GPL Case Against Danish Satellite Provider 297
Rohde writes "The number of satellite and cable boxes on the Danish market using Linux has significantly increased during the last couple of years. The providers Viasat, Yousee and Stofa all provide HD receivers based on Linux, and all of them fail to provide the source code or make customers aware of the fact that the units are based on GPL licensed software. I decided it was time to fix this situation and luckily the Danish legal company BvHD has decided to take the case. We are starting with Viasat, which distributes a Samsung box including middleware and security from NDS, and you can follow the case here."
linux is not freeware (Score:3, Interesting)
at some stage, manufacturers will realize the hidden cost of using GNU/Linux in their embedded platforms... For commodity gadgets and tools, it will not be an issue to share the internals are the hardware will be the added value. But for unique items that should not be the case and therefore some other toolkit with no ogligation to share modifications should be preferred.
And I'm making my living with GNU/Linux tools only ;-)
More often, I see my customers using GNU/Linux because it's without licenses to pay for the final product. But they do not realize theyr obligation to share... And it'is very difficult to educate them.
Does fellows /.ers have similar issue with customer?
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
some other toolkit with no ogligation to share modifications should be preferred.
Perhaps. But I don't actually see this problem a lot...
For example, if they're actually modifying the kernel, they could use whatever trick nVidia uses to get around the GPL and insert binary blobs. But most of the time, they shouldn't need to modify the kernel, or at least, any modifications they do make wouldn't be considered "secret sauce" anyway.
But in most of these cases, it's reasonable to put most of it in userland, and to link only against LGPL stuff, if that -- plenty of BSD and MIT stuff that might be useful.
And I'm making my living with GNU/Linux tools only ;-)
That makes your post particularly disturbing.
Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but you've given the impression that simply using Linux will force everything to be open source, and that's simply not the case.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:4, Insightful)
> For example, if they're actually modifying the kernel, they could use whatever trick nVidia uses to get around the GPL and insert binary blobs
It's not clear that what nVidia do is actually legal, and nVidia have a fairly strong case that it's legal because they have cross-platform code which originated in Windows. This brings a strong case that they aren't derived from the linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
> for the purposes of the GPL, a combined work is as good as a derivative work.
Except the GPL relies on derivative works for enforcement, so if it is not legally a derivative work; the GPL has no hold. The GPL applying via the 'shim' only holds when you cannot seperate the other half (the proprietary bit), or replace it with something else; and possibly only then if the seperated half derives enough from the original interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Tivo.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if they're actually modifying the kernel, they could use whatever trick nVidia uses to get around the GPL and insert binary blobs
No they couldn't. The legality of nVidia's trick hinges on the fact that:
Point number one means that they don't need to abide by the GPL to distribute just their code. The second point is also important because, even though they don't need to apply the GPL to their own code to distribute it, they do need to apply the GPL to the combined work of Linux and their driver (and, therefore, a GPL-compatible license to their own code) if they want to distribute them together. This company is distributing Linux and so has to apply a GPL-compatible license to any modifications that they do distribute.
kernel modules (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole argument that kernel modules must be GPL is seriously flawed. A kernel module is just another application that the OS can run, albeit by a different API at a different security level.
There is some issue of compiling against the kernel header files (which I believe are GPL, not LGPL), but arguably, they're defining the API, not generating code, so the resulting code should still not infringe on the Linux copyright or be considered a derivative work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. They can't. NVidia very carefully does not _publish_ kernels with the modifications. They publish a downloadable patch that you must manually apply on top of your existing kerneal, and the agreement on that patch says you _may not_ distribute it as part of a kernel.
Sending boxes to people's homes pre-installed with non-GPL modifications would be a much more blatant GPL violation, because it would constitute distribution of the "tainted" kernel, rather than allowing people to taint their own kernels. The
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
'Hidden Cost" my ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
In point of fact there is _nothing_ "hidden" about the cost of using GPL software in a product.
If you go the Microsoft Wince (I didn't name it 8-) route, you pay many dollars up-front, and some dollars per-unit.
You go GPL you pay nothing up front and pay full disclosure on the back end per unit.
