Telstra Violating the GPL?

daria42 writes "It looks like Australia's largest telco, Telstra, hasn't exactly been paying attention to its responsibilities under the GNU GPL. Australian coder Angus Gratton has been investigating the company's branded T-Hub, T-Box and T-Touch products — all based on Linux, and all without any source code or GPL license attached. Naughty. However, it's not as though Telstra is the only one to blame — the goods are manufactured by Sagem, Netgem and Huawei respectively." Telstra responded quickly to Gratton's claims, saying they would work with the vendors to straighten out the licensing situation and fix any compliance issues.

Comments

I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia Telstra is the villain that everyone loves to hate. But in this case, it is not really their problem. They paid some OEM for a branded product that I very much doubt they had that much invested in. This is really a minor oversight that has been turned into a story.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[marky_boi]

Can't why this is flamebait, seems closer to the truth than not.....
GPL isn't part of the Telstra culture, I'm going for oversight and relying on the supplier to have crossed the "T's" and dotted the "I's"

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Charliemopps]

ignorance is no excuse. I've been told this by a judge while in court. Time for a Judge to tell Telstra.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[DrgnDancer]

Ignorance of the law is indeed no excuse (though it is often a mitigating factor), but in this case I'm not sure Telstra has broken a law. They sold and/or rented these devices to their customers as a reseller. Are they responsible for GPL compliance or is the original manufacturer? They slapped their brand on the things, but had nothing to do with design or manufacture. I honestly have no idea what their legal responsibility is, and I doubt anyone but an Austrailian IP attorney could offer a valid opinion. To my mind this is the OEM's problem not the reseller. After all we don't go after Best Buy if some product on their shelves is violating the GPL.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[dbIII]

With the greatest possible respect, it's work for hire and has their name on it so they cannot deny responsibility.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

ignorance is no excuse. I've been told this by a judge while in court. Time for a Judge to tell Telstra.

But (at least in the US and depending on the crime/civil matter/whatever at hand) *intent* is/can/may-be/sometimes-is an excuse, or at least a defense......

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not responsible for the manufacturer's compliance, they are responsible for theirs. By distributing/redistributing the devices, they are in violation themselves. The GPL permits redistribution, but only on it's terms, so just saying the manufacturer screwed up doesn't let Telstra off the hook.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm going for oversight and relying on the supplier to have crossed the "T's" and dotted the "I's"

I don't know about you, but I also cross my "I's". Twice in fact!

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[morgan_greywolf]

This is correct. While Netgem, Sagem/Safran, and Huwei are liable for not complying with the GPL, so is Telstra. The GPL is a permission that applies to each recipient/distributor of the code, and that would include Telstra. There are no exceptions for distributing it on a piece of hardware that you just slapped your label on.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[DrgnDancer]

I'd accept that now that they've been made aware of the infringement they have a responsibility to make the information available. I don't know that there's any case for any sort of retroactive damages or anything like that. There's a legal difference between ignorance of the law (no excuse), and ignorance of what you're doing (typically considered excusable). If I'm selling stolen goods in my shop, but can make a reasonable case that I didn't know they were stolen, I'm typically not held responsible. I can't keep selling the items in question of course, but I'm not going to be fined or sent to jail. In this case, if Telstra makes a good faith effort to correct the problem (which it seems like they are doing), I don't think they did anything "wrong" per se.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[DrgnDancer]

Of course I'm still not an Australian IP attorney, so my opinion is largely immaterial. I'm just using logic and and my (limited) understanding of US IP law.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

The weird thing is, if I buy a car and rely on the dealer to ensure it's roadworthy, I'm still liable if it turns out that it's not, even though the dealer is the expert. I can't really feel any sympathy for a company trying to use the cheapest suppliers and not even bothering to have its legal department give the relevant licenses the once over, they're better placed to check these things than I am in the car analogy.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[raynet]

But Telstra is not making copies, thus it cannot violate the copyright? Right?

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily, this is a trivial matter, due to the way that the GPL works.

Fact: Telstra distributed a copyrighted work (Linux)
Fact: Under Australian Law, Telstra may do so only with permission of the copyright holder.
Fact: Telstra did not ask for an explicit permission.

Now, under the GPL, Telstra is not obliged to ask for explicit permission, but may also obtain that permission by accepting the GPL terms. That bit is pretty much irrelevant if Telstra claims ignorance - they can't accept the terms of a license offer they're not aware of. However, it's a double-edged sword. If they claim ignorance, they should have adhered to the copyight law and not distributed at all. If they claim acceptance of the GPL, Linux' copyright owners can sue for breach of contract.

I'm working for a manufacturer of Linux-based hardware. We've informed our resale customers that they're technically responsible, but that we'd be happy to host the Linux sources for them. That's generally accepted - nobody demands that Best Buy runs its own servers, just that Best Buy takes responsibility when it outsources this. Also, in addition to the GPL requirements, we extend our offer of Linux sources to our customers' customers. While not mandated, this is far more popular - those final customers know that we're the competent party, not the reseller.

AC as I'm not going to speak on behalf of our customers.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[jtev]

Except Telstra is distributing an artifact that contains a work covered by copyright, rather than the work itself. This is more akin to selling a book. They aren't giving you disks with Linux on it, they are giving you a device that runs Linux. And that is a considerable difference. The original manufacturer is liable for covering the software license not Telstra. This would be akin to expecting Wal-Mart to provide you with the sources for the Linux on the Linksys router you bought there (and yes I know they don't run Linux anymore) rather than Linksys. Oh, I am not a lawyer, I am not austrailian, and I am most certainly not YOUR lawyer. Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice, it is merely my opinion in a debate.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance for a person is no excuse. Ignorance for a corporation is very much an excuse, and a good one too.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[DrgnDancer]

You're a responsible manufacturer, you've informed your retailers that a) you're using GPLed code in your device and b) you're providing the source/license information on your website. What if you were a less responsible manufacturer. You not only didn't provide the service you do in publishing the source/license, you didn't even tell your retailers that you're using GPLed code. Is your argument that the retailers have a responsibility to rip apart every device they sell looking for potential copyright or GPL violations? Assuming (as seems reasonable) that Telstra didn't know there was GPLed code on the devices they can't really be held liable for failure to comply with the GPL.

They made a good faith assumption that the manufacturer was taking care of licensing requirements. Now that they know, an argument can be made that they are responsible in the future (and it looks like they are moving to comply), but I don't see any reasonable argument for how they were out of compliance in the past.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[mcgrew]

If I'm trying to download an indie song called "scatterbrain" and DL an RIAA song with the same name by accident, the RIAA will still sue me.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Kell Bengal]

How dare you talk sense about people violating the GPL? Especially Telstra! Don't you know we're supposed to froth angrilly and uselessly about being oppressed by The Man to feel better about ourselves!? All this logical and rational analysis is completely uncalled for!

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[sjames]

The real story though is that fixing this going forward will probably satisfy everyone involved. Were this a proprietary license being violated, we'd be reading about the multi-bajillion dollar lawsuit, C&D orders and have a bunch of stuffed shirts quacking on about how these dreadful pirates are destroying the entire economy single-handed.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[DrgnDancer]

If you can prove that you thought you were downloading something else you'd probably win. It would be a Pyrrhic victory in that case, because you would have spent a fortune in legal fees, but you would probably win. Same deal here except that the number of instances and the fact that Telstra no doubt has lawyers on retainer means the victory wouldn't be Pyrrhic. You didn't do anything wrong. Telstra didn't do anything wrong. In both cases I suspect a court would agree with that... It's just a question of whether it's worth it to defend yourself or not.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[hairyfeet]

Uhhhh...wouldn't what you are saying mean you just handed the competitors the "GPL is infectious" meme on a silver platter? I mean if Best Buy has to keep servers with EVERY bit of code on EVERY Linux distros they were to sell in say a netbook, while they have no such requirement on OSX and Windows, why would they use your product? It will be more of a PITA!

Regardless of the FSF if this responsibility falls to ANYONE other than the OEM that is seriously bad for those that want GPL software to gain traction. If every little mom&pop shop had to set up a server just to sell white box or rebranded GPL machines you can pretty much consider that the kiss of death. By making everyone in the supply chain responsible you have made the "GPL is infectious" meme sadly a reality, and would in all likelihood drive more to use the BSD software instead.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[geminidomino]

Wouldn't even have to be a netbook. By that logic, they'd be on the hook for every Linksys wireless router they sold during THAT debacle.

It makes no sense. They're not the ones copying, modifying, or installing the software. How could they fall under the GPL?

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[Matt Perry]

They sold and/or rented these devices to their customers as a reseller. Are they responsible for GPL compliance or is the original manufacturer?

Yes, Telstra is responsible. The GPL governs distribution of works and it's up to the distributor to comply with the license. If Telstra distributed these devices they they are bound by the GPL and must provide source if requested. Likewise, the vendor who supplied these to Telstra must supply the source to Telstra if they request it.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[jbn-o]

It is Telstra's problem but there's an interesting wrinkle consider that GPLv2 (the version of the GPL the Linux kernel uses) is harsher to infringers than GPLv3.

