Slashdot Mirror
GPL Violations By D-Link and Boxee
An anonymous reader submitted a link to a bit of a rant on GPL issues connected to D-Link and Boxee. They spend quite a bit of time explaining "Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device."
Is it that time of the day already? Time for a free software vs. open source vs. "I just want something I can use damn it!" flamewar...
Palm trees and 8
GPL is based on copyright, dictating the rules by which the work can be transferred (or sold, or given). It's the same as breaking the Microsoft EULA when you pirate your Windows copy.
Surely, there may be not enough GPL authors going after people breaking their licenses, but it falls on the same category [I *think* the FSF sometimes offers legal help for those trying to sue companies to enforce their GPL-licensed products.]
This guy doesn't make the smallest bit of sense. Nobody uses GPL-3 software. Almost no software is under GPL-3.
some of the complaints are that promised features were never implemented. learned this a long time ago. buy on the feature set at the time of sale, don't ever trust a company to implement new promised features. after the sale they are thinking about selling the next version, not paying developers to code software you already paid for
No, they get sued if they don't bring the offending products into compliance with the GPL.
First: there is no issue with GPL and tivoization. GPLv2 allows it and GPLv3 forbids it, full stop. It is as clear as day and every developer can make an informed choice as to what he/she wants to allow with the code.
Now it seems that these things include GPG that is under GPLv3. So it looks an awful lot as a violation, if confirmed. At the same time it seems that the program was removed by online firmware updates, so everything would be kosher for the GPLv3 (that gives the option to stop distributing the offending code and be legally safe)
Did someone at Boxee actually edit a forum post to change the author's intent?
Forum Post Screenshots
Is Boxee's operation really this shady?
By whom? Maybe the EFF.
I think part of the problem is that, to the best of my knowledge, the GPL hasn't been fully tested in court, and there is no single body (and certainly not with a lot of resources) who can police this. I'm not even sure the EFF has standing to sue everybody who might do this ... unless the GPL says they're the effective copyright holders for everything GPL'd, short of an amicus curiae the EFF doesn't own the code which is alleged to have been violated.
A lot of companies seem to more or less say "too bad" when it comes to the provisions and providing this stuff ... they're just not willing to provide you with the details you'd need, admit that they're using the GPL'd software, or provide you with the sources even if they are. So, effectively they rip it off with impunity and laugh at you.
If there's no actual consequence for these companies, what is going to change? This is far from the first time we've heard about companies flipping the bird at the terms of the GPL.
And, really, based on my experience with my latest D-Link router ... it might be time to consider a change anyway. My latest router has a tendency to lose connection on one of its ports, and has some issues which may or may not be the fault of Vista.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You don't capitalize by or other short prepositions in titles. How long have you been doing this? Maybe set this as your homepage for a few days.
VLC rules by the way.
Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
It's the same as breaking the Microsoft EULA when you pirate your Windows copy.
No. An EULA takes away rights on something you bought, the GPL gives you rights on something you've copied for free (or bought for money, but GPL gives you the right to copy it for free after that).
GPLv2 didn't "Allow" what Tivo did, it overlooked it. Once Tivo Inc. showed GNU just how evil a corporation can be, they had to spend time and money creating GPLv3, time and money that could have been spent actually doing something, instead had to be spent on lawyering.
As a side note, Tivo Inc. is losing customers, and every useless Tivo sitting unsold at a yard sale is a message to consumers that a Tivo box is worthless. If Tivo Inc. were to provide some small amount of functionality for these machine, they would at least be able to upsell some customers.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
This is why the FSF asks for copyright assignment in GNU projects. They become party to the license, and can act on its infringement.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
"tivoization"-- Nice word.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Quick Google Search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court
http://techrights.org/2007/11/23/gpl-court-test/
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
...If it was "hackable". But it seems that hardware makers today want more than selling you their product. They want to make sure you don't use it unless it's in a way they approve of.
For now, I have alternatives (buy something else), but I am afraid my daughter will not have that option.
moi
The GP represents a kind of ignorance you see a lot in public fora. Is anyone looking at some kind of moderation to flush that kind of post, such that we don't have to waste time with it?
There is a very serious danger of it being used to quash legitimate dissent, which is where the interesting challenge lies. Maybe meta-moderation addresses that completely, maybe not.
A couple of questions:
1. How difficult / expensive is it to obtain the requisite developer SSL keys from Boxee?
2. This issue is not really just about the D-link boxee box's firmware, as it is reasonable that they have a fair bit of intellectual capital invested in their hardware design and all of the code to make their box actually work - that code is not GPL as far as I understand, so why do people think they have a "right" to run modified code on a proprietary computer system?
