Required to provide source to the various GPL programs included, but *not* required for the configuration utilities assuming they don't like to any GPL'ed code.
So they are one CD short of compliance (possibly the GPL needs to be in the users manual).
Just because it runs on Linux and they ship something with Linux doesn't mean they have to give up the source. If that were the case, the WordPerfact people owe me some source. There are a bunch things RedHat ships that I want the source for, like the Loki games.
The article makes it sound like they took the Linux kernel and shipped modified it like the Sistina people and now want to close source it. This is a minor deal, the article is misleading.
This is copied verbatim from the section of the GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
End of the GPL quote.
I am not sure they are required to give you the source for Linux, or for any of the other tools, according to this. It is a question of law, and well IANAL. I am not sure how they removed the copyright notices. They are around there somewhere. They haven't intentionally made them difficult to find, it is the nature of the embedded system to provide a simplistic interface.
As long as they didn't modify the any source they didn't violate the rules about original copyright notices.
As far as all that goes, so far they are obliged to send a CD-Rom out with Linux and Samba on it. There is still nothing forcing the to provide anything that can't be found on any decent ftp mirror. And for all we know, they have done exactly that in the original documentation in very tiny print. They still have to publish the GPL or a pointer to it in the docs, and that might be in violation. So far this seems like a relatively minor deal. They haven't failed to pusblish any source code they should have, which is pretty much the whole spirit of the GPL. There is no advertising clause in the GPL, all you have to do is publish the GPL, which is sounds like is all they haven't done. That and charge $15 for shipping you a CD if you ask them to.
From what I have read, they used Samba, an alpha version. They used Apache, they use a number of other tools. They added a filesystem driver to Linux. I believe Linux specifically has an exception for loadable modules. It is entirely possible that there is nothing illegal. From the article, it appears the only thing they did was add a filesystem to Linux in a binary only format, if it is a loadable modules, they are pretty much in the clear. If they don't you should go talk with a number of video card makers.
If they didn't actually modify any of those tools they are not required to publish that, they aren't required to tell you they are using it. If the modify the binaries of a GPL'ed or LGPL'ed software they have to give you the modifications. If the configuration is seperate apache, with no apache mods, they don't owe anybody anything.
If you describe what source you think they tweaked, and how you know they did, that would be mighty useful, but there is nothing that is specifically in violation of the GPL from what you have described.
All things considered, I wouldn't buy one of those, I have enough Linux knowledge to assemble one myself. Nothing terribly complicated there.
I believe the TCP stack was a "Linux Original" I forget the name of the original guy who wrote it, he handed it off to somebody else, and eventually it got handed off to Alan Cox if I remember my Linux history correctly. In a recent book, it clearly stated they didn't take BSD's TCP stack because Bell Lab's was in the process of suing the BSD people.
They didn't want to risk any legal trouble. The TCP stack is what made it take so long to go from 0.95 to 1.0, and was much harder to get it right then anybody dreamed it would be. Have I got my history correct?
Quoted from the last question in this web page:
http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/info-press/2001/0000 06.html
QUESTION: If there was a button, that you could push and force all
companies to free their software would you press it?
STALLMAN: Well, I would only use this for published software. You know, I
think that people have the right to write a program privately, and use it.
And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. And it's true, there
can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously
helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity that is a
wrong, but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different issue,
although it's in the same area.
But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And
remember, when it's not free software, that's because of Government
intervention. The Government is intervening to make it non-free. The
Government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of
the programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the
programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that.
While I will agree that flerbage is quite clever, and in fact very important. A complete analysis is of the full effects a single change in the world on a persons flerbate is completely beyond human capacity.
ESR has given a simple and incomplelete analysis of his thoughts about what are important to him about the effects of various laws being enacted.
There is a place for RMS, and as long as he doesn't try and coerce me into using the GPL he is fine by me. He can adovcate its use, and cite how useful it is, and how other license are bad. Just don't tell me I can't make one up on my own.
The FSF has made an incredible contribution to the world. I use FSF software everyday. I make a living using the GNU C++ compiler. I appreciate the tools they have provided me. My boss appreciate the fact that they are free, and he has no worries about the how many people are using it at once like we do with the Oracle Licenses.
That all said, I believe that if people agree on Licenses that is okay. The problem is that too many people blindly agree to a shrinkwrap license and are unaware that they could have just given up rights to their firstborn child. My hope is that all this debate is to make a broader set of people realize that the license is just as critical as features.
Slashdot Mirror
Required to provide source to the various GPL programs included, but *not* required for the configuration utilities assuming they don't like to any GPL'ed code.