Under the GPLv2 Telstra is not allowed to distribute the GPLd work until they get permission from all of the Linux kernel's copyright holders. This is one of the reasons GPLv3 is preferred over GPLv2; GPLv3 is kinder to accidental infringers than GPLv2 is.

Re:I dislike Telstra as much as anyone

[martin-boundary]

How is this conceptually different from reselling stolen goods? Let's say the store buys some TVs from their supplier, and the supplier "forgets" to tell the store that the TVs are stolen property.

The RIAA keeps telling us that copyright infringement is stealing, BTW.

Just because they have branded it

[DarkOx]

Just because they have branded it does not mean they have changed any source. I have never seen one of these things so I don't know anything about them; but they may not be obligated to distribute any source. Also you don't have to provide the source with your binaries to satisfy the gpl. You just have to make the source available in a useful format if someone wants it. Has anyone asked Telstra or any of the manufacturers for the code?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[WarJolt]

You must tell your customers that you are using GPLed code.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

If Toyota were to slyly use GPL'd code in some part of one of their vehicles, it probably would be ridiculous to try to make the case that the local privately-owned Toyota dealership had failed to live up to its responsibilities under the GNU GPL, even though they were the one that sold you the car. In all likelihood, the dealership has no clue about where the code in the car's processors ultimately comes from, because only Toyota would have source code for the stuff.

It would be helpful to remember that Telstra might similarly have contracted out to have some Internet appliances made; if the manufacturers didn't tell Telstra that the code was legally encumbered, then you wind up in this sort of situation, with no intentional malfeasance on the part of Telstra, and lots of confusion when you start making accusations.

The idea of holding the seller responsible for a manufacturer's use of GPL code is interesting. I'm pretty sure our local retail stores sell things like generic DSL modems and wireless access points without providing access to the source code. I'm positive that the local T-Mobile reseller who rents a kiosk at the mall had no idea he was required to provide access to source code for the T-Mobile WRT54G-TM's that were being sold a year or two ago. He was selling products in a box, there are no markings on the box that would indicate encumbered GPL code was in use, etc. It would be interesting to see if a case had ever been brought against such a retailer.

The Telstra case may well lie somewhere in the middle; their engineering department was probably aware of the design of the devices at some level.

I'm sure this will be read as an anti-GPL message by some zealot with an angry mod finger, but come on people, let's at least try to be fair and openminded. Telstra can be damned if and when the facts are established that they willfully and knowingly violated the GPL.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[dattaway]

In your analogy of Toyota distributing cars without following terms of the license, the dealer is NOT authorized to distribute under terms of the license. It becomes a copyright violation. The GPL is very clear about this.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,
but being a reseller does not automatically make you legible to continue selling stolen code.
So while the local toyota dealer would likely not be required to repair damages done by their supplier, the local
toyota dealer would quicker than quick be legally blocked from selling any other vehicles containing stolen code.

If you have some other theory about "innocent merchant" can continue selling "illegal or stolen goods" I would like to hear about them
in case I want to set up business as a "fence".

So would a lot of other people.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[abhi_beckert]

That is simply not true. If you commercially distribute a GPL or GPL-derived product, you must inform all users that it is GPL, and inform them how to get the source code, and all tools needed to work with/build said code.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

If Toyota were to slyly use GPL'd code in some part of one of their vehicles, it probably would be ridiculous to try to make the case that the local privately-owned Toyota dealership had failed to live up to its responsibilities under the GNU GPL, even though they were the one that sold you the car. In all likelihood, the dealership has no clue about where the code in the car's processors ultimately comes from, because only Toyota would have source code for the stuff.

It would be helpful to remember that Telstra might similarly have contracted out to have some Internet appliances made; if the manufacturers didn't tell Telstra that the code was legally encumbered, then you wind up in this sort of situation, with no intentional malfeasance on the part of Telstra, and lots of confusion when you start making accusations.

I don't see the problem. If (Toyota dealer/Telstra) did not have anything to do with the code and did not have any knowledge of the use of a license violation, they cannot be held responsible. However, (Toyota/Sagem/Netgem/Huwei), the one that (made the changes/used the code), is supposed to inform who-ever they sell the equipment to about the license (especially since there is probably an agreement between the two companies). Thus, (Toyota/Sagem/Netgem/Huwei) is at fault and should be held responsible for breach of license accordingly.

(obligatory IANAL note)

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just asking

because I see business opportunity here on buying, with no proof of ownership and paying in cash and no receipt, goods
such as diamonds and other kinds of jewelry, or say stereos,
and selling them much more expensively to genuine customers.

If you could help explain exactly which part of the law that makes me, or my business, immune to prosecution in such case the goods in question were of less than 100% legally acquired status, that would help immensely.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[MichaelSmith]

If they distribute the hardware they must make the source available. They can't just point to kernel.org.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[LingNoi]

So if my computer distributes copyrighted movies without my knowledge then it is also not my fault, am I right? or does the situation change when it's an actual person rather then a faceless company breaking copyright laws?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Xugumad]

I despair gently over the fact that copyright is /.'s worst enemy 90% of the time, and then someone mentions GPL...

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Xugumad]

You almost can...

"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."

- GPL v3, section 6b

So... as long as they can offer it from a networked server, they're fine. You don't actually need to ship the code with it.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[MichaelSmith]

My LG Android phone has a long file of OSS licenses which detail which binaries the licenses apply to. At the bottom of the list there is a statement from LG that they will provide the source code to me on CDROM. It gives an email address I have to contact with my request. For me they are fulfilling with the requirements of the GPL by doing that. Now I wonder if the Telstra products have the same license window and if the ultimate supplier has filled in the statement at the end with the offer of the source.

My guess is that Google actually take care of some of this and provide a procedure to follow and boilerplate documents with some CM work thrown in. They don't want Android to get a bad name, I am sure.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[kangsterizer]

I'd just point out that the kernel is GPLv2 btw :) Slight differences here and thee although not really for that case.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[nosferatu1001]

So if you dont perform due dilligence (yes, this applies when buying items to resell) you shoudl somehow not be responsible for the products you sell, claiming ignorance that was entirely avoidable?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[MichaelSmith]

But if they point to kernel.org and I fetch the code on a day when Linus is changing a power supply then I can go back to the manufacturer and ask what gives? What if Linus has blocked my IP address because of my notorious trolling on his mailing lists?

My reading of that paragraph is that the (manufacturer|supplier|distributor) have to directly provide the code, or pay Linus to explicitly provide it to me.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[mikael_j]

I know I'm replying to a troll here but what the hell...

Theft and violating a software license are not the same thing.

A more apt (although still flawed) analogy would be if Toyota started manufacturing cars containing stolen components (although they had not done so previously) and these were then sold on to retailers. The retailers would have no reason to suspect that the cars contained components that had been stolen and in most jurisdictions they would at worst be forced to give up the cars or at least the stolen components and be reimbursed by Toyota for their costs. Of course, as I already stated this analogy is also flawed.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[contra_mundi]

There isn't much cognitive dissonance. GPL just uses the strong copyright to keep itself and derivatives one sort of free.
A much stranger position to me is hating copyright and GPL, because you at the same time hate the former which takes away freedom (to use and copy) and the latter which gives freedom (to use and copy).

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Stray7Xi]

In your analogy of Toyota distributing cars without following terms of the license, the dealer is NOT authorized to distribute under terms of the license. It becomes a copyright violation. The GPL is very clear about this.

The point is they don't need to agree to the license, the GPL never forces anyone into it (section 9). By not agreeing to the license, all normal copyright law restrictions apply to them. However in this case they aren't infringing copyright, they're merely abiding by first sale rule.

In fact a case can be made that apps that include a click-through EULA of the GPL violate the GPL. Since clicking I disagree will refuse to install the app which is an additional restriction (section 10). You can't force someone into the GPL, only pursue them for copyright infringement if they disagree.

Pursuing Telstra is stupid, they should be attacking the OEM manufacturers.

9. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

10. ...
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?

"The GPL is very clear about this" is not compelling. It is clear in this case that the *manufacturer* has a responsibility to distribute the code. However, whether or not such responsibility can be transferred to a third party who merely purchased and resold a product is not necessarily that clear.

Consider this the other way around. Let's say I run a kid-themed restaurant. I go out to Best Buy and buy the movie Cars, and start playing it in my restaurant. The movie contains a copyright statement that says "Licensed only for personal home viewing." Does Pixar get to sue Best Buy for my violation of that condition? Or would that be laughed out of court?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[91degrees]

Yes. You could get an injunction gainst the dealer selling cars fairly easily, but you would actually need to get the injunction. There is a difference between stealing and copyright infringment. There are laws explictly dealing with handling stolen goods. Whether there are laws about resellers of copyright infringing media or not I don't know but if there are they're different from those dealing with stolen goods.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

Right, but the question here is more along the lines of, can you go to the store that sold you that LD Android phone and demand that *they* provide you with that code. The GPL (v3 sec 6) would appear that it might require that. The obvious counterargument is that the seller can point you at the manufacturer's web site, but if the manufacturer isn't distributing the code or has gone out of business, that doesn't seem to work.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Ginger Unicorn]

The GPL is designed to short-circuit copyright and subvert it against itself, so there really is no hypocrisy. In both cases, the "slashdotter" you're complaining about is railing against copyright.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize there are a lot of people here and not everyone that is not you is one person who needs to have a consistent set of opinions?

