Miguel de Icaza writes
"The
people that did the MOSIX cluster system have now made a port for Linux. But they do not provide all the source code of their work. They only provide a binary kernel module which allows the user to run only a cluster of six machines(they show a picture of their 100 cluster node).
The binary module requires kernel modifications. (Thus breaking the Linus permission for binary modules).
I think we should stand up against this blatant violation of the GPL. "
Update: 02/27 11:34 by
S :
In related news,
xose
points out other license violations:
Linux Network Drivers states
"Several drivers have been distributed that are little more than renamed versions of my drivers. Some have my name, the
copyright notice or the Gnu GPL license notice removed. The less flagrant violations merely fail to note that the driver has been
modified from the original version. (The GPL requires such a note.)"
Update: 02/27 11:05 by
S :
To clarify Miguel's point: Source must be available for any addition
to a GPL'd product. Linus and the other core kernel developers
gave a special dispensation to allow binary modules to be inserted into
the kernel as long as they do not require kernel modifications
of their own.
Some posters argue that this is whining, and we should be
grateful for more software on Linux. Others argue Linux must
let go of its licensing conditions to succeed. Neither argument
is relevant. MOSIX is violating the Linux license: it is
a binary kernel module that requires kernel modifications.
Just as Microsoft would not tolerate violations of its license,
the authors of Linux need not tolerate this violation. The
fact Linux is available at no cost is irrelevant: the license
is based on copyright law and Linux is not in the public domain.
Other posters believe that Mosix could fork the Linux code
base and do what they want. This is incorrect. The license
terms are determined by all the authors (copyright holders)
of a product. Unless Linus and co agreed to change the license
it would not change, fork or no fork.
If it is true that the Israeli government does not allow
the source of the Mosix kernel module to be made available, it is my understanding
that the GPL states that the Hebrew University may NOT
distribute Mosix to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Imho GPL is far to restrictive. A good example is from a friend of mine who is working at ericsson microwave systems. They had a "poll" among the engineers about what operating system they would like to use for embeded aplications, linux was the number one choice for almost everyone. But further research about the GPL resulted in that linux couldn't be used.
Artistic license anyone?
Thank you. One of the best replies I have ever
seen on Slashdot. Now if we could only have as
many well thought out and reasoned posts as we
have "FIRST COMMENT!!!" Slash would be a nicer
place.
Toaster
Oh I can only say huray to that...enough of this shit...this is completely off the subject.
Well - this would be an example of /. effect going of half-cocked.
;-)
the
Imagine that ever happening
Time for this thread to die...
Unleash the dogs of war. Cry havoc........
.......
until there is no one left standing but the might GPL'ed........
or something like that...
And you would be a typical corporate stuffed suit with your head up your derriere. Nobody's arguing your right to distribute non-GPL'd products that sit on top of the kernel or on top of LGPL'd libraries. Several companies have already done so.
What we are arguing is that you don't have the right to distribute binary-only code that is derived from (i.e. contains some) GPL'd code. It's fairly simple. If their modules include GPL'd kernel headers (and they probably do), then their product is partially derived from GPL'd code, in which case they are bound by the GPL. If your company uses the (g)libc headers (which is as low-level as you should go for application development), then you're fine.
Linux will succeed on its own merits, not because the OSS community sold out its principles to business folk. If it sold out to business (i.e. became proprietary), then there would be little point in proceeding. Not only would it not be free, but it would lose its practical advantages as well: bug fixes would come at the glacial corporate rate (and with the corporate price tag); code would be reviewed only if the business saw a "need" to focus on stability (and Win95 is a great example to prove that plebe demands don't constitute "need"); and you couldn't count on a truly secure system since proprietary code (by definition) can't be openly peer-reviewed. At that point, it might be "world domination," yes, but it wouldn't be Linux, it woudn't be free, and it wouldn't mean jack.
s/co-exist with/steal from/
The author holds the copyright and picks the licenses. If you don't like the terms, you'll have to "co-exist" using your own code instead of theirs.
Consider: the module does require kernel changes. These are, if I'm not mistaken, provided in source form (otherwise how would prople path the kernel?) That doesn't violate the GPL.
Now, there is no clause in the Linux license which says that all Linux software must be GPL'd. Look at Perl, KDE, and the current version of Netscape (not Mozilla) for examples of non-GPL Linux software. So as long as they don't use code in their app from the Linux kernel, including code from their modifications to it, I think this one might just be legal.
Note: Since the kernel has to be modified, I have my doubts that the module didn't use the same code, so it would be violating the GPL in that case. Anyone know about this?
Unless of course you sue them, and demand money...or the lawyers demand money...the money will get in...it always does....
I once asked if I could help out with the project as it could be a real NT KILLER if intergrarted with the kernel. The guy in charge replied that that unfortunately he could not release the source as the Israeli Government classed clustered computing and super computing as 'munitions' and subject to export controls or something like that.
If Beowulf came from this country we would have never seen it elsewhere!
Posted by Tony Smolar:
Sounds funny coming from someone who has an email address which is provided by one of the worst examples of Capitalism, Hotmail.
All I can say is, if you don't like it here, you are free to move to a country that matches your ideals, there are plenty of us who do not want a Socialist system.
Sure it would. Let's do as you suggest, and read it again.
This time I'll include the section that's referred to in the text you quoted, so we know what's being talked about:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
You've misread the GPL. Most commercial licenses contain a clause that says if part of the agreement is unenforceable, then the other terms are still valid. The GPL says that if *any* of it's terms are unenforceable, then the license as a whole is revoked. The only way a court ruling could get around this, and leave the licensee with anything useful would be to limit the effect of the "metarule" itself, which is stated above. The last clause which you quoted is intended to make the metarule as strong as possible by preventing it from being entirely struck down, if a court has a quibble with only part of it.
Your mistake was the result of misreading "the balance of the section" as "the balance of the license".
Hope that helps.
Norman Petry (not a lawyer, although I know I'm starting to sound like one)
npetry at sk sympatico ca
Dear Linux community,
I'd like to welcome you to the real world, where everything revolves around MONEY, not ideals. You'll see this thing happen more often from now on, and you won't be able to do anything about it. Doesn't it suck to wake up at 6:20am only to find out that your alarm will go off at 6:30am?
Take care,
Anonymous Coward (happy Linux user)
Beta testing had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it last time. What did make it a nonissue was that source was released as soon as they were asked!
The reason that the socialism didn't work was because it was made by dictators, and not by the PEOPLE.
the only success of the capitalism is to make a society where there are from one side people who are starving and in the other side people who are as rich as bill gates.
Natureman
So was St Thomas Mores......I guess, but when you make up a new world you have certain leevay, especially if you "adopt it from another language...
Therefore, they are "distribut[ing] the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program." Therefore, the whole shebang falls under the restrictions of the GPL. If they distributed the binary module seperately, and you could prove that the module had some use without the GPL code changes, then (and only then) could you distribute that binary without source.
(Ha... good luck... a module written specifically for a GPL'd kernel that is also completely "independent and separate" of that GPL'd kernel? Gimme a break.)
Sure, you have to give out source to people who use these systems, but only when specifically asked for that source, and you can even charge enough money for that source code to make up for your costs of distributing it.
Damn we are fresh out of clues, but we might get a shipment next week, but then again we might not......
Who needs this credibility you speak of anyway....
As i see it, if a program uses any of the kernel :)
(like the kernel headers) it MUST be distributet
with sourcecode. So.. this is a violation of the
GPL.. i think the only way to nail them is to
sue them
And people are still surprised how the holocaust could have happenned....look no further folks, for as long as there are bgots like you holding onto their proprietary discriminatory brains it is just bound to happen again....
what in gods name are you saying.........
benjamin
"sometimes I wish I was blind I thought I saw a whole lot more than this"
If their module needs kernel modifikations ,
then the kernel is a part of their module.
Then everything is GPL and they have to
distribute the source code.
Without the source, its nothing but a castrated kernel...
the capitalist system is not the enemy. copyright is the enemy. in fact these two positions have the same foundation: personal freedom & non-intiation of force. see ipnot.
__
Scott Draves
Heh... Trying to sign as Alan Cox?
Seems to me this is another reason to disable anonymous posting. I doubt it'll ever happen, though.
I think all would have to happen is that *ONE* copyright holder on the Linux kernel asks FSF to give these people hell, then a lawsuit would likely result if they do not willingly comply...
Microsoft has violated it. Most of their network code is BSD and GNU based. Check out any good hacker site.
Various important signatures associated w/M$ shit support me here.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
As others have stated, calling a release "beta" has nothing to do with it. A license violation is a license violation.
If the time you're talking about was the incident with Initio, the company addressed the issue by complying with the license requirements and releasing the code. I was impressed by their responsiveness and bought one of their SCSI adapters partly because of that.
According to their pages:
"Note: in the future we plan to provide MOSIX for a larger number of processors to approved educational and
research institutions, subject to signing of a non-disclosure agreement."
Doesn't seem they're like willing to share the source...
/El Niño
Well then, they fork the tree (all the code is supposed to be GPL'ed, so as long as they release their forked code with the hooks as GPL their fine), release their forked copy with an allowance for binary modules, and everything's peachy. Not exactly nice of them, but all legal...
For one: there is no linux community.
I dont feel closer to someone just because they are using linux.
If everything revolves around money, then why on earth are they using a free operating system?
If linux was commerical, and someone pirated it, don't you think that'd be wrong?
Whats the difference-- linux is COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
Its the GPL license that lets people use it. If you choose to violate this license, then your commiting a good number of crimes right there
Now I dont know the details of this case, but it doesn't sound like they violated the GPL.
This is a legal matter, not a matter regarding ideals. Money has nothing to do with this. Absolutely nothing.
Take care, bugg.
It really isnt anything to be enforced.. GPL is just
a model license offered by the folks at the FSF. When you write a program
its legally yours, and the license is what gives them permission to operate/use it
When they violate the license, they are basically breaching contract/copyright infringment
It would be your responsibility to take them to court.
