nice that they followed up.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[RightSaidFred99]

Here's a question. BusyBox is just a bunch of optimized, small UNIX utilities right? What source were you expecting to get, and why didn't they just send you the BusyBox source itself? They are not linking against BusyBox, they are not using the source for busybox - so the only thing GPL related is making the BusyBox source itself available, no?

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where the viral nature of the GPL comes into play. If you use a GPL library for your program, you have to release the whole she-bang.

That's why I stick to LPGL or better "more free" for me to do with as I please.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Wesley Felter]

That's what's so galling about these cases; these companies are distributing unmodified BusyBox so complying with GPL shouldn't be that hard and it doesn't even require them to release any of their code. Yet they don't even bother to provide unmodified BusyBox source.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be that simple and makes you wonder why they didn't comply after they were contacted and made aware.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Somehow I seriously doubt a judge or jury will accept the "well our Chinese OEM didn't give it to us" defense.

Just because you hire a Chinese company to develop a product for you doesn't mean you aren't required to ensure your product doesn't violate any laws or license agreements when you sell it here in the USA.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[ickpoo]

While neither of us knows all the specific details of the case there are a few important points:
1) Just including GPL code -i.e. shipping and using Busy Box does not require the whole shebang to be GPL'd. If it wasn't linked to it then they just need to provide the source for Busy Box and all their modifications to Busy Box.

2) If they are indeed linking to a GPL (instead of LGPL) library then they do indeed need to GPL the whole shebang, or more likely if this is the case, remove the linking.

I worked for a place that shipped Emacs as part of the application install (we basically included a development environment). Emacs as all properly noted and the source was provided if needed, and the elisp extensions were provided as source. Including Emacs didn't require everything else to be GPL'd.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[asaz989]

I think they're also required to include a notice that the code is GPLed (so that a distributor can't just mislead people into thinking they can't request the source).

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Archangel Michael]

If the Busybox software is UNMODIFIED, and there is ALREADY a place to get the source, then I don't get what the problem is.

Simply point the people to busybox site and be done.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Mage Powers]

Unless linking people to http://busybox.net/ can be proven to meet the requirements of "making available" I'd avoid using busybox for anything I plan to distribute. Hopefully they're not just suing for mirrors, asking would be less effort ;)

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[LaminatorX]

Well, we can't really know if they've modified it or not unless they release the code. That's kind of the point.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[tomuo]

No. You have to let the user have the exact same version you used. Pointing to a 3rd party website (even if that is the original author) may be a newer or later version with different compatibilities from the version used in the product. There is no guarantee that that website maintains tarballs of all legacy distribution versions. This is spelled out in the GPL.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Dahamma]

Except that http://busybox.net/downloads contains every busybox release in the last 10 years...

A tarball is a tarball, and if the tar is identical and the link is valid, then why isn't that sufficient? If the site goes down or the tar is removed, then I suppose they'd have an issue, but it shouldn't be any different from their own server going down and having to find a solution.

From the GPL FAQ:

Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you must take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code.

Sounds like as long as the source is available on "a different Internet site", it's ok. If it goes down, they need an alternate arrangement...

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Chandon Seldon]

The busybox source is a 2 meg file. In order to comply with the license, you either need to
A.) Provide that file on a CD (or similar) in the product box OR
B.) Provide a written offer to send a CD for like $5 on request

Neither of those is especially difficult.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Dayofswords]

How did you find out about Busybox being in it? i haven't figured out people find out gpl code is in something.

like here, there is a tv product, how would you find out its using busybox anyways?

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Rogerborg]

Simply point the people to busybox site and be done.

Let's read the license, shall we?

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

M'kay? If you distribute the objects commercially, then it's your responsibility to distribute or provide the source that you used.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

available /= put.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I don't understand the licensing... but if you use any GPL in your code, all of your code is GPL - even if you call an external GPL'ed library. So if you wrote a bazzilion lines of code - and used a 3rd party external library - and found out that they in turn called or used a piece of GPL code - shazam! your code is open-source.

I read through a good deal of the GPL before my eyes went wonky, but that was my take-away. Or did I misunderstand?

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Dan Ost]

No. The only way you can legally distribute your code is as open-source, but you still have the option of not distributing your code at all and keeping it closed.

Your other options include finding an alternate 3rd party library that isn't GPL or writing your own implementation of whatever you're using the library for.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Guspaz]

In my case, it was simple. I noticed that my modem was listening on the telnet port, so I connected. Once connected, I realized that it ran Linux, and a typo in a command showed that it ran BusyBox. If I type "df -foo", it would report a BusyBox help blurb.

BusyBox wasn't the only thing on the router in violation; the Linux kernel itself also was. There were probably also other libraries being infringed.

Re:Got an e-mail from the SFLC this morning

[Dahamma]

It's just an FAQ, not the license. If the wording of the accepted license doesn't distinguish, it doesn't matter. Since it's in the FAQ, it's clearly... well... unclear.

This sounds like a job for the RIAA/MPAA !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sic 'em boyz !!

sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[Chirs]

While I like your sentiment, your statement is wrong. You can selectively enforce copyright all you want.

It's trademarks that lose strength if you don't enforce them.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[AK Marc]

While I like your sentiment, your statement is wrong. You can selectively enforce copyright all you want.

If you enforce 0.000001% of your copyrights, then many places will ignore them. If you enforce 100% of them, then no one will ignore them. That's what I took from them becoming weaker.

It's trademarks that lose strength if you don't enforce them.

I don't think I'd use the "lose strength" terms. It's either valid or not. There is no weak trademark, unless you are talking about one that wasn't vigorously enforced for some time and may or may not be lost and it takes a court order to decide. At least according to the courts, Photoshop and Lego trademarks are as strong as Ford, even though people photoshop their photographs of their kid playing with leggos (and no, I have no idea why the plural adds another "g", it just does). But in the minds of people, the trademark may be weaker. But trademarks are like expiring copyright. It's either 100% in effect or 0% in effect. And the "weakness" is whether you'll get in trouble for using it wrong.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[mirix]

I meant more along the lines of... if breaking the GPL becomes rampant, outfits will lose fear, and you get a sort of critical mass that will be hard to go after, rather than an actual legal loss of strength. If that makes sense at all.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[icebraining]

leggos (and no, I have no idea why the plural adds another "g", it just does)

Actually, it doesn't. LEGO is an adjective, there are no "legos" or "leggos", they're LEGO bricks:

Dear Parents and Children
        The word LEGO(R) is a brand name and is very special to all of us in the LEGO Group Companies. We would sincerely like your help in keeping it special. Please always refer to our bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys' and not 'LEGOS.' By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud and that stands for quality the world over. Thank you!

                Susan Williams
                Consumer Services (Susan's name is a pseudonym for the service dptmt.)

http://www.multicon.de/fun/legofaq.html#a7

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[AK Marc]

Actually, it doesn't. LEGO is an adjective, there are no "legos" or "leggos", they're LEGO bricks:

Woosh.