That said, I don't think Iv'e seen anyone arguing for the complete abolishment of copyright on the one hand, and it's importance to the GPL on the other, as you imply.

Now, expanding fair use to permit non-commercial copying is a different matter, but it wouldn't hurt the GPL.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

> "The GPL is very clear about this" is not compelling. It is clear in this case that the *manufacturer* has a responsibility to distribute the code. However, whether or not such responsibility can be transferred to a third party who merely purchased and resold a product is not necessarily that clear.

Wrong way around. Telstra are distributing the GPL code to the customers, not the OEM.

The copyleft requirements apply to the act of distribution.

Therefore, Telstra, who are distributing the GPL code, must provide the source code. If they don't make the source code available to anyone who asks for it, then Telstra have no permission to distribute that code.

Under copyright law, the act of distributing code that someone else wrote requires that the party doing the distribution must have permission to do so. Distributing works without permission is a law-breaking act.

Under the GPL license that applies to this code, the only way that Telstra can get that required-by-law permission is for Telstra to make the source code available to anyone who asks.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

Again, that's a nice theory, but has yet to see a meaningful test in the courts. That's the real world.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[shentino]

Stranger things have happened...

This is America, home of the litigious after all...

Assuming the case even made it to trial, it probably would be dismissed with prejudice, and Pixar would probably be told to go sue the person who exhibited it in public.

Now, if Best Buy tampered with any of the copyright notices, or otherwise encouraged you to violate Pixar's copyright by showing it in public, they may be liable to for breach of warranty to you, if they falsely claimed that it could be shown in public when in fact it could not. Supposing Pixar DID sue your balls off for showing it in public, even though Best Buy said you could use it to show in public.

Best Buy would have made a warranty about the product it sold to you. A warranty that was breached when Pixar sued for infringement. Best Buy would then be responsible for your damages at least to some degree if you could prove that their promise of public exhibitability was an express warranty.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Eunuchswear]

I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?

I doubt they can force you to kill your first born child, but you have no right to use the software if you dont.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[shentino]

Unfortunately, the economics of pre-trial negotiations often boil down to who can survive the gravy drain the longest.

Until you get to court, it's survival of the fittest, where backstabbing cheating, financial muscles, and outright bribery rule.

Faceless companies can outspend individuals any day, which is why they often win before the game even starts.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

The latter gives one form of freedom by encumbering the code; this whole topic is about that encumbering, and the obligations Telstra and/or their OEM have, so let's please not try to argue otherwise.

You can hate (typical) copyright because it requires things of you. For example, it may require you to not copy something that you'd find useful copied. Or it may require you to go to effort to distribute source, as in the GPL.

The BSD license is less onerous in that regard because its restrictions are passive in comparison, primarily requiring that you retain copyright notices and not claim the code as your own.

From that point of view, then, one could hate both (typical) copyright and GPL, because both encumber you with restrictions against activities that you might wish to engage in.

Looked at in that light, the BSD license is substantially more "free."

Of course, not everyone wants to allow nearly unrestricted use of their creative efforts. I view that as a personal choice. We should realize that the GPL only gives freedom in some senses, while taking it away in others (i.e. an OEM using GPL code is not free to distribute binaries only).

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Pixar doesn't do that. They send Elastigirl to tie you up while Woody yells, "there's a snake in my boot!" in your ear for 96 hours straight while Buzz keeps shaking his wrist and saying "Star Command, come in Star Command. There's a copyright violation down here."

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Cassius Corodes]

AFAIK you do as that part of the licence gets struck out as if it wasn't there.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[DrgnDancer]

Actually to keep things even moderately on topic it should be Australia. Just sayin'.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[u17]

I can write a license that says you must kill your first born child if you use this code. Does that make it legally enforceable?

If you cannot meet the terms of the license then you don't have any rights to the code.

If the license is not legally enforceable, i.e. it is an invalid license, then you don't have any license, hence you don't have any rights to the code.

What seems to be the problem?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but there's a big fucking difference between "Tell people you're distributing GPL'd code and provide source code to people who ask for it" and "kill your first born child". One is a quite reasonable request, the other...need I say it, is not.

Also, your "Cars" analogy is nonsensical. The difference is that Best Buy has, quite clearly, done nothing wrong in your example. In the case of these modems, it's possible that either Sagem has done something wrong or that Telstra has done something wrong....depending on whether or not Telstra knew about the GPL'd code (And I would bet dollars to donuts that they did.)

This isn't some random guy buying 4 or 5 boxed modems from D-Link and selling them in his shop, this is the biggest ISP in Australia buying $millions worth of hardware from several different manufacturers and re-branding those modems as their own. They were either wilfully ignoring the GPL or being outrageously negligent.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Kjella]

In fact a case can be made that apps that include a click-through EULA of the GPL violate the GPL. Since clicking I disagree will refuse to install the app which is an additional restriction (section 10).

I consider those a little bit like the reading of your Miranda rights, they're not *given* to you by the reading. They're rights you already have, it's just giving you a summary of them. Same with the GPL, the part about not accepting is basically a short reading of copyright law. Perhaps the acknowledgement that you have been given notice of this should be slightly different than "I agree", but you're nitpicking on something no judge would substantially care about.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. A judge, looking at the GPL, might find that it is very different than any other sort of license he's seen, and might judge it as something other than reasonable. We can't and don't know, that's the point. Hasn't been meaningfully tested.

The Cars analogy *is* nonsensical - in the same way that holding a middleman seller is nonsensical in the other direction. Best Buy *could* notice that I was wearing a company uniform, or that I was using a company credit card. They *could* actually even warn every purchaser that the only allowed use was for personal home use. We don't expect them to do that, though, any more than we expect them to provide the (wait for it) GPL-required source code for devices they sell.

Because I know they've sold things that run Linux. So explain the illogic here.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[yelvington]

... and it's REALLY easy to fix, without any action whatsoever on the part of the dealer. The manufacturer should disclose the use of GPL software, provide the license and create the mechanism by which a purchaser can request and obtain a copy of the source code.

GPL isn't onerous at all, and compliance is not difficult.

But there are boatloads of devices coming out of China that violate GPL due to sloppy practices on the part of the manufacturers. I have a Chinese Android tablet, for example, to which I can't obtain source code. That should never happen.

In this case, Telstra appears to be guilty of failure to exercise due diligence in its selection of vendors. It could fix the problem itself, but the best outcome would be for Telstra to knock some sense into the Chinese manufacturers. That would benefit us all.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Eunuchswear]

If the license says:

"You can use this software if you sacrifice your first born child to Baal"

And you strike that out because its illegal.

Then what part of the license allows you to use the software?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[shentino]

lawyers are still lawyers.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? So I guess that said non-hypocritical slashdotter who's just railing against copyright wouldn't have a problem with me taking a piece of his precious GPLcode, modifying it and releasing it in binary form without releasing the modified source? After all, the only thing that's preventing me from doing so is copyright, and you know, copyright is evil and shoud be abolished, right? If so, then what is said non-hypocritical slashdotter's beef with the guys from the article who have done exactly that?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Bert64]

The GPL restricts some freedoms with the primary goal of ensuring that other freedoms it considers more important are not taken away...

Society (ie common law) does the exact same thing, it restricts your freedom to commit murder for instance so that other peoples freedom to live cannot be taken away. I doubt there are many places in the world where it is legal to go and kill anyone you want.

By that same token, the GPL restricts your freedom to create a proprietary fork to ensure that other people can have the same freedoms you got. Under BSD, you can create closed source versions thus depriving people of the freedoms you were originally granted when you received the BSD source initially.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[c6gunner]

The part where you bought the product.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

The agreement is in a shrink-wrapped box and it also says "Returns of opened merchandise for same product only."

Welcome to the modern world.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[c6gunner]

I've always wondered ... what the hell is there to spend on? If the case against you has no merit, why are you giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a lawyer when you can just represent yourself?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[shentino]

Because the legal guild...er, industry, has made it so lame-ass complicated that only a lawyer is able to navigate it.

There's a lot of traps to avoid, one of which is near-automatic default judgement if you no-show in court. I haven't even gotten into all the fun regarding venue and jurisdiction.

There's also zillions of motions which have to be made on a "speak now or forever hold your peace" basis, which gives lawyers plenty of excuse to drag out your billable hours for fear that you may miss an important motion and shoot yourself in the foot with a dose of lethal poison.

If you fail to make a motion at the original trial, you forfeit the right to appeal the issue if you lose the case.

So the system is designed so that you almost always need a lawyer to navigate.

And since lawyers also are the ones that usually become politicians to legislate and execute the law itself, they have a vested interest in keeping it that way.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

If Toyota were to slyly use GPL'd code in some part of one of their vehicles...

Nothing secret about that, they do. Some of their cars (such as the http://www.toyota.com/4runner/special-edition.html) feature TomTom navigation systems. All TomTom navigation devices run Linux, and sources are available at tomtom.com/gpl.

The GPL doesn't state that Toyota should copy those sources and host them on the toyota.com domain. And the TomTom units do carry a notice that states where the source can be found.