If people want to run boxee and be able to modify it, then can do so freely on a HTPC or similar platform. The issue is that people want to be able to do it on a platform that is cheaper than anything that they can easily cobble together themselves. E.g. d-link made the system reliable by providing a good design (well, maybe not ascetically, but that's another issue), providing QA, a warranty, etc.
I believe that there is a real market for a consumer single board computer system that is TOTALLY OPEN. One that is inexpensive and reliable, but is polished. I know there are some out there, but the volumes are so small, that the price point will never be what someone like d-link can offer.
Comments?
Since this is one violation on one utility, can't they just cut the author a check for a different license and be done with it? Seems like $10k would be way cheaper than any lawyer involvement. Unless the author wants to use his util as a foot in the door to force Boxee open then I don't see why this won't be resolved in a matter of days. Obviously if this is a much bigger project with lots of authors that complicates matters a little bit, but it seems like just paying the guy off after the fact is the easiest way to clear yourself of GPLv3 violations. Or is that somehow not allowed?
My consulting firm helps law firms and their customers come into compliance with the GPL and other Free Software licenses - both before and after they distribute the product. I can tell you they do take it seriously when they run into trouble, because there is not just the threat of a lawsuit, but the threat of having infringing products prohibited from being imported into the nations where they wish to sell them.
What a lot of companies are having problems with is establishing a compliance program before they get that letter from the Software Freedom Conservancy (which has sued about 40 companies, no kidding). Too many of them fix the problem after it's happened.
Tivo-ization is not one of the things the companies are in trouble for, because the software in question is under GPL2, not GPL3. The problems are from simple non-compliance with the license terms.
Bruce Perens.
Also because it gives them more power. It's been years now since Stallman worked on any real code, so for his arguments to have any traction he needs to scuttle about like a hermit crab in someone elses shell.
an EULA spells out the terms under which your bought something.
It does not 'take away rights' it identifies purchase terms you agree to (even if you don't agree with them)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
That is very good image of Stallman you conjure. He is essentially the Dr.Zoidberg of the Open Source world.
I just sold mine because I couldn't install XBMC on it. They (Boxee) made it seem like the new D-Link Box was going to be hacker friendly and it's far from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhypK3egeQ
ayottesoftware.com
DLink has a history of GPL violation in the past. I am frankly not one bit surprised...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Uh, if I sell my PC with pirated windows I get done for pirating windows. That it is mostly not source code doesn't stop that.
boxee shipped a GPL3 product and they are liable for knowing infringement of $150,000 per box produced (NOT SOLD, *produced*).
There is no need for the entire thing to be GPL3'd to cause this, just like it doesn't matter if there are 10GB of other software properly licensed on my HDD if I've sold it with one pirated piece of software.
An EULA defines the terms under which the copyright holder allows you to use their work, for which you may or may not have paid money for.
Just like the GPL.
That is incorrect. The GPL puts no restrictions on use, ONLY on copying. Thus, it relies on copyright and not the (legally dubious IMO) EULA.
God is imaginary
SOmething they have no right to do, unless it is proffered up before a plain old sale is made.
Additionally: you appear to be clueless about what hte GPL actually does. THe GPL gives you rights to copy something you have acquired. EULAs attempt to restrict your rights to use the product you legally bought over the counter by pretending it is a "licence", and attempting to hold you to the terms of a contract you never saw.
than bill of rights.
The FSF isn't at all democratic, what goes into the GPL is entirely up to Stallman.
TiVo would be obsolete if it publicly allowed modification of its software, because Cable Labs would withdraw TiVo's permission to transfer recordings in any capacity. And this capability is one of the reasons I will never use a cable company or IPTV's inferior DVR solution. The TiVo software is outdated (granted, I do not own a TiVo premiere, because without the OLED front display, I view it as a downgrade), but it still does what it does better than anything else on the market. I do not get why people rag on TiVo for this - all of my TVs all the way back to my 30" SONY Trinitron FD (circa 2004) run a Linux kernel, and none of them are modifiable either, yet nobody ever complains about that. I am sure SONY has sold more TVs running Linux than TiVo has subscribers, and SONY is not the only manufacturer to run Linux, so.... what gives?
Bruce, I don't know much about this, and others have stated above that it is GPLv2 software. Do you think it is possible that it is GPLv3 software if there is a GPLv3 header? Does it even matter? I don't know what significance the header makes...