There is no photoshopping either: http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html

leggos are any bricks that snap together. LEGO is a trademark for a subset of these connecting blocks that has lost true trademark status because people use the word in the generic. That the owner of the trademark asserts something different doesn't surprise me. Though they are still fighting it, which is why I used them and Adobe in my example.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[RedK]

So you're spreading a slang word with a misspelling as a grammatical fact ? At least call them legos and forgo the extra G.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[AK Marc]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=z2h&q=leggos+blocks&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=qi2&ei=S_AmS578A5XKsAOimom7DA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAsQBSgA&q=legos+blocks&spell=1
Within an order of magnitude, the results are the same for the extra g. Perhaps you should figure out how words are used. All words were slang at one time or another.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[Macthorpe]

You do know that Google includes results where it's flagged you've made a misspelling, right? Did you not wonder why half the items on the first page have been picked up with the word 'Lego' bolded even though you searched for 'leggos'?

Talk about a skewed test...

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[AK Marc]

Then "leggos" should have more hits, one for all the "legos" hits, and all the incorrect "leggos" hits. But it wasn't that way.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[koiransuklaa]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22leggos%22+blocks

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22legos%22+blocks

164 "lego" results for every "leggo" result.

I'll let you do the conclusions.

Re:sorry, you've made an incorrect statement

[Macthorpe]

That would be true if google gave you all the hits, even the ones that aren't relevant, but it doesn't.

To back up parent.....

[NoYob]

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

Re:To back up parent.....

[quercus.aeternam]

Yes, it does look that way, but it's a one-shot deal.

Anyone who buys it has exactly the same rights as you do - including selling the binaries or source at half price.

Re:To back up parent.....

[cynyr]

yep, and let me know how many people buy your software at $1,000,000 and how many copies of as source at $1,000,000. As your software has to be licensed with the GPL only one copy needs to make it to the internet for redistribution. As the only thing that would be required is a name change to avoid trademark issues. IANAL but i would think that a statement "This, foobar, is a copy of the program foofoo (tm). All trademarks are owned by their respective owners.", would be likely be legal.

Re:To back up parent.....

[NoYob]

Yes, it does look that way, but it's a one-shot deal.

Anyone who buys it has exactly the same rights as you do - including selling the binaries or source at half price.

Hence the million dollar price tag.

Re:To back up parent.....

[zill]

You can charge whatever you want, that's your freedom.

Depending on the actual worth of the software and its demand, one of two things will happen:

If the total worth of your software (value to each user * total users in the market) is less than $2,000,000, then obviously no one will buy it and you will earn a total of $0.

If the total worth of your software is greater than $2,000,000, then someone will pay you $2,000,000 to obtain your binary and source and re-distribute both under GPL at a reasonable price. Your competitor will capture the entire market and you will only earn $2,000,000 (a small portion of the entire market in this case). Thus by pricing your software above the market price, you have essentially developed a product for your competitor to sell. They will earn most of the profits while undertaking no risk.

In both cases, charging $1,000,000 for your software is not economically optimal.

In other words, the price of a GPL software is completely determined by the market, since anyone with money can buy you out and re-distribute at the market price. In contrast, the price of proprietary software is less constrained by the market, which explains the fact that almost all commercial software is proprietary.

In reality, however, it's impossible to have commercial GPL software since regardless of the price you charge, [insert evil software company here] could buy it and then maliciously re-distribute it for free, thus completely killing off your revenue stream. Thus GPL implies both libre and gratis in the real world.

Re:To back up parent.....

[ebob]

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

Yes you could. But why would anyone buy it?

Re:To back up parent.....

[grcumb]

In other words, the price of a GPL software is completely determined by the market, since anyone with money can buy you out and re-distribute at the market price. In contrast, the price of proprietary software is less constrained by the market, which explains the fact that almost all commercial software is proprietary.

Indeed. Because no one would ever consider redistributing proprietary binary-only software at a price below what the original vendor specified.

I'd better notify the torrent trackers and the Chinese DVD vendors down the road that they're on a fool's errand.

Okay, I shouldn't make light of what you're saying. It's valid, as far as it goes. But it's entirely based on the premise that a software application is a thing to be sold. Recent experience teaches us that binary blobs are really hard to treat as things, because other people keep getting infatuated with how easy they are to copy.

And lest I rely entirely on pirates and hippies to make my case, I should point to the fact that a huge amount of proprietary software is available free of charge as well. Apparently, even our corporate masters have come to realise that selling the service is a more sustainable proposition than selling the object itself.

And even more important - most software is not ever bought or sold. It has no resale value whatsoever. It runs internal systems and derives value for the company, that's true, but it has no measurable resale value. Whether it's proprietary or GPL/BSD/My Aunt Fanny has no bearing on its value.

This is almost certainly the case with the BusyBox implementations being discussed here. Its price is only (notionally) measurable as some fraction of the hardware product - which would cost more if proprietary software were used in its place. So any discussion about GPL's influence on commercial software is somewhat of a digression to begin with.

AND... what's at stake here is companies' non-compliance with GPL i.e. their refusal to release the sources for their software. It has yet to be demonstrated in any meaningful way that GPL compliance in these particular cases would do anything to undercut the companies' bottom line.

So-oo... why is proprietary still supposed to be better for commerce? I submit to you that this assertion's just a tired truism whose validity is diminished by the day.

Re:To back up parent.....

[router]

Term 3b:

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,
a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange ...a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution...

If you think you can argue burning and mailing a CD costs 1M$.

This was tape and mail era, so asking for the source _for free_ was prohibitive since postage and tapes cost money (you could also be bankrupted by your competitor making frivolous, free, source distribution requests).

Now, mail and CD is about a dollar. This has been noted about a million times.

andy

Re:To back up parent.....

[jps25]

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

        Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

Not exactly. The FAQ answer isn't as specific as the GPL(v2) itself, which states under section 3 b)

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

which means to me that while you can charge a million for the software you can hardly charge that much for the source distribution.
Of course IANAL.

Re:To back up parent.....

[s73v3r]

True, but at $1M, he really only needs to sell one copy :-p

Re:To back up parent.....

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one of five different choices of conveying source code. Other choices include providing the source with the object code, e.g. include it on the CD.

Asking for a million dollars for GPL code is just fine.

Re:To back up parent.....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just poor phrasing in the FAQ.

While you can charge that much for the software, once someone has the software you can only charge a reasonable distribution fee for the source code. This is a bit outdated as well, and originates from a time when distributing software involved mailing tape reels; these days it's much easier and cheaper to just make things available online.

This is for GPLv2 anyhow, I'm not sure if it has changed in GPLv3, but I'm sure it hasn't changed in the direction of being able to charge arbitrary amounts for the source.

Re:To back up parent.....

[Again]

AND... what's at stake here is companies' non-compliance with GPL i.e. their refusal to release the sources for their software. It has yet to be demonstrated in any meaningful way that GPL compliance in these particular cases would do anything to undercut the companies' bottom line.

It could be the fact that one company has done all kinds of optimizations to the code which allows them to ship the tv with cheaper chipsets undercutting their competition's tvs.

But you are right in saying that it has not yet been demonstrated that it will undercut these specific companies to release the source code but I'm pretty sure that it won't be demonstrated until the source code is available.

But I'm guessing that whoever made the decision to use GPL didn't properly understand the responsibilities that came with its use.

Or it could be that each of the 14 companies is with-holding their modifications of the source code until the other 13 companies comply and release their source. It isn't hard to imagine a situation where each company would be reluctant to give their competitors any potential advantage.