BTW, the dealer has a similar relation to Toyota corp - they don't host the sources themselves, but they've got a contract with a supplier that ensures those sources are available.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Wildclaw]

The GPL is designed to short-circuit copyright and subvert it against itself, so there really is no hypocrisy. In both cases, the "slashdotter" you're complaining about is railing against copyright.

Start talking about reducing copyrights to 5 years and you will immediately see that what you said doesn't hold true in practice. GPL advocates generally turn out to be firm copyright supporters when you do, begging for an exception that applies to just their code.

OK, that is just another generalization, but there is some actual truth behind it.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[samjam]

It goes to the courts when there is meaningful dispute or doubt.

There never is - that's why you've never seen it in the courts.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So let's apply your analogy to any other copyright infringement. Say Toyota included a DVD player in the back seating area of their vans and bundled a collection of Disney DVDs with the vehicle. Now suppose, Toyota never licensed those DVDs and just burned or pressed them themselves without permission from Disney. Disney notices and notifies the dealerships of the violation.

So, what do the dealerships do? Do they continue to sell the vans including the DVDs, knowing they are breaking the law and let Toyota deal with it? Do they violate their contract with Toyota and sell the vans without the DVDs? Do they stop selling the vans altogether, contact Toyota headquarters and wait for word from above? What would you do if you owned a dealership?

Actually, I think this is a fairly clear situation, but because copyright law is so weird and because many people don't understand the GPL or how it acts within copyright law, they overly complicate things. If you are distributing copyrighted material without a license and you're notified of this by the copyright holder, it doesn't really matter how many intermediate copyright violations there are. You've been notified so you can't claim ignorance. Your responsibility is to stop and rectify the situation before there is reason for damages to be levied against you instead of the intermediate parties. Then, you can always go back and sue the intermediaries to reclaim whatever it cost you.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Bert64]

Telstra are required to pass on the code to their customers...
Their suppliers are required to pass on the code to Telstra...

As an end user, your contract is with Telstra not directly with the OEM.
Telstra may not be intentionally violating the GPL, they may be the victims of wilful violation by the OEMs, or they may be negligent of their requirements in order to distribute the GPL based code.
Either way Telstra are currently committing copyright infringement and need to rectify the situation for their customers. It is up to them to bring their own case against the OEM should they need to.

Think of another example, a supermarket who distributes poisoned food.. The customers will complain to the supermarket, even if ultimately it was the fault of one of their suppliers. The supermarket should still have ensured the products they were selling were fit for human consumption.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Bert64]

In the case of LG, LG are clearly providing the necessary infrastructure to comply with the GPL on behalf of the reseller.
If they failed to do that, you would be well within your rights to contact the reseller.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[real gumby]

The two cases (of a dealer distributing a car with GPL code in it and Telstra distributing a device than an OEM had put GPL code into) are the same. Nobody is surprised when we make the same declaration for physical goods (e.g. we expect drug manufacturers to vet their raw materials, or car manufacturers to make sure the steel they start with is of the specified grade/alloy).

In this case the point is that the person who distributes the "code" (through the device) has to make the source available. That's true if you buy the box and sell it on craigslist. They can satisfy that by supplying a URL for the source, which could be a URL pointing at the OEM's web site. They can print that URL in their manual. (it's arguable that these days supplying the mfr's name and the model number might be deemed sufficient. I'd guess the answer is no, but who knows how courts would rule -- people's understanding of how to use web sites is evolving and improving).

The fact is you want things to work the way they are described in TFA. Telstra is the one with the buying clout in this case; they can force their vendors to do the right thing on their behalf.

In general I consider Telstra an odious beast but in this case it sounds like they are behaving honourably: "oops, sorry, we tried to get it right, looks like we didn't in at least one case, we'll get it fixed." What more could you ask than that? OK, you could ask that they respond when you talk to them directly and not wait until you make the issue public out of frustration, but, well, this is Telstra we're talking about. At least the tech side sounds honourable, then.

And what a great story: Gratton handled this in a cool calm way as opposed to flying off the handle. A great endorsement of the free software way. What a winner.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

If in turn you release me from all obligations under copyright I'd probably be ok with it.
I might even be ok of you release me from all obligations concerning anything that is under your copyright.
So far Telstra has not offered to put all its works in the public domain though as far as I know, so the point is rather moot...

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't, but if they point to kernel.org and for some reason the source is no longer available there they are in breach of the license.
If they can't make it available again under kernel.org a court possibly might require them to e.g. make a reasonable effort to contact all customers to inform them where they can get the code now.
Which is why, honestly, the most sane way is to just skip all that crap and put the source at the same place (for downloads) or for physical products just dump in a CD/DVD with all the source and thus be sure you won't have to bother any further with it.
Three years are a long term to ensure to keep some source around nobody cares about anymore...

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, I see this same question asked every time there's a debate about copyright or GPL. To me, it's obvious that, in a world without copyright (or at least with sensible copyright) we wouldn't need GPL, it was a response to a broken system, not a bunch of FOSS developers trying to get in on the action. I wish we had a FAQ page for this kind of repeated question.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Urkki]

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. A judge, looking at the GPL, might find that it is very different than any other sort of license he's seen, and might judge it as something other than reasonable.

And then what? Declare the code to be public domain? Anything is possible of course, but...

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't countered the argument, you've just come up with excuses to justify the lack of freedom the GPL provides in comparison to a BSD license.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[VortexCortex]

Not so in a MS like license:

1) You do not own this product, you are licensed to use this product if you comply with this agreement in totality. If you can not agree with any of these terms you are not licensed to use the product.

2) If any part of this agreement is found legally unenforceable the section in question will be considered stricken from the license, and does not effect the legality or applicability of all other sections. In the event that any section of this license does not apply to you as written, you must request a signed renegotiated license from us (us, as defined somewhere as the company licensing the product).

3) The sacrificing of your first born child by fire, to the death, and in dedication to Baal shall be thoroughly completed before your use of this product. Failure to comply with this term results in the revocation of your license to use this product.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this is the exact reverse. This is more like if Toyota outsourced all of the most critical aspects of their hybrid car technology product development, to a small company with 5 full time employees, and then failed to comply with GPL.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[phorm]

Uh, this isn't the case of a lonely Telestra retailer in a store somewhere, this is a case of the company itself. If you want to compare it, a valid comparison might be if Toyota - as a company - were selling a car with a controller (maybe the "black box" recorder?) that was GPL-based and not releasing source.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[tyldis]

Also, it is the copyright holder who has to sue, not the end user.
Which makes all the discussions about retailers pretty moot, which sadly affects most comments on the issue so far :(

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

So, to be equivalent, it'd be like Toyota purchasing an OEM component, like oh say maybe a nav system, in-car entertainment system, or computerized stereo, from an OEM, and then selling that as part of the vehicle.

The point remains that if you buy something through an intermediary, the intermediary might not be fully aware of just what the product contains, or what sorts of encumberments the product software license attempts to impose.

It's a troubling issue. So one day I see a used DSL modem at a rummage sale. I take it home and find out it's based on BusyBox. I go back to the rummage sale and demand source code, because they sold the product... sound silly?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[nedlohs]

You have a strange naive notion that the legal system gives a shit about something being "ridiculous".

Re:Just because they have branded it

[nedlohs]

Pursuing Telstra makes perfect sense since they have some leverage on the OEM manufacturers, that the pusuer likely doesn't.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

I have a realistic notion after years of business that what we consider "normal" and what the legal system considers "normal" are very disconnected. One lesson you learn early on is to try to avoid the unusual; the legal system thrives on the ordinary and mundane, and outcomes for ordinary and mundane issues are more predictable.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[shutdown -p now]

Exactly, I see this same question asked every time there's a debate about copyright or GPL. To me, it's obvious that, in a world without copyright (or at least with sensible copyright) we wouldn't need GPL, it was a response to a broken system, not a bunch of FOSS developers trying to get in on the action.

Well, Stallman himself believes that it's not quite that simple:

I would be glad to see the abolition of copyright on software if it were done in such a way as to ensure that software is free. ... However, abolishing copyright could also be done in a misguided way that would have no effect on typical proprietary software (which is restricted by EULAs and source code secrecy rather than copyright), and only undermines the practice of copyleft. Naturally I would be against that. ... It would be necessary to eliminate copyright on software, declare EULAs legally void, and adopt consumer protection measures that require distribution of source code to the user and forbid tivoization.

So, as far as FSF is concerned, they're only okay with no copyright if copyleft is written into law instead.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[phorm]

Except that in this case it seems that Telestra is BRANDING the modems as their own, so it's not the case of a generic component inside another product. The item IS the product, and it IS branded.

If the deck in your example is branded as being a "Toyota" product, then I'd imagine they might in fact be liable. They could happily sell the car without the deck (entertainment center), but to continue using the deck they'd have to fix the violation...

Again, your rummage sale example is off-base because it's going after the seller, not the brander. If you were to sell one of these at a garage sale you're not going to assume liability for the GPL, because you're not sell it as a "jgreco" branded device...

