Slashdot Mirror
Rumours
Anonymous Coward writes "I must remain anonymous for fear of job security, however... Sprint is a client of ours and we have been given a contract to sign that includes (among other things) a bit that goes like this: Supplier warrants that no GNU, FSF, or copylefted software shall be used in the production of services for Sprint. I'm still trying to figure out if this means that I have to uninstall gawk, apache, sendmail, BIND, etc., from my (non-linux) UNIX systems.... Afraid I can't include a link to the exact contract verbage, but it's 100% factual, I just read the contract myself. "
I also received an email from an EE claiming that Synopsys had informed him that they would be porting their tools to Linux. This would be an important step since Linux is ideal for large simulation/synthesis farms: cheap hardware and stable OS that can be left in a computer room. In related news, Green Mountain Computing Systems has released their VHDL compiler for Linux, with a demo available for download. It is slightly faster than the NT version, with better memory performance.
Finally, VHDL comes to Linux. This is very *VERY* good news. Now chip designers are going to be able to design hardware on a stable and low-cost platform. Maybe they'll pass the savings along to us? (Naw!)
I wonder if those morons at Altera will port Max+ over now? At least they'll have pressure, competively, to do so.
Yes, it could be IP, or it could be as simple as someone ticked off at how successful copyleft has turned out to be and just wants to show it.
..and let Sprint know exactly what GNU stands for.
I am sick and tired of being the victim and having to pay for all this fu**ed-up crappy ass bloated software that can't even take a serious beating!!!
Forget it. If Sprint is stupid enough to let their lawyers make a clause like that, then raise our rates for CNG (Commercial not GNU) crap then they can keep their services and pay for it themselves.
Sorry Rob but I had to vent.
MaximumRISC
I'm not surprised at all. My company has a fairly strong stance on OSS/FSP/GNU/etc software. There are many reasons for this. Much of what we do is time-critical, and with all forms of free software, immediate support cannot be guaranteed. Secondly, there's no one to sue if something goes wrong. As sad as that sounds, it's a fact of life. Thirdly, if we had a linux expert who set up a bunch of systems, and got his by a truck tomorrow, we'd be screwed. With SGI, Sun, HP, etc, we could bring in an expert immediately. This is not NECESSARILY the case with linux. Fourthly, some of our larger customers are _very_ large corporations who demand commercial-grade security. They just don't trust OSS stuff. It makes them feel better to pay for something.
I've heard, and agree with, many of the counters to the three listed arguments, but big business has found a model that works, and is sticking with it. "Suits" have a certain way of thinking, and logic doesn't always dictate what they pass on to us, the lowly techies.
This is an extraordinary opportunity! Could be either of two things: 1) They are complete morons; 2) as a previous poster mentioned, someone may be proving a point...
*I* would use this as an opportunity to charge the living shit out of Sprint for everything. Lawyers do it. You pay their hourly rate even when they are taking a crap.
Man this is going to cost them a pile of money. Guess us consumers will just be picking up the slack. Glad I use ATT...
I don't work for sprint, before anyone says anything, but if this is true, here's my reasoning:
Joe Blow to Stupid Sprint Lawyer:
JB: Yeah, so that's what free software is about. You can use it, etc, etc, all you have to say is that you will give the source of derivatives away for free. (SIC)
Lawyer: WHAT?!?!?!? oh, shit! we could be in big trouble for this! Let's make sure it doesn't happen!
So they repeal ALL free software from use in any of their development, to cover their ass. Too bad they dont realize how impossible this is.
I've found myself explaining free software like that a number of times, and while not _exactly_ true in all cases, I could see this happening this way.
I haven't seen the contract, but based on what was posted here I don't understand why the author thinks that Apache would be banned.
Apache is not covered by a GPL-style license. If the license bans GNU/FSF/copylefted products, that would not seem to include Apache, whose license leaves open the possibility of commercial development using the Apache source. It's very similar to the BSD license. (And in fact there *are* commercial, proprietary products based on Apache. Tenon's WebTen is one.)
I can't comment on the other stuff since I don't remember how it's licensed. For reference, the Apache licensing terms are here:
http://www.apache.org/docs/LICENSE
They just don't want to be required to give away the source code of their internal stuff. Nothing new here, except that it's formalized.
I once worked at a company where they brought in an intern to rewrite Huffman encoding algorithms for use on an ASIC. Same rationale. This, unfortunately, is Stallman's folly.
sheesh you GPL zealots ought to realize that there is a VERY good reason for this clause. Perhaps you should read the GNU license which says that any derivitave works of a GPL licensed work would be covered under the GPL as well.
Now of course this means that if a piece of GPL software was modified for their needs, legally they'd have to release that software under the GPL as well which probably is not something they want to do. There *are* good reasons for that you know.
Besides, BIND, sendmail, and apache are not covered under the GPL-- they're covered under the BSD style license which is *LESS* restrictive than the GPL because of the lack of the "viral" clause above.
Get a grip, people!
Surely you don't plan to sue Microsoft. I know
it is the trendy thing to do, but they have
plenty of lawyers to spare and a license that
says the software could do bad things.
I actually heard about something like this in our company as well... In all honesty, it's not really that big of a deal... like a few others said, a lot of stuff either a) isn't covered by that kind of clause, and/or b) is availibe in a format that is "commercial" and supported. For example, mabe I can't use gawk, but I can use SCO's awk. Or, no BIND, but the named stuff that Novell ships isn't GPL-ed. Heck, it's their contract, we'll do the work the way they want. a) we don't really have a choice, and b) it isn't that hard to do it that way, until some day when they come around. :)
*ahem*
;)
Lets go over a few of the reasons that Sprint may have signed such a contract:
Kickbacks.
