Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

GPL Violation, Microtest's DiskZerver 393

Posted by Cliff from the handling-and-rectifying-licensing-snafus dept.
Early this week, brtb submitted an eye-opening write up which may end up as the classic example of a large-scale GPL violation. Microtest's DiskZerver, a NAS device designed to handle CDs, would seem to be a sharp product, except it's based on software licenced under the GPL and potentially other free-software licenses as well. Of course, you would never know this, because Microtest never mentioned it, however that didn't stop Microtest from manufacturing and then marketing the device before it sold it off to another company. DiskZerver's new company xStore, which was unaware of the licensing issues, was notified about them, and this impending article. They have yet to comment. In situations like this, what should a company do to bring such a glaring GPL violation back into compliance?

Slashdot reader brtb reports:

About a year ago my employer, a local high school, purchased a couple MicroTest "DiskZervers," network-attached-storage boxes designed to cache CD images for LAN usage. We were mainly Netware-and-Win95 at that time, and the Zervers performed flawlessly in that configuration. But problems began when the district IT department made the decision to switch us over to an NT-domain setup. The Zervers, even with their advertised "Domain Integration" support, didn't seem to like this too well, so I dug a little deeper... imagine my surprise when I found out the boxes are actually embedded 486's with Linux and a whole slew of other GPL'ed software, mentioned nowhere in the manuals or on the accompanying software CD.

Apparently, Microtest (NAS division since sold to XStore) put together a mess of GPL software - a modified Linux kernel 2.0.27, Samba 1.9.x-ALPHA (!!!), the MARS_NWE netware emulator, and GNU C libraries (libc5), among others, stuffed them on a flash chip in a drive-bay-size embedded 486-based computer, and sold it as their "DiscZerver" product line. They also used some non-GPL packages, including Apache and Netatalk (macintosh server). Nothing wrong with their methods, but there's plenty wrong in their implementation.

The web interface and proprietary Windows front-end, the only given methods of configuring the device, refer to the various services generically, like "Web server," "SMB server," "NCP server," etc. - there's no mention anywhere, even in the manual, of the actual programs being used. Of course along with this is no accompanying source code or even the offer to provide any, as the GPL requires.

I can't even get any useful tech support from this company, much less someone to ask about getting the source code for the software and whatever modifications they made, which includes a flash file-system driver ("yaffs" - I think MicroTest wrote it, as I can't find any info on it) for the kernel. I did manage to hack out the hidden-from-customers root password; with that I found a shell prompt (Stand-alone Shell v1.0 - GPL? dunno) which only increased my determination as I could see exactly what programs they managed to steal, strip out identifying info, and use without credit.

I did contact the FSF with the limited information I had before I got shell access, and they did confirm the existence of a GPL violation, but were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of the programs I knew of at the time (and actually suggested I post to Slashdot to get some answers). xStore itself has not returned my emails or phone call. I have another e-mail in to the FSF, now that I know the machine includes glibc1.

So, right now I have a nice little piece of hardware, some mis-compiled (I think) software, and no idea what to do next. At the very least, I learned that my usual policy of disassembling and analyzing any new hardware we get is the right one; of course that doesn't help all the LAN users that need access to these CDs. I'd be happy if I could just get the code so I can fix SMBd/NMBd to work properly. I've thought about trying to make my own really-small distro to load on, but it's not really worth my time - I could just load the cached CD images (thankfully just standard .ISO's) off the Zerver's CD-storage hard drive into my other Linux server, compile and install Samba correctly (works great if you do it right) , and get on with life... but I really shouldn't have to do either. Any ideas?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPL Violation, Microtest's DiskZerver More

GPL Violation, Microtest's DiskZerver

Comments Filter:
  • I'm only familiar in passing with the GPL, but understand the reasoning behind it at what it hopes to do. So, when violations are found such as this, "who" goes after them to either a) get the code released,
    or b)sue the manufacturer?
    The EFF? The FSF?

    • Typically you need to be the copyright holder to make a complaint, although in some occasions (RTLinux), the FSF handled it with holding the copyright.