The whole problem is the perception that this is "hidden" in the first place. When the tech people sell the GPL software to their managers they, in their naiveté, usually don't know to make a distinction between free(beer) and free(open).
Once the programmers, and indeed people like you, understand enough to present the cost/benefit analysis as it truly is, then this may stop happening.
Don't even think _hidden_, don't fool yourself or others. It's right there in the language of the GPL plain as day. Just like it's supposed to be. And thats the good thing that separates it from the BSD license which has no cost at all. That is the _whole_ reason to pick one over another as a licensor.
Hence "copyleft" instead of "public domain" etc.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think people are going to go back to rolling their own in the embedded market - anyone with any experience in embedded software development will tell you that Linux makes life a hell of a lot easier because all of a sudden a lot of things you would otherwise have to write from scratch are basically included. And it can be a lot of work to port a userland package developed for Linux to something like VxWorks.
Coming at it from another angle, every couple of years there's an article about how even in the Western world, some absurdly large proportion of companies use pirated software. What makes you think that the GPL will make them suddenly compliant?
What I think is more likely is that companies will start to take licensing seriously. For instance, my current employer is careful to architect our design so that anything we don't want to reveal to the world is a pure user-land tool without GPL dependencies. But in auditing our code, we've come across quite a few open-source projects which have borrowed from each other without first checking that their licenses are cross-compatible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think people are going to go back to rolling their own in the embedded market - anyone with any experience in embedded software development will tell you that Linux makes life a hell of a lot easier because all of a sudden a lot of things you would otherwise have to write from scratch are basically included. And it can be a lot of work to port a userland package developed for Linux to something like VxWorks.
The key part of the embedded market is that it is teh device and support, not the software per se, that is valuable. TIVO offers a user experience that's worth $14 a month to many people; even if I rolled my own TIVO the cost to replicate that experience is so high that it makes no sense to try to compete with them. Similarly a controller is often a critical part of a process system, and companies want assurances it will work properly; and aren't interested in the cheap knockoff with the same software. S
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But in auditing our code, we've come across quite a few open-source projects which have borrowed from each other without first checking that their licenses are cross-compatible
That's not always obvious. For example, I've contributed the same code under an MIT license to one project and GPLv3+runtime exemption to another project. If you compared the project licenses, you might think that the MIT-licensed project copied the GPL'd code and relicensed it, but if you check the author of the code in both cases you will see that this was done legally (because I retain copyright and can relicense the code however I please).
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
what hidden cost?
it couldn't be more fucking obvious what the "cost" of using GPL software is - release the source under the same conditions (GPL) that you got it under.
these companies just want to reap the benefits of GPL software without living up their part part of the bargain.
they are parasites.
ps: you're right. linux is not "freeware". freeware is proprietary garbage that happens to cost nothing. linux is Free Software instead - high quality open source.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a hidden cost. It's the (arguably hidden) protection from the company scamming you and locking you in, etc.
You just can't do some things, when everybody can read the source. But that doesn't mean that it is acceptable to do those things in the first place. To me they are crimes. And in closed source products they are only more easily hidden.
I'd go so far as to say, that if a company uses closed source, it is a big indicator, that they want to rip you off and somehow trick you in some crooked way. A
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. Panasonic uses linux in ALL of it's HDTV's the TV tells you it has linux, the manuals talk about linux and the GPL. and their website has links to what I need.
If a company cant do that, then they are scumbags. Most HDTV's and DVD, BluRay players run linux. In fact more people run linux in their home than windows because of how pervasive it is in the Embedded market. 90% of the companies out there can easily comply with the GPL, This one can easily do the same.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code.
If I sell a computer with ubuntu installed I have offer ubuntu sources to the customer. Its not good enough that the source could come from canonical.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Informative)
Which comes down to just providing them the Ubuntu CD , which most would do anyway.
Unless you really made some changes to the source code , in that case , you also need to provide the source for those changes.
I don't see the problem : if you use GPL , you know this is what you have to do . It's what GPL is all about.
If you don't want to do this , you need another license type. Often , this is a possibility too ( for a modest fee ) . I'm not sure if Ubuntu has it though.
