Slashdot Mirror
Is the iToaster a Linux Box? Will there be Source?
I was given several different answers from different people. Here is a reply to an email asking about the code I sent to (sales@microworkz.com)
Mr. Malda,
Thank you for your interest in Microworkz.com. The iToaster operating system is a hybrid between BeOs and Linux and is licensed and patented by Microworkz.com, Inc. The source code is therefore proprietary and not available for download.
The Linux pure source code is however at www.linux.com.
If you have any other questions or if you would like to place an order, please give our Sales Team a call at (888) 306-2044 from 7am - 8pm Monday through Friday and 10am - 5pm Saturday and Sunday PST. Or simply check out our web sites at www.microworkz.com.
So I called them and asked more. I talked to a very nice gentleman who put me on hold for awhile while he found answers. According to him, the iToaster does not run Linux (although according to the email posted above from the sales department, it runs "A Hybrid between BeOS and Linux". This is sorta what the MSNBC article said ("The way it was explained to me, BeOS handles the file system, while Linux does just about everything else.")
So I guess there are 2 possibilities here:
- Microworkz messed up by using the word "Linux" when dealing with CNNfn and MSNBC, as their machine does not run Linux at all. This seems to be what I was told on the phone.
- Microworkz is violating the GPL by making modifications to the Linux kernel and not releasing them.
At this point there really isn't much we can do about it since the iToaster isn't really out so we can't do any pounding on it to determine if their is something questionable going on.
Thanks to the many of you who wrote in to give us the heads up on this. We'll keep you posted if we figure out more.
[sorry about the AC post]
It seems to me that the sales rep has described a situation difficult to wriggle out of:
1) If it is truly a linux/BeOS hybrid (which the rep appears to distinguish from "pure" linux) then there is a violation of the GPL. The sales rep needs an education in the term "derived work".
2) If what most people have been saying is true - i.e. that it is only BeOS, and they are just using the Linux moniker to be 'buzzword compliant', then what people seem to be missing is that this is a misrepresentation of their product, and an infringement of a registered trademark.
There is simply -no- way to interpret their marketing without this product, or the marketing thereof, being a legal infringement. It either violates the GPL, or violates Linus' trademark rights. There is no in-between.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am, however, a law student. Take the above with whatever dose of salt you deem appropriate.
Anonymous Coward asks:
Yes, but if you let anyone have the source code, can they not legally distribute it themselves for nothing? (ie. If the cow-orkers[moo-grunt!] got the source, then I'm sure one will run Linux and be smart enough to give it away...)
Of course they can. The sticking point was how far the distributor is required to go in distributing source; once it is distributed, it can be spread to the four winds.
It's moot anyway for the moment, since under the GPL they don't have to distribute a single line of source to anyone unless and until they distribute something with GPLed binary or object code.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
rew asks:
Hmm. Suppose they never ship a binary. So when the customer recieves the box, you hit "install", and it says "Please wait", crunch, crunch "Done!". In the "crunch crunch" it compiled the modified GLP-ed components....
That's a tough one. If the place where the box gets the source is generally accessible, there's no problem at all, everyone's happy. If it is not, it violates the spirit of the GPL, but possibly does not violate the letter of the GPL.
The best argument against such a system is found in Section 3: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. Therefore, if the transmission is not in a form that anyone can modify, it is not source code.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
luge wrote:
Not quite... while you are correct about the download issue, source must be available to anyone for whom binaries are available, in the same medium. I.E., if [GPL] binaries are *publicly* available on CDs, [GPL] source must also be *publicly* available on CDs- not just to those who pay for binaries, but also to others in the general public. If binaries are only available to your co-workers or people within your corporation, then you need only make source available within your corporation.
The GPL says no such thing. To summarize section 3, you can distribute binaries, provided you either:
* include source in the distribution
* include a written offer to send any third party the source in machine readable format for no more than the costs incurred in supplying the source
* pass on the above written offer from the person whom you got the GPL code from
It says later in the section that if you get the source by copying it from somewhere, you can "distribute" the source by giving them the same information and access to copy it that you have.
You do not need to make GPL source publically available, you can limit your distribution to just the people you do business with by shipping the source on the same CD as the binaries. If you do offer to ship source, you have to accept requests from anyone, but you don't need to tell everyone about it, merely the people you ship binaries to. Clearly the easiest way to comply is to make it publically available from a Web or FTP site, but it is by no means a requirement of the GPL.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Don't flame these people, and read the Linux-Advocacy HOWTO.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I'm not sure exactly how this portion of trademark law works, but is the Linux trademark still enforcable despite the fact that Linus has set relatively relaxed usage terms? (i.e. The terms are lax, but they ARE clear, so any violation of those terms constitutes an enforcable violation of the trademark?)