Murray, the 12% stockholder in Sprint, has a cousin, Ralph, who just HAPPENS to write telecom software. 'We should use his company.. I know we can trust him' says Murray, and so the $25 Million dollar contract goes to Ralph, the tired coder who really just spends his days and nights in a well lit office, listening to Bach. Murray gets a really good christmas present THAT year.
Distrust.
Your statement was entirely flawed, I am sorry to say. In fact, you are MORE likely to find someone to help you with Linux than with the other OS's (being a contractor myself, I do get exposed to this sort of thing you know), and the 'lack of sypport' you mention dissolves once you buy support from RedHat, or a consulting firm (yes, they exist. Look on the web for them. You'll find hundreds of them). Now, just because people are -used- to the big company paradigm in software, doesn't mean it works any better. IThe Internet was built on mostly free software, and it works right nice. Amazing that. Find a -firm- (people do it with Lawyers.. why not with computers?) that you can trust, and go!
Inertia.
'Suits' as you call them aren't stupid.. they are inertia filled beasts. They ride waves and collect the money with their golden nets, and so when a new boat comes along that is unfamiliar, they don't like it very much. They want to stay on their little round boards, and so they gang up on the 2 or three guys with surfboards and force them out of the bigger waves. Eventually, as we have seen with Linux, this fails.
Free?
As far as paying for something goes.. if you hire a professional firm to create a solution for you, you will end up paying.. oh yes. But guess what? It will likely work, because they NEED to worry about their reputation. I understand this metric well, being a part of it and all.
So, what I am saying is that I disagree with you. Sprint is doing this, if they indeed -are- doing this, for reasons that are not sound business practices. They are doing it for reasons of lethargy and fear.
They may as well have physically destroyed their network hardware, it appears that Sprint is no longer a viable company. The execs responsible for this had better be sacked by Friday, or Sprint will be in an unrecoverable position.
The GNU GPL also does not say you must redistribute your code. If Sprint wanted to make changes to GPL'ed software, they would just keep it in-house and be free of licensing obligations under the GPL.
I fail to see how they would benefit from banning FSF/GNU GPL software. In fact, by using proprietary-only products, they almost guarantee that the only code they will ever be able to modify is the stuff released under the BSD license. (No flamewars here, please, folks: I'm not trying to debate whether this is good or bad, just pointing out how it really is.)
So the question remains, why ban copylefted software? I think it may be as one person pointed out above: some lawyers have implemented a knee-jerk reaction, thinking that all of their products must be free (no cost) and open if GPL'ed software is used anyway. In this case, I imagine it would be the Sprint lawyers who need to reread the GPL and understand exactly what it affects and how.
Maybe I'm the naysayer here, but does the phrase "UNVERIFIED RUMOR" NOT flash in big neon letters across your eyes when you read this? I find it unlikely that Sprint (or anyone) would do this.. I'm willing to keep an open mind, provided there's something more substantial than the word of an anonymous email author.
Actually, when I read the GPL it seems pretty clear if you distribute or publish a derivative work then it has to be licensed under the GPL also. But it seems if you modify something for your internal needs, and never distribute it, then you aren't compelled to release it in any way. That would be ludicrous.
Sendmail, Apache, bind, etc. are not GPL'd, of course. Nor are they associated with the FSF or GNU in any way. Not so much as a hint of copyleft. So even if that is their policy, he has little to worry about (gawk is a different story, but it's hardly as unique or irreplaceable as the others).
I'm curious. You have to provide the source for GPL programs if you REDISTRIBUTE it, but not if the changes are only for your use. If Sprint is only using this software internally and has no intention of selling any byproducts, supporting it, or providing such programs as a service to customers, they wouldn't be required to distribute any source code changes, would they?
For instance, if I want to make changes to the linux kernel for my own use, there is no way that anyone will make me cough up the source for it, I just won't be able to distribute the changes to others.
At least, that's the way I see it. However, the small snippet of the contract we can see here doesn't specify what the software is to be used for, so its really nothing we can make assumptions about.
Well, this is somewhat of a reply to a number of articles before me.
This is just a rumor and should be treated as such. Since we do not have a copy of the contract to read, this could just mean GPL and LGPL'd software or it could mean open source software as a whole. Because of the vagueness of most contracts (and ignorance of most lawyers) it could actually be refering to everything from the GPL to BSD, NPL, QPL, etc.
Some of the anti-GPL posters have said that they have good reason, or are least logic ones, that they should avoid free software since any changes would have to be free. But when has Sprint been in the business of making software? I would assume that the software that they do use that has been made for them do the specific function of running a telephone company. If they want that software to be owned by them, then GPL'd libraries and such are automatically out. This makes perfect sense. But the way the post was worded makes it seem that not only can GPL'ed software not be apart of their own software but that it cannot be used AT ALL; not in developement or use on any computers by sprint. That's a bit harsh.
Something should be noted: ftp into www.sprint.net. They're proudly running (an outdated version of) wu-ftp.
It would be reasonable to believe that they want to keep their software proprietary (sp?) which follows that they do not want GPL'd (and the similar) mixed with theirs but it would be ok to use it in the developement of it. It would seem extremely odd if they are refusing their employees to use free software.
Only problem with that is that people usually want to get _money_ when they sue people. They don't just sue them to crush people (well, maybe sometimes :)
Ok, probably not, but the definitions of these terms were vague enough (and the stakes high enough) that they balked.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you keep internal changes internal? Doesn't the GPL just say that if you distribute it publically in any form, it has to include the source. I doubt Sprint would distribute their internal stuff anyway. Does it apply?