Re:To back up parent.....

[Urkki]

True, but at $1M, he really only needs to sell one copy :-p

This also applies to old, previously owned cars. You only need to sell one for a million dollars... ;-)

SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AcidPenguin9873]

What the hell, I have karma to burn: It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?

Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil. The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Ant P.]

if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.

A lot more problems would be solved than created if copyright was made that short. Having binary blobs everywhere with no source wouldn't be a problem - we'd just have increasingly better reverse-engineering and decompiling tools, and they'd be fully legal to use on this stuff.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.

I'd take that trade happily. I don't think it'd harm Linux in the slightest, to be honest with you -- there are any number of open source projects out there that aren't GPL and are thriving nevertheless. Might even help Linux if it meant we could legally decompile and reverse-engineer other peoples' stuff that's out there past the 2 year mark.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AK Marc]

The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.

I think these mythical piracy supporters would be all for that. Many seem to be of the mind of "if you are going to make this copyright shit that gets in the way of real progress, then we will use your tool against you." There's nothing wrong with taking the tools of your enemy and using them against him. And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Enleth]

he point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.

Slashdot user base is big.

Didn't it occur to you that these might be completely different individuals?

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Bert64]

Well, it should also be mandatory that source code be made available when a binary falls into the public domain...

And yes, the terms should be very short especially for software, because software ages so quickly. Even stuff that is 2 years old is often considered obsolete and has already been superseded by newer versions.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[selven]

Except a large number of pirate supporters support limited copyright for commercial applications only. It's a perfectly reasonable solution: Hollywood could still make $800 million box office sales with a monopoly on movie theater viewing.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[plasticsquirrel]

You are misunderstanding the purpose of "copyleft" licenses like the GPL and CC Attrib-ShareAlike. These were created to cleverly manipulate the concept of copyrights to ensure certain freedoms for everyone, not simply to protect the interests of the copyright holder. When a company like this is sued for violating the GPL, it is principally for denying certain freedoms to everyone else. I'm sorry I have to quote the Wikipedia article for this subject on Slashdot (you people should all know this stuff, get off my lawn, etc.), but:

Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions.

Recently it's been popular on Slashdot to call out everyone here for being a hypocrite without considering the actual differences in the purposes of ordinary copyrights and the "copyleft" licenses. So there you have it, do you remember the basics of free software now, Slashdot?

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is a community with a lot of different groups and opinions represented.

You can't just take two opinions that have been expressed at various times, declare them incompatible, and pretend that you have scored some kind of point.

There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright. There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL. This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions!

If you find one, you may have a debate, but until then you are just doing the straw man thing.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AcidPenguin9873]

I am fully aware of Copyleft licenses like the GPL and their purpose. The point is, they require copyright law to function. Without copyright law, or with very weak copyright law, they can no longer ensure those freedoms. Software would then have no reason to be open, and because the original creator can't make it so (without copyright), it won't be, as jbn-o points out.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.

Ah, you mean like BSD, Apache, and MIT code. Your complaint being?

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were no copyright, we could then copy that program that included Linux 2.6.15, so what is your point. GPL is a workaround for copyright, if there were no copyright GPL wouldn't need to exist.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a bit misguided. There is nothing wrong regarding the concept of copyright and commercial distribution of a work of art without the author's authorization is widely and explicitly frowned upon. The only gripe regarding the concept of a purely capitalist copyright (i.e., any work of art is just a commercial product, indented to be sold and generate income) that the US is forcing onto the world is that it eliminates the concept of fair use, takes away the copyright from the authors and artists and grants them to shady people and even legal entities such as corporations and grants the copyright owners a totalitarian control on the production, distribution and dissemination of information and cultural works.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[aztracker1]

Personally, I wouldn't mind even a 20 year copyright. I'm against software patents, as imho there's nothing non-obvious, original or unique in software for the past 20 years, just the same *IF* software patents are to continue, a 5 year limitation is probably appropriate there. I won't even get into Trademark abuse though.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AcidPenguin9873]

mythical piracy supporters

I have no idea why you're suggesting that there aren't piracy supporters on Slashdot.

And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).

I disagree. See this post for why they wouldn't really be so happy. It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit. Free software developers would get absolutely nothing in return.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[burnin1965]

I support the GPL, I understand enforcement requires copyright law, and I am against piracy as I think it is actually detrimental to open source software and, well, I think people should be allowed to license their software any way they please. So I'm not sure what your piracy rant was about in your first post but your idea of limiting copyright is intriguing.

Software would then have no reason to be open, and because the original creator can't make it so (without copyright), it won't be

However, I have to disagree with you on this conclusion. There is more to the open source community than just having software open source. The community developing, testing, and using the software is a big chunk of the value in open source software. Once it becomes a bunch of fragmented proprietary closed source branches those branches will be the ones lacking value and will end up dead.

You could potentially have one vendor try to break the community by hiring up all the developers and branching off the code into a proprietary branch but I don't see that happening with the number of developers and their employers who gain value from participating in the community.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AK Marc]

I have no idea why you're suggesting that there aren't piracy supporters on Slashdot.

And I have no idea why they were dumped into one group as if there is no difference in opinion between any of them.

I disagree.

So, when they are all lumped together, there's no problem, but when there is a difference of opinion from within that lump, that's a problem?

It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit. Free software developers would get absolutely nothing in return.

As opposed to today, where the exact same thing you are saying would be a bad result is happening now.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AusIV]

Well, it should also be mandatory that source code be made available when a binary falls into the public domain...

I disagree, because I think that would be a huge imposition on some people. When I was in high school I wrote a Half-Life server-side mod that I gave out for free. Being a teenager who was learning to code, I didn't have any kind of version control, I just kept editing the same source directory. Two years after my first release the project had moved on considerably and I most certainly did not have the original source. Two years after the last release I doubt I had the source for any version of the code.

I suspect this sort of thing is fairly common. I imagine there are lots of pieces of freeware or other cheap software where the company that made it either isn't around after two years or just isn't organized enough to produce the source for a two year old version of their software.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AcidPenguin9873]

You used the phrase "mythical piracy supporters". I don't know what other interpretation I am supposed to take from that. Are only some of the piracy supporters are mythical? What about the rest of them?

And I have no idea why they were dumped into one group as if there is no difference in opinion between any of them.

If you wanted to make a point about how there are some piracy supporters that are different than others, you could have said that, but you didn't.

So, when they are all lumped together, there's no problem, but when there is a difference of opinion from within that lump, that's a problem?

I still don't understand your point about how some of the piracy supporters are different than others. Are you saying that some of them are also GPL supporters? I can make arguments to that if you want, but since I don't know what you're talking about I'm having a hard time doing so.

As opposed to today, where the exact same thing you are saying would be a bad result is happening now.

Wrong. Over the past 2 years, the BusyBox developers have actively pursued litigation against the copyright infringers and had source code released for a wide variety of devices as a result. That is a good thing. Without copyright, that doesn't happen.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AK Marc]

You used the phrase "mythical piracy supporters". I don't know what other interpretation I am supposed to take from that. Are only some of the piracy supporters are mythical? What about the rest of them?

That there is some group with a single opinion would certainly be mythical.

If you wanted to make a point about how there are some piracy supporters that are different than others, you could have said that, but you didn't.