So they are one CD short of compliance (possibly the GPL needs to be in the users manual).
Just because it runs on Linux and they ship something with Linux doesn't mean they have to give up the source. If that were the case, the WordPerfact people owe me some source. There are a bunch things RedHat ships that I want the source for, like the Loki games.
The article makes it sound like they took the Linux kernel and shipped modified it like the Sistina people and now want to close source it. This is a minor deal, the article is misleading.
Kirby
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
End of the GPL quote.
I am not sure they are required to give you the source for Linux, or for any of the other tools, according to this. It is a question of law, and well IANAL. I am not sure how they removed the copyright notices. They are around there somewhere. They haven't intentionally made them difficult to find, it is the nature of the embedded system to provide a simplistic interface.
As long as they didn't modify the any source they didn't violate the rules about original copyright notices.
As far as all that goes, so far they are obliged to send a CD-Rom out with Linux and Samba on it. There is still nothing forcing the to provide anything that can't be found on any decent ftp mirror. And for all we know, they have done exactly that in the original documentation in very tiny print. They still have to publish the GPL or a pointer to it in the docs, and that might be in violation. So far this seems like a relatively minor deal. They haven't failed to pusblish any source code they should have, which is pretty much the whole spirit of the GPL. There is no advertising clause in the GPL, all you have to do is publish the GPL, which is sounds like is all they haven't done. That and charge $15 for shipping you a CD if you ask them to.
From what I have read, they used Samba, an alpha version. They used Apache, they use a number of other tools. They added a filesystem driver to Linux. I believe Linux specifically has an exception for loadable modules. It is entirely possible that there is nothing illegal. From the article, it appears the only thing they did was add a filesystem to Linux in a binary only format, if it is a loadable modules, they are pretty much in the clear. If they don't you should go talk with a number of video card makers.
If they didn't actually modify any of those tools they are not required to publish that, they aren't required to tell you they are using it. If the modify the binaries of a GPL'ed or LGPL'ed software they have to give you the modifications. If the configuration is seperate apache, with no apache mods, they don't owe anybody anything.
If you describe what source you think they tweaked, and how you know they did, that would be mighty useful, but there is nothing that is specifically in violation of the GPL from what you have described.
All things considered, I wouldn't buy one of those, I have enough Linux knowledge to assemble one myself. Nothing terribly complicated there.
I believe the TCP stack was a "Linux Original" I forget the name of the original guy who wrote it, he handed it off to somebody else, and eventually it got handed off to Alan Cox if I remember my Linux history correctly. In a recent book, it clearly stated they didn't take BSD's TCP stack because Bell Lab's was in the process of suing the BSD people.
They didn't want to risk any legal trouble. The TCP stack is what made it take so long to go from 0.95 to 1.0, and was much harder to get it right then anybody dreamed it would be. Have I got my history correct?
Kirby
Quoted from the last question in this web page: http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/info-press/2001/0000 06.html
QUESTION: If there was a button, that you could push and force all
companies to free their software would you press it?
STALLMAN: Well, I would only use this for published software. You know, I
think that people have the right to write a program privately, and use it.
And that includes companies. This is privacy issue. And it's true, there
can be times when it is wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously
helpful to humanity, and you are withholding it from humanity that is a
wrong, but that's a different kind of wrong. It's a different issue,
although it's in the same area.
But yes, I think all published software should be free software. And
remember, when it's not free software, that's because of Government
intervention. The Government is intervening to make it non-free. The
Government is creating special legal powers to hand out to the owners of
the programs, so that they can have the police stop us from using the
programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like to end that.
While I will agree that flerbage is quite clever, and in fact very important. A complete analysis is of the full effects a single change in the world on a persons flerbate is completely beyond human capacity.
ESR has given a simple and incomplelete analysis of his thoughts about what are important to him about the effects of various laws being enacted.
There is a place for RMS, and as long as he doesn't try and coerce me into using the GPL he is fine by me. He can adovcate its use, and cite how useful it is, and how other license are bad. Just don't tell me I can't make one up on my own.
The FSF has made an incredible contribution to the world. I use FSF software everyday. I make a living using the GNU C++ compiler. I appreciate the tools they have provided me. My boss appreciate the fact that they are free, and he has no worries about the how many people are using it at once like we do with the Oracle Licenses.
That all said, I believe that if people agree on Licenses that is okay. The problem is that too many people blindly agree to a shrinkwrap license and are unaware that they could have just given up rights to their firstborn child. My hope is that all this debate is to make a broader set of people realize that the license is just as critical as features.
Oh now this is now getting too long....
Kirby