Simply put : GPL favors mainly the end users :
by ensuring that derative products are also open source , you ensure that a product will stay open source.
However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .
Re: (Score:2)
Which comes down to just providing them the Ubuntu CD , which most would do anyway.
Unless you really made some changes to the source code , in that case , you also need to provide the source for those changes.
The ubuntu CD doesn't include source. Under the GPL you have to offer source code for all GPL software you distribute, not just the code you changed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the source is too big to fit on a CD, there is, however, a source DVD image [anl.gov] available for download.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .
Only if you're deriving your work from other GPLed work. If it's entirely your own work, you're 100% free to keep the code closed-source and/or use whatever license you see fit.
I'm so sick of hearing people crying about how they can build on another's work at no cost, but then have to reciprocate. Either call the friggin whaambulance, or STFU and code it all yourself.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
...Simply put : GPL favors mainly the end users :
by ensuring that derative products are also open source , you ensure that a product will stay open source.
However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .
I'm not a GPL fan at all, but it is a straight-forward non-gratis license. The cost is providing your own source-code. It is up to you to decide if you want to "pay" that "price" -- but you have to pay to play, or else don't play (tertium non datur!). There is nothing different, in this respect, to any commercial license: if I wrote a software library, made it available on my website for download and licensed it for $649, you couldn't legally download it and use it to create your own product without paying me (no pay: no play).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:my experience with gpl and lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't provide the necessary source to comply with the GPL then you
don't really have the necessary source to rebuild your complete environment.
You aren't really in a good position to ensure anything with regards to QA
of your entire "product" because you can't recreate the entire user
environment.
If you are in a position properly test your product based on BSDL or GPL work
then you are in a position to pass that source along to any customer that asks.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Insightful)
However , i doesn't favor developers or companies ( who are forced to share their work for free ) .
The GPL can accelerate software development around a product. I think it was IBM's Linux head who made the point that the GPL is what ensures that IBM, Novell, Sun, Red Hat, etc. all cooperate on the Linux kernel rather than producing proprietary forks, or having to sign individual contracts with each other to license each piece of technology that they each contribute. The GPL simplifies the entire legal process, which in turn speeds up software development, which reduces time to market which ultimately benefits companies selling Linux solutions. Looking at the changelogs for the Linux kernel over the past 18 months it appears that the speed with which new features are added to the kernel is increasing if anything. And this stuff just appears in the kernel tree, completely bypassing the traditional legal process, with the participants having contractual obligations but not having to negotiate any contracts. It's a good system.
To say that the GPL doesn't favour developers or companies is completely wrong. It doesn't favour some developers or companies - the ones that want to take the work of others, modify it, and then sell it without reproducing the source of their modifications. If you look at the profits and market capitalisation of IBM and Red Hat - clearly they have benefited greatly from GPL software.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a point , offcourse.
But my claim was not to say no companies could benefit from it , just that the benefit is mainly aimed towards the end users , who can be ensured that the software will remain free.
You completely missed his point, his point is that the companies benefit because the software (and any improvements made by competitors) will remain free!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You have it absolutely wrong. Your version of the source has to be available to your customers, so if you haven't modified the source in any way then you CAN provide them with the source from canonical.
Okay lets read the license [gnu.org].
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge
.
The problem is that canonical may not provide that version on line for three years. They might be out of business then. So I have to host the source or pay canonical to do it for me.
Re:linux is not freeware (Score:5, Informative)
Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code
Not quite correct. For example, I bought a router that includes GPL code. If I sell that router on eBay, I am not obligated to provide source code, even though I am distributing the binary code that is in the router.
Only if your distribution requires permission from the copyright owner do you have worry about distributing source code. When you buy a product that contains copyrighted code, and then simply redistribute that particular copy, you do not need the copyright owner's permission.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's interesting, but isn't that a hole in the license? Couldn't a company set something up similar to Hollywood Accounting, except instead of laundering the profits away from the obligations it launders FOSS binaries away from the source obligations?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code.
If I sell a computer with ubuntu installed I have offer ubuntu sources to the customer.