If you wanted to make any point, you could have but didn't.

I still don't understand your point about how some of the piracy supporters are different than others. Are you saying that some of them are also GPL supporters? I can make arguments to that if you want, but since I don't know what you're talking about I'm having a hard time doing so.

Ok, then you don't understand. I'm OK with that.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AcidPenguin9873]

There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright. There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL. This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions!

I would like to note that I said "pirate supporters" in the original post, not "GPL supporters". My post was clearly directed at the first group. The second group is not as clear, but if someone is a big believer in the GPL, they must also support at least some form of copyright for enforcement of the GPL. So my original post would not be directed at them.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[AcidPenguin9873]

If you wanted to make any point, you could have but didn't.

Wrong again. I will paste my point below for you to read again.

Over the past 2 years, the BusyBox developers have actively pursued litigation against the copyright infringers and had source code released for a wide variety of devices as a result. That is a good thing. Without copyright, that doesn't happen.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Chandon Seldon]

It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit.

Who would buy it? One guy so he could rip out the license enforcement malware and share the result with everyone else?

Sure, lots of people would have a bunch of binary blobs on their computer until people realized that releasing blobs was a waste of time, but if any of them were actually important it wouldn't be that hard to re-create source for them.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[the_womble]

I would not actually have a problem with that, especially with regard to software (I think there is a good argument for a reasonable copyright term or about 20 years on books, films music etc.).

Suppose we had a two year copyright on software and no software patents. Developers could reverse engineer any format or codec that is more than two years old. There would be a huge incentive to improve proprietary software so that the latest version is a sufficient improvement on the two year old one to the worth paying for.

So people could make proprietary forks of two year old GPL stuff. Of course they would have to back-port all the security fixes and any new features they want.

It sounds good to me.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Croakus]

I had exactly the same reaction. By the /. way of thinking it's perfectly fine to take a copy of a song that took years of a person's life to write and tens of thousands of dollars to record and release in a professional manor. Or how about downloading a movie that took years to write, employed hundreds of people during its creation and cost millions of dollars to make; that's fine too. Because after all, IP law was "made up" by big companies so they could hoard money (I believe that's how it was explained to me right here on this very board). But if you copy a chunk of software that two guys wrote in their basement over a long weekend, well by God we'll SEND IN THE DOGS OF WAR! Gotta love hypocrisy.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit. Free software developers would get absolutely nothing in return.

As opposed to today, where the exact same thing you are saying would be a bad result is happening now.

I think both of you are missing something here. Lets take a look at what happens if all copyrights expire after two years.

A) Linux version X is written.

B) 2 years latter it enters the public domain.

C) The day after B, Microsoft/Apple/IBM/Other takes a huge block of code from A and includes it in program Y.

D) 2 years latter the all of program Y is public domain.

E) The day after D, a developer takes the engine for snazzy feature and puts it into Linux.

It took how many days to reverse engineer how many programs? If we remove the copyright issue from the table (we would still have patents) you would quickly see a very blurred line between many products including each and every one of your favorite OS's.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Bert64]

If you're selling something for a profit, then you damn well better be organised... If you're making money then there are rules and regulations on how you make the money and how you report earnings to the appropriate tax authorities etc. Having to maintain a snapshot of the source which corresponds to each binary you release is not a great imposition when stacked alongside all the other things you need to do.

If you're giving it away free, why not just give away the source alongside it anyway? Whenever you upload a binary, upload a source tarball at the same time.

Leaving stray binary only abandonware out there is somewhat irresponsible, what if people are still using your mod and security holes are found in it? How are they supposed to fix them? They will either have to stop using it (and thus lose whatever functionality it provides), create a new implementation of it themselves from scratch (could be significant work) or live with the risk of being owned.

Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations

[Arker]

I disagree, because I think that would be a huge imposition on some people. When I was in high school I wrote a Half-Life server-side mod that I gave out for free. Being a teenager who was learning to code, I didn't have any kind of version control, I just kept editing the same source directory. Two years after my first release the project had moved on considerably and I most certainly did not have the original source. Two years after the last release I doubt I had the source for any version of the code.

So? Did you apply for and enforce a copyright grant on that code? Somehow I dont think so.

These days we have the Berne Convention nonsense that copyright is supposed to be automatic, of course. Constitutional (pre-Berne convention) copyright didnt work that way, and was a much better plan. Originally, if you wanted a copyright you had to apply for it. The application had to be accompanied by a hard copy of the work for the Library of Congress. This was not a "gift" which stole from humanity to enrich one person without at least there being a tradeoff - in return for the monopoly you *had* to publish, and leave a copy with the LoC as a sort of escrow, which ensured that after the copyright term expired your work would still be available in the public domain. By default, if you did not do this, there was no copyright on any work. And this regime worked brilliantly for over a hundred years.

There was no "software" when the US Constitution was written, but it's not hard to see how it would be applied. First off, no registration, no copyright, period. Feel free to treat your program as a trade secret, of course. But if you want a copyright on your software, that would be perfectly possible. You would simply have to file an application, including the complete human-readable source code, with the library of congress. In return for a legal monopoly on publication of that work for a limited time, you would ensure that the code would be available to future generations to study, compile, port to new platforms, etc.

The very notion that one can hold and use copyright on a binary blob without ever publishing the actual source code is anathema to the constitutional regime of copyright to begin with.

How to fix the situation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy products made in China.

Infringing devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a list of [some of] the infringing devices from page 8 of the PDF:

• BestBuy's Insignia NS-WBRDVD Blu-ray Disc
  Player
• Samsung's LN52A650 and LA26A450 LCD HDTV's
• Westinghouse's TX-52F480S LCD
  HDTV
• JVC's LT-42P789 LCD HDTV and VN-C20U IP Network Camera
• Western Digital's
  WDBABF0000NBK WD TV HD Media Player
• Bosch's DVR4C Security System DVR
• Phoebe Micro's Airlink101 AR670W and AR690W wireless routers and
  Airlink101 AICAP650W IP Motion Wireless Camera
• Humax's iCord HD HDTV DVR
• Comtrend's CT-5621 and NexusLink 5631/ 5631E ADSL2+ bonded modems
• Dobbs-Stanford's Frame Jazz EyeZone B1080P-2 digital media player
• Versa Tech's PS-730 ITS Gateway and VX-BW2250 weatherproof dual
  radio outdoor wireless access point
• ZyXEL's P-663H-51 ADSL 2+ Bonded 4 Port Router
• Astak's CM-818DVR4V security camera system with DVR and CM-04DE and CM-04DEV
  security system DVR devices
• and, GCI's Cortex HDC-3000 digital music controller

Mod parent troll/flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Those companies were offered the use of copyrighted code under certain terms, had every opportunity to learn those terms, and either willfully or negligently violated them. Dragging their asses into civil court is not "wrong." If anyone belongs there over a copyright beef, it's them.

Speak for yourself, white man.

[argent]

The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.

Which pirate supporters are you referring to?

But...

[fyngyrz]

Seems like they were given enough chances to respond, it would've been the same with proprietary software.

But... it wouldn't have been the same with PD software (like this), which is actually free, as opposed to "we will ruin your life with lawyers if you use it any way but how we tell you", which is a summary of GPL-poisoned software.