Does anyone have a pointer to the status/licensing terms for the Linux trademark?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I was told at the Be booth at PC Expo Tuesday that the iToaster is 100% BeOS with some modifications (custom desktop, etc). I specifically asked if there was any Linux code and was told "No, although marketing has led people to believe that there is (followed by a heavy sigh)".
I tried the iToaster proto at their booth. It was REALLY, really nice. It DID boot in less than 20 seconds. I would say, the prototype set-top Be demo'ed next to it (kinda going a step beyond into delivery of all kinds of multimedia content channels) really blew me away.
-DougMan, CEO tomorrowsounds Inc.
www.tomorrowsounds.com
I highly doubt that any part of the Linux kernel is involved with the iToaster. I'm admittedly not an expert, but BeOS and Linux kernels have *completely* different architechtures. Mixing the two would be all but impossible technically. Also, what would be the benifit? BeOS does a fine job at everything they need. It's perfectly capable of memory management, filsystems, networking, graphics and multimedia. There really is no reason for them to touch Linux if they've got BeOS.
>You can not make a proprietary version of the Linux kernel. Period.
I have already made a proprietary version of the Linux kernel. Period. It is currently running on a box at home. Period. The source is not and will not be made available for download. Period. I have not violated any feature of the GPL. Period.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Everybody is jumping on the conspiracy theory band wagon. Remember that marketing releases are generated by, well, marketing people. So for instance a statement from engineering such as: The iToaster runs the BeOS operating system and a core system of GPL'd utilities familiar to anybody who has used the Linux operating sytem. The marketing interpretation of the same statement: The iToaster runs a BeOS/Linux hybrid. It makes marketing people warm and fuzzy inside, its fully buzzword complient. It uses the word hybrid and thats a cool word.
Give the iToaster people the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that they are violating GPL then voice your righteous indignation, but do it politely. Remember that the Open Source community is trying to gain acceptance. If you're a member of the mob mentality you're just another anchor around the neck of Open Source.
It's a cheap machine, 300 bucks, I'll buy one. If I find any code derived from Open Source code I'll make it known. I'm sure others will do the same.
No, this works via transfer. If Company X makes binaries of GPLed code available on CDs (by selling them, or giving them away), and I get one from them, then they have an obligation to me to make the source code available on my request. If I then lend my CD to you, it is I who then has the obligation to make source available to you on your request, not Company X.
The GPL does not require someone using GPLed code to make their changes available for download. The GPL only requires that someone who distributes binaries built from GPLed code to make the source code available to those who received the binaries, upon their request under reasonable terms (only a copying fee).
Thus, the only way to determine whether there is an actual violation of the GPL in this case is to buy the product and check whether it is accompanied by the source or an offer for the source.
Wasn't this thing supposed to run some kind of Linux utilities or something? I find it highly unlikely that they modified the linux kernel to run BeOS or BeOS components... besides being illegal if undistributed, that level of integration would be a waste of time. It probably just runs Be and some ported Linux apps.
All this is just idle speculation though.
This sounds like an awesome idea, but my old $10 toaster works just fine, and how are they going to deal with the heat, and the crumbs?
I don't know about you, but if I forget about my pop tarts one morning, I don't want my whole web server going down in flames.
It had better be secure out of the box, or we'll have a lot of newbies screaming "L3gg0 my 3gg0!"
Thanks, but no thanks. I think this stuff is getting a bit out of hand.
--
#19845
could they be referring to gnu utilities? things like bash are on be systems. and there was a port of gimp available, yes?
if so, it would seem to lend weight to rms's gnu/linux complaint (though i still think it's a silly request).
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
If, as other posters have pointed out, Microworkz marketing made reference to Linux in the sense that "our product is really stable and has great networking capabilities", then that's great! It means that some really well-done Linux advocacy has been going on. Would you prefer them to say "combines the UI of Be with the unstoppable power of Windows NT"? I didn't think so.
I'll admit that they could have gone about their advertising a little better. It's confusing to say that the iToaster includes Linux but doesn't come with the source, and even worse when we find out that the product doesn't include Linux but uses the Linux(tm) trademark in their advertising anyway. Now if they had quoted a reviewer who said "it's solid just like Linux" then that would be OK. I guess their marketing department didn't run this by the legal department on its way out the door.
All in all, there are worst things that could happen than Linux becoming the generic term for small, stable, networkable operating systems.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That's not the legal hoop I'm wondering about. I'm wondering how they plan on bringing an Internet appliance to market with a name beginning with a lowercase i and followed by the capitalized name without getting in some trouble with the legal department of a certain multi-billion dollar fruit company.