If the violation is truly blantant, then MS *will* comply somehow.
If they dont, you alone could probably represnt yourself and win.
There most likely would be no or little money (for legal expenses) rewarded-- they'd just be forced to comply with the license.
Of course, if you can afford it.. get a lawyer.. Yes, GPL is terribly enforcable.
I'd like to welcome you to the real world, where everything revolves around THE EARTH, not the sun. You'll see this thing (witch-hunting) happen more often from now on, and you won't be able to do anything about it.
The Church
(They weren't right then, either.)
Keep your fucking Nazi rhetoric off of Slashdot, you son of a bitch. Wanna say it to my face? Come and get me you racist pig. You'll find a hell of a lot more than you bargained for.
Fnkmaster
gabriel@fas.harvard.edu
Now thats quality reading. Right on! :)
First off, patents are not a reason to hide code away. The ideas in a patent are (supposedly) in public view: anybody can read your patent and learn your idea, they just can't use it without your permission.
Secondly, in the case of an NDA, at least one party does not want to release their code. There is never a case where all legally interested parties wish to release the code, and still can not do so. It is always a case of (at least) one party saying no.
Please puke somewhere else....we do not need this kind of crap around here....
FSF, damnit. Or, more precisely, I guess, FSF.
How is this different from, say, the binary drivers SIIG offers for its scsi adapters?
Andy Church's page (http://achurch.dragonfire.net/) claims that the Magick IRC services (www.magick.tm) are based off of Espernet services (which they are), and even all copyright information has been removed or replaced that had contained andy church's name or otherwise. His page claims that he has contacted the authors a few times and was unsuccessful. He also urges all to not use Magick because of this problem..
((ANDREW DVORAK))
Browsing through /usr/src/linux, it appears Torvalds owns most of the code. A quick telephone call *should* be enough to get them to release the kernel sources. If they've released binaries, have at them—they have absolutely no copyright ``protection''.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Doesn't the Artistic License allow distribution of modified binaries without source, with certain restrictions?
The kernel code is GPL'd, so shipping a closed-source patched kernel would also have been prohibited. But yes, they seem to have clarified that they aren't doing that.
Puh-leeze. Genetics is a lousy predictor of human behavior, especially in the face of different cultures.
Why is it that anytime anyone says anything even REMOTELY negative towardxs the Jewish community, they are instantly labeled a 'Nazi bastard'. All you militant jews out there, take a chill pill...
You visited their site ? The loadable module is not free, the rest is and the installation is reversible.
...
If people have to be afraid of being sued for every piece of **** they are going to ditch Linux and that will be it and they will be even right.
Bloddy zealots
(Rest-of-world is not the 51st state of America,
nor will it be in the forseeable future)
Well, maybe not the "rest of the world," but Israel...
They act like they are the first and only state and the other 50 have to do their bidding or else be called "anti-Semitic."
If it isn't a commercial operation, they should be more than willing to release source once they receive an email saying "hey, GPL says you have to release source for this, even when it's beta."
No, I don't want everybody to be the same.I just want
everybody to have the same ability for the same life quality.
Natureman
If life was fair the windows would be as good as linux, and I simply could not live in such a world, so we should all be thankfull that life is not fair.
He was a clever fucker, and he seen this long ago, and we just spend five hundred years to prove he is right....and yet we fail to see it.
Not In My Back Yard.
Sorry, no source, no install on *my* kernel.
If not strictly for security reasons.
--
We can all thank Mr Stallman for the explosive growth of cooperative sw development made sustainable by the GNU General Public License.
I predict that this cooperative model will spread to other industries. In the very long term the GPL could be a significant contribution to the advancement cultural evolution.
Thank god for the atheists!
Not at all. All it means is that the many authors of Linux have made an offer that Ericsson isn't inclined to accept. That's their choice. Linus et. al. put a lot of hard work into Linux, and as their payment, they want any modifications to it made available in leiu of money.
Anybody trying to get around GPL in this way should be drawn, and quartered, and then served as lunch to RMS. As far as i understand it the GPL allows for no binaries link in whatsoever, so their whole thing is illegal, and imoral, and they should release the source, or stop, and write their own proprietary kernel, since those are the only two options they have. And while we are at it FSF should hit them with legal letters/ lawsuits/whatever to make them release the stuff, or quit abusing the kernel, and find something better to do. After all we need to protect the kernel, and GPL itself.
1. This is totally bull****. There is no violation of the GPL here since source changes are provided. There is no case of anything against MOSIX.
2. If this kind of thing ever happens for real with the GPL, think about it: would this be happening if you were using a different license?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Posted by Tony Smolar:
Keep the current version proprietary, and release older versions under a free software license. (doesn't have to be GPL).
I think Ghostscript does something similar to this
...they should have gone with FreeBSD.
/.ers all over the world should realize that world domination isn't going to happen without a little right of passage known as "selling out".
Other than that observation,
If that point is never reached, the commercial community has a pretty rigerious but very standard set of tactics to whip the OSS/GPL crowd into complete submission (and you'll enjoy the process too!).
I guess this is why Torvals and Stallman still keeps their day jobs.
Bastards.
Posted by Tony Smolar:
One thing I'd like to point out first of all is that the ideals behind the GPL say that your code does not belong to you.
Anyway I have a related question...
The GPL I imagine is written to exist within the frame of US copyright law. What about other coutries that have weaker copyright laws? If someone from one of those countries violate the GPL, what can be done to stop it? It seems like not much. Ironically, the FSF seems to want weaker or no copyright laws.
It doesn't matter what Linus says... what counts
;)
is what the GPL says. I recommend you read it.
Second, your post implies you know what code they
used... did they show it to you or are you just
*guessing*? I thought the problem was that they
DIDN'T share their source code.
Please supply another clue.
That was quick, look at their page now!
Nope. Because they would no longer be violating the GPL (in this instance). Furthermore, because the product isn't there somebody else will feel the need to write a module to do the same thing, and perhaps they'd have a different opinion about releasing their code under the GPL. (If not, the need is still there... repeat until somebody does release under GPL. Or until nobody uses Linux, but that day will only come when Linux is technically inferior to another OS.)
Posted by Tony Smolar:
It's not always a matter of not wanting to, there are many times when code can't be shared because of NDAs or patents and other things.
When the kernel executes a program, it links to it directly, in a similar way that the dynamic linker links a library.
Is it a short step from there to the kernel GPL polluting *any* software binary exectued on a linux system?
There's some commercial software sources that interest me...
The GPL is as clear a license as can be really. If Sun can get past the written word in their Java contract with MS (which GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO DO WHAT THEY DID) and make the case into a "the spirit of the deal" thing then the GPL is strong in both areas. The spirit of it is that you give out source. The letters in it say that too. There is no areas for discrepency. The LGPL is another matter but RMS said he'd change that in an email to me a few weeks ago (really, honest ;) (I asked if it covered both static and dynamic linking).
Anyway, even NeXT backed down when their lawyers looked at the GPL.
There are MANY companies that dislike the GPL since it means they cannot get free code but none have challenged it since they all conclude it is not worth it. They'd loose without thought (some minor issues like the right to remove the binary and not have to give out source additions may be granted but not continued violation).
Personally I don't think anyone would ever challenge it from this day on. It's too well known and too many people would be annoyed.
Phill Hugo
plh102@york.ac.uk
The web page says that only the binary modules is proprietary, the modifications to the kernel are under GPL. So as long as binary modules are allowed, this should be legal.
Yeah, we won't be able to do anything about it if people don't do anything about it. Distributors of GPL'd software have just as much right as Microsoft to see their license fairly enforced. We have to fight challenges to the GPL (and to other FS/OS licenses) to avoid setting precedent that would make that license useless.
"You won't be able to do anything about it..." What a FUDmeister. Go away.
Well, they should have thought of that before using GPL'd software. Nothing forced them to use Linux. They could have used one of the BSD kernels. Besides, political gain is no more a justification for violating licenses than is commercial gain.
(Rest-of-world is not the 51st state of America, nor will it be in the forseeable future)
No, but there are international agreements about this sort of thing. Besides, if their being in Isreal lets them trample the GPL, then I'll be glad to sign their NDA and turn around and distribute their software to whomever I please. Contracts either work both ways or not at all. I wonder if Saddam would like a copy. I see no moral difference between the Iraqi and Isreali governments anyhow. Both are violent theocracies guilty of mass murder, racism, and fostering hate against the religions of others.
Ooops... I hope the blank comment I just submitted by accident got caught before it made it out...
What I was trying to say, was that if this *is* a violation of the GPL, and we let it slide because it's non-commercial, that just makes it easier for future commercial violations to take place, as a precednet will have been set. Not only that, but what if the people behind this decide to make it commercial in the future? Surely it's easier to make everything comply with the GPL from the outset, and not have to try to impose modifications at a later date, when someone notices that it's become necessary...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
it's a "positive" racism, but it's still a racism.
Natureman
Take the time to read the GPL, people. The GPL says (speaking of the restrictions on modifying existing GPL software):
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."
Dumb and Nazi are not exclusive qualities, but I do belive that in this case it was just a healthy dose of normal everyday stupidity, and nothing more vile than that, but this is exactly how witch hunts get started...someone says something stupid, and next thing you know people are burning at stake.....
Living in a northern european country that has had mostly socialist governments after the war (not a
east block country) I feel I know something about socialism in real life (not theoretical stuff, we don't
listen to marketing people when we select our SW and HW, so we don't mind what socialism
theoretically should/could have been)
1. Had linux/OSS been socialistic in its nature we would have _had_ to contribute a percentage of
our coding/consulting/sysadmin/work to linux/OSS. We would have had no choice how much, and
we would not have been able to decide what part of linux/OSS we would contribute to.
2. What path linux/OSS development should follow would have been decided by a small group of
leaders. Quite possibly directly or indirecty chosen by democracy, but still a small group.