You dont need to give out internal developments. GPL doesn't make you give out source, it makes the source come with the binaries. If you dont distribute the binaries, you need not distribute the source.
I like how they list the Linux beta under the "Microsoft Windows Users" section instead of the
"Unix Users" section. *sigh*
-benjy
I never have really considered slashdot a main stream news source. There are many linux news sites that only give 100% pure linux news. I actually like slashdot because its more of a community getting together and talking, sometimes yelling. You talk about what major things are happening, gossip about who is doing what and tell a few jokes. Slashdot specifically says that its a rumor, it has the feel of it and from the looks of the comments the majority of the people arent thinking and are just typing (as i said below, ftp to www.sprint.net, they use GPL'ed software). I would say just ignore it, but i'm sick of hearing that myself. I am working on, and i think Rob is too when he isnt playing with his database, a way to filter out certain topics. So eventually you will be able to ignore all rumors, movie reviews and new copyrights.
I truely hope slashdot never becomes a reputable, main stream news source. This is a place for geeks to talk about what interests them. Main stream media compared to slashdot is like comparing the Prom King to the President of the Computer Club
I'm not advocating having a largely rumor site, but a little of the more reputable pieces of rumor wouldnt hurt and at the very least gives us something to think about.
--
Zach Garner
subnormal@@hotmail.com
Sorry, it's just kind of annoying when people make a quotation and misspell who it's from.
If Linux actually pushed into ASIC territory, the kernel guys will be under some pressure to raise that 2 Gig memory limit.
Synopsys would be a killer start...
Apache is not GNU, FSF, or copylefted.
actually, if you distribute it around your company, you are distributing it,and that is a violation of GPL. although it's unlikely you'd get in trouble for that, it's still technically not allowed
Sprint owns paranet, a largish consulting firm. It's quite possible this contract involves a paranet project, and if sprint/paranet has a client that wants to specify no GPL, it's not sprint that should be harassed, and without knowing what the client intends to do with the results, it's unfair to complain about their specs.
I develop software for a extremely large router company. We work from the NetBSD sources. And I know for a fact that this is common industry practice. Why? GPL!
It's a shame these companies take free sources, fix them and make millions from it. Perhaps the industry "gives back" through employing a few of us.
Let's see:
This contract bans "emacs".
This contract bans "configure".
This contract bans (some versions of) "make", "tar", "rcs" and "cvs".
This contract bans "gzip".
On the one hand, I know Windows SDKs contain
source control programs, "make", compression tools, etc.
On the other hand, those tools are generally a pale imitation of their Unix counterparts. Sorta like the way "WinSock" is a replacement for real sockets.
Why don't the Sprint lawyers take this to its logical conclusion and require all development be done on IBM brand card punches with Genuine Sprint Brand (tm) Punch Cards?! I have worked with punch cards (he says, stroking his grey beard), and I would rather use Gnu tools with punch cards than suffer another hour with NT!
Thanks for making my day. Suing mickeysoft is against the EULA, which means not only would you lose, but your mickeysoft software would be unlicensed, and they could sue you if they so wished to. People are hilarious. Good luck with the darwin awards.
Oh, and do you perhaps expect Sprint to post a press release to inform you that they will not use GPL'ed software internally? The mass media in the United States has proven itself untrustworthy time and again, so where else can you go for true, relevant news?
The usual chatter on /. is that more stuff should be GPLed so that it is free and no evil companies can commercially subvert everyone's hard labor.
/. gets mad becaue the GPL is being dissed.
Then Sprint says that they want to be extra careful that they do not subvert the GPL and accidentally use GPLed code in a commercial product. And then a faction in
Like I said, I don't get it.
You Linux weenies are so damn impatient. 18 months ago, your darling OS was nothing. You get a bunch of press coverage, and all of a sudden you think that everyone has to do things your way.
Well, you're right, but you're early. You must give the world time. Remember, many companies are still running Windows 3.1 and DOS. After all, the Engineer's credo is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Let me list out why everybody is reading the sprint thing wrong.
1 : It may not be true. Let's assume it is though since this whole discussion is pointless it it's an ugly lie.
2 : Sprint likely means not using any GPLed code as part of the application they are building.
3 : The GPL is Viral which means Sprint must either GPL whatever is written with it or not distribute the derived work.
4 : There are reasons to keep source closed. One is security. If you do not have the time to allow proper pear review of a "quick hack" then you keep the source closed to ward off Crackers until you get a solid replacement in.
5 : There are reasons to not GPL. If for instance this is an application which would be installed at all the local offices and AT&T Likes it then Sprint could sell them copies for each office. AT&T Wouldn't need support for it if it's reasonably simple. This sort of trade dose take place between telecoms.
6 : They do not want contractors engaging in Software piracy. I.e. "I am paying you $x to develop this piece of closed proprietary software. If you use any GPLed code in the production of it Then we must release some code and be shamed in the process". ( Ask BE and Next how much fun that is. ).
Until we have an all free software world companies will avoid it as much as possible. I.e. They will use Linux servers since that doesn't break any laws. They will avoid borrowing GPLed code since they need to have closed software to barter with other closed software and to delay cracking of systems "protected" by 'security through obscurity'.
Dose anybody remember the role Ma Bell played in the open source movement and Unix ?
In case it says AC, I am Kevin Forge
Sprint better not use any Motorola products, since they are developed using Linux among other operating systems.
I was under the impression that Linux was limited to 2.0G of memory on any CPU. ie, running Linux on an Alpha - still stuck w/ 2.0G. Is this not true?