But Linux(R) is not a buzzword, it's a trademark. Trademark dilution in this case is not a good thing, for many reasons. Here's two:
Somebody buys an iToaster because it's "Linux buzzword compliant", takes it home, sets it up, and discovers it doesn't run his Linux apps, because it isn't really Linux.
or worse:
Because of trademark dilution, anybody can call anything Linux. Microsoft releases their next version of NT as "Microsoft Linux". Linux gets a rep as a crashy OS because of this (plus the problems of brand confusion as above.)
If the iToaster really contains no Linux then Microjerkz should get a very nice letter from a law firm on the behalf of Linus (the trademark owner), to cease and desist and issue a retraction at least as prominently as the initial announcment. Maybe the marketdroids really didn't know that Linux was a trademark. But they need to be formally reminded that it is.
(If it does contain Linux, then they have the GPL problem.)
-- Alastair
Well, I'm happy for the Be guys. I wonder how much Microwerkz pays for each copy of the OS + Gobe.
More to the point, it would be really cool if we could get linux into this kind of box (yes, I know there's a small set-top company using it, but there are a million set tops that run everything, we'll see which one wins).
Linux has three key problems in this department. The first is boot time. Anybody know of projects to build an insta-boot linux for embedded devices?
The second, the lack of a journalled file system, has been beaten to death. Consumers just want to be able to flick it on and flick it off. We'll see how ext3 does, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took a splinter filesystem to work with small consumer devices. They have such different needs from enterprise servers that they shouldn't necessarily have the same features.
The final kicker is XF86. Great software in many ways, and everything I've heard about 4.0 sounds incredible, but it's not small. Anybody have an update on some of the attempts to create a micro-sized graphics system (GGI and Berlin? I can't really remember). . .
--JZ
Yeah, I was one of the people who submitted a link about this dual Linux/BeOS stuff.
However, then I read this story on ars which confirms what other people have been saying: it just runs Be.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
There's something in the description that's kind of interesting. It says that it has a built-in capability to restrict access to websites (for kids and other obnoxious family members) AND (and this is what got me) there will be a webpage set up where parents can view what websites their kids visited. :-/ ;-)
I wonder if they mean they will set it up so you can view your browser history on your local machine or if they will make this gadget report to their servers about what you've been up to. In other words: No more porn for those of you with a better half
This kinda bothers me, I would personally hate to have all the websites I visited logged on a remote system which might be accessible to (Insert name of curious person here). My boss wouldn't be happy if he would get a report on how much time I spent on slashdot
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
beauty is only a light switch away
This is one problem I see with GPL, I mean not with GPL itself but with making GPL work. how can one be shure that GPL is being respected by propietary software houses?
What I mean is if I am a company, I could simply get linux code on the web alter it and then release my proprietary software. If I don't fall in the mistake of telling people I used linux in the first place how would people would know to file a law-suite?
And I used 'linux' in my example but it could be any program at all, just do "s/linux/xxxx/" and there you are.
And this could be happening right now, how can one be 100% shure that window, OS/2, AIX or any other OS don't have some part of the linux or other GPL code hidden inside it? We don't have access to source code of those system. And how about word, excel, word-perfect and etc...?
Right now many programs could be violating the GPL and we will never know that they are. It's near impossible, if not impossible, to discover that some program used some code within it, without the access to the code itself. And even if you have access to the code, this could be very hard as there are many forms of obscuring code (mainly C).
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Correct URL:
http://Microworkz.com/Products/i Toaster/iToaster.cfm
to share it around a little more. Someone posted the following poem by
Thomas Disch:
Lives there a man with soul so dead
He's never to his toaster said:
"You are my friend; I see in you
An object sturdy, staunch, and true;
A fellow mettlesome and trim;
A brightness that the years can't dim."?
Then let us praise the brave appliance
In which we place this just reliance.
And offer it with each fresh slice
Such words of friendship and advice
As "How are things with you tonight?"
Or "Not too dark but not too light."
it inspired me to create my own topical followup:
But now my friendly old appliance
Will not maintain his trusty silence.
Instead, although it makes me sad,
He showers me with banner ads.
His days of toasting bread are past;
He wants me to Make Money Fast.
He once was satisfied enough in
Browning up my english muffin
But now he fills my mail with spamsters!
He wants to show me dancing hamsters!
That is my tale, though it's depressin'.
To others let it be a lesson.
The dangers only now I see
Of Toaster TCP/IP.
You on the other hand should probably read the Linux advocacy mini-HOWTO. Then you should write a polite letter apologizing for your immature behavior. I suggest that the fellow Slashdot readers also write a short, carefully worded e-mail to to Microworkz and the misinformed news agencies.
Remember, it's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.