3. The leaders would have a large group of bureaucrats to control the
coders/sysadmins/consultants. This group would be as big and probably bigger than the
"coders/sysadmins/consultants" group. This group would have a complete pencil pushing fetish
and be almost infinitely ineffective. This group would answer to now one except maybe parts of the
leader group (particularly not to the user and "coders/sysadmins/consultants" group).
It is obvious that this is not how the linux/OSS community work. Instead we have complete freedom
to decide how much we contribute, and to what projects.
If we don't like the way something is done we can fork the code and do it some new way. If we don't
like how a project is handled we can crate a competing project or fork a new project.
Linux/OSS is freedom, socialism is not.
Linux, coming to a desktop near you!
The lawyer could even keep all the money that would result out of such a suit provided that he screwed them over so bad, that it would serve as an example so no one in the future would mess with the SOURCE, and GPL.
I seriously doubt this incident is going to raise Linux in the eyes of corporate America (Europe, etc...). If I was a company deciding whether or not I wanted to port my proprietary technology to Linux, I would certainly be afraid to do so after this whole fiasco.
I know some of you think that everything for Linux should be open source, but that's never going to happen. Companies put lots of money into developing things, and though one could argue that they should open source it, they won't. Instead they're going to patent it to the extent that there is no hope of even a free clone being developed for Linux. The only way to get a Linux version is to let the company release a binary. If companies can't do that, Linux's bid for the desktop will undoubtedly be cut short by some new proprietary which it doesn't have.
This is why companies are allowed to write binary modules. Thankfully, Linus isn't nearly as big of an open source zealot as some of the people who have been posting about this.
Life may not be fair, but everybody's supposed to be equal, the system should take care of that and not of the unequal distribution of wealth.
"The original version of MOSIX, called MOS, was compatible with UNIX Version 7. It was developed in 1982 for a cluster of PDP-11 computers..." [quote from MOSIX paper by Barak and Wheeler in the Winter 1989 USENIX proceedings]
MOSIX also ran on VAX, NS32K, and M68K UNIX systems along the way.
If someone violates the GPL they are guilty of copyright infringement and software piracy. This is, in the US, a federal offence, punishable with severe fines and/or serious jailtime, especially if done for profit purposes.
So:
a) Call the cops. Report them. Watch them go rot in jail.
b) File a civil lawsuit. Sue for lots of money. Easy win since they've already been convicted for the crime.
This link suggests the MO6 module is covered by an NDA, tbut he kernel hooks and user applications are all under GPL.
http://www.mosix.cs.huji.ac.il/txt_mo6.html
Someone who reads legalese would have to decide wether this is within the rules though.
There is a freeware text compiler called inform, useful for stuff like that. The web page is http://www.gnelson.demon.co.uk/ Not bad, object orientated, compiles on a lot of OS's, and will run on almost any damn one.
Look at what page? -> It's heavily slashdotted right now...
The host is reachable, port 80 connects, but the httpd does not respond. Looks like the system is trashing.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Problem is, no one who's violated the GPL and been caught at it has had the guts to challenge it in court, which I think says a lot about the strength of the license.
The GPL is written in such a way that if any of the terms of the license are found to be unenforcable, the entire license is revoked, which means that the fool who challenged the GPL ends up without a license to do *anything* with the software (due to copyright law). This is usually the last thing they would want!
All in all, it's a very cunning legal document, which provides strong protections for Free Software. Challenge it at your peril!
Norman Petry (not a lawyer)
npetry at sk sympatico ca
you only have to gpl it if you modify the kernel, or include gpl'd code in your program.
If you don't do either, then you can do whatever you want your game.
As far as I know, the GPL is a legal document, and as far as I understand it, legal documents are part of the real world. If money were the only driving force and the only valid argument, we wouldn't be seeing the DoJ nailing M$ ass. Ideals are part of the real world, for better or worse. It was idealism what brough many (if not all) of the modern economic systems and theories of today, socialism, syndicalism, communism, even modern regulated capitalism. Ideals are not just euphemistic ideas of people being jolly and jumping in never ending fields of flowers singing "colors, colors, look at the colors." The pursue of legality, common welfare, protection of private property, the enforcement of the right of the needed and the right to make money are also ideals.
Ideals are what regulate the crude reality few try (or do) impose on most of us. The ideal of private property, the ideal of doing business while following acceptable business practices is something sherished by any ambitious and yet honest enteprenour. Ambition and honesty can go hand to hand. I've seen it. Claiming that ideals are not part of the real world demonstrate a good understanding of the real world itself, whatever real world means.
Guess what the more substantial user base comes at a price of releasing your source...so they should take it, or leave better enough alone, but since they sinned/distributed already they have locked themselve in, and must now release their source under the GPL, or suffer the consequences ....
In other words, if you don't waive your patent rights, you can't distribute it under the GPL, and therefore you can't distribute it at all. Sorry.
If it did, I would stop using /. at all....
And stay there....
As I'm sure the univeristy folks are now well aware of their indiscretion, I doubt there is really a need for all of this.
/.
If he'd have simply emailed the maintainers about his concerns, I'm sure they would've remedied the problem without all the todo on
However, it is good to know that if a company violates the GPL (and refuses to fix it), there'll be plenty of people to check 'em on it.
PS: I'd like to suggest that the racial crap be deleted from the database, it's not really relevant or useful and it's hardly worth keeping it around for posterity.
--fred
Well what a shame....Ialways though it was....what is the time table on that anyway??????
Is not collective bargaining simply an employee utilizing all the resources at his disposal (his fellow employees) to get him the best deal for his time? I think so.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
The only reason that sort of crap goes on, is because people like you ACCEPT it as the norm. For once, the world is different (everyone working together freely, more or less), but you're willing to let it go "because thats how it is". COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
which is why the GPL is written the way it is
An interesting question. Since it's a violation of license terms, a lawysuit would clearly be in order. But who owns Linux? Is it public domain? If so, then the company could perhaps be sued in that context. Maybe the GNU foundation should step up to the plate? If Mr. Stallman wants to keep his peace-love-and-software vision a potential reality, he and his organization should make certain that, if no one else pursues this matter, they do.
Maybe a class-action lawsuit? My knowledge of law isn't what I'd like it to be, but that may fit the bill, since Linux is kinda de-centralized in some ways. Either way, I agree that this should be dealt with and stopped. If a "rule" is place with no enforcement of violators, the rule becomes meaningless.
The most blatant attempt hijack the kernel to date deserves a few digs.
x
There has never been a purely capitalist nation or a purely communist or socialist nation.
There have been nations run by despots who claimed they were implementing the ideals of one or the other. Present day Russia is a good example of a despotism claiming the ideals of capitalism. We all know of plenty of examples of faux communist or socialist nations.
The most successful nations have been those that have empowered individuals and communities, and restricted the power of corporations and government.
Who cares....no one......
Richard Stallman certainly tries to encourage people to release GPL'd software, because that benefits society. But supporting Free Software and opposing ownership are not the same concept.
Yeah, damn them to Hell for thinking that people might want to use their product under linux.
Can you say of topic???
No, You are getting a 2 billion dollar codebase as free software with linux. (Estimated cost to recreate linux is at the 2-billion mark, 20mloc * $100/line.) Is it too much to ask for you to contribute your source code back into that codebase? Given the effort and monetary value of the Linux Kernel alone, over $50,000,000 at accepted industrial rates. Free software really is valuable, but given free-beer and free-freedom, HOW DARE YOU complain that it is too restrictive!
The other person had it right, are the thousands of coders asking too much for you to be able to use the multi-million-dollar fruits of their labor? If you want to build a new operating system from scratch, then you can charge for it whatever you want. If you use OUR operating system, you only have to play by our rules to be able to use our work.
Scott Crosby
You ignorant stupid asshole you would not have linux without the GPL, so we should not be happy that someone is releasing their software if all they can do is to rip off millions of man hours of work. We are better without such parasites, and when any appear we should cut them down faster then you asholes can say any of your vile FUD. So die, and go away, because if you care about linux this attrocity must not be allowed to happen.
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as *____a whole____* at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
And later:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and ___*can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves*__ , then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. __But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program__, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Now, no way can this Mo6 module be considered "independent" from the kernel. And it is being distributed as a "whole". Thus it should be licensed in full under GPL. Linus can say what he likes, the GPL disagrees.
This is one of the reasons for the introduction of the LGPL, which allows linking. The GPL does indeed function as a virus, because you have to start from scratch to get fully independent code. Airtight.
This posting is public domain ;-)
Why complain then. As long as they do not realease anything they can do whatever, but if they ever want to ship it, or release it or distribute it in any way then they have to conform to GPL. In their own private room they can do whatever perversities they like as long as no one sees, even if it should be a violation, because as long as nothing gets distributed or sold it does not matter, even if it violates GPL...
NEVER....abusers of the GPLed kernel must die first, or release the SOURCE....it should not be held hostage to an NDA.
Sorry, forgot to sign it...
The GPL requires that the source be available free. It does not require that the source accompany the binary, as long as the binary is accompanied by info indicating how the source may be obtained free of charge.
Which is why you can by a 1-cd version of RedHat, which only includes binary packages: all the source packages are available online!
And in response to an earlier post, the university is, as was said, free to charge for the source... as long as they also make it available for free!
The Real Question here is what was Linus' ruling? Did he or did he not say, as de Icaza maintained, that binary modules with no source available could be linked with the kernel ONLY if they required no modifications to the kernel?
Bigger question: they say on their site that the kernel mods are to allow other modules to access the binary. Is this necessary to use the binary, or an additional resource? If the binary can be used without employing the kernel mods then the mods can be considered a separate piece of software, as might have been written by us to take better advantage of theirs, in which case no violation exists in either of the above cases!
If on the other hand, you cannot use the module without also using the kernel mods, AND de Icaza is correct with regard to the determination made by Linus on the subject of binary modules, then they are in violation of the GPL.
Thus before we cry foul, let us find out: can this binary module be used for its intended purpose without needing these kernel mods? If these kernel mods are only a gracious contribution by the university to allow the open source community to take better advantage of MOSIX, then more power to them, and we should silence our criticisms.