      Now that it has been discovered that they use glibc, the FSF can begin action.

      garc

    • AFAIK, for every GPL violation so far, the public outcry has been loud enough to make the violating company comply. (In this case, "public" = developers in the know.)

      While I'm still waiting for the GPL to go to court one day, I think that community pressure is a much better strategy. Why sue someone when you can avoid feeding lawyers and bring the opposing into your own camp, at the same time?

  • Put up and FTP site (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:19PM (#2327223) Homepage Journal
    If they put up an FTP site that includes a) all the original source code used for the product, and b) all the modifications, there should not be a problem. The GPL allows the sale of products based on GPL'd code, but you have to give your changes back to your customers. They probably only have to give the source code and their changes to customers, though, and not to the general public.

    • Actually, they have to do more than that. For one thing, the GPL absolutely requires that they let their customers know that the software is GPLed and that the code is available. They have clearly failed to do so. They also must provide the code on a physical medium on request for no more than the cost of media and shipping; simply putting it up on ftp is not sufficient. In practice making it available by ftp may be acceptible if it means that nobody particularly wants to get the software on a physical medium, but the offer to provide the physical medium must be made.

      And that's just for the GPLed programs. Some of the other licenses used have their own requirements. Apache, for instance, includes the "Obnoxious Advertizing Clause" in its license, so removing their trademark from the package is a big no-no. The stripping of the Apache advertizing information is actually very good evidence that this is not just a casual, accidental license violation. Removing that stuff is clearly deliberate, since simple laziness would result in it being left in.

      • Re:Put up and FTP site (Score:2, Informative)

        by gorgon ( 12965 )
        They also must provide the code on a physical medium on request for no more than the cost of media and shipping; simply putting it up on ftp is not sufficient. In practice making it available by ftp may be acceptible if it means that nobody particularly wants to get the software on a physical medium, but the offer to provide the physical medium must be made.
        I think you're incorrect about this. An ftp site should be fine, physical media is not required. If it were, Debian, for example, would be in violation, since Debian allows ftp access to all of the source in its distro, but does not sell CDs, floppies, etc. See section 3 of the GPL [gnu.org].
    • So I went to the xStore web site, and they seem to have their binaries available for download. I suspect if they were worried about people building their own, they wouldn't just give out the images. Probably they make money to a large extent on handing over the hardware with everything in place (getting a shiny new 486 box these days for a reasonable price is probably only possible in bulk). If they just give away the binaries to anyone who wants them, they'll probably just give away the source, too.
  • What is with all of the GPL violations reccently? Are companies just using open source more without providing the source or are they cracking down on violators?
  • This gives Microsoft a great platform to stand on when they say that GPL software is flung together w/out the backing of a company that can provide the fiscal support needed to "properly" develop software...

    Shame on DiskZerver (or however it's spelled) for tarnishing the GPL name w/ an obviously misguided and unplanned product... Simply gives us more motivation to create products that are good, durable and legal while still holding a GPL license.
    • >>This gives Microsoft a great platform to stand on when they say that GPL software is flung together

      Well, the real problem with GPL is enforcing it. If the FSF can't take a stand on issues like this where multiple copyrights are violated, and the individual copyright holders never learn of it or can't afford to pursue it, then what prevents companies like this from violating it? If it isn't defended, it becomes useless, and probably invalid in the eyes of the law too. (IANAL).

      I am completely with the concept of the GPL/other free licenses, but there needs to be enforcement of them to make them effective.

      MadCow.

    • clue: firms like MS, Sun, Novell don't know what they're doing any more than these Zserver guys...the only difference here being that that with Zserver you can actually look and see what's going on. Closed-source products provide no insight into why they stop working.

  • FSF & Copyright (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ryants ( 310088 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:20PM (#2327237)
    but were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of the programs I knew of at the time (and actually suggested I post to Slashdot to get some answers).

    And now some of you who say the FSF (and by extension, RMS) are "control freaks" since they ask that the copyright of GNU stuff be assigned to them see the reason why.