Calm down, it's Sprint's problem, not yours.
But I don't know why they have to be so specific
about the GPL... There are all sorts of sources
of source code which could also not be used also.
For example, if you got source code to a
commercial unix kernel, there are usually some
restrictions to it being incorporated into some
other program! Yes the GPL is viral in nature
but that is just like any other commercial source
code license with its own restrictions on how it
may be used.
You have the source, worst case scenario, you hire someone (or use inhouse). BEST case: you hire the guys who wrote it. I know of very few who would not take $$$ to fix the software they wrote. BZZT!
Microsludge has a $5 or cost of software limit on liability. If your NT system dies, they owe you $5 or the cost of NT. Your lawyers will make nothing on that lawsuit, so why bother? If it WORKS, you don't need to sue, and if it's broken, you can fix it (see #1) BZZT!
Redhat, Linuxcare, and dozens of other guys would do just that these days. BZZT!
Open source means it is commericial grade security, or else it fails to propagate. Joe Microsoft uses crap like bit shifted password encryption, and you call that secure? If you can't see the code, how do you know it's secure... Total everloving FUD, and if you don't fight it, you are the loser who suffers, and you aren't doing your JOB, techie boy.
Contractor (I'm one of those) left cold in the water.
At least one sign that "outsource it all" is not that hot anymore...
OSS saving bucks / producing happiness.
-Me
Taken Microsoft Warranty Information:
:)
:]
..."You have relied on your own skill and judgement in deciding to acquire the SOFTWARE and any accompanying Microsoft hardware, software, manuals or written materials for use by you. Except as and to the extent provided in this agreemnent, neither PC Manufacturer and/or Microsoft Corporation (or related company of either) will in any circumstances be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation or other indirect or consequential loss) arising out of the use or inability to use or supply or non-supply of the SOFTWARE and any accompanying hardware and written materials. PC Manufacturer's and/or Microsoft Corporation (or related company of either) total liability under any provision of this agreement is in any case limited to the amount actually paid by you ofr the SOFTWARE and/or Microsoft hardware..."
Lets talk about liability then, if something goes wrong and you lose money because of MS software; If you get anything, it'll just be a refund on the software and/or hardware. They will not be liable for any damages brought on by their software.
If you need support for Microsoft, you either pay MS directly or use a consulting firm. The liablilty belongs to the consulting firm, not with MS.
Linux is just as good, there are many companies willing to provide support for your company, at a price of course. With that price, you get someone to sue if something goes wrong (if it was their fault). If not, you would be screwed using either MS or Linux.
though you might get your money back with MS, doubt it though.
Just my 2 cents, don't take any of my words as the truth. Just an "idea" of mine!
GNU toolsets are used quite widely among those of us who write realtime time crital embedded systems. So are Sprint saying that use of one of the many development systems based on (and often providing a GUI integrated front-end to) gcc & gdb is not allowed in the development of any equipment supplied to them?
For one thing, your EULA doesn't mean a damn thing in court. EULAs are about as binding as WD-40.
Secondly, it happens all the time. No, not when the copy of Office you bought fails to work correctly. It happens when there's a valid support contract between a user and a provider, and that provider fails to follow through on that support. Since there's little if any possibility of obtaining such support for free software, companies don't want to risk their asses.
A good wine shop near where I used to live had some nice wine in that he tried to sell for NZ$7.50. Very few people bought it, save those who actually knew (and like anything, there are fuck all that really understand) their wines, and weren't wine snobs. He put the price up to $12.00, a nice average to good wine price, and he sold out within a week.
Perception _is_ reality for many
If Sprint presents this same contract clause to Cisco, I'm willing to bet that Cisco will tell them to put it where the sun doesn't shine. Will Sprint then kick out all their Cisco products? Unlikely.
Signed, a Sprint customer.
Sprint's contract programmers from turning in work that's derived from GPLed code.
This would make sense. Sprint should expect to own work that's done for it for hire, so that it can sell the code (or products containing it). If the code is derived from GPLed code, Sprint might
have to reveal intellectual property it paid good money for -- including the embedded code inside products. Asking the programmer to warrant that the code is entirely original (a warranty of
originality), and that the company that paid for its production will own it free and clear, is a standard provision in a "work for hire" contract. Asking that the code not be surreptitiously "infected" by the GPL is, in fact, very reasonable in this case.
Why single out the GPL? Because Richard Stallman advocated its use in this way in his essay, "What is Copyleft." Because Stallman believes that copyrights, patents, and licensing software for a profit are fundamentally wrong, one of the uses he envisioned for the GPL was to force companies that pay for the development of software to publish the result for free, even if they had made a substantial investment in it. In his essay, Stallman wrote:
"People who write improvements in free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may 'see green' and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product."
Interestingly, in a case of Orwellian revisionism, Stallman removed
this language from the version of the essay that's now published at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
(The version that's there now is dated 18 January 1999.) But fortunately, as with Microsoft, the Internet "remembers" the past even when attempts are made to change it. An older version of
the essay, reproduced widely on the Web, shows that language. See
http://bart.ton.tut.fi/GNU/copyleft/copyleft.ht
for a version, dated 4 August 1997, that still contains the language quoted above.
The removal of the language came shortly after I quoted it on Jamie Love's "Appraising Microsoft" mailing list -- in a message dated 25 March 1998. Why did Stallman attempt to veil his intentions after they were pointed out on that list? Hmmm.
In any event, the original article here shows that the poster is ignorant of the terms under which many programs are published. Neither BIND nor sendmail nor Apache is GPLed. Perhaps he is also ignorant of what the contract (which, you'll note, he "couldn't" quote) actually means.