But if they are an integral and required part of running MOSIX on Linux, then we MUST act to correct this... but how?
No lawsuit should be considered, in any such case, until gentle persuasion has failed. If they are in violation of the GPL, then we should gently explain how and why they have failed it. They may then release their MOSIX under the GPL properly, or modify it so as to make the kernel mods unnecessary. A lawsuit should be a last resort! Remember, we are a community, and we should use the tools of the community before we turn to the tools of society, because we have a world-wide community crossing every boundary, but our society is fractured into thousands of pieces.
Tell me, if we could prevail against this university in the American courts, does this necessarily mean that we will prevail in any other nation's court?
Let us try the global means first.
Howard C. Shaw III Grum
Idiot. Anybody can get an Alan Cox account if
it isn't already taken.
Posted by Tony Smolar:
You can charge for your development costs, as much as you want.
But you are right, the people you give your product and/or source code can give it away for free.
This IMHO is a major problem with the GPL
Which means that even if we reverse engineer it and then release it ourselves under the GPL, that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I say let's do it. Then THEY would have to sue US. And they would lose.
KICK 'EM IN THE NUTS!
NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!
Lets just not have this get started.
In Service
Charles Puffer
.....How? :)
Bowie J. Poag
We think we're a democracy, but we're not. We're a republic. It doesn't matter how much we chant that we're democratic, we're not. We are a republic.
Chanting over and over that the soviet union was socialist doesn't make that true.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
The real question here is: Who the real party in interest? IOW, who owns Linux such that [it] would be injured by GPL violation. In this case, it's Linus (if it's kernel stuff violated). If it's GNU stuff violated, it's GNU. As much as we like to think of linux as owned by everone, in a legal sense the only person who can sue is someone who has a traditional ownership interest. Since Linux has the final say, he's the owner (in the courts' eyes). For the community ownership theory to fly, linus would have to vest his interest in linux 'to all the world' or something like that. In addition, whatever part of the the linux kernel that was violated could be traced to the author. The author (who had his or her code entered into the kernel) has a copyright on that code, and can sue for GPL violation too. Thus, Linus and whoever wrote the specific code that was used to violate the GPL are the real parties in interest. The real parties in interest are the only ones suffering legal damages.
I'm sure Linus, at least, will take action.
The large corporations can either pay their way or get lost. The code I write is *MINE* to license how I feel like, and I *dont* feel like doing charity work for corporations. Yes, the GPL is more restrictive. That is the purpose of it. I'm sure Ericsson would like to get free code so they can make more money by turning it into a proprietary application. But *THAT* is what the GPL is meant to prevent, and that is what it does.
I'm sure they'd be happy to employ you as an unsalaried code drudge, if you bleed so for them.
(And, yes, I'm a bit annoyed with people who think GPL means a free for all steal whatever you want and return nothing. This is copyrighted code, and code placed under the GPL to prevent abuse.)
Of course she is full of crap.....but then again we all are, so we should not frown upon it either.....BTW thanks for an intelligent, and thoughtfull response, and explanation, which will subsequently be ignored by everyone else....as usually happens to intelligent, and thoughtfull things....
Where can I find whatever it is Linus has said about binary kernel modules? I can't find it anywhere in the kernel distribution, where it should be to avoid confusion.
Furthermore, how can GPL'd modifications to the kernel be disallowed? The MO6 kernel mods are all GPL'd and still they are violating the GPL!? So what if the mods are for this special purpose they are legal modification to the kernel source code. If someone else were to make the necessary changes and distribute his own (lets call it) foonix kernel, would it still be illegal to load the binary only kernel modules?
I say disallow proprietary kernel mods altogether. They cause no end of trouble.
The FSF is against information ownership,..., they don't seem to oppose capitalism in other areas...
You are right, of course, about the FSF. My comments were aimed more toward those Slashdot posters who take the OSS phenomenon as a validation of Socialism in general (and who really do mean free as in free lunch).
As to the FSF, I can't agree with their goal of ending information ownership. Like you, I think they are trying to live a contradiction. In fact, I consider that part of their philosophy to be dangerous. Note that, while they want to to remove my IP rights, the reason that I choose not to violate the GPL, whether it's legally enforced or not, is out of respect for their IP rights.
Despite my differences with the FSF, I continue to support Linux and other OSS projects. It makes sense for the operating system to be open, and it's an excellent free-market solution to the threat of a Microsoft monopoly (and it's fun, and you meet nice people). As another poster pointed out (smithdog, below), cooperation has always gone hand-in-hand with Capitalism. There is no reason why free individuals, working toward a common goal, can't share the fruits of their labor, while still respecting each other's, and everyone else's, property rights.
And pretty soon you are sawed in half....if only Poe knew...where is the PIT anyway isn't it late..it should have been here by now...Oh man it is the Pits.....I was not counting on that
It's called "Political Correctness"
What's happening here is called "intelligent people tired of listening to nonsense from idiots".
You can't criticize certain groups of people at all whether they deserve it or not, or you are automatically labeled a bigot.
Are you really stupid enough to think that what he said was accurate? If he believes that gibberish, he's a bigot. Calling him a bigot is, therefore, justified. If not, he's got a dismally boring sense of humor.
Incidentally, I'm an Irish Catholic.
Also incidentally -- as long as you're whimpering and whining about "political correctness" -- if I said something equally offensive about a group to which you belong (e.g., "all bigots are illiterate morons", or "uneducated white americans have a crippling inferiority complex which they express as bigotry"), you'd be foaming at the mouth, shrieking and screaming and howling about how unfair I'm being. Well, tough shit, moron. You can't have it both ways. Nor can I, of course; that's why my own "bigoted" remarks above are in quotes, although the second one is seductively plausible in sociological terms.
The GPL forbids NDA's on software: read the clause about not being able to place any additional restrictions on the software.
You are gravely mistaken. Read the GPL; it relies on the fact that the software is owned.
There should be an additional lgpl license with the changes that if anyone wants to develop a proprietary program with a program licensed under the "new lgpl" they would have to give the author of the program money
perpetually beta ? ;->
that must be the reason why M$ doesn't release the windoze code !
Uh. No, but it doesn't need any
kernel modifications either.
> BTW, the kernal debugger mentioned must have used direct kernal modifictions to work. Where is the source code for that?
Oh, well - take a look at the code: the debugger is in there !
Hello, McFly!!!!
The binary modules that they are speaking of does
not apply to the Linux Kernel itself. Therefore,
they are currently in compliance with the GPL.
If someone wanted to blatantly violate the GPL, don't you think several attempts would have been made earlier in the game?
In the real world, the GPL is a legal document. Any company that has an ounce of sense (along with a healthy fear of litigation), as well as a sense of maintaining a good reputation in the business world will comply.
In my opinion, it is YOU, my friend, that needs to be welcomed into the REAL WORLD...
...just my $0.02...
And if you want to see this product, then:
1) Encourage them to port to BSD
2) Buy the BSD version.
In case you didn't notice, money is as virtual as software.
The 40-hour work week is a joke. I live in Missouri (USA) and have no idea what the law is elsewhere, but an employer here can hand you as much overtime as he wants. Your options are to work the overtime or quit. There is nothing in Missouri law (or US law) that says anything like "Employees don't have to work more than 40 hours if they don't want to." If you have a 40-hour work week, great. I'm glad for everyone who does. But it is NOT guaranteed to you unless you are lucky enough to have a contract.
This is getting so pathetic. This posting is almost as stupid (but not quite) as the blatently incorrect posting about "long distance charges to ISPs".
Its one thing for Slashdot to post stories from other sites, but its pathetic when no attempt it made to verify that the incorrect assumptions made by the people submitting the stories are correct or not.
This doesn't violate the GPL in any way. On top of that ITS A SCHOOL not a company, they're not doing anything commercial. If they didn't want clustering support to be made available, they just wouldn't release it, and if they catch B.S. from this pathetic posting, it really would be too bad if they decided to keep their technology internal to their school.
We need to set up a GNU GPL legal defence fund. We need to find about 10,000 companies/individuals to contribute $100. It is doable - look at the amateur radio (ARRL) for an example. Sorry, but inside the US that is the way to do things.
Vassili Leonov
Wouldn't the fact that the MOSIX group, part of the Computer Science System Group of Hebrew University's Computer Science Institute, is located in Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel make it quite a bit more difficult to file a lawsuit? Regardless of the difficulties of the whole question of "who's responsibility it is", there is also the whole international <pause> thing.
They are not violating GPL in any form unless they actually have kernel's source code in the binary modules... but otherwise it's all perfectly legal.
Modules can come only in binary form(ie. OSS), they don't ditribute a binary version of the kernel with thier own mods, they provide "hooks" in source form for the kernel. Plus they are Jews... you can't possibly expect 'em to do anything illegal it's not in thier nature.
If you're right, you should report this to the copyright holders and/or the fsf, so they can take action.
News to me. I would say that the GPL is all about ideals. It's a way of stopping the ideals of free software from being trampled over.
As most of us already know, the origins of capitalism are in the cooperative pooling of money to fund overseas voyages. These voyages were both extremely profitable and extremely risky. By cooperating and selling shares in a venture, the proto-capitalist were able to distribute the risks and increase their individual chances of remaining solvent. Since one bad voyage (ship not return) was expensive enough to break the bank of any single player, this distributed risk system quickly weeded out the less cooperative competition.
As was pointed out in several other posts here:
Yes, American 21st century society is a complex addaptive system. A pragmatic mix of capitalism, socialism, puratanism with just a pinch of egalatarianism. What separate our society from most others is the emphasis that our constitution places on _liberty_. IMHO the Free Software Foundation is correct in pointing out the value that freedom has is worth far more than some short term security.
Too often we are told of the failure of Socialism. Much of this has to do with the break-up of the Soviet Union. The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that we would not want to judge the validity of capitalism by how well our eastern european friends do under our system. So it is silly to judge socialism by how well the same people did by (their attempt at) that system.