    It isn't about control: it's about protection.

    • Re:FSF & Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kabir ( 35200 )
      It isn't about control: it's about protection.


      I think that should read "It istn' only about control: it's also about protection". As most anyone who's dealt with RMS will assure you, it's most definitely also about control on some level.
  • and make sure they know you do, and make sure they know you will never buy from them again or their affiliates until they fix the problem, and actually do that if you have to. It could be more complex, but the far too obvious first thing is to hit them where it hurts, and since their goals is to make a profit, eliminating that should wake them up. What is so hard?
  • Slashdot them into non-existance, er, compliance! "They have yet to comment. In situations like this, what should a company do to bring such a glaring GPL violation back into compliance? "
  • If whoever holds the license on whatever software they took does not press copyright issues, then the free software licenses will never be taken seriously.

  • you may have broken the license agreement.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:23PM (#2327255) Homepage Journal
    How did you figure out that the product was full of GPL code and such? From the looks of things, it appears you had to reverse engineer binary code and hack out a root passwd. IANAL, but chances are good xStore put in the license agreement that you werent allowed to do those two things. You may run into trouble with that should everything turn out legit. Yes, they may have breached the GPL, but their agreement probably restricted you from those activities.

    Basically, it's an issue of risk. If it turns out that they have no GPL violations, then you could get nailed for breaking the license they provided. On the other hand, you could show that they broke the GPL prior to specifying the license terms you use the product with, either voiding their license or something of that nature.
    • How did you figure out that the product was full of GPL code and such? From the looks of things, it appears you had to reverse engineer binary code and hack out a root passwd. IANAL, but chances are good xStore put in the license agreement that you werent allowed to do those two things. You may run into trouble with that should everything turn out legit. Yes, they may have breached the GPL, but their agreement probably restricted you from those activities.

      But it's a different sort of liability.. Lets assume for a moment that both parties violated their respective licenses. Violating the DiskZerver license restricts your ability to use their software. Violating the GPL restricts DiskZerver's ability to distribute the software. There are no penalties for *using* software you purchased after violating the license agreement (except possibly in UCITA states) -- you just lose "perks" like support or something equally inane. On the other hand, there a *significant* penalties for distributing software that you no longer have the license to. As a matter of fact, thanks to lobying there are not only penalties, it's also a felony.

      They may charge you with DMCA violations if the root password was encrypted, though.

    • Re:you may have broken the license agreement.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BRTB ( 30272 ) <slashdot@NOSpam.brtb.org> on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:59PM (#2327467) Homepage
      Now I've been known to be wrong, but here's the way I see it: I knew it was based on GPL software just from looking at the syslogs in the interface - the boot sequence from Linux kernel and various lines from "smbd", "nmbd" and "nwserv" were pretty hard to miss. As far as I can see, the software they wrote themselves was the Web interface itself, a filesystem driver and some CD-image-management programs; the only "reverse-engineering" I had to do was to the GPLed software itself.

      BTW, just so nobody goes off on a security tangent about a hidden root password, I tested the one I found on the second Zerver and it doesn't work, so apparently they made it different for each machine (GOOD IDEA).

    • It is very easy to obtain and use products without ever agreeing to a license.

      For all the bitching out Microsoft licenses, I bet only .001% of the users have actually bound themselves to the silly terms. Think about what conditions would have to take place for someone to want to agree to it: you'll turn up a blank.

      • yeah, i agree, who follows licenses? Well, if this were to go to court or something, the licenses would be brought up by the lawyers.

        Also, corporate america follows the EULA licenses. First day on the job you'll get warned by them on using software outside the licenses. If a company were to be caught, then that's bad press for that company.

        Also, we /.ers seem to get all up in arms when a company sells GPL software w/o source code, so I think there are people out there who do follow them and want them followed.

        • Also, we /.ers seem to get all up in arms when a company sells GPL software w/o source code, so I think there are people out there who do follow them and want them followed.