Either they are in violation, and need to come into compliance, or this smells of trolling to cause turmoil in FOSS-land. No better way to troll than to turn people against each other, for no good reason.
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Rather than trolling, consider that it's from someone who doesn't like tivo-ization, and doesn't understand that much as some of us might like if it did, GPL2 doesn't give anyone the legal ammunition to go after tivo-ization. Next question: are sources provided correctly? That is something that can be enforced under GPL2.
Unless it contains a recent version of Samba, it is unlikely that there is GPL3 stuff in there. I didn't check, I'm working on other stuff today.
If the company or its attorneys need help with a compliance issue, I'm happy to look deeper. But I charge as much as their attorneys do for my expertise. If they don't need my help, I generally leave this stuff to Bradley Kuhn to handle.
Bruce Perens.
Jealous much?
I'm told it's a GPL3 version of GPG. In that case, they'd have to remove the GPL3 version, and document their compliance with the remaining GPL2 software to the copyright holder (who would probably be represented by one Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy and SFLC). Not the end of the world.
Bruce Perens.
"What a lot of companies are having problems with is establishing a compliance program ..."
Bruce, do you think companies made a genuine effort to establish a compliance program early, or is it more a case of them wanting to save money and try and get away with it, or at least delay the costs until a later stage ?
Im following up on a violation right now for a company right now, 6 months ago i queried them about "scripts used to control compilation and installation" i only recently got a response where they state it was an oversight. (pressuring the distributor seems to be the best way to get manufacturers to respond)
My experience is companies will ignore open source licenses (treat it as public domain) until its a threat. I struggle to think of any hardware companies (box makers) that have always dont the right thing.
What hardware companies would you consider open source friendly ?
Actually you can find lot of devices that are linux-based, but source codes are not available public. I've contacted D-link several times for source code for my ADSL wifi router aka 2460RU and they've provided it/uploaded to my FTP server, it took a week, but they haven't denied to upload it, even m It'ore - they've provided several versions... Maybe they've just forgot? Slashdot is good reminder :)
You dense idiot, a EULA does not mean it has to put restrictions on use, it can also grant rights of use. The GPL is a EULA. It restricts those that do not want to follow the GPL and it grants rights and USE to those that respect the agreement. Do the world a favor and don't breed.
I would say hes the Antichrist of the Open Source world.
As I don't support anything related to GPLv3 I just don't care. Its a flawed political license that has no place with open source or free software. I hope that it is tested in court a few more times and found to be invalid so it can just go away.
Regarding the violation, please notify Bradley Kuhn and do not publicly harangue them. It's my understanding that Bradley prefers to be the one to make the contact, rather than having the company dragged through publicity first.
I regularly speak to perfectly intelligent lawyers who work for companies with billions of dollars, and have trouble getting their companies to adopt a company-wide compliance program. When I had a management position with HP, I found that from my section-manager equivalent position it was very difficult to get the whole company marching in the same direction, even with support from higher-level executives. It was easier for me than it is for folks in some companies overseas, who will destroy their careers if they make the wrong step, regardless of whether they are right or not. Often they hire me to say things to their management that an insider could not say safely.
I am also available to talk to the company, but I'd try to sell them my own services to implement a compliance program. So, you can give me their name or not, as you please. Company email is bruce at perens dot com, and company phone is 510-4PERENS.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Not sure where you live, but EULA's have been legally classified as UNENFORCEABLE in Canada since they are not presented at the time of purchase. Oh yeah, and if you pirate Windows, you are NOT violating the EULA since you were never presented with it. The person who uploaded it is violating their EULA (though that legally means nothing) and you are both violating *copyright*.
Hey this is Andrew from Boxee - I wanted to reach out personally and say that we take the GPL very seriously. The utility in question was never used and was removed months ago from the Boxee Box (which is why you had to go back to the initial firmware to see it).
All of Boxee continues to be under GPLv2 (rock on), and we've already seen quite a few companies using and hacking our software for their own purposes (which we think is pretty awesome).
We put up a blog post on the matter where you can read more / respond if you've got any other questions.
http://blog.boxee.tv/2011/04/19/boxee-and-open-source-software/
We continue to rely on the open source community for the foundations of our code, we contribute back on a frequent basis, and without F/OSS, we would never have been inspired to build Boxee in the first place.
Cheers,
Andrew
According to the GPL:
So, not an EULA, a copyright license. Note the bold section (my emphasis) specifically says there are no use restrictions. Only copying.
God is imaginary