Stay tuned for the exciting final act where "the expropriators are expropriated."
Cheers
Beowulf supercomputer stuff is out there already. If any random bad guy wants to grab a copy, he just has to fire up FTP.
What you see here is a racist-US-centric-halfwit posting by a bunch of Wannabe-cyberpunk-nerds who get off counting the number of hits on their pathatic web site.
Get a life, do some research before posting this kind of crap.
OTOH,
I dont see any violation of the GPL here.
--
> I'm sure Microsof~1 is watching this closely...
I believe that should be "Micros~1". 8+3 you know...
If they don't want to share let them suffer...or they can write their own software under artistic license, and see everyone abuse it, and proprietarize it.....it is their choice, and they should put up, or shut up....:>
Well, the GNU GPL has never actually
been to court....
> On top of that ITS A SCHOOL
Actually, that makes it inexcusable....
Universities, collages and trade schools are about science, peer review, open exploration and generally contributing to the wealth of human knowledge. Oh, that's right... I forgot... University is just about getting a high paying job, improving social status and getting married.
I'm willing to cut commercial enterprises a little slack; however, when academic institutions take public monies to fund projects that eventually spin off into the private sector, this is the ultimate sort of intellectual and property re-distrbution theft. NDA's are fundamentally incompatable with the concept of a University.
If you disagree, why don't we get rid of whole silly post secondary education system and spin all collages and universities off into the existing corporations that try to control them anyway? I'm sure you'd be glad to hire a recent graduate of the University of Microsoft or the have a doctor who graduated from the Metrapolitan Insurance School of Internal Medicine.
Sometimes it's really hard to feel that we're NOT headed for a Virtual Light, Outland, Aliens type of corporate future... Fsck, why don't we just get rid of inefficent government bureaucracy and replace it with an efficent corporate engine of progress? I think (hope) we all know the answer to that rethorical question.
I know of no "day job" for him. And some people would say that "selling out" came with Red Hat and Caldera. The real purists use Debian or maybe Slackware.
I use Red Hat, so I suppose I've sold out in some people's eyes.
--Lenny
From Their site:
The ``MOSIX support for Linux'' package is subject to the GNU General Public License (Library GNU
Public License for the library), as published by the Free Software Foundation.
I don't know how they can say that while
talking about non-disclosure agreements..
Maybe they're lying!
Not likely. An NDA would limit the redistribution rights that users are given under the GPL, and would be in conflict with it. Therefore, anyone trying to use an NDA in this way with a customer would effectively be licensing the software under a modified license: GPL+NDA. Since these additional restrictions are not permitted by the GPL, the supplier's right to distribute the software *at all* is automatically revoked, and they would be violating the authors' copyright if they did so. See section 4 of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
The latter part of this section is interesting, in that it suggests that if you'd received the software under GPL+NDA, a strong legal argument could be made that you still have the right to redistribute the software to others, ignoring the NDA, so long as you distribute under the GPL only.
Never forget the GPLed software is Free Software, not merely Open Source(tm), and it has teeth designed to prevent exactly this sort of crap.
Norman Petry (not a lawyer)
npetry at sk sympatico ca
Tough titties...little children don't want to share their source, well then fuck them, we do not need them, if they want to use linux they better contribute, or write their own from scratch.
The GPL is a legal document. It has nothing to do with ideals, it has to do with the law. If someone places any restrictions on the distribution of a patch to the linux kernel they can be taken to court and they will lose. This has already been proven with NeXT's objective-C compiler. They took the gcc source, modified it to be an objective-C compiler then refused to release the source code to it. The FSF took them to court and won.
-matt
Especially irrelevant these days, because with advent of internet, and the free source movement all software seems to be in a state of perpetual beta, or to say the least you never have any final product, because it is always work in rpogress, and whatever snapshot or realease you have is only a moment of the process frozen in time....sure some last longer then others, but none is final......and I do not like beta either.....it is either stable or development oh dot or something dot....even odd....whatever the convention...beta naming convention is dated, and completely passe
I was just poking around the 2.2.2 source tree and couldn't find any reference binary only modules at all. Does anyone know exactly where these terms are written out?
-matt
How come then that ericsson's new multi-million-dollar project the 'e-box' runs linux in an embedded system?
At the previously provided url:
http://www.mosix.cs.huji.ac.il/txt_mo6.html
This is how THEY describe the software:
"MO6 is the public distribution of MOSIX. It supports configurations with up to 6 processors,
including SMP and non-SMP computers. The MO6 distribution for Linux consists of three parts:
the MO6 loadable module with the core MOSIX algorithms, hooks for accessing the MO6 module
from other kernel files, and several new user-mode programs for MOSIX administration."
So - depends on what the "hooks" are. It is
perfectly reasonsable for them to distribute
the MO6 kernel mod requiring an NDA. That is
their right as the authors of thw software.
Not terribly politic or reasonable considering
that they are doing research built on the backs
of a large community of developers - and not
returning such an advancement to that very
same community - but I'd suggest not a violation
of the GPL either. If the "hooks" are under
NDA - and that is a kernel mod - then THAT
would violate the GPL.
It all remains to be seen...
The FSF has lawyers. You can bet that the FSF actively pursues all cases it hears about where there is a violation of its code.
The FSF doesn't own the Linux kernel, and so it won't spend its resources defending it when there are many other people with lots more money who will do it themselves.
x
That thing about the atheists just looked like a .sig to me... not related to the rest of his post...
If the GPL is not defended in the face of a clear violation of its terms, it will be deemed worthless by those willing to violate it, and everything that's been built up on the 'strength' of the GPL (ie. its legal deterrence against theft of code) will come tumbling down like a house of cards. I'm sure Microsof~1 is watching this closely...
"I think it is possible to construct a relatively crude, but not altogether trivial, apparatus for this purpose." - No
Patents are the way to beat the GPL.
GPL makes me release my source because
I link to GPL'd libs. No problem. You
can't use my source code, because I've
got the patents and using it without a
license is a patent violation. You
can see how I did it by taking apart the
product or by looking at my patent or
by reading my GPL code, but you can't
use it. Sorry
I think it's pretty obvious you're not sorry and that you're also a thief. You had to work "a way around" the GPL libraries in order to steal the work of all the other programmers who built the libraries. Nobody forced you to link to GPL'ed libraries. If you were an honest man, you would have refused to indulge in the trickery you brag about.
Oh well. I guess if people steal your code, you're only getting what you deserve -- and not one bit more. Turn about's fair play, isn't it?
mp
michael@trollope.org
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
you FIEND!
oh, you fiendish, fiendish fiend . . . heretic . . . blashphemer . . .
(man, "fiend" is such a cool word. IIRC james thurber used it beautifully a few times)
I seem to remember the *kernel-interface-debate being mostly about maintaining some binary compatibility between releases, not license issues. Linus might have said something, but he is not the only contributor.
Definitely...after all why should we cave to the Isrealies, and their government, when we successfully defeated the worst of all evils, Micro$haft. We have nothing to fear for we have seen the devil, and we have danced on his grave, and it felt good......no one else can come close to such evil, so do not fear, just grip your ak-47 and defend the motherlan, er. kernel, to your dying breath.....
The GPL (even including Linus' exception for binary modules) *HAS* been violated...
It doesn't matter if it's beta code or not. The GPL does not make such a distinction. Further, imagine if it did -- somebody could simply label their code perpetually beta and get away with lots of nasties.
Please think this through a bit more!
-- John Goerzen
jgoerzen@complete.org
I am still waiting for a good definition of "nazi"
After all "nazi"s killed 20 milion russians and
3 milion jews. The myth taht the jews were primary
target sounds like a bluff.
Now if you say that anti-russians are "nazi"
that would have more grounds.
Nice try though.
And obvously in this case the GPL was broken !!
Isn't it also a stereotype to say that anyone who makes a comment about Jews is a Nazi?
_dedhed
Actually the last time this happened it was due to confusion with a new webmaster at the company. The company had every intention of releasing the source, they also were providing a pre-compiled kernel for convienece. The new webmaster aparently assumed that only the kernel binary was to be released. The matter was quickly cleared up. Also, beta has 100% nothing to do with it. IIRC under the GPL you can protect the source to a program only if you give it to NO ONE else.
-matt
To the MOSIX people at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.
I don't understand why I should be required to sign a NON-DISCLOSURE-AGREEMENT to use an enhancement to the Linux Kernel.
If you want to write private code with non-disclosure then go and write your own operating-system to run it on. Include your own
utilities, compilers, text editors, windows-gui etc.
If you want to give back to the community which got you this far, then you do so by putting your work under the GPL, so that others can build on it.
The word here is COMMUNITY.
If you want to be part of it, you contribute to it, gladly and freely.
Richard Higson
--
mailto:higson@opa.gt.owl.de
In which case, the FSF's role would be much like the ACLU's in first amendment cases.
You get to decide what to do with your code. GPL means don't try to hijack the kernel. If you aren't happy, stay outside the kernel. For all and evermore, the kernel is a COOPERATIVE effort.
x
So what's to stop somebody from "marketing" their stub library as Product A (maybe give it some crappy "real" functionality, so that it could justifiable be called a separate product), and their "real app" as Product B, which relies on Product A in a way that doesn't auto-GPL it?
I am royally sick of hearing about "...companies that will be afraid of linux" because of GPL or whatever.
Big friggin deal. I have spent well over $1000 of my limited graduate student income on "big company" software that I need only for compatibility with other stduents and professors. I never use the crap for myself. And yeah, $1000 is big money for me because I cannot recoup by BILLING CLIENTS! Its just money out of pocket.
Bah. A pox on corporate. Corporate fired my old man after his first heart attack. They must have saved a bundle 'cause that five way bypass took years to pay out off out of pocket. Bastards.
FUDmeister.
"You're never going to get the British out of India without a little rite of passage known as 'using force.'"
"You're never going to get a major software company to open-source their flagship product unless they have a little rite of passage known as 'bankruptcy.'"