The GPL is a travesty foisted off on the programming community - it is anti-progress and a wasteful time sink and anti-freedom and court fodder and lawyer bait. Other than that, of course, it's just great. :/

Re:But...

[Bert64]

No the GPL is just somewhere between "actually free" and totally proprietary...
How do you think most commercial vendors would react if you started distributing their code in violation of their terms?

The GPL is a defence mechanism, primarily against vendors who would take open code, perform minor changes to break compatibility and they try to lock people in to proprietary forks. Noone really likes it, it's just a sad fact of life that if you give people too much freedom they will abuse it.

Re:But...

[icebraining]

"we will ruin your life with lawyers if you use it any way but how we tell you"

In reality, most of the GPL code copyright owners are more than happy to drop the claims if you comply by releasing the changes.

anti-progress

No, proprietary software is anti-progress, because unlike free software it locks the people who bought the software out. People who license their code with GPL are simply saying "I don't want the software I wrote helping people getting locked out", while PD/BSD/MIT/etc are more than happy to contribute to it.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone really likes it, it's just a sad fact of life that if you give people too much freedom they will abuse it.

Freedom un-abused isn't really freedom at all.

Re:But...

[dfghjk]

"The GPL is a defence mechanism, primarily against vendors who would take open code, perform minor changes to break compatibility and they try to lock people in to proprietary forks. Noone really likes it, it's just a sad fact of life that if you give people too much freedom they will abuse it."

That's nonsense. The GPL isn't a "defence (sic) mechanism" and to say "Noone (sic) really likes it" is absurd. The GPL is the primary means for advancing an ideology where everyone has source for everything. There are plenty who love it.

Re:But...

[fyngyrz]

How do you think most commercial vendors would react if you started distributing their code in violation of their terms?

I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects. This, however, is the dominant litany for GPL code.

People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft tells me that their sample code for their driver development code is free. They also tell me that as long as I add something substantial to it, I am able to redistribute the binary derived work. They let me continue to be proprietary. Clearly its not as nice for the hackers down the line who want the source code to my drivers, but it's really nice for me.

Re:But...

[matt_hs]

People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.

Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing the issue here.

The GPL boils down to the following:

1. If you want to use GPL software privately, as an individual, knock yourself out. Make changes, do whatever you want. Have fun.
2. If you want to use GPL software privately, within your organization, knock yourself out. Make changes, do whatever you want. Have fun.
3. If you want to distribute GPL software outside of your realm (personal or organization) in binary form, you need to distribute (or otherwise make available) the source code too in a manner that does not burden the recipient (you can't charge $500 just for the CD with the source code). Make changes, do whatever you want. But make the source code available in a reasonable manner. Credit where credit's due.

If you don't want to follow these rules, don't use pre-existing GPL code as the basis for your product. Problem solved. Or, if you want to see if the author (or authors) is/are willing to re-license it under a different license for your project, you can do that too. And yes, there are additional details regarding patents and such, but the above is the gist of the license. Those additional details are intended to ensure that any downstream recipients won't be encumbered by other legal restrictions that may prevent them from exercising the rights they receive with the source code.

For all the complaining about the restrictions placed on them by the GPL, the above seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing? I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.

Re:But...

[Pieroxy]

What am I missing? I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.

You're missing the point. The GP is not saying the GPL is bad, he is saying the GPL is a license like every other license. Hence, GPL code is not "free" but it licensed and as such, if you want to use it, you have to abide by the license or get sued. Just like any other code licensed, proprietary or not.

"free" code is public domain code, or WTFPL code, but nothing more. Not GPL.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

"we will ruin your life with lawyers if you use it any way but how we tell you"

No.

"you can do anything you want with the code, but we will ruin your llife with lawyers if you don't let us use your changes"

If you want to take advantage of GPL code you are bound by the GPL. If you don't like the GPL don't use GPL code. Not so dificult to understand is it.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL code is free. The *CODE* is free. The code can not be locked down, constrained or encumbered.

If you could put a free bird in a cage it would be free no longer. This means you are not free to do what you want with the bird, because the birds freedom is protected.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

a Man is not a free if anyone else can take given freedom away and slave the man.

Software is not a libre if anyone can take it and turn it proprietary software.

To protect freedom, we need to have laws and other rules what protects it. Without rules, we do not have freedom but everyone has all rights to slave who ever they want, or became slaves for someone else by others actions.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects. This, however, is the dominant litany for GPL code"

Yes, it is free of restrictions as to what use you put it to. As long as you extend those self same freedoms to your downstrean customers.

"People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is"

'FREE', in the context of the GPL means free of restrictions. Provide an example of 'commercial code', that provides the same freedoms as the GPL.

"Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car"

For a small developers, which is better, having your own legal department or leaving it to such organizations as the Software Freedom Law Center

rest of bullshit deleted ...

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence, GPL code is not "free" but it licensed and as such, if you want to use it, you have to abide by the license or get sued.

You write "use" when what you really should write is "distribute".

There is a difference, and it is a LARGE one. One consequence of the difference is that the GPL says nothing about your use of the covered code. It only covers what you need to do if you want to distribute the code to someone else, with or without any modifications.

The misuse of the word "use" instead of "distribute" is what leads to recurring misunderstandings and confusion where people somehow get the impression that the GPL is in any shape or form similar to an EULA. It is not.

Re:But...

[phoenix321]

GPL is not the most "free" of all licenses, there are also LGPL and BSD style licenses that pose almost no limits on using the souce.

I strongly object labeling "some restrictions" as "not free" or "freedom" = "no restrictions at all", because that is not the nature of freedom. Freedom is the absence of coercion or compulsion and that not only needs, but absolutely requires some very specific restrictions that are enforced hard and fast.

In personal freedom, it is your right to swing your fist or wander around other people's backyards that must be restricted. The same applies to software: when no individual is subject to any restrictions, you are bound to get some individuals oppressing others. Freedom needs defense or it becomes mob-rule.

Now excuse me while I get my check from the US Army Advertisement office.

Re:But...

[Soruk]

"defence" is the correct spelling in English.

(English - as in the language of England.)

Re:But...

[metamatic]

I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects.

Never compiled a C program, eh?

Re:But...

[Urkki]

You're missing the point. The GP is not saying the GPL is bad, he is saying the GPL is a license like every other license. Hence, GPL code is not "free" but it licensed and as such, if you want to use it, you have to abide by the license or get sued. Just like any other code licensed, proprietary or not.

"free" code is public domain code, or WTFPL code, but nothing more. Not GPL.

No, with GPL, the code is free, it can't be "locked away" while binaries are distributed. Any developers working with GPL code are not totally free, as the license requires them to maintain the freedom of code. And freedom of the code in turn enables a lot of things (learning, copying, modifying, ensuring interoperability, etc) that IMHO are very good, so requiring freedom of the code is quite justified.

Then there are other licenses, most notably BSD, which are more about the freedom of other developers at the expense of freedom of code, as they allow other developer to release binaries while locking the code away.

Re:But...

[unitron]

And "Noone" is English as well.

As in Peter Noone, of Herman's Hermits. : - )

Re:But...