Re:Just because they have branded it

[MobyDisk]

Well then, I hope no one sold that car used, or now they are liable. And hopefully they didn't donate it to a non-profit who sold it to a junkyard, or the non-profit is liable. And I hope that junkyard didn't resell those parts, or the junkyard is liable. That gets ridiculous. The GPL may say that anyone who distributes the code is liable, but that is probably not how copyright law is written, nor is that the intent of the GPL.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[nedlohs]

This involves "intellectual property", an area where court rulings get crazier and crazier over time. (not necessarily because the courts are being silly, the lawmakers keep passing crazie and crazier laws).

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they'd have an issue with anyone redistributing that blob freely. They make money off selling the device, and not its driver.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

That's a novel theory, but I'm not aware of any legal basis for such a claim. You could just as easily claim that because the car has a Toyota logo on it, everything inside should be considered branded too.

Which paragraph in the GPL differentiates between branding and selling, anyways?

Re:Just because they have branded it

[kiore]

The manufacturers don't have an obligation under the GPL to supply you or any other member of the general public with the source code. They only have an obligation to supply Telstra with the source code.

Telstra, in turn, have an obligation to supply their customers with the source code on request and for a price that covers their actual costs of supplying that source code.

Branding is irrelevant here.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Point 9 clearly means a retailer (or any step of the food chain down to end user) can resell a GPL'd product without ever having to accept the GPL. This section is clear and somewhat absolves Telstra of wrongdoing. It is absolutely clear that you must accept the licence if you are to modify and then distribute the modified GPL'd product. IANALBTW.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[phorm]

Seems to me that the same laws that protect Telestra from me slapping their branding on my own product also mean that they have to take responsibility for products released under their branding.

"but it was produced in China" is not a shortcut around copyright law.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even own the copyright for that. I did say _all_ there works, and specifically I meant everything they own the copyright for now or ever will own the copyright for in the future. The question was about being ok with no copyright at all after all, anything below is not even remotely comparable and just a bad deal.
(Trolling avoidance: I don't really "lobby" for no copyright at all, though I suspect I could live with that and I am not convinced it would be worse than what we have right now)

Re:Just because they have branded it

[jgreco]

Huh? If you slap Telstra's name on your own product without their authorization, that'll get handled as "trademark infringement."

I have no idea how the trademark laws could be used to force them to take responsibility for their own products; trademark laws basically only involve protecting a registered mark from unauthorized use.

I don't really care to spend any more time explaining very basic legal concepts to correct your interesting theories of liability. Check with a lawyer.

Re:Just because they have branded it

[DaVince21]

Since Chrome and Chromium are displaying the same kind of thing in the about window, I'm sure they do the same for their other open source products.

We are truly sorry...

[thegarbz]

that we got caught. We will ensure that it won't happen again.

Hanlons Razor

[Zevensoft]

As evil as Telstra is, this isn't their brand of evil. It's more like an administrative oversight.

Re:Hanlons Razor

[lazybeam]

I haven't read TFA but my first thought was when I heard about these T-things was that they limit you to using more Telstra products. For example the T-hub doesn't work if you don't use Telstra Bigpond as your ISP. Wouldn't that go against the GPL?

Re:Hanlons Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Worker: There might be a licensing issue that we need to look at.
Manager: OK, send a message to legal and ask them to look in to it when they have some time over.

The reason they haven't done anything about it is probably because they were to busy doing things that actually results in profit.
So, what is evil? Do you think Mr. Überevil from the movies really exists, the persons who tortures people, not because it gives them a hardon but because it is just evil. The kind of evil that will destroy the world, not out of profit but because it is the evil thing to do?

No, this is a company that just like every other company prioritized profit before what is right. It is the most common form of evil and the kind that harms us the most.

Re:Hanlons Razor

[Cytotoxic]

They have a special bundle that includes the T-Hub, T-Box and T-Touch all in a velveteen container. They call it the T-Bag.

Re:Hanlons Razor

[Cwix]

Really? We have some "T-Bags" here in the states, perhaps youd like to trade.

Here in the states they may also be referred to as "D-Bags" or "Teabaggers"

Sorry, I couldnt resist the joke.

Re:Hanlons Razor

[jonbryce]

No. But you must be able to change the code to remove those restrictions. They don't have to tell you how though, that's up to you to figure out.

Re:Hanlons Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Call them Congressman, while you're at it.

Re:Hanlons Razor

[Cwix]

I will call my congressman whatever I please.

How many Tea Party candidates actually got elected? I mean the (T) kind not the (R) kind.

Not sure that is fair.

[seeker_1us]

Did Telestra even know they were violating the GPL?

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[abhi_beckert]

How could they not have known? You don't spend a hundred million dollars promoting a product without hiring competent lawyers to cross your t's and dot your i's.

Any IP laywer would check the origin and license of the software.

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[somersault]

Any IP laywer would check the origin and license of the software.

We're talking about something that they will probably regard as purely hardware though.

Do you really think they would they do a background check on the firmware running on the routers? Would Telstra even hire an IP lawyer to vet hardware purchases?

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having contracted for Telstra for 7yrs on one of their mission critical system I can say without hesitation you give them way too much credit in the due dilligence department.

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[kramulous]

Just flipped through Telstra's latest Annual Report to Shareholders (01/10/2010 12:21PM) and although they only mention T-Box and sales, they do use other examples of businesses consuming other licenses for T-Suite products.

They are fully aware of license conditions. You don't sell different levels of licenses for products and claim that "you were not aware" other other license conditions.

This was deliberate.

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[nosferatu1001]

You're trying to say they didnt perform due dilligence and so shouldnt be liable for their negligence?

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[nosferatu1001]

Given it is part of due dilligence YES they should have done.

Either it is negligence on their part of deliberate violation. Ignorance of the requirements is, however, NO defence in this matter.

Re:Not sure that is fair.

[thegarbz]

Not knowing is not a legal defence. Also you're talking about a company who once actively supported all things GPLed by hosting most of the major Linux distributions and many major projects on it's servers for it's subscribers download metered free, the very same kind of servers which now host the T-Box media. So let's assume they are not a complete stranger to the GPL.

Sagem is ok with the GPL

[romiz]

Sagem usually releases the source code for their boxes. For the box used in France by Orange, the hosting site is provided by the operator. It does not look like Sagem directly provides the source code, probably because they only sell the boxes to operators, and the GPL only states that you need to provide the source to your clients.

I hope it goes to court

[abhi_beckert]

Telstra should get a serious ass kicking over this. The amount of money they've spent on advertising alone for this product line wipes out any possible "we didn't know" excuse.

They had to have been told, by multiple lawyers, that this is happening.

If an ordinary person can get fined millions of dollars for minor IP violations, then a corporation the size of Telstra should be fined tens of billions for knowingly violating the GPL in a flagship product. But of course, the law is never fair.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand why governments and laws in general were set up.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I don't buy it. Those same hypothetical multiple lawyers would have told them that if the advice was ignored, they'd be caught just like this.

I expect a couple of engineers mentioned it, and maybe one or two legal staff confirmed it, but that was way back near the wellspring of the project. In the ensuing roar of activity by executives and marketing, the entirely foreign concept of GPL was probably just lost in the noise. It was boffin-speak to the rest -- they didn't know it was something that mattered any more than what thread the bolts were.

But now they do. And they're fixing it quickly. I don't expect they'll do it again.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[somersault]

If an ordinary person can get fined millions of dollars for minor IP violations, then a corporation the size of Telstra should be fined tens of billions for knowingly violating the GPL in a flagship product. But of course, the law is never fair.

Who are these tens of billions going to go to?

Normal people are fined millions for minor IP violations because the IP they are violating is owned by a single profit driven behemoth that doesn't allow for copying. It's a rather different scenario to some GPLed code that may have legally passed through hundreds of hands.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[Mr_Silver]

Telstra should get a serious ass kicking over this. The amount of money they've spent on advertising alone for this product line wipes out any possible "we didn't know" excuse.

Not quite.

Because Telstra have no access to the source code, they will have asked their third parties to agree to unlimited IPR indemnity on the basis that it is the responsibility of the software company (and not Telstra) to ensure they are in compliance with the licences for the portions of code that they have in their firmware.

This indemnity basically says "Yes! We stand by our claim that the code we have developed is either ours or licenced correctly and if we muck up, you the customer won't be penalised". As such, any legal challenges and the costs associated with one towards Telstra for these products will simply be passed onto the hardware manufacturer.

Speaking as someone who has worked for two other network operators developing products in exactly this way, it is standard practise and you'd be extremely stupid not to sign an agreement like this as the costs of going to court (for a product you had no control over) can run into millions.

Finally, the amount you spend on advertising doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[DrXym]

If an ordinary person can get fined millions of dollars for minor IP violations, then a corporation the size of Telstra should be fined tens of billions for knowingly violating the GPL in a flagship product. But of course, the law is never fair.

Okay, it shouldn't have gotten to this stage, but the only remedy required by the GPL is they release the source code to the GPL bits and supply it upon demand. In a modern context, that means hosting the source code on their own web browser and making it easy to obtain.