"You're never going to become Governor of Minnesota without a little rite of passage known as the 'Democratic or Republican nomination.'"
Pathetic FUDmeister. Get out of our way.
P.S. It is in fact spelled "rite of passage." And "Torvalds." And "rigorous." While you're so graciously getting out of our way, you might as well go back to high school.
it's nice to see that someone did their homework.
Show me a programmers union that works, and I will show you the benevolent microsoft that does things for the good of people, and community...
not in the nature :) HEHEHEHEH is that why they get kicked in the ass every time they migrate to any country? Yeah, right.
Thank you so much for supporting my post. Obviously, if this passage were taken literally, it would refer only to the building of the temple. Taken figuratively, however, it could be read as encouraging those who have been freely given intelligence by God to freely give of the products of that intelligence when participating in any great communal work.
My teacher, Shimon Ba'al HaNotzah Shel Emet, a contemporary kabbalist, has the following commentary:
Bezaleel is spelled: Beth - Tzaddi - Lamed - Aleph - Lamed (2+90+30+1+30 = 153).
153 is also the value of the phrase: LHTIB LTVBIM '(in order) to bring well-being to the good'
Aholiab is spelled: Aleph - Heh - Lamed - Yod - Aleph - Beth (1+5+30+10+1+2 = 49).
49 is also the value of the word: LIDH 'a bringing forth, birth, nativity' or 'a delivering, a freeing'
Thus Aholiab and Bezaleel refer to 'a bringing forth or freeing of something to be used for the common good'.
Just amazing, I think. My teacher also suggested that there is a hidden relation between the words Moses and Mosix, but being but a poor student, I can't for the life of me figure out how Mosix is spelled in Hebrew.
Yes damn them to hell, where they may rot forever, and be forced to eat the foreskin of their ancestors for messing with the kernel....
These people release their product for linux, WITHOUT VIOLATING ANY LICENSES, and the best you guys can do is a bunch of ignorant "Save the GPL!" posts, and a few racial slurs. All I have to say is that I'm very disappointed. Either don't use their product, or thank them for it. You're not going to get many software companies to start developing for linux with this crap.
I know some of you realised this, and I'm not directing this at you. Just the morons.
No no no! 'Atopia' is the land where everyone has eczema and asthma!
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
They need to be nailed for the good of humanity, and just because they piss me off by doing this to the kernel. STOP THE PERVERSION.
I don't know if the FSF can sue if they don't own any of the kernel code, it seems likely that at some point atleast some FSF code snuck into the kernel over the years however, but I'm certain they could handle all of the legal fees and take care of the lawyers 'n' such. They did this with NeXT's objectiv-c compiler.
I think the issue of if this violates the GPL is still in question though. IIRC the GPL expressly forbids linking a binary module to a GPL'd program, but Linus made an exception to the kernel for binary modules. But I think that exception only holds if no kernel modifications are necisary. The modules come with some kernel "patches" so I really have no idea. I'm sure RMS would love the chance to sue these people though.
-matt
I agree. Let's revert to feudalism.
Wait, better yet, let's commit mass genocide
and justify it with Social Darwinism. Yeah!
I once worked with a guy who'd been involved with MOSIX. Claimed to've been a major contributor but was probably just a code-flunky; he's a manager at MS now. From his attitude I'm not sure I'd want anything to do with MOSIX anyway. I swear, sometimes the Israelis make us Americans look like altruistic culturall-inclusive communitarians by comparison.
Can't say this enough times. USSR = State Capitalist, not Socialist or Communist.
I said costs of distribution, not costs of development. Read the clause about distributing binary-only GPL stuff to see what I'm talking about.
If someone did this, they would have to cease distribution altogether. There is a clause in the GPL about patents.
Only some money is evil.....some is good, but some is evil, but that should not begeneralized, since generalizations are not P.C.
If they had kept quiet about it (I'll bet there are a lot of people[the military for eg.] who have done it and are keeping mum), nobody would know about it and they would have gotten away.
Anyway, I hope others don't get the same ideas...that would be bad...very bad for the FS movement.
Look diphead, what do you think collective bargaining is? It is a capitalistic exchange at it's very core: Negotation over a contract.
As far as capitalism goes, it is about mutually beneficial exchange: neither party is bound to the deal; they only do it because both find it to their own benefit. Hence, I found it to my benefit to purchase AMD over intel, because AMD found it to their benefit to meet my price.
The popular understanding of Capitalism has become so corrupted, it's hard to discuss it intelligently anymore. This was largely done on purpose (which is not to say there is a conscious plan involved) by the major segments of society whose power and money would be threatened by true Capitalism, including Politicians, University Professors, Union Leaders, Bankers, and Big (so-called) Businessmen. Despite what you have heard, Capitalism is not about international money-changing, nor can it be characterized by pointing to the problems created by the huge government-regulated, government-controlled stock market and public corporations.
Capitalism is about private ownership of Capital. The central point is the private ownership, which is closely linked to freedom. This means that each person is entitled to (i.e. owns) the results of his own work (unless he sells it or trades it for pay), and the definition of ownership is that you get to say what can or cannot be done with your property.
The GPL is a license setting down the wishes of the creators of GNU and other OSS software. We expect those wishes to be honored. We even expect the courts to enforce the license. This implies that the creators have a legal right to set the rules for their creation. That, in turn, implies ownership (even is the ownership is subsequently transferred to the public), which is a Capitalist concept, whether some OSS-ers think so or not.
Under Socialism, there is no ownership. Everything is shared by society, for the good of the people (or the state). Of course, there still needs to be rules to manage the sharing, otherwise, what's to stop me and my guests from using up the entire world's supply of Truffles and Dom Perignon. Thus, whenever Socialism is implemented, it breaks down into Ownership of Everything by the Government.
Under Socialism, the GPL would be ignored, since it only represents the wishes of a few private individuals. Under Socialism, the Government could decide that it was in the best interest of society that some companies (say those located in Redmond) be allowed to provide custom versions, and binaries only, and there would be nothing you could say about it. Socialism would destroy the GPL and the OSS community.
If you really want a better understanding of Capitalism, read Milton Friedman's Free To Choose. It's insightful, entertaining, and written for the general public. For the more philosophically inclined, I would also suggest Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (though I risk re-igniting a recent flame war - some here think Rand is full of crap, but I'm definitely not one of them).
To summarize: If you support the GPL, then you must support Capitalism, because that's the only system under which the GPL could exist.
Socialism does NOT work. Look at all the failings of socialism. If you look at the "successes" of socialism, you will find that it is blended with capitalism.
Linus has only ever given permission for binary
modules that use the already exported interfaces
in other words saying the _existing_ module
interface is like the syscalls - a barrier of
sorts between programs. Nobody has ever been given
permission to wholesale add a million hooks and
symbols to the kernel
Secondly only Linus gave permission for binary
modules. His code is 10% of the kernel. I havent...
Alan
No, this is not "Normality" nor "Real World" as I saw some ppl say : This is a THREAT. Seems like some guys are thinking GPL is some kind of joke, but no, GPL is the new way sofware goes, it's now a real component of the "Real World" as they say...
Free the code, that's the way things must go.
Would you be so happy to have a 2Mb monolithic kernel compiled for i386 ? I don't thonk so.
DON'T let the kernel be a proprietary thing. And I know "they" won't. Seems like those cluster-guys are going onto troubles...
If there is an actual violation and it is not pursued, then only the kernel would be affected. No other software using the GPL would be affected.
If, on the other hand, the GPL was deemed invalid in a court of law then all GPL software would simply be covered by the default rules covering copyrighted material. Unless they have been signed away, these copyrights would be held by the author of the program.
AOL(read: me too)!
Any group that shares common interests and tends to associate with one another can be considered a community. More broadly I like to think of myself as a member of the free software community.
This is one project for FSF, and it will give them a better reputation, and make the copyright infringing assholes listen.....prosecutetem, sue them, make them suffer.....
Linus just said it again (in the don't-change-kernel-interfaces-debate) that he would allow binary modules. That's the first point.
How are these changes provided? If they are provided as a patch to the original it can be considered to be a derived work thus it must be made available unter the GPL. These changes were probably useless without the module...
Yeah, but isn't this like the opinion of Field Marshal Haig in WW1? Shoot men as an example to the others? Rollocks!
And I say today that you are wrong. Who is more relevant?
Posted by Tony Smolar:
The GPL attempts to blatantly impose the ideals of the FSF on anyone who writes software that tries to co-exist with it.
Letting this go would open the doorway for future abuse of the linux system, this will most likely be its first test. This should be prevented at all costs or we risk watching our great free-source accomplishment splinter as code is stolen for a varriety of purposes.
FIGHT THE POWER
Actually, "No Place" is only one of the meanings for Utopia. A different but similar root in Greek gives it the meaning "Good Place", so it's really a "Good Place that's No Place" (seems pretty accurate).
A very clever construct by Thomas More, ca. 1516.
In my limited experience with the judicial system, the courts appear to accept claims of ownership at face value unless there is hard evidence to the contrary.
Source code which performs a #include isn't a derivative work.
However, if you compile it, the resulting binary may include code both
from your source file and from the header file, which
WOULD make it a derivative work, and thus require that
you comply with the terms of the GPL.
they want to JEW everyone
"Ideals" often involve mapping the "real world" with your perceived notion of how it should work.
:)
So yes, they are a part of the world, though they tend to be less grandiose than in past.
There is no shortage of ideology today - BUT - there is an argument that while ideology has been important in past with regards to building social systems (capitalism, socialism, etc.), our social system TODAY is so complex that it's not going to be changing based on the ideal of one person.. it will evolve based on the collective actions of everyone in it... kinda like a complex adaptive system.
Free software works because software itself is a young field and wasn't so complex that there was no room for ideology. However - there's a risk that people following the ideology (the GNU manifesto) are ignoring the changes and complexities around them in the capitalist software world...i.e. we're living in very pluralistic times: "total world domination" is unrealistic.