          Well, that's really two very different situations. When someone sells GPLed software w/out source, they either

          • agreed to the license (which gave them rights to distribute derivative works) and are violating it
          • or they didn't agree to the license (which would have given them distribution rights), and they are violating copyright.
          When someone uses (in a manner not prohibited by copyright law) a commercial program in a way that conflicts with the EULA, there isn't that either/or situation. They either
          1. agreed to the license and are violating it
          2. or they didn't agree to the license and they are ... doing nothing bad.
          They key difference is that all the GPL violations that are getting covered on /. are cases where someone didn't just violate the GPL -- they also did something that would have otherwise been illegal (redistribution) if it weren't for the GPL. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Whereas when someone goes against a EULA by, say, reverse engineering, they're not distributing or doing anything else that would be illegal. There's .. uh .. "conservation of cake" so nobody's sensibilities are offended. ;-)
    • Don't be ridiculous. Even if it were against the license agreement, how would the company detect the tampering? Furthermore, hardware and copyrighted software is sold, not licensed, and that means that the end user probably has the right to do with it whatever he likes, no matter what the company says.
    • Sorry dude but that argument is way off base.

      He can hack up GPL code however he likes. You want to take a kernel binary and disassemble it? See if anybody complains. Since the code on that flash ROM is generally GPLed (and due to integration more than likely all the code is now) the company can't touch him.

      Next thing you know, someone will sit outside my door and tell me I have to pay them $5 to get in my house or I'm breaking the law.

      Then, after that, someone will argue I'm in trouble for not paying that guy his $5.

      Of course, the guy _could_ have been in trouble if it turned out not to have included GPL software. In that case he probably wouldn't have posted to slashdot about his l33t hack, tho.
      • Well, I will freely admit that there is some (probably) non-GPL software in there - the CD manager, web interface, maybe even that flash filesystem driver, and they're free to distribute it however they feel like it. But the point is, I didn't have to touch any of that to determine that the base of the entire system, and a great portion of the functionality, is Linux and GPL code.
      • Thanks to the DMCA you can't touch the binary code. You have the right to source but the GPL does not explicity give you the right to reverse engineer the binary and the DMCA takes that right away.

        I know this because I've had a quick look at another product thats in the same boat just with less GNUisms but its all one big binary so there is the issue of GNU contamination. I got explicit permission to reversen engineer the program from the only person mentiond in the binary so I think I've covered myself in the USA. I did the work in Australia where this week its still legal to check a device for compatibitlity and security holes.

        Once the company involved digs its self in a bit deeper, then I'm sure everyone who reads /. will hear about it. I'm working on the paper work shut down their web server since they were a supporter of the DMCA, they are going to have to explain why their web site went down to Sr managment :-) I expect many of their cusotmers will know first.

        The scary thing is I've sent in patches to code they have solen.
    • We've got one of these where I work, and I've been administering it (if you can call it that - the thing's as close to maintenance free as I've ever seen) for about eight months. There are logs accessible from the HTML front-end. If you reboot the box and examine the logs, you can see that it's running Linux. At least, that's what I inferred from the fact that "Linux" appears in the logs.

  • Liability and due diligence (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeCamel ( 6264 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:23PM (#2327260) Homepage
    My first guess is that XStore didn't do enough due diligence, or if they did, then they ignored what they found out. Even if they did some, it may well be that Microtest is liable - what's scary will be how _much_ they're liable for. This may well turn into a very interesting test case - will XStore have to publish all the code they've changed? Will they have to pay damages? Possibly most worrying for a commercial software company (which they seem to be) is that if they've done their own development (or paid for development in the sense that they bought the product), then the Intellectual Property that they thought they owned may end up having to be made available to everyone. It'll be a very interesting case if someone decides to prosecute.
  • ... release the code and start working on their own code from scratch...

    I thought that was understood...

    Alternatively, if they can contact the author, they could arrange for a specific license that is different from GPL, and that would allow them to "buy" that code. They'd still face competition from the existing GPL code though.