--Brett Glass
This would make sense. Sprint should expect to own work that's done for it for hire, so that it can sell the code (or products containing it). If the code is derived from GPLed code, Sprint might have to reveal intellectual property it paid good money for -- including the embedded code inside products. Asking the programmer to warrant that the code is entirely original (a warranty of originality), and that the company that paid for its production will own it free and clear, is a standard provision in a "work for hire" contract. Asking that the code not be surreptitiously "infected" by the GPL is, in fact, very reasonable in this case.
Why single out the GPL? Because Richard Stallman advocated its use in this way in his essay, "What is Copyleft." Because Stallman believes that copyrights, patents, and licensing software for a profit are fundamentally wrong, one of the uses he envisioned for the GPL was to force companies that pay for the development of software to publish the result for free, even if they had made a substantial investment in it. In his essay, Stallman wrote:
"People who write improvements in free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may 'see green' and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product."
Interestingly, in a case of Orwellian revisionism, Stallman removed this language from the version of the essay that's now published at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
(The version that's there now is dated 18 January 1999.) But fortunately, as with Microsoft, the Internet "remembers" the past even when attempts are made to change it. An older version of the essay, reproduced widely on the Web, shows that language. See
http://bart.ton.tut.fi/GNU/copyleft/copyleft.html
for a version, dated 4 August 1997, that still contains the language quoted above.
The removal of the language came shortly after I quoted it on Jamie Love's "Appraising Microsoft" mailing list -- in a message dated 25 March 1998. Why did Stallman attempt to veil his intentions after they were pointed out on that list? Hmmm.
In any event, the original article here shows that the poster is ignorant of the terms under which many programs are published. Neither BIND nor sendmail nor Apache is GPLed. Perhaps he is also ignorant of what the contract (which, you'll note, he "couldn't" quote) actually means.
--Brett Glass
$500 million lawsuit against SAP. Same amount against the consultancy that implemented the project -- Andersen. As someone else pointed out, we're not talking about the MS EULA here.
The GNU licence limits freedom by enforcing freedom.
That's like saying "I'll pay you if you promise not to take any bribes."
It's an OXYMORON!
One big area where we're lacking is the fact that the FSF proprietary IP is nonexistent. We need to start taking patents out and applying GPL license terms to them (You can only use this patent if you give your source code away.)
A good place to start is with the GTK+ feature where you can assign a hotkey to a menu item by highlighting the menu item and hitting a key.
I am personally tired of hearing this kind of reasoning... of course everyone will open up the flamethrowers when someone complains that there is nobody to sue.
Mark
I work for Sprint also, but not in the engineering group. And I have faced quite a bit of resistance trying to bring Linux and GNU software into the office. If malus could give me some help in this field, I would be grateful.
>Supplier warrants that no GNU, FSF, or >copylefted software shall be used in the >production of services for Sprint
I bet this has nothing to do with wanting to retain ownership and control. If that was the point, Sprint would say so explicitly.
It sounds like someone at Sprint is very hostile to GNU and is sowing FUD to attack them, even at the expense of good business judgement.
This is the perfect mirror-image of the FSF ban on the use of proprietary software if there is a free alternative. In both cases, it boils down to an ideologic decision rather than a business decision.
WAIT a minute before you take action. Just read this first.
If this Sprint rumor is true, I think we should harness the slashdot effect to send a message to Sprint. Granted, people have said that Sprint doesn't rely that much on GPLed software anyway. But I think this sets a really bad (and ill-conceived) precedent. It says GPL and FSF products are not as good as stuff you pay money for. That's simply not a true rule. Plenty of commercial software is buggy, and you're at the mercy of the company that provides it (and likely had you sign away your rights upon istalling the software).
We all know this, but we should show that we mean it. If and when we get verification for this, we should set up a time for everyone who wants to let their opinion known and who uses Sprint for long-distance service (course, that would exempt me...) to switch long distance carriers.
Sure, since you're the one initiating it, you won't get the best deal and may pay a little more for long distance. But you could just switch back in a month. The point isn't to try to run them out of business, the point is put a big blip on their graphs that gets their attention.
Who's with me on this?
--
Jason Eric Pierce
If you are one of the parties to the contract, you already have names.
If you aren't, then your demand is unwarranted. It looks particularly
stupid coming from an anonymous coward.
I understand why we are all upset over this Sprint rumor, but I say "Fine, just try to live by the rules you are making", and then hopefully all the Unix guys will rid their workstations of every single piece of software that violates the contract. I have a feeling the Unix guys will have a lot of free time on their hands since they won't be able to get their work done.
Give 'em a taste of their own stupidity, that's what I say.
This is sprint's perogative. If they are your client, I can assume that they are purchasing services from you, possibly software or hardware/software. They are saying, basically, that 'If we buy it from you, we don't want it to be open source. IOW, when we buy it from you, we want to own it outright.
They probably didn't intend for it to mean "You can't use GCC to compile something", they meant we want a product/services from you so we can point the finger at YOU.
IMHO, this is still BAD, as if it is services, you can be made responsible by contract.
GNU utilities are more reliable than any other, as even if company X collapses they will still be maintained by someone (odds are)
Richard Stallman advocated the use of the GPL to "pry" code that was developed in house out of companies and educational institutions. Because of this explicit intent, and the viral nature of the license, it is especially important for a company like Sprint to avoid having it happen. Including a provision in the contract makes it clear to the contractor that this is not allowed, and makes it easier for Sprint to seek redress if a contractor slips GPLed code into a work-for-hire project and thereby "infects" it.