I'm just asking here, but
1) Does that apply if the customer only leases the cable box? The actual purchaser of the box would be the cable company.
2) Does it apply if the customer doesn't even lease it, but merely uses a loaner cable box (for free)? If so, does that mean that if I let other people use my linux based computer, I'm obligated to let them know it uses linux and that they can get the source code from me?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an interesting question. I suppose it hinges on the legal definition of the word "possesses".
You have not distributed anything, so the terms of the GPL do not apply.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless of what they use, even if it's unmodified software from another source, they are still distributing it. The GPL requires you to do two things if you distribute software covered by it:
And then of course GPLv3 adds the requirement that the distributor must provide a w
What's his copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
Nowhere does TFA provide information on exactly which part of the GPL code the guy is claiming copyright ownership.
You can't sue for GPL violations if you have no claim of copyright over atleast some part of the GPL licensed product.
Re:What's his copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
In some countries, law firms are allowed to sue on the behalf of copyright owners on their own initiative, much like how you can be brought up on assault charges by the state in some countries even if the person you hit wanted you to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
There is likely to be a few things in there that are copyright the FSF and they would be more than happy to pursue copyright violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe TFA has been changed?
But if you read the link 'follow the case here' [duff.dk] it clearly states which part of the linux kernel he is claiming copyright on.
He also ask for other copyright holders to join him.
Huh (Score:2)
If I pay a lawyer enough money will they always take my case?
Re: (Score:2)
So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?
No, you don't have to print it all out. Including a download link to the source code somewhere in the documentation is definately good enough.
If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?
It doesn't matter. Does your software link against any GPL'ed software? If yes, you need to make the source to your changes available.
Re: (Score:2)
Including a download link to the source code somewhere in the documentation is definately good enough.
If you're distributing a box with Linux on it you can't expect the person who recieves it to have access to the internet to be able to download the source. You have to provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide the source code if requested for reasonable distribution costs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP?
Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details. Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.
Distributing the source online is only acceptable if you also (only) distribute the binary online. If you distribute the binary on a physical medium, such as a disk, tape, or set-top box, then you must provide a written offer good for three years of the source code.
Re: (Score:2)
So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?
No.
Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source, but only to the people you gave the binary to.
There can even be a fee for delivering the source (But not one greater than the cost of the binary the source is for, or something similar but not exactly that. Consult the GPL if that is an actual concern.)
Typically a link on a webpage, or an attachment by email reply, is fine. Generally the first option will be more convenient for you if you have anything but a very tiny custo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source
You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.
Just because such a comment will get you modded up on slashdot, does not make it true.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html [gnu.org]
If I write a driver for Linux, and it is GPLed, all that is required of me is to release the source code for that driver.
I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, nor a mirror of the FSF code base, nor am I expected to provide the source code to your pet GPL project, if I do not distribute any of that stuff as a binary!
It is not possible to expect th
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
If you sell somebody a box with linux on it you need to at the minimum include a statement in the user manual which more or less says "This box has some GPL licensed software installed on it. You can obtain the source-code from the following website and you are free to modify it under certain conditions. Please see the complete license for more details."
Alternatively you can include a CD with the source code, or load the source code into the box's harddrive ( provided it is readily retrievable ). Basically you just need to make the customer aware you use GPL software on the box and tell them how to obtain the source code from you. There's various ways to do that but the easiest is probably to either include the source on a CD or to upload it to your website and tell the customer they can retrieve it from there. The main problem with the latter approach is that the GPL requires you to keep the source available for some years (can't remember how many ) and thus you may find it easier to just give the user a CD with the source code since you are then not obliged to keep a server running.
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly correct
You only need to provide source code when ASKED for it. There is no requirement in the GPL to pro-actively distribute the source code along with the binaries nor that they must be available for download on the Internet. The good old CD in the mail system is fine. You might even charge for CD and postage.
However, if you do not include source code in the distribution then you need to provide a written offer valid for at least three years to provide anyone who possesses the object code a copy of the corresponding source code.