[Bert64]

Only this is a website hosted in the US, where a slight variation of english is used and "defense" is perfectly correct.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the difference between an anarchy and a republic. In theory, you are more free in an anarchy; in practice, you are more free in a republic, where my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. ;-)

So yes, the GPL does protect freedom, it protects the freedom of ALL the participants. It doesn't give one side more freedom at the cost of the other.

I finally understand!!!

[wjsteele]

So this is how you make money with F/OSS.

1.) Write F/OSS.
2.) File Lawsuits against infringers.
3.) ???
4.) Profit!!!

I'm curious... how much money would he have made from the software if he didn't sue?

Bill

Re:I finally understand!!!

[selven]

It's been said here 10 times, but I'll say it again.

The FSF/SFLC GPL (ok, that's a load of acronyms) enforcement efforts are not about money; they're about compliance. These people try hard to create a peaceful solution for GPL violations, and only resort to lawsuits when it's clear that they're not intent on cooperating.

Re:I finally understand!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that:

3) Pay lawyers

Re:I finally understand!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if the company had followed the rules, then either a) the company would have paid the author some money for a closed-license version of the source so they could incorporate it into their product without releasing the source, or b) the company would have had to release their changes, which could then be merged back into the project (not directly money, but programmer time is a resource with non-zero value). Or c) the company made no changes to the GPLed code but wouldn't redistribute the source even after they were warned because they're a bunch of idiots, in which case this represents the idiot tax.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Re:I finally understand!!!

[Tuoqui]

About the same as the piracy figures the BSA would come up with... In theory.

You must have forgotten laches

[tepples]

You can selectively enforce copyright all you want.

It's trademarks that lose strength if you don't enforce them.

Not exactly. Copyright and patent claims are still subject to laches, even if the penalty for delay is weaker than for a trademark claim.

CC-BY and CC-BY-SA

[tepples]

License terms for permissive free software licenses amount to the following: "You must credit us in x way." Unlike a copyleft license, this doesn't subvert any proprietary software business model. Compare this to the difference between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses.

Re:CC-BY and CC-BY-SA

[minsk]

Yet there are still dipsticks who can't preserve a copyright line, license, and warranty disclaimer.

Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[jbn-o]

That depends on what you mean by "use". Typically people mean executing a program, running the software. The terms of the GPLv2 (Busybox's license) do not compel one to do anything upon running the software. And this quality is not unique to the GPL.

Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[nedlohs]

The meaning is dead obvious from the context, and it isn't what you declare to be the typical one.

Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes and no. If you only run th esoftware you need do nothing more, however:

From GPL v2

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[Bacon Bits]

Use in a commercial product more or less necessitates distribution, which is exactly the kind of "use" the GPL applies to and exactly the kind of "use" these companies have done.

Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[jedidiah]

"the context" is copyrighted works.

In that context, there is indeed a meaningful difference between merely "using" something and creating derivative works and distributing them.

Glossing over these issues in order to muddle things is simply dishonest.

Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[Urkki]

Well, yes and no. If you only run th esoftware you need do nothing more, however:

I think it's been established in court, that copying the software from hard disk to memory is creating a copy as meant by copyright law. So if you load the binaries from HD to memory, you need to be prepared to provide your computer and memory also the source code, as stated by the license. Also make sure that the license text is part of the binary distributed from disk to memory, so your computer knows that it has the right to get the source code if it wants to.

Re:Use doesn't require meeting conditions.

[nedlohs]

The context is some companies being sued for including GPLd software on hardware devices.

provide non-"free" alternatives

[icepick72]

Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off. Then give away (or sell) the proprietary versions. I don't mean fork it. I mean from scratch, in a clean room environment, to keep it untainted. It's the reverse situation of making an open source alternative to a free product.

Re:provide non-"free" alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidently you don't understand why many open source projects are so successful. They're successful because of their development model which requires openness.

Re:provide non-"free" alternatives

[RAMMS EIN]

There are plenty of nonfree alternatives. For example, VxWorks, QNX and Windows CE. And some companies actually use those in situations where other companies would use Linux + Busybox.

However, even nonfree software licenses are often violated. Too many people assume that once you have your copy, you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:provide non-"free" alternatives

[Urkki]

Somebody should create closed source versions of the open source projects that are most often ripped off.

There's certainly a business case here. However, it's not easy, and there's competition (like commercial embedded operating systems) already. The most major difficulty would be marketing. How do you find the customers (who today get the GPL version with a command like 'apt-get source busybox', and know it), and convince them that your proprietary version is any good, and doesn't have a million bugs that have been ironed out from the GPL version by the millions of users.

Credible arguments for short/no term of copyright?

[jbn-o]

Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all? FSF speakers have long pointed out the problem of no copyright, a very short term of copyright, and overly long copyright. My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.

No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper), no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require), and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).

Short terms of copyright (like the 2-year term you mention) means that proprietors can incorporate strongly copylefted work into their proprietary software during the time in which the software is reasonably current and likely to provide a competitive edge. This means even those who want to a defensible commons (like what the GPL maintains) cannot do so based on copyright law alone. A short term of copyright came up in Richard Stallman's critique of the Swedish Pirate Party:

How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free software? After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?

Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.

So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.

Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share.

Most countries give people the means to place their work into the public domain immediately upon publication or else waive copyright restrictions their laws mandate. Building the PD in this way simply doesn't strike me as an impediment to social progress. But those looking to provide alternatives to proprietary software in order to share freedom for all computer users don't have the PD as a viable option; we would be universal donors and proprietors would build upon our works as universal recipients. I certainly don't want to treat proprietors as charities.

Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig

[AcidPenguin9873]

Finally, some semblance of sanity.

Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?

No. The only arguments I have heard in this vein are from Slashdotters who like The Pirate Bay too much.

My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.

Agreed again.

I can't ascertain your position on copyright from your post. Stallman seems to grudgingly favor a medium-length copyright out of necessity, a "least evil" approach if you will, where he thinks copyright in and of itself is generally evil. I don't agree with that. From what I can tell, Stallman thinks that all software should be developed and effectively given away gratis (which is basically one of his goals if I understand them correctly). I think that leads to two conclusions: a) software developers cannot function as software developers in a capitalist society, they have to do something else to pay bills like sell hardware that uses their software, or mop floors at Wendy's, or b) Stallman really wants a communist society. I don't like either a or b, so I can't call copyright evil on its face.

Really - who owns the copyright?

[karl.auerbach]

Paragraph 31 of the complaint asserts that "Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner"

Really? Has there been an assignment by the authors of all of the pieces of busybox? (Wasn't Bruce Perens the original author?)

I've seen the FSF do a good job of getting those assignments, but I don't see any claim of those here.

And without those assignments Paragraph 31 might be construed as incorrect. And without formal registrations of all of the pieces by all of the authors (or a cumulative registration supported by assignments) there could be some weakness in this complaint.

Re:Really - who owns the copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, then any code written by Mr. Andersen simply must be removed from the final distributed version.

And then SFLC just has to find another copyright holder willing to participate in the lawsuit... which I'm sure the manufacturers will quickly realize is a losing proposition for them - making GPL compliance a far easier solution.

Re:Really - who owns the copyright?

[NiteMair]

It appears Erik Andersen is responsible for a large amount of rewritten core apps in BusyBox:

http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS

Re:Really - who owns the copyright?

[nedlohs]

"a copyright owner" does not mean "the only copyright owner", in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners (which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his).