The reality these days is virtually many TVs, routers, phones, set top box, blu ray player etc. have Linux in there somewhere. But even if the vendor supplied the GPL bits, it would meet their obligations but most likely it would not do anything for anyone else hoping to hack the box. Most likely you would get some kernel source code, a few libs and busybox. The actual meat and potatoes, whatever application or libs made the box do something could and would be withheld.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[jonbryce]

To whichever Busybox developer it is that sues everyone for GPL violations. Though to be fair, he doesn't do it for the money.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[somersault]

He must be doing it for the bitches then, right?

Re:I hope it goes to court

[Nursie]

Yup, most likely.

Not all of them work that way. Netgear have, in the past, provided a pretty coherent tarball and build instructions. Linksys too. Western Digital more recently have just spuffed out a load of source with a broken build system. That's when you have to go in with the multimeter and the soldering iron to get serial access and try a bunch of things...

Re:I hope it goes to court

[abhi_beckert]

Is all hypothetical but the money would probably go to the free software foundation (who is the most likely candidate to take Telstra to court) and the copyright holders of the code in question (who the FSF represent), though I'd rather see it go to charity or something.

The single defining point of GPL is to prevent exactly this kind of use. If you don't want to stop corporations from ripping off your open source code, you'd pick a different open source license.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[Monkeedude1212]

If an ordinary person can get fined millions of dollars for minor IP violations, then a corporation the size of Telstra should be fined tens of billions for knowingly violating the GPL in a flagship product. But of course, the law is never fair.

You have an extremely odd definition of Fair. You're saying that if one infraction is for millions of dollars, another one should go for tens of billions? Simply because one of them makes more money?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Law is fair. I also think there should be a seperate punishment for knowingly breaking laws and trying to hide it, and there are a few (fraud, obstruction of justice, etc). But to say that doing X should be X times a thousand for a rich company does't make the law seem any fairer.

Re:I hope it goes to court

[Anonymous Coward]

"But of course, the law is never fair."

Sure it is. It's also balanced. Both words used in the fox news sense.

And don't forget IP Vision in the UK....

[rklrkl]

IP Vision in the UK are in a similar boat. They ship near-identical hardware (branded as a Technika 8320HD) to the Telstra T-Box, with the only difference being DVB-T2 twin tuners instead of DVB-T. They too run Linux and have a "legal information" dialogue box in the user interface, but I haven't seen any source code for the GPL'ed items they use either. More 8320HD info in my blog...

Re:And don't forget IP Vision in the UK....

[LingNoi]

http://gpl-violations.org/ - If there is no source code then report it.

Stories like this don't help

[kevingolding2001]

Until my contract ended, I was recently working for a large IT company (50K people worldwide).

The company did a sales demo recently, and one of the main concerns of the client was that 'we don't use open source in any way'. The client was shit scared of anything to do with 'open source' because they believed that if any were used for anything, suddenly they had to give away all their proprietary secrets to the world.

I tried to explain the differences between the licenses to my boss (BSD vs. GPL vs. Apache etc) and what the GPL really meant (If you don't distribute you have no problem) but since it was my leaving do and people just wanted to drink beer, I don't think anyone was listening.

Stories like this about Telstra just pander to the FUDists.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many lawyers get paranoid about open source licensing and yet don't bat an eyelid when presented with a business software license that gives the vendor the right to audit the client at any time at any business location to check for license violations, or other such wackiness that you can find on the contracts for super-expensive business software.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[Cluelessthanzero]

people just wanted to drink beer
see, the concept of "free as in beer" is sooo much easier to convey.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[Registered Coward v2]

I wonder how many lawyers get paranoid about open source licensing and yet don't bat an eyelid when presented with a business software license that gives the vendor the right to audit the client at any time at any business location to check for license violations, or other such wackiness that you can find on the contracts for super-expensive business software.

Probably because they are dealing with one specific vendor whom they can reach an agreement with, or go to court against, if they have a contractual dispute; unlike GPL code where many different people who are involved. The first gives them certantity and a familiar set of circumstances while the second looks like anarchy and confusion. Not hard to see which they'd prefer.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[AmElder]

My first thought was, like yours, that it might be better to give Telstra a chance to bring itself into compliance before hitting it with the bad publicity stick. However, after reading TFAs, I think Angus Gratton (the one who noticed the violations) did this right. He tried to contact the company first and got no response, so he's leveraging the power of the community and Telstra is responding. The blog post linked to in the summary explains how he went about it all.

Emphasizing compliance over prosecution should make Free Software less threatening to companies (says a guy who's never worked for a big organization). It's the right way to go about things.

If you read Gratton's post, he doesn't write with any rancour. He's sketches the simple steps Telstra can take to become compliant. By they way, he anticipates most of what people are saying in this thread and gives his own pre-emptive responses.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to explain the differences between the licenses to my boss (BSD vs. GPL vs. Apache etc) and what the GPL really meant (If you don't distribute you have no problem) but since it was my leaving do and people just wanted to drink beer, I don't think anyone was listening.

Stories like this about Telstra just pander to the FUDists.

I'm curious to know why more companies take a more active development role in (Net?)BSD.

While the GPL is good in that it keeps a lot of people "honest", so you know your competitors' contributions will be just as open as yours, it does add paperwork to the process. There are quite a few companies using BSD in their products (Apple, NetApp, Juniper, Isilon, etc.), and they don't have to open source everything, though they do contribute back to the community in many ways.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[Anonymous Coward]

The company did a sales demo recently, and one of the main concerns of the client was that 'we don't use open source in any way'. The client was shit scared of anything to do with 'open source' because they believed that if any were used for anything, suddenly they had to give away all their proprietary secrets to the world.

Then I would suggest your former firm's client, or at least it's senior management, is too stupid to read and understand clearly worded legal documentation and hence probably too stupid to remain in business.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We used this very topic as a litmus test for hiring attorneys. I was working at a medium sized startup, growing into a proper company. We developed appliances and services that relied heavily upon Linux and other OSS, packaged with hardware and some closed source software. We knew very little about corporate law and had one attorney on board part time, but we had some good legal advice about OSS and every single major competitor we had was doing the exact same thing.

So we need to hire some new legal people, we bring them in and ask them about themselves and their expertise and then we show them the OSS licenses we are using and ask their opinion on incorporating it into products. A few days later, all the ones that come back telling us it's dangerous or we need to have every use of BSD or GPL approved by the legal department on a case by case basis or have we heard of Microsoft who licenses a closed source OS... yeah we trashed those resumes as being too out of touch with the high tech computing industry.

Re:Stories like this don't help

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest that obviously you haven't read the legal documentation because in many cases their fears are exactly right.

Branding

[Anonymous Coward]

I also don't think Deutsche Telekom is happy with Telstra stealing their branding system.

punishment clause

[Tom]

I think there needs to be a punishment clause. Bringing these people into compliance is one thing, but the way it played out in the past - do whatever you please until someone calls you out, then promise compliance and slowly and partially do something - means that the optimal strategy for a business is to try to get by without adhering to the GPL first, and only if that fails put some effort into compliance.

No surprise they act like that.

Everywhere else where people don't live in a dream world, there are punishments for this kind of behaviour that make sure the rational choice is the right one, because the punishment offsets any profit non-compliant behaviour could have gained you.

Please, some Linux contributor sue them. How about $5000 per device they distributed illegally? Hey, if it's acceptable damages for a single song, it certainly is acceptable for a piece of software.

Re:punishment clause

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it that people who pirate content like music, games, movies also therefore deserve to be "punished"?

Re:punishment clause

[characterZer0]

Absolutely.

Re:punishment clause

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some cases when non-commercial unauthorised copying is morally right and some (fewer) where it is also legal. However, all commercial unauthorised copying is morally wrong and illegal. Therefore, such commercial copying should be punished, but the situation is not clear with non-commercial copying.

Re:punishment clause

[domatic]

I think there needs to be a punishment clause. Bringing these people into compliance is one thing, but the way it played out in the past - do whatever you please until someone calls you out, then promise compliance and slowly and partially do something - means that the optimal strategy for a business is to try to get by without adhering to the GPL first, and only if that fails put some effort into compliance.

The degree to which you can do that probably varies widely by jurisdiction and the GPL tries very hard to be a universal license. Penalty clauses are much more for executed contracts where both parties are explicitly signing. In any case, it is copyright law that provides the punishments or more properly speaking the remedies for breaching the license. And those can include in increasing severity:

1. Termination of right to use software.
2. Renumeration of author
3. Injunctions against distribution of products which include the software.

Most GPL using authors aren't the slavering militants they're made out to be. They're generally interested in gaining compliance with the license rather than monetary revenge. There's myths here too. Neither the GPL nor copyright law require making ("forcing") an entire codebase to be GPL to achieve compliance. The violator can implement the needed functionality himself, he can change how he calls it since most don't consider submitting data and receiving answers back from a discrete GPL binary to be "linking". Depending on the exact circumstances, the violator may be able to purchase an alternative license that allows him to keep his product closed or the court may just mandate fines. And indeed, the most effective GPL actions have been low-key and haven't involved vengeance on the part of the enforcers. You certainly don't see BSA drug bust styled raids.

The problem here isn't a lack of a stick in the GPL. Copyright law is replete with big sticks. The problem is that any license is only as effective as the will to enforce it.
 