The reason most compliant companies chose to either include the source or just put it on their corporate web page is because this is easier in the first place than to handle potentially thousands of letters asking for the source later.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Must be something wrong with my reading comprehension today. I now see you start your post with suggesting a written offer in the user manual. Which would be more than good enough to stay GPL compliant.
Sorry for the noise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well?
You don't need to print it out. In fact, that would be discouraged and may not meet the requirements of being in a customary format (too lazy to go look up the specific GPL wording ATM, but electronic format would be encouraged, dead tree format discouraged as it has to be converted back to electronic format for use), today. You do, however, need to make the sources available -- and no, pointing at upstream doesn't suffice, except "in the trivial case". (Again, I'm not going to go look up the details, but
13 whole days to lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Sera
Re:13 whole days to lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sera
Re:13 whole days to lawsuit (Score:4, Interesting)
Good for you, but here in Denmark things works differently. 2 weeks notice is plenty of time, often people just go straight to Fogedretten and gets injunctions against the offending parties.
Re:13 whole days to lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
I put cash money down on a physical server with 1T of 15k rpm spinning disks 3 days ago. If said server gets here in 6 weeks I will be happy.
Erm... Why does your supplier suck so much?
Seriously, Newegg carries this kind of stuff, and I've never seen them take more than a few days. Granted, Newegg also doesn't provide the kind of service I'm sure your supplier does, but really, six weeks? WTF are they doing for six weeks?
To be frank, the world works slower than you do, get used to it.
An appropriate response here is often: s/get used to it/do something about it/g.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they really need 6 weeks to deliver the server how do you expect them to be able to replace any part of it within one hour at a later time?
That does not make much sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are guaranteeing =1 hour downtime 24/7 without physically holding the box?
How is that even physically possible? Does their service rep live next door to your company, and have no life?
Re: (Score:2)
On an unrelated note, thanks for publishing the details of the case in English, and I hope you'll keep giving updates in English.
There have been several of these cases in Germany, and the details have only been published in German, which means 99% of the world won't get to hear about them.
Rich.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to nitpick a bit.
The correct number should be 97% or 94% if you limit yourself to the "Internet population" and not the global population.
You might find it interesting that about 70% of Internet users would not have understood the article in English either.
Re:13 whole days to lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
If you are wondering why NDS sent security investigators it was most likely because I started digging into how the box is tied to your subscription card, thus making it impossible for you to use other brands of satellite receivers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
14 days, or 10 working days, is sufficient time to require a response - not necessarily a solution but to acknowledge that they have received the letter and X is doing Y or Z to resolve the issue.
If you do not receive one in this time, and have proof you sent and they received the correspondance, go ahead and sue - you have attempted to limit (mitigate) your costs, they chose not to respond.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
``We want friends and converts, not enemies. Email, call, send certified mail, not lawsuits. Sueing them makes you and us look like fuckwits.''
Yes. On the other hand, how many notices do companies still need to get? They get the license itself (which they should have read - without the license, they would be infringing on your copyright by distributing your software), the short summary of the license (not legally binding, but makes the conditions pretty clear to anyone who bothers to read it), and, by now,
Re: (Score:2)
This guy sent a mail, wasn't satisfied - in 13 days, then sued.
By all means nail the GPL violators, but yeesh give them a chance to come clean first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
``This guy sent a mail, wasn't satisfied - in 13 days, then sued.
By all means nail the GPL violators, but yeesh give them a chance to come clean first.''
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that they've had that chance. It didn't start with that letter. The right of the company to distribute software it does not have the copyright to starts with a license from the copyright holder. So their first chance to do it right would have to either distribute the software under the terms of the GPL, or obtain a
Does Russian Ministry of Defence violate the GPL? (Score:2, Interesting)
What's worse, they change copyright notices [livejournal.com] of existing programs to their employees and do not include GPL license text in their "distribution".
Is it a GPL violation? They don't distribute MSVS outside of MoD and its numerous branches (state companies) - you can't neither buy nor download the system. Is it Ok to do the aforementioned things then?
Re: (Score:2)
Put it this way: Are you willing to go to Russia and attempt to sue them?