I think Sprint's lawyer deserves kudos for thinking of this; it means that he or she is up to speed on software licensing issues.
--Brett Glass
If this is true, sprint would have no email, dns, routing, etc, etc, etc, etc. Who comes up with this stuff?
And more importantly, could I had you a binary sendmail, say "Uh... it's commercial..." and make money off their stupidity
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
The NDA will clearly apply if it worded the correct way ("may not disclose any information not available to the general public" or something to that effect). They might be afraid that they can't stop further redistribution of the code, but since they never released it, they can't be held to the GPL on that point. But IANAL.
it said the clause would be that "no GNU, FSF or Copyleft software shall be USED IN THE PRODUCTION of it" :)
Thats an entirely different thing as saying you may not re-use GPL code. That indeed would be rational but its not what it says. According to this wording the programmers wouldn't be allowed to use Emacs to write the code
It's just a thing that a lawyer figured out without really understanding what he's talking about.
- illuminaut, arbiter elegantiarum.
I can see the logic in this clause, as brain-dead as it may be.
The idea being that there needs to be *no* possibility that any of the work done for them could be considered derivatives of GPL'ed software - and therefore, Sprints license for the delivered works is safe from, intellectual-property wise.
Sprint is a big corp. Big corps have lawyers. Lawyers are essentially useless members of society, and they know it - they're scared of people waking up and realizing this. So they do things to make themselves seem important - such as add clauses 'that will protect the future investments and assets of this company'.
Oh well. I guess this Sprint contractor will just have to re-invent the wheel(s). Again.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Posted by GNUSpeed:
I guess some suits have not read their EULAs. If you read any license agreement, you will see that the author of the software limits his liabilty to replacement of the product. There is no liabilty stated for damages caused by said software. That is the case for both commercial and GNU/FSF software. The only diffference betweent he two types of software is the cost. The liability to the author is the same.
Posted by Mr. Assembly:
You have some suits who make an engineering decision. The kind that wonder if their water cooler is y2k compliant. What they are afraid of is some highschooler's ten cent hack code being used, something going wrong shutting down the nationwide network, and their satellites falling out of the sky.
Really though open source code will prove to be more robust in the long run. AT&T learned this the hard way when a single line of bad proprietary C code crashed their eastern seaboard network - how soon do people forget? Quite frankly with the way NT is going, when it crashes somebody's mission crtical app, suing the company won't bring them back online. Nor will they get legal redress with most if not all software packages I know about come with a "AS IS" warranty that absolves the software company of any legal liability whatsoever.
When the get tired of bloated, buggy, crashy code like I am, I have a feeling that they will forget about this contract and let the engineers make the decision and dump the suits.
Posted by Tony Smolar:
It might have something to do with the fact that the GNU license is incompatible with everything else. You use some GNU software in your code, guess what? You're screwed, you must convert everything to GNU! This may not even be possible because of NDA's, patents, etc.
I won't be surprised if there is a greater backlash against GPL in the future.
I know GPL advocates will be seething at this message, but they need to understand how the world in general works, and it's not GNU.
Sprint is my local phone company and I have half a notion to call them up and give them a piece of my mind... but alas, I have none to spare...sigh...
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
They of course think this mistakenly. I know you know this, so I thought the first to say it anyway should be non-flamy.
--
Xenu loves you!
>>Something should be noted: ftp into www.sprint.net. They're proudly running (an outdated version of) wu-ftp.
Geee, I wonder if it's vulnerable.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
No, you moron, it doesn't say "compiled", it says "used in the production of services".
/v "#" stupid.txt > stupid.sh
By this reasoning, writing this line of shell script wouldn't be allowed (if I wrote and executed it, say, on a linux box)
grep -v ^# stupid.file > stupid.uncommented.file
However, writing this line of code on this NT machine and running it would be fine:
find
However, find and grep are not the same. Specifically, find is a proprietary cheap ripoff of grep. This is why find has no equivalent to ^# (matching strings starting with #) and therefore I would have to write a proprietary replacement to find, or find a grep that isn't GPL'ed.
How does using a GPL'ed utility hurt Sprint? It doesn't. There are no licensing issues for using GPL'ed software for the production of anything. There *are* licensing issues for modifying GPL'ed software, and recompiling it. (or, for that matter, stealing code, which you can't really do in the proprietary programs anyhow.)
Solution? Treat a GPL'ed binary like a proprietary binary. Don't read source unless you're going to use the GPL.
Basically, this contract needs to be more specific, and you need to figure out what a derivative work means. (I read the GPL, and it's not as broad or as boneheaded as that snippet from the Sprint license. (Specifically, if you need *more* explanation, the Sprint license is talking about use of programs, the GPL is talking about source code. Got it?) )
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If it is real and I think it's possible, I'd want to know what the exact reasons were and not the supposed reasons. That sounds like an explicit clause excluding a specific group of software. I would think that if they were out to insure themselves and have the lawsuit option as well as the 24-7 quick support that they could word it in a manner that wouldn't prevent GPLed software explicitly.
Now at IBM (standard disclaimer) I've heard the (L)GPL issure rehashed a number of times and it hinges on what the meaning of use is. GPL doesn't outline what it means to use a GPLed product. It sounds stupid but lawyers take that kind of stuff seriously (ie: Clinton and what sex means) I've been told by some people that I should remove emacs, cygwin32, linux, info-zip, etc.. from my computer until an IPL comes and gives the ok sign. I've also been told that as long as the GPLed software doesn't produce something that we ship or get shipped with a product then I'm cool so I can use emacs but not bison or gcc. I've also been told to do what it takes to get the job done by a few people which I'll take to mean what I need it to mean.. When your pockets are deep enough the tight rope you walk on becomes very narrow and you take careful steps because you fall a lot further. In the warped minds of those who practice law, RMS or Linus or somebody is totally likely to ignore the use of GCC or linux by small software house but when Microsoft or IBM uses it the lure of billions of dollars cause them to fabricate a law suit.