  • Did they modify/redistribute, or just distribute? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sabalon ( 1684 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:24PM (#2327266)
    From reading the snippet hear, it sounds like they put a whole bunch of pieces together into a box, and shipped it, after adding on a new admin tool.

    Since (I'm guessing) the admin tool probably just modifies the config files, I fail to see how that could possibly be a GPL violation.

    There is mention of a modified kernel, but without further info, I will take that to mean almost anything from radically modified code to a loadable module, which could be on both spectrums - details? Without, it is just the normal /. hearsay.

    So, they slapped together a box and shipped it out without mentioning Linux or GNU. Does the GPL say anything about this? If they have not made any mods are they still required by the GPL to have the same offer?

    What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs.

    • Re:Did they modify/redistribute, or just distribut (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ryants ( 310088 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:28PM (#2327292)
      So, they slapped together a box and shipped it out without mentioning Linux or GNU. Does the GPL say anything about this?

      Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.

      If they have not made any mods are they still required by the GPL to have the same offer?

      Yes. Again, section 1.

      What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs

      I don't see what the pain is in putting the GPL in your manual along with a written offer to provide source (see section 3 b) of the GPL).

      • Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.

        Not necessarily. Section 1 is of the form "you may do X if you do Y". Just because they did X doesn't mean they have to do Y. Interestingly, if they did make changes, then they don't have to release the source. Look at section 2, of the form "you may do B if you do C". It allows you to modify the Program and distribute copies as long as you provide prominent notices and relicense the derivitive work under the GPL. There is absolutely no requirement to release the source code.

        In order to get the rights of section 3, you must follow both sections 1 and 2, but in order to get the rights of section 2 there is no requirement to follow section 1.

        • Not necessarily. Section 1 is of the form "you may do X if you do Y".

          Actually, it's "You may do X *provided* you do Y". You can only do X on condition of doing Y also. Same with Section 2: "You may do B *provided* you do C".

          Big difference between "if" and "provided".

          • Big difference between "if" and "provided".


            Explain to me how "You may go to a concert if you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert if you do your homework on Friday."


            is different from "You may go to a concert provided you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert provided you do your homework on Friday."


            In both instances you do not have to do your Thurday homework to be permitted to go to the Monday concert, even though going to the Monday concert implies going to a concert. There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".

            • Explain to me how ...

              Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.

              There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".

              "provided" has stronger conotations than "if".

              "provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y", whereas "if" is a little weaker in conotation: "if you do Y then you may do X".

              Shades of meaning, and "provided" has a stronger meaning than "if".

              • Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.


                Because it showed that "provided" and "if" mean the same thing. It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".


                "provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y"


                Can you provide any backup to that assertion? I disagree, and so does dictionary.com (not that either is authoritative). Further, wouldn't your interpretation negate all dual licenses?

                • Because it showed that "provided" and "if" mean the same thing

                  Sure... but they carry different conotations.

                  It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".

                  Huh? It certainly does imply that. "may" implies permission: the condition for that permission is that you do Y. If you do not do Y, then you do not have permission to do X. Said another way, in order to obtain permission to do X, you must fullfill the conditions spelled out in Y. If you do not fullfull those conditions, you don't have permission. I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

                  Can you provide any backup to that assertion?

                  See above.

    • What if they had embedded a minimal Linux setup in an EPROM? Seems it'll be a pain to use Linux in an embedded device if you have to keep provided source media even if you didn't change any GPL'ed code and just added your own programs.


      Uhhh tough shit even if it is a pain. That's the price they pay for not having to do their own coding. We have to pay in currency for their products, thay have to pay according to the licensing rules. I think we're providing a much better deal: just follow these rules and you can use our work.

  • You sound like you are on the right track. Move those ISO images to cache on another box and set up SAMBA for them. Now your users can have access to those files.

    Now with your Zservers, you can either send them back to the manufacturer citing the fact that they are illegally manufactured, request source code to fix it yourself (Good luck), or just keep hacking at it yourself (My approach).