Actually, it's kind of funny that the "world domination" slogan was very tongue-in-cheek at first, but slowly people kept drinking the Kool-Aid and actually *believed* they could do it, all without understanding a thing about the origins of capitalism, competitiveness, and competitive advantage (which is the typical reason for proprietary software).
The DOJ nailing Microsoft's ass is not due to ideals: it's due to money - MS competitor's money being wasted because of Microsoft's monopoly hold. Most don't view the DOJ trial as a religious war and Microsoft as this evil-empire.
This is what Microsoft is: They're a successful company with some severe ethical problems. They're also intensely competition-focused (vs. customer focused which is their new turnaround strategy) because of Billy G's incesent drive to WIN.
So far, in this world's social systems, ideals HAVE been the major way things are "created" in terms of law & social structure. Going forward, your observation that ideals "regulate" the cruel reality imposed on us is actually a symptom of a larger trend that I alluded to eariler: the world is becoming so complex that ideals are becoming more focused, less grand. In essence, we're seeing incongruities in our grand-reality, and filling those holes up.
So yeah, I do sort of agree that ideals "regulate" the world.
I think the social world is layers-upon-layers of ideals that have grown over time. And you know what? The world isn't really that cruel, (though it is unfair) if you take time to understand our social systems' origins and why they exist today (captialism and market-driven economy, for instance).
....And wouldn't it be bad if the world WERE fair and everything bad that happened to us happened because we deserved it?
-Stu
The corporations that want to "port their proprietary technology to Linux" can just fuck off. We don't need their proprietary technology, and have spent over a decade creating an alternative so as to avoid it.
Hackers built GNU/Linux as a means of sharing software with anyone else who was willing to share. Corporations who aren't willing to play by our rules are free to write their own code, or buy something proprietary, if that's what they want.
From a strictly business point of view, GPLed software is not gratis -- it must be paid for in the coin that has value to hackers, which is improved source code. It's really very simple -- if the savings that arise from using a free software base for development are less than the cost of releasing the source code to improvements, then by all means, don't use the software.
That's the deal -- take it or leave it.
It seems if a defense research take Linux and disseminate it among themselves but not open community. No one can practically defend GPL. Say Israeli defense ministry or DoD hack and alter Linux. who can defend GPL?
I start to seriously think if GPL will mean nothing.
I do not worry about this, and it will not keep me up during nights, because the good will triumph over the evil, and even MONEY can quite easily be defeated in court of law with little perseverance, and that is exactly what wil happen in this case.......
signed sincrele yours linux users that will see all GPL infringing bastards die.....painfully, and slowly.....torture is a very exacting business after all.
Funny you mention that. I believe that Marx coined socialism as (roughly) a system where the workers "own the means of production".
IF that's true, the U.S. is the most socialist country out there. 50%+ of the stock market is owned by pension plans & mutual funds.
Please, please, PLEASE buy a clue before you post such ignorant drivel.
Money is not evil - its an inanimate object - people can be evil.
-Stu
Yes, that's the one. I haven't checked dictionaries, but I recall reading about the double meaning in a preface to More's Utopia. Whether it was More's intention (I think that's probable since he knew enough Latin & Greek to come up with the term), or if it was merely guessing by the author of the preface is something I can't say for sure.
Remember that dictionaries (even the OED) are wrong about many small details. I think they're probably wrong about this one.
(man, it's amazing how far off-topic one can get in a thread!)
Yes, thats right. There is no linux community.
Is there a microsoft community? No!
Sure, there are groups of people developing the kernel as well as other GPL'd software
I understand how you could call this a development community-- but by using linux you are not in a commmunity.
The Linux community is a term used for everything. We aren't a community.
Linux is just a platform.
Free speech, not free beer. You can charge anything you want for GPL code. I would think that would work especially well in an embedded system, after all, what good is the code with nothing to run it on? Besides, most buyers of an embedded system want support and warantees, which you are free to sell. The only thing you can't do is charge an additional fee for the source, or restrict the redistribution of the software.
To take the example of a cellphone, you can sell the phone w/ software, and offer the source to any buyer who wants it. They can freely give the source to me. Of course, what good is the OS for a proprietary cellphone without the phone?
I did, and guess what? It comes with the source to the kernel modifications and to the user controll tools. Binary modules are 100% allowed. There is no violation of the GPL here. People really should research first, before they get all worked up.
-matt
I'm just going by what I read somewhere. It's entirely possible what I read was wrong. Anyone know the real answer?
-matt
> Have a closer look at the GPL.
But is a binary module that can be distributed
separately from a modified kernel and contains
no GPL code really a derivative work?
IANAL, but it seems to me that the GPL dictates
the terms under which the code can be
distributed; standard notions of fair use still
apply to the final use of the code once
it has been legally obtained. Once
you have a separate binary module and the
modified kernel (with source), combining the two
by a user with no intent to distribute
sounds like fair use to me, whatever the GPL
may say.
I could be wrong on this, but it's something
I've wondered about for a while. I'm all
for the GPL, but (primarily due to the
horrible terms of shrink-wrap licenses
in commercial software) I'm pretty down on
the idea of any license limiting fair
use of software by the end-user.
After actually looking at the sources it seems as though they are _not_ violating the GPL.
The MO6 distribution comes with a few scripts, a man page, a tar of user programs (user.tar) and the kernel stuff (kernel.tar).
The user programs contain a bunch of files and it seems as though they are all covered by either the GPL or LGPL.
The kernel stuff contains a few binary files (which I assume are the modules) and a whole bunch of source files. All files bearing the "The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" copyright are clearly labeled as GPL. The rest of the files appear to be modified files from the kernel distribution and it seems as though no copyright info has been changed in any of them. Taking a few samples show that the kernel files from MO6 bear the same copyright info as the corresponding files in linux-2.2.0-pre7 (which I happened to have on my hard drive).
I have not looked at every line of every file in the MO6 distribution, but it does seem as though they are well aware of the GPL and the linux kernel and therefore I assume that MO6 is OK.
Who cares they ended up complying anyway, and GPL was proven as being strong enough to overcome the proprietary evil....
Time to eliminate the exception for binary modules? It is also possible, but more difficult, to hijack the kernel from user space -- which I am sure someone will attempt some day (Microsoft?).
x
Of course you can charge for the service of writing the source code. It is fairly easy to get paid by the hour to write code which ends up being licensed under the GPL. Programs = Solutions, and if someone wants a solution bad enough, they'll pay a programmer to get that solution. And if they don't want to pay for my retirement too, they'll let me do what I want with the source code.
;)
I've decided that letting people own parts of my brain -- the equivalent of proprietary licensing on software which I have written or NDA's -- will be very expensive. If I ever feel like "selling out", I'll probably have a hard time finding a buyer.
(Italics mine)
Let's not have another witch hunt, unless they deserve it, okay? I wouldn't count myself as being able to give a good answer on the subject. btw, this is a university - though I'm not sure if this is a commercial operation or not. (doesn't appear to be commercial though)
And Bezaleel and Aholiab shall work with everyone wise of heart to whom Adonai has given wisdom and intelligence, to know how to do every work of the service of the holy place, concerning all which Adonai had commanded.
And Moses called to Bezaleel, and to Aholiab, and to everyone wise of heart, to whom Adonai had given a heart of wisdom, everyone whose heart had lifted him up to come near the work, to do it.
And they took every offering before Moses which the sons of Israel had brought for the work of the service in the holy place, to do it. And they brought him still more willing offerings morning by morning.
--Exodus, Chapter 36, verses 1-3.
And the Lord Adonai saith, "Let my Source go Free". And the wise of heart considered, and willingly gave freely unto the Lord.
--Linux, Kernel 2.2.2, Module MO6.
If you feel that way, how about you move off to the USSR. . .wait, Socialism failed there.
Okay, move off to Utopia, that was a wonderful place with nothing resembling capitalism, wait, Utopia is Latin for "No Place", do you think St.Thomas More was saying something???
After all, it's the most common example held up as the "failings of socialism". The interesting thing is that, despite the countries name, the actual economic system is what's called "state capitalist". Within a few years of the creation of the USSR, Lenin outright said that they were abandoning communism for state capitalism.
Now, in the face of that, since you obviously consider the USSR a failure, how do you reconcile your view that the "'successes' of socialism" are all socialism "blended with capitalism"? Too many people form too many opinions based on too little information.
To be fair, it was Sun who started this nonsense on PC filesystems with PCNFS. Of course that MS couldn't write a real filesystem to beginwith... Someone at Sun is probably cackling with delight at how MS is sticking with a hack used by a product abandoned eons ago.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I sorry to say this, but simply FUCK OFF and SHUT UP idiot!!
All you god damned commies and capitalist bastards, why do you have to jump in every discussion about GPL and start fighting your totally irrelevant political flame war. It is obvious that none of you has even bothered to read GPL (but that would do you little good since you would hardly be capable of understanding it).
This is about GPL and it's possible violation, not about politics so shup up already.
The GPL requires that the source be available free. It does not require that the source accompany the binary, as long as the binary is accompanied by info indicating how the source may be obtained free of charge.
Which is why you can by a 1-cd version of RedHat, which only includes binary packages: all the source packages are available online!
And in response to an earlier post, the university is, as was said, free to charge for the source... as long as they also make it available for free!
The Real Question here is what was Linus' ruling? Did he or did he not say, as de Icaza maintained, that binary modules with no source available could be linked with the kernel ONLY if they required no modifications to the kernel?
Bigger question: they say on their site that the kernel mods are to allow other modules to access the binary. Is this necessary to use the binary, or an additional resource? If the binary can be used without employing the kernel mods then the mods can be considered a separate piece of software, as might have been written by us to take better advantage of theirs, in which case no violation exists in either of the above cases!
If on the other hand, you cannot use the module without also using the kernel mods, AND de Icaza is correct with regard to the determination made by Linus on the subject of binary modules, then they are in violation of the GPL.