It's also possible that this could be a new wave of anti-free software activity by companies that stand to lose a lot of money. The OSF kind of did this a few years ago. (You'll probably have to see the world through my twisted mind to fully agree with me on this one..) Some (BIG) companies got together and they produced a brand name and got more big powerful companies to buy into it, then they went out with the non-OSF excluding contracts so that some projects were exclusively 'Open' even though 'Open' was mostly a sham. There are still products and companies that brag about 'Open' products even though the OSF is hardly open, it's a codeword used to make a sale. It was a big market protection gimmick (not exactly, but that's pretty much what a lot of it was) the OSF wasn't the cheapest or easiest organization to get involved with and a lot of their technology wasn't so hot but they could force you into using it because you needed the brand to sell your product.
It's probably just the stupidity of some suit wearing chump who doesn't understand technology who thinks that having the source code makes it wildly easier to break through security or something.
This is it. At first they ignored us. Next, they casually dismissed us as a bunch of high-school hacker types. Then they tolerated our existance, but never openly accepted us. But soon, our software found its way into the big companies everywhere via back door channels because our stuffed worked and worked well. Then a few brave but small commercial software houses, such as Applixware and the startup Netscape, announced support for us and ported their products to our platform. And, as the heads turned, the big boys started to realize the fantastic power we have created and they came to our side. Big names like HP and IBM. But then another big player made the decision to stop and stand against us. A monolithic last bastion of stubbornness. The last stand of the great Dinosours. This is history in the making folks. Our grandchildren will read of our great movement and of events unfolding right now before our very eyes. The clock has reached zero. The lines are drawn. The blades unsheathed. And so... the Great Battle... begins.
Banning GPL'ed software in
derived products is the right thing for anyone selling proprietary software to do. However, banning its use in services is downright silly and sounds ideologically motivated (that is, if the original source wasn't garbling this.)
IIRC some of the -ac patches allow you to access >2GB of physical memory. I've never needed them (only having a lowly 128MB!) so I don't know how stable they are yet.
axolotl
What services? It does not sound like production of software. If not software, why would Sprint be afraid of? Because of lack of warranty and no one to sue?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
One cannot use emacs because the text file it created is GPLed.
One cannot use the GIMP because images edited with the GIMP are GPLed.
One cannot use a GPLed circuit design program because the chips so designed are GPLed.
One cannot use GPLed CAD program to design a car because such a car is GPLed.
That's what Sprint is thinking, I guess...
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
The GPL only covers copying. Software that is internal is not being copied.
-russ
Sorry dude, this is bullshit. If they don't give the software to anyone but themselves, they have no more requirements under the GPL than any other license to copy. Look at Critical Path. They've modified the hell out of qmail. But that's okay, because they're not distributing it.
Go read the GPL before you opine on it.
-russ
Let me be the first, then, to congratulate Sprint for having a clue.
If we're going to slam Sprint based on an anonymous rumor, then shouldn't we be just as quick to praise them for a non-anonymous one?
Um, Cygnus does exactly that - it guarantees immediate support for GNU development tools if you have a support contract with us. We've got some pretty major companies as customers, too.
The GPL is all about choice. It is a little bit uncompromising for some people's tastes. But, like its creator, there is absolutely nothing underhanded or secretive about it. It says what it means and it does what it says.
Also, your interpretation of the clause in Sprint's license is rather too forgiving. Taking literally, as quoted, it does indeed imply that you couldn't at any time use GPL-licensed software while doing their work. That means no compiling with gcc, no scripting with Perl, and no Linux anywhere in the same room. If the contract is as quoted, compliance would be almost impossible in most UNIX shops.
fish and pipes
Bah. . .What's the point?
If you're going to write something that's a modification of GPLed software, why bother not using it? Certainly you aren't the only people that thought of it! Why not let the other people who did all the original work get to see the changes?
As a software author, why would *I* ever release software under a BSD style license? If I'm going to pour hours and hours of work into software, why would I want to let someone else take MY work and change it and make money off it and not let me see what they did with it? Or even publicly credit me with doing the work that is making them money?
If your software is soooo great that it is not something that can be released, ok, then don't use GPL. But, why should we programmers be forced to continually reinvent the wheel just cuz someone else thinks their wheel is too good for us to see?
You don't like GPL, that's you're perogative, but from a programmer who's spent too damn much time rewriting code that's already been written, I think it's the only thing that will keep software moving forward at the rate it should.
** Martin
I don't think slashdot should be a place where rumours should be posted. Once you open the flood gates of rumours, you cannot stop it. I suggest that unless somthing can be proven as facts, or the person leaves some way to be contacted for further information, it can be seen as misinformation. Maybe its me, but i have already been fed up to here (/me points to his neck) with the "mainstream" media reporting stuff that are either incorrect or from "anonymous sources" and i hope that this is the last time i see something like this on slashdot.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!
How many fucking times must some cunt hole say this:
"Secondly, there's no one to sue if something goes wrong."
When last did you see a company get sued for selling bad software?!? Almost every so called "commercial" grade software package comes with a EULA that makes them NOT responsible for anything that the software may do to your computer, your life, your kids, your dog, or your god damn pet monkey named bob!