Re:Really - who owns the copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a copyright owner" does not mean "the only copyright owner", in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners (which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his).

Leave the man alone, 'karl.auerbach' is just doing his job, pretending to misunderatand what the complaint says and addressing that strawman. When he's not trolling slashdot, he's a pretend lawyer on Usenet .. :)

Fix the moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously how does this shit get modded up? And how is it still modded up after it falls flat on it's face for being wrong. Iwsimon please stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about. Please stick with windows is super comments as you don't understand what the point of free software is.

Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig

[burnin1965]

a) software developers cannot function as software developers in a capitalist society, they have to do something else to pay bills like sell hardware that uses their software, or mop floors at Wendy's

I suppose it may not be obvious but there are many more possibilities besides selling hardware and working at Wendy's. There are many developers today who are working as developers on open source projects as employees of companies like Red Hat, IBM, TrollTech, etc.

I could be wrong but I suspect your concern is less about making money as a developer and more about making profits off control of distribution.

I understand that open source licensing requires new ideas on commercializing developer skills but at the same time I also understand that the closed source proprietary software method with licensing while profitable is a false market. After a product is developed the cost of reproduction and even distribution is virtually $0.00.

This creates a huge potential for profit margins as long as you can maintain a fake scarcity of product supply. With open source licensing these fake markets are coming under pressure to compete in ways that is going to hit those profit margins.

I agree that communism would be a huge mistake but I also disagree that open source, limited copyrights, or even a lack of copyrights would result in software developers being limited to selling hardware or working at Wendy's.

Why isn't this modded to hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

'white man' is suddenly an acceptable expression?

Fuck off and die, Argent, you worthless human shit race-provoker.

Re:Why isn't this modded to hell?

[argent]

Because most people recognize the reference, I guess.

Great way to encourage use of open-source!

[noidentity]

What a great way to encourage use of open-source software: sue people! Oh, wait, you say you aren't suing them for using the source code, but because they refuse to release their modifications? Hmmm.... er, well nevermind, carry on. Why are they having so much trouble releasing their modifications when someone requests them?

Re:Great way to encourage use of open-source!

[tangent3]

The violators probably did not make any modifications. But it is still their obligation to make the unmodified source code available.

Yep

[Akita24]

A nice list of all of the same assholes that constantly whine about how their IP is being stolen. Funny how everybody else is the pirate/bad guy/criminal/whatever but the logic never applies to them.

Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig

[AcidPenguin9873]

I suppose it may not be obvious but there are many more possibilities besides selling hardware and working at Wendy's. There are many developers today who are working as developers on open source projects as employees of companies like Red Hat, IBM, TrollTech, etc.

That's true, but I would say that a lot of those companies make money (and thus pay their free software developers) via selling hardware, or selling their software in conjunction with support or ancillary services. In other words, software as a primary means of generating revenue is not viable.

I could be wrong but I suspect your concern is less about making money as a developer and more about making profits off control of distribution.

Not really...I am mostly concerned with software developers making money for developing software. I suppose that is not clear from any of my posts.

I understand that open source licensing requires new ideas on commercializing developer skills but at the same time I also understand that the closed source proprietary software method with licensing while profitable is a false market. After a product is developed the cost of reproduction and even distribution is virtually $0.00.

Agreed, but there is still the initial creation cost. In the proprietary model, which admittedly is a false market, the creation cost gets amortized in with every sale, so that once X units are sold, the developers' salaries are paid. I guess what I'm saying is that I never saw a problem with this model, other than the closed nature of the software post-sale.

SFLC lawyers have the world's worst signature

[Dan B.]

Seriously, open the PDF and go to page 12.

Whoever signed that obviously doesn't have a chequebook or a credit card!

Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig

[burnin1965]

I guess what I'm saying is that I never saw a problem with this model, other than the closed nature of the software post-sale.

And I'd have to agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with the model either. It definitely works out to the advantage of the developer or corporation that is the copyright holder and places the end user at a significant disadvantage but I don't find it to be wrong. And I suspect there will be instances where software will remain closed source and proprietary in order to maintain a viable balance between those initial development costs and the size of the market.

But I would add that in most cases the developer will be working for a company providing licensing and services around the developed software no different than if they worked for a company that provided hardware with services. In most cases its not going to make any difference for the developers themselves.

In my opinion open source has increased market potential for developers by lowering the licensing cost barrier for many end users. The only real threat here is to the 98% profit margins of some software licensing companies and their fat boards and management structures.

Boycott restrictive licenses like GPL!

[AlexLibman]

Restrictive licenses like (L)GPL rely on government force, which makes it no different ethically than proprietary software, and its viral and economically unsustainable nature makes it even worse!

Only permissively-licensed software like BSD and Apache is truly "free", and there's nothing wrong with using proprietary software if it makes economic sense to do so.

Software freedom should be driven by free market competition, not government force!

(See my post history for more info.)

Re:Boycott restrictive licenses like GPL!

[Skapare]

So you don't believe in using government force to deal with theft?

Re:Boycott restrictive licenses like GPL!

[AlexLibman]

(1) Copying 1's and 0's is not theft.

(2) There are many ways to defend your actual Natural Rights without a centralized power monopoly called "government", but that's a separate issue. There is no such thing as a Natural Right to initiate aggression against someone who used your tar-file without obeying your license.txt!

GPL BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

This will get modded down to hell for this, but:

This is great. This is *why* the GPL is great. The *BSD crowd just whine when companies "make money from *BSD without giving back", and think the GPL is some manifesto against ever charging money (which is news to Red Hat).

How do I comply?

[SharpFang]

Okay, my commercial, and definitely closed-source embedded product uses Linux and Busybox (plus a big closed-source app running on top of that, doing the actual work). This is an industrial device, costing good 5-digit figure. There are some small modifications to the kernel that can be released (but serve no real point for the "real world", because they are tailored for the app and underlying proprietary hardware). It is also about impossible anyone would ever wish to mess with the code, simply because of risk associated with screwing up the expensive hardware.

What is the best, right way to comply with GPL? Publish kernel+modules+sources on WWW? Attach a CD to the documentation book? How much am I required to publish?

Re:How do I comply?

[noname444]

Add a notice in the manual that some parts of the product use GPL licensed code.
If a customer to whom you've distributed a binary version of a program containing GPL licensed code asks for the source code, give it to him/her.

Re:How do I comply?

[managementboy]

There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic. As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware, that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes, you would gladly provide the source code upon request. I personally prefer when companies, regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software, post these on their website. It just feels more "community" like, which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers.

Re:How do I comply?

[anti-NAT]

Start by reading the GPL to find out what your obligations are.

Re:How do I comply?

[TheRaven64]

First, you are doing it wrong. The time to ask how you comply with a license to a piece of software is before you use it, not after. Second, compliance should be pretty easy for you. The simplest way is to just pop a copy of the Linux and BusyBox sources on a CD that you include with the device. You can alternatively accompany the device with a written offer of the source, but it's probably cheaper just to burn a CD. It will add a few dollars to your costs, which is likely insignificant for a 5-digit sale price.

Re:How do I comply?

[Urkki]

If your binary distribution (the industrial device) isn't publicly available, then the source code needn't be either. You are obliged to provide the source only to those who have the binary code.