Re:punishment clause

[quenda]

I think there needs to be a punishment clause.

You are making the common mistake of thinking the GPL is a contract. It is not - nobody signs it, there is no payment.
Anyone is free to accept it or eject it - they cannot be held to the terms. If they reject it, they are simply in breach of copyright and you must rely on copyright law for redress.

How about $5000 per device they distributed illegally?

Why so little? Hire the RIAA lawyers and sue for one billion dollars.

Re:punishment clause

[Tom]

I take it that people who pirate content like music, games, movies also therefore deserve to be "punished"?

If they are building their business on it - absolutely.

For private use, yes it is illegal and yes, the fines issued currently are completely insane.

DTH Operators = Evil?

[Clueless Nick]

The GPL may be enforceable, at least till Telstra continues to distribute the devices on outright sale. DTH operators, on the other hand, make their customers sign a contract that specifies that the Set Top Boxes / DVRs being provided are solely the property of the operator, and are being leased to the customer with minimal rights being transferred. Most of these devices use the Linux kernel and other GPL / open source tools to function.

In such a case, the operator may take a plea that by leasing the device, it is not Distributing the software, and therefore is not liable for compliance with GPL. This plea may be used even if there is no provision for return, replacement or repair of the device beyond its warranty period, and the payment made by the customer is equal to the market price for similar equipment.

I am not sure if the excuse mentioned by the operator is legally tenable (in whichever jurisdiction), but it sure does put a stop to many people's impulses to tweak and tinker.

Now, I have received a free HD DVR with my TV purchase, and I can't even try to hack it to do more or expose its guts. What a shame.

Re:DTH Operators = Evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence GPL version 3. Your rights as a user of code written under that license can't be taken away by playing a hardware shell game. The Linux kernel is still GPLv2 though, so it can be used in that fashion.

I don't know how I feel about the kernel being GPLv2 (and it's immaterial anyway - Linus's opinion is what matters) but I know I prefer for code I write to be GPLv3.

Why do I even know about this?

[Just Some Guy]

Telstra responded quickly to Gratton's claims, saying they would work with the vendors to straighten out the licensing situation and fix any compliance issues.

What's the problem, exactly? They've been notified of their noncompliance and have stated that they'll fix it. Isn't that what we want them to do? Let me know if they've failed to do so after a reasonable amount of time, but until then, I guess I can't be bothered to care.

Re:Why do I even know about this?

[bug1]

They have stated that they will fix the T-Hub and the T-Box is fine.

The T-Box has notification that it uses GPL'ed software, provides a link to the GPL License, but they dont think to provide a link to the source, so i dont see how they are in compliance with the GPL with the T-Box.

There also might be issues with the T-Box in regard to "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" as the firmware is encrypted.

Does anyone know the accepted interpretation of that part of the GPLv2.0 as it relates to firmware, should they be obligated to provide keys to decrypt the firmware so the GPL'ed binaries can be "installed", or is that wishfull thinking on my behalf ?

Re:Why do I even know about this?

[Just Some Guy]

I'm fairly certain they're not legally obligated to, as that was a large part of the motivation for GPLv3.

Re:Why do I even know about this?

[bug1]

Some of the software included on the firmware is GPLv2 (or later), so perhaps GPLv3 could be applied to unlock the firmware ?

Re:Why do I even know about this?

[Just Some Guy]

(or later) wouldn't apply in this case, because it would be Telstra's option to pick which version of the GPL to distribute the code under. If you were to download the source from them, then you would have the right to "upgrade" it to GPLv3 for anyone who wanted to download it from you.

On the flip side...

[contra_mundi]

What would happen if we ignored GPL violations?

I posit that GPL would no longer remain relevant at all and the end result would be far more welcome to "the FUDists" than what we have now.

Telstra are the distributers

[Anonymous Coward]

> But in this case, it is not really their problem. They paid some OEM for a branded product

This is not the way that the GPL works, however. The copyleft requirements within the GPL, that require source code to be made available to downstream recipients, apply to the act of distribution of the GPL code.

It is not Telstra's code, and it is not the code of the OEM. The code belongs to the original authors, who wrote it. They get the rights awarded to them by Australia's copyright law.

The authors have stipulated that anyone may distribute this code as long as they provide the source code.

Telstra are distributing the code (that is not Telstra's code). This is the crucial bit. Telstra are the distributers.

Therefore, Telstra must either provide the source code as they used it in their products to any customer who asks for it, or they are in violation of Australia's copyright law.

It is not sufficient to merely provide links. Telstra must provide the source code.

However ... since the source code is open source anyway ... where is the downside anyway? Telstra simply provide it to anyone who asks for it, and everything is perfectly sweet.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[omnichad]

GPL is still a shrinkwrap license. It comes inside the box. You don't have to agree to any terms to resell something in a box. You didn't see Best Buy or PC World getting any complaints about GPL violations when Linksys routers were violating.
 
The only thing that gives it any weight is that their logo might be on it. And if that's true, it could be construed to be subcontracted rather than simply a reseller situation.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[jc42]

It is not sufficient to merely provide links. Telstra must provide the source code.

Huh? If this were literally true, then an N-level distribution chain would require separate copies of the source on machines owned by every part of the distribution chain, including the delivery companies that merely transport the physical packages, or the customer's ISP if the product is downloaded. It's fairly common for GPL-compliant suppliers to merely link to the source on a web site owned by one company in the chain. As far as I know, this has generally been held acceptable.

If every company involved in the distribution has to have a separate source repository, it would seriously interfere with the distribution of GPL'd software. It would be quite reasonable for a distribution company to refuse to deliver GPL'd products if they were required to supply the source to software inside packages that they were delivering. Here in the US, I'd expect that USP and FedEx would be very unhappy about being required to run source repositories, as would every ISP (though the ISPs would at least have employees who know what software source code is ;-).

I hope this isn't an actual requirement of any version of the GPL. Has anyone collected a list of the wording of various versions, with explanations of their legal implications? If some version does actually have such a stringent requirement, it would be useful to know about it, so we can avoid using that version with software that needs to be "delivered" in physical or electronic form.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[Nursie]

If you distributed the product then you have to make available the source (or an offer of the source) to anyone you have distributed it to.

I'm pretty sure that a delivery company is just an agent of another party and thus exempt, and a link further up the chain is also fine. Mostly people will look to the manufacturer, but on a strict interpretation - yes, I would imagine the shop you bought it from is responsible.

Now if it's done correctly you'll buy it from a shop who have handed you a retail pack containing documentation and a link to the manufacturers website (with source) and we're all good to go, no need for more source repositories than the manufacturer themselves. But it needs to come with the details and someone has to supply it.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[ais523]

The GPL lets you do anything you could ordinarily do under copyright law without a license (it doesn't try to add restrictions on top of copyright law, but rather add some specific permissions whereby you have to do something specific to benefit from the permission). FedEx, etc., aren't copying the code, but rather just delivering media; what they're doing is perfectly fine under copyright law even if, say, they were shipping a copy of Microsoft Windows instead. The ISP is technically copying the code, but I'm pretty sure that there's a (US) law meaning that ISPs aren't liable for copyright infringement if they don't inspect the contents of the packet they're transmitting. (On the other hand, the story relates to Australia, which may well have different relevant laws.)

Relevant quote from GPLv3:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

The restrictions on transmitting-binary-must-also-transmit-source only apply to "conveying" the work, which the GPL defines in terms of propagation. Thus, people like FedEx or an ISP, which wouldn't be breaking copyright law via transferring anything, don't break the GPL either (not that it could do anything about it anyway, even if it were a restrictive EULA that said you couldn't do that). Telstra's case is a little more complex, and, not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if what they were doing would in general require a license or not. (If it does require a license and they aren't transmitting source, then they don't have a license, because the only possible license would be the GPL, and it doesn't license that activity. If it doesn't, they don't need to worry about the GPL because they can do it without a license.)

(As for the case of linking to someone else's copy of the source, the GPLv3 specifically allows that in the case where you're hosting the binaries on a server, and the source is also on someone's server accessible via much the same means, and you also ensure that the source remains available for as long as the binaries are, even if it's not you hosting it. The GPLv2 does not have such a clause, meaning that for GPLv2-only code, if you need a license to be able to distribute the binaries, you're going to have to host the sources in the same place if you want to comply with the letter of the license.)

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[rtb61]

Telstra is a major telecommunications corporations with vasy techincal and engineering skills. They knew exactly the nature of the products, exactly what hardware and what software was in those products and they knew full well the licence conditions of the software. This is not some corner store computer shop this is a multi billion dollar corporation, an incumbent copper phone network, with satellites, mobile phone networks and, undersea cabling.

Yet they have a past history of lying, cheating and stealing until they get caught and like some child blaming it on the new guy, the contractor, we were going to do it we just hadn't got around to it and just lately they have been blaming everything on those evil executives they have gotten rid of and now they are a better company.