Get a fucking grip you stupid morons!!!!
i cannot take it anymore.................
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
call me when they win their case...
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
last time i checked, if you changed the code, you don't have to give naybody it, as long as you weren't distributing it. For example, lets say i get the source for some shitty program or another, and i fix it, but decide that i don't want others to have my great new program, how can i get in trouble? go learn to read you mook...
am i being forced to give the original programmer my code changes? no! exactly... if i am wrong, someone please stop me, but since i know that the code is not leaving my computer, the source does not need to leave too... so there...
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
eTrade is being sued for failure to provide a SERVICE. That's not the same as suing a software company for providing buggy software. It's more like suing your garbage man for not picking up the trash. They failed to provide the contracted service, which cost people money. Whether they use computer software or monkeys with headset phones to provide this service is irrelevant.
... don't buy a word of this BS.
I work in a software engineering group deep within sprint, and I am part of a team that's currently getting MAJOR corporate kudo's from the big-wigs for opening up their eyes to OSS...
We just saved them 3,000,000 smackeroos by coding an app in PHP. The original outsourced bid still canna figure out how we did it...
sprint DOES realize the power of OSS, and Linux. Myself and the 6 others i work with are living proof of it.
Viva Hawaii, boys. Viva hawaii.
If it's for their internal network, no, they need not release the sources.
--
Infuriate left and right
I HATE those stupid Sprint commercials anyway.
-N.
Actually, you could probably do it either way. I haven't had much experience with modern Indian languages, but I'm guessing that they use a different alphabet than the Roman one we employ. From my limited experience with Vedic Sanskrit, I would imagine that modern Indian languages use a variety of different letters for sounds that would have the same letter in our alphabet, if we even use them. There's almost never only one way to transliterate words and names from one alphabet to another. Hence Japanese "konbanha," "kombanha," "kombanwa," "kombanha," and the like, or Chinese "Mao Tse-Tung," "Mao Zedong," and so on.
No rumours in general are anything but reliable,
but the people at slashdot really should know better than pass on clearly wrong rumours that BIND, sendmail, etc. are covered by GPL, Copyleft or some "FSF" licence.
No, they will have mail, dns, routing, etc.
All these programs are covered by BSD and not GPL licences.
There isn't much useable GPL-ed network software at all.
>If Sprint is so brain dead they will lose because >of this, whether in boycotting customers (me),
As if they cared if some user or other "boycotted them.
>more development and debugging time, bug ridden >products, and so on. Sprint hasn't got anything I >need.
If they have got nothing you need, then you aren't their customer (or wouldn't be) anyways so they have no reason to give a rat's ass about you.
Oh and you claims about more bugs, more time, etc. are just that - just silly claims.
The 2GB wall *IS* an arbitary limit imposed by linus and friends. Among all the other things:
a) all intel processors since 386DX have been able to address 4GB of memory
b) PPros and Xeons have 36bit address bus
and can thus address 64GB of memory.
Actually, you should probably read the GPL. Check out Section 2:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions...
If you don't distribute your copies, (ie keep them for internal use only) then the you don't have to make your changes availble.
If you distributed your stuff, then it's a totally different ball game...
-Erik
They feel safer about the security because they can't verify it themselves, by inspecting the code which implements it. That makes sense; after all, it works for ostriches.
if this thing is any good, perhaps gone are the days of mentor graphics off a remote sparc...
then again...
It would seem to me that as potential investors, the ideal thing to do would be to ask the investor relations department about Sprint's policy on the use of GNU, GPL and copylefted software. After all, we wouldn't want to invest in a company that didn't meet our investment objectives, now would we?
investorrelation.sprintcom@mail.sprint.com
Would seem to be one such place to query.
http://www.pauldrobertson.com
..but what I really need is a nice Verilog HDL compiler for linux.. know where I could get one?
Honest question:
:-(
If something goes wrong with Microsoft(tm) or Oracle(tm) or any other commercial software, do you actually have a realistic chance of prevailing in a lawsuit claiming the products are shoddy?
If so, I would think Microsoft would be filing for bankruptcy any day now.
I mean, it's a nice theory and all, but I think all you could ever get back is the price of the software, and that's not going to help if your whole business went south.
True, you can talk to a Support Robot, but I haven't found support robots of any stripe to be particularly helpful.
D
Just buy an alpha
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
..if this is true - Sprint has some morons employed...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
It would make perfect sense if you used no acronyms, but you had to use them...
Great, now the tools vendors are distracted
from their main business (the one we pay for)
of delivering _reliable_ tools. Instead they're
off chasing yet another cheap platform.
I'll call Synopsys Today!
From provision 0 of the GPL:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not
restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents
constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running
the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
... I'm interested in short-selling some.
With losing FUD-attitudes like that, they're going
to wonder where all their revenue went and why their
software support costs are so high.
They will dearly pay for this stupidity.
then they fight you, then you win.
-Ghandi
Only one step left, fellows.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
OK As far as I understand this statement in Sprint's contract basically means that they want to have somebody responsible for whatever part of the software fails. If they use GPLed softwre who are they gonna sue if they have some downtime. By having this statement in their contract they will sue the posters company who, by using GPLed software have broken the contract rules. They are just covering their asses this way. But bad part about it is that if they really want they can always back off from this contract because of this statement and there will always be something like a copy of running sendmail or bind.
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
Magic 6.4 is also evidently out for Linux, for those aspiring up and coming hardware designers among the Chic Geek crowd!
Check out the link below for more info...
Magic for Linux, BSD, etc.
Twinkie