    The real problem with the FSF is that more holders of copylefts need to transfer some power of attorney to the FSF so that the GPL can be enforced in these cases. As it is, the FSF can only be a watchdog (which it does well) and not the pit bull of open source we want it to be. If the holders of copylefts don't care that their work is being commercialized and closed without their permission, the Open Source movement becomes a grab bag of free technology to be made unfree by the corporations.

  • This is a violation? Bull! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GPL is moot when it comes to Embedded Systems!
    You're not supposed to access the software on
    these directly! Even Stallman admits as much
    (check out the FSF philosophy pages)

    If someone puts Linux on a toaster, he doesn't
    have to supply you with source!
    • I believe you are correct, sir! Someone mod this up, it deserves more than a zero.

      Is perhaps the problem not that they don't release the source to their modifications but rather that they didn't say "Linux Inside!" or something similar? The really sad thing is that this box would probably sell better if they did show you the code, so that you could maintain it yourself, as brtb so obviously needs to do. They may not need to show you the source if they use GPL code in a toaster, but wouldn't you choose the toaster with published source over the proprietary toaster? Even if you will never need the source? (Frankly, in my experience you're more likely to someday need the source if they don't automatically give it to you at time of purchase)


    • If someone puts Linux on a toaster, he doesn't
      have to supply you with source!


      Note that GPL doesn't force you to supply source with binaries, but it does force you to give that option, ie. if asked, to provide the source. There's a big difference here.


      But aside from that point, why is toaster / embedded device so different from software-only product? Are they not shipping GPLed program code in binary form; be it embedded or stand-alone? Isn't this exactly what GPL covers? The only difference is the visibility; it's easier to obfuscate / hide origins of software when software is embedded, ie. not directly accessible. Aside from that, how is this so different?

      • But aside from that point, why is toaster / embedded device so different from software-only product? Are they not shipping GPLed program code in binary form; be it embedded or stand-alone? Isn't this exactly what GPL covers? The only difference is the visibility; it's easier to obfuscate / hide origins of software when software is embedded, ie. not directly accessible. Aside from that, how is this so different?


        I can't speak as an expert, but it seems to me that the toaster does not come with binaries in the sense that you download an application that you run on your computer. Rather, you are getting a total package of hardware and firmware, and you cannot get the firmware without the hardware (e.g., you cannot get the firmware that runs your car's engine without buying the whole car). In some cases, to modify the firmware you may need to break a seal, open the box, remove a ROM chip, copy its contents, edit those binary contents, copy the new code to a PROM and then plug it into the toaster. At this point your toaster may well be, well, toast.


        Now, if your new toaster comes with a disk drive or a network connection, and a user interface that allows you to load new firmware, then I would agree that the source must be made available. But this discussion came up before re: TiVo, and IIRC the general agreement was that TiVo did not need to release their modifications to the GPL code they used, because those modifications were not distributed as software but rather as firmware that only came with and only worked with their hardware. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I remember the discussion.


  • Does "rectifying" something mean "putting it where the sun don't shine"?
    If so, I don't even want to know what the "handling" is all about.
  • I thought *demanding* that credit be given for code used was the major "non-gpl compatible" problem with the old BSD licenses advertising clause. Now, it's another case entirely to argue about not supplying source code after modifications, and frankly IANAL. However, this tirade about not giving credit where credit is due seems more than just a little bit hypocritical...

    And here is where you insert all the usual "let's get all the facts before going on a tirade" sort of speech. I'm frankly too tired of the whole thing to spell it out.

    • Re:Credit??? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheAwfulTruth ( 325623 )
      Too true. Infact this vigilantism is prime material to drive away any sort of commercial acceptance of linux. It's clear that any *appearance* of impropriety is enough for people to start calling for DDos attacks around here. If it were my descision, I'd go with BSD or some other embedded OS. (Yes I know you still need to give credit, though at least I can link to a distributed library without giving out my source) The constant minefield of GPL/LGPL and fanatics that follow are too much to put up with. Makes MS licensing schemes for their embedded OS seem like kindergarden math. Even if I had to pay $10 per device, at least I wouldn't have to put up with this...
  • when I read the title I saw Microsoft.....woops, I was jumping for joy over that and the Anti-trust...then I looked again....ahhwell......

    just as good though.