Re: (Score:2)
Linux detector (Score:2)
How would one find out that a box someone distributes runs Linux?
Re:Linux detector (Score:5, Funny)
Probably impossible for them to comply (Score:2)
Reasons why they may not be able to comply with the GPL:
1.3rd party hardware info they cant share (sattelite receiver chips, hardware video decoders, smart cards/smart card slots etc)
2.Sharing the GPL bits may help hackers figure out how to talk to the smart cards (either in the box or in a custom hardware rig) and from there hack the DRM and get free service.
3.Protecting the channels (for example, kernel source may show how video gets passed to the hardware video decoder or the TV encoder, both of which ar
Re: (Score:2)
1. If any of the 3rd party materials violate the GPL then as distributers of the device it's their responsibility to ensure that the whole thing is legally compliant, just as they would with any proprietary code, before they start selling it.
2. "It might affect our profits" is not a sound legal defence.
3. See 2
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those would be reasons they don't want to comply. Not reasons they are unable to.
It seems to me that a simple solution is to make it legal to pirate (to use the vernacular) any content received with these boxes. Actually encode into law that any media transmitted to these boxes automatically enters the public domain for as long as the software's license is violated. They'd clean up really fast or lose their market.
Re:Probably impossible for them to comply (Score:5, Informative)
If they do not comply, regardless of the reason, then they do not have any license to redistribute the GPLed software at all.
If they cannot comply then they will end up having to pay punitive damages to the copyright holders of the software that they illegally distributed and cease any further distribution of the software.
You cannot simply ignore the GPL because it doesn't fit with your other contractual obligations. The copyright holders were not a party to those other contracts and so the existence of them does not free the distributors of their GPL obligations.
Why don't they use *BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why don't they use *BSD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if I was doing a router I wouldn't go with BSD, because:
1. If you contribute back, any contribution is going to be free for all. Which means that if Linksys contributes something, Netgear automatically gets to use it without any strings attached in their next product. If it happens that Linksys got something almost right, and Netgear managed to polish it to perfection in a few days, then Netgear just gained a really cool feature, courtesy of Linksys, and Linksys doesn't get to see how they did it.
2. If you don't contribute back, you now have to maintain an internal fork. This is not very easy, since the people doing the public development don't know or care about what you're doing, and are perfectly free to introduce changes that completely break your modifications.
3. If you release your changes under the GPL, the BSD supporters will whine about it for weeks.
4. A lot of stuff out there is targeted to Linux. There's lots of software that doesn't build cleanly on Solaris due to applications using GNU extensions. I imagine the same goes for BSD as well.
I work for NDS... (Score:5, Informative)
... and I call bullshit on his story of "NDS investigators". What we do, we do well, and what we don't, we stay out of.
As far as technical details: no kernel changes were made; the drivers are non-GPLed, using a small GPL'ed wrapper layer. The NDS software, which on these boxes runs entirely in user-space, is linked against the LGPL'ed uClibc. Busybox is used on the STB. All of the "glue" (such as busybox, boot scripts, etc) are provided by the broadcaster, STB manufacturer, and/or chipset vendor.
The bootloader is not based on any Linux code.
Re:I work for NDS... (Score:5, Informative)
You say that no kernel changes were made. Could you then please explain why it is named 2.6.12-4.0-brcmstb?
You also know that doing a static link against LGPL forces you to at least share object files?
Who actually does the "glue" is really not interesting in the case as the provider (in this case Viasat) must comply with GPL. It is not my job to contact every company on earth to get hold of the parts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like it is using same kernel as Zinwell's STB's and they have been more
than unhelpful with people asking them to comply with GPL.
Re:I work for NDS... (Score:5, Informative)
The module you are referring to is probably callisto_gpl.ko. I find it noble that you like to use GPL'ed software, but try to come up with clever ways to work around the intentions of GPL.
But since everything apparently is thought through I do not see any real problems in complying with GPL. Then the community can perhaps start thinking of ways to get around all the obstacles put inside the box to disallow changes to the software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's not very useful coming from an Anonymous Coward, unless you intend to subpoena Slashdot...