Thus before we cry foul, let us find out: can this binary module be used for its intended purpose without needing these kernel mods? If these kernel mods are only a gracious contribution by the university to allow the open source community to take better advantage of MOSIX, then more power to them, and we should silence our criticisms.
But if they are an integral and required part of running MOSIX on Linux, then we MUST act to correct this... but how?
No lawsuit should be considered, in any such case, until gentle persuasion has failed. If they are in violation of the GPL, then we should gently explain how and why they have failed it. They may then release their MOSIX under the GPL properly, or modify it so as to make the kernel mods unnecessary. A lawsuit should be a last resort! Remember, we are a community, and we should use the tools of the community before we turn to the tools of society, because we have a world-wide community crossing every boundary, but our society is fractured into thousands of pieces.
Tell me, if we could prevail against this university in the American courts, does this necessarily mean that we will prevail in any other nation's court?
Let us try the global means first.
Have a closer look at the GPL.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
This explictly denies what you suggest is possible.
It would, if you hacked the GPL off at that point instead of continuing down 4 more paragraphs:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this license.
How this applies is quite simple; the stub is a derivitive work. The driver is a program that interfaces with, but does not derive from, the stub.
If you think that "interfacing with" is the same as "derived from", then Wordperfect would have to be covered by GPL because it interfaces with X.
For that matter, any application that interfaced with the kernel's filesystem drivers by writing a file to the disk would be considered "derived from" the kernel.
GPL and capitalism work together, but the capital must be kept in check through lawsuits....it may be a flawed system, but way better then socialism, which does not work, but sucks mightily....about like certain 800lb slimeball in redmont...
If you write a program that is proprietary, then write a small stub for the kernel that communicates with it, all you need do to meet the GPL requirements is release source for your stub.
/. every single *DAY*. Don't you people read the replies to the articles?
The GPL can't prevent that.
Get over it, people. The GPL is not an iron-clad guarantee that every program that in any way remotely touches Linux will be completely open.
These same misconceptions come up on at least one topic on
beat the legal shit out of them
time for the mice to roar
we're not gonna take it anymore
they have to play by the rules they push on everyone else
well actually they dont, since they have power,,,
oh fuck nevermind.
guess i should try to write mo' programs
GPL has never been tested in court.
Many times the proponents or antagonists of a law will intentionally break that law and file a test case. This sets down precedent.
If you GNU people want to have faith in the GPL instead of just *HOPING* that it would stand up in a court of law, you should orchestrate a test case.
Neither one of the previous posters was helping things by fanning the flames of bigotry, but you are not helping either, because your comment might just inflame someone else....the ball has started to roll, and the avalanche is not unstopable reality....thanks to you, and the original idiot that started all of this...
Well - I didn't get that far - the /. effect
place may be suffering from
which will probably be announced as
a Hacker attack re the OS Counter
project probe nonsense. I did however
email them asking for where I might
locate the source for download - as
well as POLITELY remind them about the
GPL requirements. It would be interesting
software to play with on my home network!
You folks are arguing about whether kernel
mods violate GPL or not - it comes down
to - did they modify someone elses code
from my reading of the GPL. If they have
a kernel module that you can insmod - well
that probably CAN be distributed under
NDA, et al. - if they modified someone
elses code - then if they distribute it -
it is subject to the GPL source requirements.
Not a lawyer myself - but that is where I see
the a difference.
Counter an ill-conceived joke. With such a comment?
He didn't seem to have any intent to injure. If he did, then I would say, at the very least he should apologize, for that intent to injure. In the end it was just a joke, in bad taste I will admit, but only a joke. You're offended, you have the right be. However, personally I find your response to be even more offensive, but, I ask no apology. My personal sensibilities, are no fault of yours. And likewise if my words should offend you, I find that to be your problem to deal with, not mine.
What I DO ask, is next time, try hitting the preview button first.. look at what you've said, then look at what you are saying it about. Does it REALLY deserve this ? Or maybe, even a better worded, well thought out response would be in order. And actually would accomplish much more, to show him where he was wrong. Just because he neglected to think before typing, doesn't mean you should do the same.
That's not a paradox, it's a tautology. In other words, the spirit of the GPL is upheld if IP laws exist, because the IP laws have to support the terms of the GPL. The spirit of the GPL would also be upheld in a world without IP laws. Sure, such a world would allow you to keep your modified free software proprietary, but what company would survive doing that in such a world? In any case, there would be nothing stopping others from simply copying their binaries at will, and realistically, how long would it take for their code to reach the rest of the world? The only way they could get away with it is by keeping everything internal and not releasing source or binaries, but the GPL already allows that. So, pretty much all bases are covered, no conflicting conditions, free software is free in both worlds: hence, tautology, the proposition "GPL'd software is free" is always true.
Another thing being overlooked is, if you don't distribute your changes outside of your company, you never have to let anyone else see the source, since you're NOT, repeat NOT releasing it to the public.
Now, if you're SELLING the embedded systems, you gotta distribute the changes to GPLed programs, but the stuff you write yourself, as long as it doesn't derive from the source of any GPLed program, can stay closed source...
I think it's about as non-restrictive as it gets without being public domain.
Well, duh.
You begin by writing them a nice legal letter saying that they are violating the license terms of GNU ls and find, and if they don't bring their distribution into compliance, you sue them for copyright violation. Pretty simple.
No one with GPLed code has had to go as far as a lawsuit. Threatening letters from the fsf's lawyers have been sufficient in the past to bring major corporations (like Next) into line.
Where's the difficulty?
I think they have done themselves in. I've been browsing the source tree, and find that the module headers themselves are GPLed. Doesn't this mean that ALL the source code must be GPL, since their module must use their own headers?
I don't care for a capitalism v. socialism debate.
However, you cannot dare tell me that in a country where one man (Gates) has more money than 40% of the population, that the system is fair.
Also, if your browse their kernel tree, you'll see that they've GPLed the headers for their OWN module. Oops, I think we've got them there.
if that's the world, then let us change it.
Natureman
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
I also have related question that bears on your posting.
What about computer games? Me and a bunch of my friends would like to write a "Zork" style D&D game.
As far as I can see, under the GPL, we wouldn't have to distribute the source ( we wouldn't want to - that would lead to a lot of competition and kill any potential profits for us ).
This is the kind of situation where you have to make your money from a binary, since you can't make any money from supporting a distributed source program ( since the user base would be too small ).
I know that Linus Torvalds has stated that this kind of thing is ok ( as long as we don't modify any of the Kernel or utility code ).
Still, while it follows the letter of the GPL, it seems to be somewhat at odds with the spirit of the GPL. Can anyone suggest a solution?
I cooked a jew last night. Now my oven is all sticky...
Who knows who fought and die for it, and who cares, since most engineering jobs, and jobs in the high-tech are salary jobs, and therefore the 40 hour week is a joke when most workers in high tech fields work 60 to 80, while being paid for forty....where is your limit then....this is accepted, and standard practice all over, and nobody is raising any fuss, and nobody will for a while.....but it should be changed....or something done about it anyway......just my 2 cents worth....
IANAL, but I would say that any and every contributor to the Linux kernel would have a valid complaint since he is including all of their code in a propriotary form.
--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
This might have been discussed in the past, but alas I do not know. For the sake of argument, say
a company or an individual is actually violating the GPL. Who enforces it? Where does the money come from for legal expenses? What if a company
the size and strength of say Microsoft was outright violating the GPL? Repeated attempts to get them within the rules of the license fails. Exactally who sends them to court? Who pays the expenses, and if damages are occured, who gets awarded the money? Certainly if said GPL code was mine, I could not afford to fight them in court. And if the code is more generic like the Kernel which has been modified, what happens then? So the real crux of the question is whether the GPL is actually enforcable or not. Whats the procedure?
You have been assimilated.
That is just not enough....
CUT OFF THEIR NUTS IS MORE TO MY LIKING.....
AND MAKE THEM EAT IT....JUST SO THEY REMEMBER FOR THE FUTURE......or at least let fsf sue them, an dmkae them beg for mercy......
All of Elmer Kogan is dead. But not all of the class of dead people are Elmer Kogan.
All people who are Nazi's are anti-semitic, and make anti-semitic comments. But not all people who make anti-semitic comments are Nazi's. Some are Communists (a la USSR Party anti-semitism), some have other anti-semitic philosophies.
Perhaps you could get somewhere by saying that all anti-semites are jerks, and this guy made an anti-semitic remark, therefore this guy is an anti-semite jerk. :)
Score another one for slashdot effect....we could use it in future to make a point...change you evil ways, or feel the slashdot effect untill you do....
Yes, thats right. There is no linux community.
Is there a microsoft community? No!
Sure, there are groups of people developing the kernel as well as other GPL'd software
I understand how you could call this a development community-- but by using linux you are not in a commmunity.
The Linux community is a term used for everything. We aren't a community.
Linux is just a platform.
bugg
> A capitalist by definition is not one who exchanges goods for other
> goods using money, but one who exchanges money for more money using
> goods.
Oh, yeah? I think *you* need to read some Marx.
And if they didn't GPL it, the GPL doesn't apply.
If they used GPL'ed code in their product, then
it does -- but surely they did not. Does anybody
have *any* reason to believe this is the case?
Writing to an existing interface is *not* the
same as creating a derivitive work, even if you
have to reverse-engineer the interface. And, no,
calling a function from a non-GPL'ed program does
not count as a copyright violation any more than
reading a copyrighted document and calculating a
CRC on it would be. The GPL explicitly denies
applicability to other people's non-derived works
and discusses it at length. Get a life, people.
Didn't he just say that it wasn't in Jews to do anything illegal? Isn't that a compliment?
No shit. All of which supports my point.
Instead of just reading the GPL, why don't you read the thread to which you're replying, too?
I am neither a lawyer nor a commercial programmer, so please bear with my ignorance. What is to prevent an unscrupulous person or business entity to incorporate GPL'd code into their project without acknowledging it? How can one prove, or even uncover, that part of a commercial binary-only release is in fact based on GPL'd source?
YAAC
They only recently ported to Linux.