    So who is going to go after these dudes?
  • That about sums it up. Of course companies are going to do this! You'd have to be a stupid company NOT to do this! There's no company with deep pockets to fight this, and it's very easy to bundle GPL'ed software into your closed source without telling anybody. This is probably happening all over the place, but there's no way of knowing for sure. As this happens more and more, there are going to be fewer and fewer people developing OSS applications.
    • You don't get it do you. All it takes is someone to fight it, even if the offending company has deeper pos=ckets and wins it's a win for us all, it sets precedent that liceses are non legally binding, that means everyones not just GPL coders.


      Not that I think this would happen, you don't need much in the way of lawyers to show that they violated the license and in doing so they broke the law. When they have to pay damages less and less companies will steal OSS software.

  • You do realize that even if they provided the source code to all this misbehaving software (which you can get anyway, unless they've modified it beyond simply stripping out copyright information) you would still need the right hardware and/or software to reflash your device -- and the company is under no obligation to provide either.

  • Two things (Score:3, Informative)

    by halftrack ( 454203 ) <jonkje@gmailLION.com minus cat> on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:36PM (#2327334) Homepage
    First:
    MicroTest could have done things simple just by printing a Readme-first documet stating that their system is built upon GPL'd software and printing the links to ftp-sites where it could be downloaded. Should sombody ask for the sourcecode it wouldn't be very hard having an ISO-image laying around with all the source on it. (One could say MicroTest acted a bit stupid.)

    Second:
    ... but [FSF] were unable to do anything specific as they do not hold copyright on any of the programs I knew of at the time ...

    I would like to see the next version of the GPL including a clause granting FSF the right to sue on behalf of the copyrightholder(s.)

  • This is an embedded system (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imp ( 7585 ) on Thursday September 20, 2001 @04:50PM (#2327414) Homepage
    People have been saying for years that embedded systems need not fear from open source zealots.
    since the software wasn't distributed separate from the hardware, it is hard to know if this fits
    the definition of a distribution within its meaning in the GPL.

    This is the reason that our systems are based on FreeBSD. We have a niche market (high precision timing systems) where we still have a lot of proprietary IP. FreeBSD lets us deploy that
    without fear of GPL forcing issues.

    And before anybody says anything, the company has
    paid me for many hours of FreeBSD bug fixes over the years and contributes back to FreeBSD all that
    we can because we know that it is in our best financial interst. FreeBSD isn't our compeditive
    advantage, our ability to do high precision timing
    systems is.
    • This is the reason that our systems are based on FreeBSD.

      If you ship an embedded system that uses the Linux kernel and some non-kernel application software, it is my understanding that you don't have to ship the sources for the non-kernel application software.

      Now, I think less restrictive licenses than the GPL are a good idea in many cases. For example, I think a GPL'ed GUI toolkit is a bad idea because you do want commercial vendors to standardize on the free toolkit and you can't use a GUI toolkit without linking with it. But for the Linux kernel, the GPL rarely if ever restricts commercial use. People even ship proprietary, binary-only drivers for it.

  • Their license states explicitly that THEY own all of the software on the device and that you may not attempt to reverse engineer the product.

    So I guess they are saying that they wrote their own OS with utilities supporting all of the same file sharing mechanisms that Linux is known to support and that they own the whole ball of wax. That's a good one.

    Sorry, I'd have cut and pasted the license in here but it was in PDF format.

    -josh

  • Nothing! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Thursday September 20, 2001 @05:25PM (#2327626) Homepage Journal
    Do nothing! Personally, I can't wait to see the parasitic GPL go to court and lose. If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it. That isn't freedom, it's not even communism, it's just tyranny with a pretty face.

    For what it's worth, if you don't want the hassle of going to court and being the martyr that pays through the nose to defeat this nonsense, just use BSD. Besides being more stable and closer to true unix, BSD licenses basically let you do whatever you like. This is why BSD has been a mainstay of appliances for years (and will remain so); that's what runs on this Snap! fileserver I've been playing with all day.