This sort of stuff is typical for Telstra, especially as they are as far as marketing is concerned tied very tightly to M$. M$ will be really pissed if Telstra starts distributing open source code and promoting open source software, M$ would already hate Telstra selling those particular products. Truth is Telstra would likely sell more of them if they promoted Linux and open source software it just simply is much cooler.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[Software Geek]

The GPL offers, if I recall correctly, three different options for meeting your obligations to distribute the source code.
One of these options is to provide a website where the source code is available.
One of these options is to deliver a copy of the source code on a CD bundled with your product.
I don't remember what the third one was.
When my employer was determining how to comply, they found delivering the source code on a CD to be the least burdensome. The reason was that when you do it that way, your obligation is fully discharged at the time you deliver the CD. When you make the source code available on a web site, the website must remain available for five years (I think) after you stop distributing.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[TheRaven64]

It's fairly common for GPL-compliant suppliers to merely link to the source on a web site owned by one company in the chain. As far as I know, this has generally been held acceptable.

Only with GPLv3. GPLv2 does not permit this. It does permit something similar, but not identical (this is actually one of the questions in the FSF's GPL quiz). You must either accompany the work with its source code, or you must provide an offer, in writing, to provide the source code on request. There is one extra case: if you did not receive the source, but did receive a written offer, then you may pass the written offer downstream, as long as you did not modify the code.

If you give a friend a compiled binary and don't provide the source or a written offer (good for three years) to provide the source, then you have violated the letter of the GPL. You are potentially liable in the USA for statutory fines up to $150,000.

If everyone had to read and understand the GPL before being allowed to advocate it, there would be a lot fewer GPL advocates in the world.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[iamwahoo2]

The GPL is not a shrinkwrapped license or anything like a shrinkwrapped license. I understand your confusion because the very existence of shrinkwrapped licenses have created a great deal of confusion among many people including most lawyers and judges. The very first confusion is the impression that shrinkwrapped licenses have anything to do with copyright. They in fact have nothing to do with copyright. They are not copyright licenses, but are usage licenses (contracts), hence the common name as End-User Licensing Agreement. Many EULAs do not even mention copyright and that is because copyright law already restricts the ability of the user to copy and distribute the media, making an additional contract, with regards to copyright, unnecessary. An EULA is a contract intended to restrict usage rights, which is why so many people are against them being shrinkwrapped, because unlike copyright, usage-rights are not implicitly restricted by law

The GPL is purely a copyright license. You do not have to agree to it if you are merely using the software because it does not attempt to restrict your usage rights like an EULA. What the GPL give yous is an actual license to copy and distribute the work under certain conditions. A rights guarantee which is almost non-existent in the world of single user closed source software. In absence of the GPL, you would be restricted by copyright law which would not allow you to copy and distribute the media at all.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[omnichad]

Ok. Bad wording aside, they aren't distributing - they are reselling.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[nedlohs]

If you received it with an offer of the source, you can just pass along that offer. Which seems to be exactly the case for passing along the link that the from the manufacturer.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[BranMan]

From what I understand they put their brand on it. In effect, they are saying, "these are our boxes we sell to you. We may have a 3rd party manufacture them for us, but they are ours. See our logo?"

When you do that, you are the source, so you must comply. Period. IANAL, but I think that's how a judge would see it.

Re:Telstra are the distributers

[Anonymous Coward]

Only for non-commercial distribution. Commercial distributors must take on the responsibility.

Its all in the contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts for supplying things to Telstra include the requirement that the supplier ensures all required 3rd party licenses are obtained, and that whatever the supplier supplies is not in violation of any 3rd party licences.

The suppliers clearly sign up to take that responsibility on. They typically indemnify Telstra against any claims by 3rd parties for licence violation as they understand they are responsible in that area.

Its good that Telstra has made an effort to have the issue tidied up and Im sure it will be - and quickly....but legally the responsibility for any violations in this instance more than likely resides with the supplier. Telstra trusted them to carry out their end of the agreement. In this case based on the original /. post, it would appear the supplier may not have.

Easy

[elsurexiste]

Just tell them that instead of open source software, you are using free software. :P

Don't get your hopes up

[ThatsNotPudding]

Just like Walmart was shocked (shocked!) that their sub-contracted cleaning crews were mostly comprised of illegal aliens (because of the massively low-ball contracts WM offers), Telstra will also wholly blame those they hired.

Netgem and Sagem GPL'd sources site

[dom.l.c]

Netgem and Sagem have been distributing their sources for GPL'd software for some time (Sagem does it via its client operateor, Orange):
http://www.netgem.fr/support-gpl-linux.php
http://www.livebox-opensource.com/

not selling just renting

[Cluelessthanzero]

If the provider is not selling but merely renting the user premise equipment (as it very often is the case in Europe) is he still obliged to share the source code? I don't believe it was the case with GPLv1.

There are many GPL violators out there :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a Selteka TV setup box but my attempts to get source have failed :( At their own web page Selteka are advertising Linux use in their setup boxes, still there's no info in web page or product documentation where to get source. They don't answer e-mail source requests. Not everyone has money/time to go full legal way :(

Here's Selteka web page: http://tc402.tvpriedelis.lt/en Click on "Features" to see Flash video about Linux use in their products.

Re:There are many GPL violators out there :(

[angloquebecer]

Which is why you can use this: http://gpl-violations.org/
Report them.

Huawei, respect license terms? It is to laugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a company that blatantly ripped off Cisco's IOS even blink at violating the GPL?

copyright length

[Anonymous Coward]

I despair gently over the fact that stupid copyright length is /.'s worst enemy 90% of the time, and then someone mentions GPL...

FTFY.

Let's not mention software patents either....

For the record...

[PriceChild]

I'm from the UK and have had two small Huawei adsl modems delivered to me by isps. BOTH included a little piece of paper with details of the gpl & where to get the source. Never followed up on it, but at least that slip was there which made me smile.

Not on that continent

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have GNUs in Australia, unless someone imported some. They do have roos though. They probably occupy the same niche.

So they're incompetent then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're incompetent then? After all, they chose providers who gave them "stolen goods".

Why is it that companies can "outsource" work to another company and absolve themselves of all responsibility, yet us mere humans have "contributory" versions and "aiding and abetting" or, in the case of hiring a hit man, direct murder charge.

My reading of the law and the licenses

[jonaskoelker]

The point is they don't need to agree to the license, the GPL never forces anyone into it

You're not forced into it if you only run the code. If you redistribute the code, you are either in violation of the law or you have accepted the GPL, or the program is dual-licensed and you have accepted the other license (or multi-licensed and you accepted the nth).

In fact a case can be made that apps that include a click-through EULA of the GPL violate the GPL.

You refer to section 10, which talk about legal (not practical) restrictions.

Sure, building the software to force people to click "I accept" is a practical restriction (though not a big one), and you might argue that it goes against the spirit of the license, but---I've only seen installers that "impose" the GPL, not any other license, e.g. one with additional legal restrictions.

If a GPL'ed app had an "I accept" license nag screen that had you say you accepted the 4-clause BSD license (or some GPL-incompatible license), that would go against the spirit of the license. If these license nag screens carry legal weight, it might be against the law and license to add such a 4-clause BSD nag screen to a program.

I feel convinced that it would be legal for the copyright holder to distribute such a program under the GPL, because (s)he doesn't need permission from anyone; in particular (s)he doesn't need the permission given in the GPL.

I think that's why DRM doesn't go against the First Sale doctrine: you're allowed to try and resell DRM'ed stuff, it's just that the DRM makes your right kinda' moot. That the making-mootness-of-rights is the point of DRM seems to not matter.

You can think of licenses as permission slips or something like it; copyright law forbids you from doing some things. The GPL undoes that by giving you a "hall pass"-like conceptual token which allows you to do certain things as long as you posses that token. If you act in breach of the license, you lose the token and the hall monitor can make you pay damages or (in aggravated cases) fines.

That's how I see it, anyways. IANAL, TINLA, HAND.

Same lenience for file sharers?

[noidentity]

I wonder whether Telestra will have the same attitude towards file sharers who are allegedly infringing on copyrights.

Re:Same lenience for file sharers?

[abhi_beckert]

That's my first though too. If Telstra can just say "oh! We won't do it anymore!" and start complying with GPL, then why can't thommas-rasset say "oh! I will buy all my music in future!" and have his court case dropped?

Same as with other FLOSS licenses

[jbn-o]

The same would be true if this were any other copyright license that permits redistribution. The modified BSD license permits distribution and requires some things in exchange. If one distributes a modified BSD work (source or binary) without reproducing a particular copyright notice and a list of conditions, or if one uses the name of the author "to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission" one has gone against the terms of the modified BSD license.

So saying "The GPL permits redistribution, but only on it's terms" is true, but the same is true of any other copyright license which permits distribution. How much enforcement there is has to do with how much the copyright holder enforces their license.

Huh? What violations?

[w0mprat]

If I'm not mistaken Netgem, the OEM is at least appearing to keep up with it's GPL obligations on the T-box.

http://www.netgem.com/support-gpl-linux.php
http://www.netgem.com/en/supportLinux.php

I'm going to go home and play with my T-Box and see if I can find GPL information under the menus or documentation somewhere. I know there are many linux devices out there that have exactly this.

what about CISCO ?

[disemq]

And what about Cisco ASA's core (based on linux) ? Isn't Cisco violating GPL too ? AFAIK you're not allowed to freely distribute the images.. neither do they provide the sources..