Slashdot Mirror
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."
Is it affected?
Seems like they were given enough chances to respond, it would've been the same with proprietary software.
-- Linux user #369862
Are you sure these companies "embrace" open source? sounds to me like they really just raped it...
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".
Learn about Photography Basics.
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.
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.
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.
If you don't agree with the license, don't use GPL'd software.
Code Error: Wrong + Wrong != Right
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:
You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.
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")?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Big fucking deal. Follow the license or don't use the code.
Yeah, right. "Hey, instead of using Linux, let's write our own kernel."
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.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
So, err, there's no risk of a lawsuit by stealing someone else's proprietary code? I sincerely beg to differ on that one.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You don't need the license to *use* the code.
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).
Yeah, because if you steal commercial code and hide it in your product, you're sooo much better off.
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.
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.
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.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
By use, I mean incorporate into your product or create a derivative work.
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.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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...
Sent from my PDP-11
Which is still possible without releasing any source code.
The keyword here is "distributing" - even if you don't create a derivative at all.
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?
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
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).
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.
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
In other news, thousands of corporate gpl users reevaluate violating the license.
Fixed that for you.
I feel dirty.
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.
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!"
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You mean, like Google?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
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.
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.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
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.
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.
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.
Out of curiosity, what's a TV doing with BusyBox?
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
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?
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.
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)
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
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
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.
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.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I assume you have yet to see the latest range of net connected TVs?
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.
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.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
And if you're that worried about secrets, write your own damn code and don't use the GPL. Simple.
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:
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
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.
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!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
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...
It appears Erik Andersen is responsible for a large amount of rewritten core apps in BusyBox:
http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS
In reality, most of the GPL code copyright owners are more than happy to drop the claims if you comply by releasing the changes.
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
No sig for the moment.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Actually, use it all you want. Just don't distribute it.
Because most people recognize the reference, I guess.
"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).
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.
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".
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Camping on quad since 1996.
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.
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.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
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:
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.
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
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
Kid-proof tablet..
Remember the triple damages... That price will be included in the buying price of Microsoft, SAP, or however you decide buy.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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
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.
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.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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).
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I don't see that definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
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)
XML - A clever joke would be here if
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)
XML - A clever joke would be here if
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
OK, I read the PDF. First thing that grabbed me was "Judge Scheindlin".
Isn't that the judge on Judge Judy?
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.
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.
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.
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?
So you don't believe in using government force to deal with theft?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Well, I'm not sure how serious I am, but I'd like to see copyright abolished.
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?
Not so. An attribution law does not require a copyright law. We could have one without the other, if it was deemed necessary.
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".
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"defence" is the correct spelling in English.
(English - as in the language of England.)
-- Soruk
Yes, because there are no open source, non-GPL'd, kernels around. They'd obviously have to start completely from scratch.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
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?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I don't think that's true. You can use BSD code in products that have non-free licenses.
*sigh* back to work...
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
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?
If it runs busybox, *you* can turn on that HTTP server yourself! =)
Never compiled a C program, eh?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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).
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.
And "Noone" is English as well.
As in Peter Noone, of Herman's Hermits. : - )
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Only this is a website hosted in the US, where a slight variation of english is used and "defense" is perfectly correct.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!