If your embedded device has large enough disk, just put the source code there, available via http or ssh or ftp. In your case it might even be sensible to include gcc in the disk (if it's large enough), so the end-user can actually modify the source in-site and recompile inside the device. This has the bonus, that if they break it, they'll call you and you get to do some billable hours fixing their mess :-)

Re:How do I comply?

[goldfndr]

For GPL v3, one is obliged to provide the source only to those who have the binary code (6b). However, for GPL v2, the offer must be valid for any third party (3b). And it doesn't necessarily apply anyway for v3, due to the termination section (v3 section 8 has taken effect).

Releasing source code enough?

[RAMMS EIN]

While on the topic, I have a question. Is releasing the source code to whatever copyleft software you are using actually enough for compliance? For example, suppose I made a device and used a modified Linux kernel, some kind of build from unmodified Busybox sources and some proprietary software, would offering a download of the modified Linux source code and a download of the Busybox source code exactly as the Busybox project supplies it be enough?

Note that while such releases would presumably allow one to build ones own kernel and Busybox based on the same sources being used in the product, there would be no scripts or instructions for re-creating the same kernel and Busybox binaries used in the product, let alone instructions for creating a complete, usable firmware image for the product.

Emprex too

[naich]

I got one of their ME1 multimedia enclosures. It's great, and uses Busybox. I can't find the source code anywhere on their web site.

http://www.emprex.com/03_support_02.php?pg_no=10&group=84&kind=1

You're confused about Open Source

[jonaskoelker]

Major correction. We do want people embracing open source [...] If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well.

You are aware that the GPL is both an Open Source and a Free Software license, right? How does the label you choose to attach to it (OSS vs. FS) change what the redistributor has to do? Right, it doesn't. I think you're confusing OSS with F/OSS and Free Software with Copyleft.

See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical -- you'll notice that the GPL is on there. And here's the definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.

That would be zero. "The license shall not restrict any party from selling [...]". It's the same for free software.

We want people embracing F/OSS, taking the code, creating their own product, and selling it, as long as they are in compliance with all the relevant licenses, no matter whether those licenses are Open Source, Free or both; no matter whether the licenses are copyleft or not. Make a killing, and we're all happy as long as you stick to the licenses.

Re:You're confused about Open Source

[lwsimon]

Yeah, I understand that, I just misworded it. I meant redistribution without source, which happens a lot.

Re:You're confused about Open Source

[jonaskoelker]

Did you mean to reply to my previous parent? I was correcting his correction of your post. Even if we apply your correction to your previous post, my previous parent is still wrong.

Re:

[clint999]

What am I missing? I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.

List of the 14 companies :

[inkhorn]

Best Buy
Samsung Electronics America
Westinghouse Digital Electronics
JVC Americas Corporation
Western Digital Technologies
Robert Bosch
Phoebe Micro
Humax USA
Comtrend Corporation
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation
Versa Technology
Zyxel Communications
Astak
GCI Technologies Corporation

From the PDF: Judge Scheindlin?

[jimicus]

OK, I read the PDF. First thing that grabbed me was "Judge Scheindlin".

Isn't that the judge on Judge Judy?

Re:From the PDF: Judge Scheindlin?

[VGPowerlord]

Her full name is Judith Sheindlin (no c).

GPL FUD injection

[Anonymous Coward]

A license that prevents you from restricting my freedom is somehow restrictive ? I don't think so, trollie ;) > (See my post history for more info.) NO !!!

Re:GPL FUD injection

[AlexLibman]

The freedom to potentially create a closed-source fork does not "restrict your freedom", it enables mine!

Enforcement of GPL licenses is a growing issue in the software industry, with anyone who's ever touched both a GPL and a proprietary codebase now in fear of legalistic aggression being used against them!

Software freedom should come from voluntary action and free market competition, not government force!

Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig

[dylan_-]

Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?

Well, I'm not sure how serious I am, but I'd like to see copyright abolished.

No copyright means no end to the tyranny of proprietary software (said programs never enter the public domain even on paper),

Well, I think the BSD folks would argue that free software would still exist. Don't most EULAs depend on copyright to enforce their terms too?

no way for free software developers to require credit when building on their work (as some free software licenses require),

Not so. An attribution law does not require a copyright law. We could have one without the other, if it was deemed necessary.

and no reciprocal contribution to the commons when distributing or conveying the work or a derivative (like the GPL does).

Again, there could be a separate non-copyright law covering this situation, but personally I'd rather we did without.

I'm a keen GPL supporter, but that's because it makes something useful out of the "evil" of copyright. I'd happily sacrifice the minor "good" to remove the major "evil".

Bull

[Kopachris]

Really. I read the complaint, and it sounds pretty leak-proof, but don't you think they should be suing the manufacturers of the products, instead of the poor retail stores? Because really—what could Best Buy do about this? Not sell stuff? No, the manufacturer should be made to include the GPL in the manual of the affected products, with a link to where one can download the source code. I think that would be fair. As it stands, though, I think they should go through with the lawsuit, and bring it to the attention of the public that Free Software (as in Freedom) is not something rare and unclean, but something that none of us could live without in modern life.

Re:Credible arguments for short/no term of copyrig

[juhaz]

Not really...I am mostly concerned with software developers making money for developing software. I suppose that is not clear from any of my posts.

People who work for companies that make shiny shrink-wrapped cardboard boxes sold to end-users are few and far between, vast majority of all software developers are making money for developing customized in-house software, a market which would probably not even notice if copyrights were abolished tomorrow.

Re:

[clint999]

You can charge whatever you want, that's your freedom. Depending on the actual worth of the software and its demand, one of two things will happen: If the total worth of your software (value to each user * total users in the market) is less than $2,000,000, then obviously no one will buy it and you will earn a total of $0. If the total worth of your software is greater than $2,000,000, then someone will pay you $2,000,000 to obtain your binary and source and re-distribute both under GPL at a reasonab

Concrete Example to Back Parent's Claim

[Gazzonyx]

Case in point, Microsoft's original TCP/IP stack was based on BSD licensed Spider (spyder? Too lazy to check). It shipped with Windows under a proprietary license and IIRC the BSD attribution could be found if you grepped the libraries binaries. That was way before my time, though (I'm 25), so I might not have it exactly correct.

Freedom vs. Benefit

[bill_mcgonigle]

No the GPL is just somewhere between "actually free" and totally proprietary...

Freedom and benefit aren't always tightly coupled. GPL optimizes community benefit at the expense of individual freedom. BSD optimizes for individual benefit, and sometimes the community suffers (in the opportunity cost sense) for it. Sometimes though BSD gets a company on board and the community gets the leavings, if not the main course. GPL forces the issue, but may eliminate some opportunities if it's the only choice.

Fortunately the evolved status quo (GPL + BSD + others) covers the field pretty well, so we have a good answer for most customers.

MOD PARENT WRONG! (Sorry for caps)

[jonaskoelker]

Sorry, sorry, sorry for yelling in the title.

Parent characterizes open source, free software and the different between those quite inaccurately. See my longer explanation at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1478140&cid=30441788

(Also, non-copyleft licenses can be free, so parent's claim of "Free Software (implies) Must Release Source" is wrong as well).

Would someone please see to it that this post which spreads misinformation (innocently, I assume) isn't modded informative?