    • Re:Nothing! (Score:3, Informative)

      by jgerman ( 106518 )
      That's a terrible analogy, and does not fit the situation at all. I can read GPL code learn how to do something and then write my own versions that do not use GPL code at all and it's free of the license. USING the code in my product is a completely different situation.

    • Re:Nothing! (Score:3, Informative)

      by LordNimon ( 85072 )
      Just because you don't like the GPL doesn't mean that it's not a good license, or that no one should use it. In the world of free software, the GPL is just as necessary as the BSD license. Many people would not be writing free software if they knew that their efforts could be used to support a closed, proprietary product. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If I am going to spend hours, days, weeks, or months writing free software, why should I not be given the right to ensure that my efforts are only used to promote free software?

      Is the GPL parasitic and restrictive? Yes! So what?!?!?! If you don't like GPL software, don't use it!

      Have you written any free software? If not, then you really don't have any right to criticise the GPL. The GPL is designed to protect both the creators and the users of free software evenly.


      • Is the GPL parasitic and restrictive? Yes! So what?!?!?! If you don't like GPL software, don't use it!


        Becareful there. The GPL explicitly disclaims any USE of the software from being covered under its terms. USING the GPL'ed code to make other products is fine. But you should not DISTRIBUTE GPLed software as yours. You should not defraud others by claiming that only you have written the software and hence, is entitled to profit entirely and solely from it.

    • Re:Nothing! (Score:3, Informative)

      by jmv ( 93421 )
      If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it.

      With the GPL, you could invent a new way of fishing without telling anybody (remember, only redistribution is restricted). Your example should read:

      "I write a book on fishing and give it to you for free, and after reading it you invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass. You are *not* allowed to create a new book by copy-pasting my text, add your technique and sell it without giving me the same rights I gave you."

      I think that's reasonable. You are also (under the GPL) allowed to write a new book which is equivalent to mine (but without copying mine verbatim).


    • The BSD license (IIRC) specifically notes that you must give credit for the code. Therefore, passing off *BSD code as your own is just as wrong as passing off GPL code as your own.


      In short (and yes, this is a flame), get a clue before you post, and maybe you won't look like an idiot.

  • this whole GPL theft thing sounded fishy to me. who would do such a thing? then a pattern in the purloined code emerged:


    samba /bin/login

    very sloppy, no wonder he got caught

  • They run M$'$ crappy OS on their webserver: Netcraft tells all... [netcraft.com]
    GPL violations piss me off!
  • OK, xStore thought they were buying something from Microtest (proprietary software), but in fact they were getting something entirely different (allegedly GPL'd software). Wouldn't that constitute fraud of some sort on Microtest's part?
  • Just build another machine exactly like the original. Don't copy any code from the original, but use all the GPL'd software you can, and provide all the source on a CD. Market this heavily, with ads that look like the original DiskZerver. Wait until their legal deparment jumps, and see them in court!
  • Q. In situations like this, what should a company do to bring such a glaring GPL violation back into compliance?

    A. Meet the terms of the license governing the non-original products.All the terms.

  • I suspect it's SASH [auug.org.au]. It doesn't seem to state what it's license is, but it isn't clearly GPL. The extent of the "license" seems to be:

    /*
    * Copyright (c) 1999 by David I. Bell
    * Permission is granted to use, distribute, or modify this source,
    * provided that this copyright notice remains intact.
    *
  • Maybe the GPL needs to also guarantee you the right to disassemble GPL'ed code. This way nobody can forbid you to discover their GPL violations.

    Or said another way, the GPL needs to require people distributing GPL'ed code not to restrict people's rights to disassemble GPL'ed code.

    This says nothing about non-GPL'ed code. If I mix GPL'ed programs with proprietary programs, one cannot forbid disassembly of GPL'ed software, but one can still forbid it of proprietary software distributed in conjunction.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close