By the way, I'd like to humbly suggest as a general bit of informal advice: Please proceed as politely, obligingly, and scrupulously methodically as possible, so that your case is as strong as possible. For example, even though you may be quite justified in expecting
Re:Byte the hand that Feeds! (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Positive move? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing sarcasm. If it's not, ignore this.
It may actually get media attention to Linux, which is always good. It's definitely not hard for them to provide source either; simply have something in the manual stating "source available at [url]". I don't see why this would be a problem for Linux, at all. If anything, it's free advertisement to communities that normally wouldn't have the first idea about its existence.
Re:Positive move? (Score:5, Informative)
What does the community get out of the fact that YouSee, Stofa, and Viasat use Linux?
All the Danes on Slashdot probably know about Viasat's business practices, which are about as close to fraud as you can get without losing in court, so I don't need to warn anyone against signing contracts with them.
Market share and mindshare (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the community get out of the fact that YouSee, Stofa, and Viasat use Linux?
It gets valuable proof that Linux is a serious industrial strength system, making it hard for critics to portray it as a homespun system for hobbyists. Even (especially?) if Joe public hates these firms, businessfolk will respect them.
Market share also means that component manufacturers will have an incentive to support Linux (I doubt these firms make their own chipsets).
The programmers working on these devices will get Linux experience, and put it on their CVs. "5 years Linux experience with major company" reads better (to a suit) than "hack with Linux a bit on my own time".
Perversely, even a well-spun lawsuit might help (it shows that Linux is valuable enough to be worth defending). Especially if the publicity points out how little it will cost the culprits to comply vs. how many millions they would have been liable for had they breached a license for proprietary software, and points to all the other big, ugly firms that comply without going bust (even 800lb gorillas like Apple and IBM manage not to cross the line).
Quite honestly, though, the community still gets the benefit of market share if some of the users fail to comply. Its one of those awkward questions - do you want "four freedoms" and an OS that nobody uses, or "three-and-a-half freedoms" plus a fighting chance of being a major player in a field where the competition offers "minus six freedoms"?
Re:Linux and Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
While Apple is heavily involved in several Open Source projects like WebKit, CUPS etc. they do not use Linux in any way.
They may not use the Linux kernel, but OS X includes a metric shedload of GNU and other o/s code including, for example, samba, bash and gcc, which are also critical parts of many Linux-based OSs. (and how many suits make the distinction between the kernel and what you get in a full distro?)
The point is that, while IBM seem to have renounced their wicked ways and become born again FOSS evengelists, Apple are still notoriously secretive, litigious, and protective of their IP (and maybe not particularly liked by the FOSS movement) yet even they manage to at least provide source code [apple.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> And as Joe Public, why do I care?
As a "consumer" sheep you don't really need to be. When phrases like
"industrial strength" are bandied about it is pretty obvious that the
consumer sheep are not the intended target. Of course the intended
target are those companies and management that make the devices that
consumer sheep aren't interested in really having any insight about.
Ultimately this will lead to better, more interesting and more robust
devices but even that may be meaningless to "Joe Public".
Although
Re:Positive move? (Score:5, Insightful)
``This is going to be great for the uptake of Linux, and will really encourage people to use open-source tools instead of rolling their own proprietary black box. Keep up the good work!''
Rather than ... take the hard work of many hands, without compensating them or abiding by their terms, and using that to make your proprietary black box? Because that's what these companies have done.
The fact that the black box runs open source software means nothing when you don't get your Four Freedoms [gnu.org].
Re:Positive move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the progressions from Meeting->Dinner->Wait->Lawsuit seems a bit quick to jump into court.
Maybe he's just too pissed at this companies behaviour (which does seem pretty bad), but it seems to me the reasonable approach would have been to send a few letters explicitly asking for the code and seeing what -if anything - they respond with. If they don't give a satisfactory response then you think about using the courts.
Lawsuits are only good for lawyers. They should be a last resort.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it seemed that he HAD tried the diplomatic route, not just once, and now the companies are 'forcing his hand' to use this last resort.
Doesn't anybody RTFCATFA (read the f***g comments about the f***g article) anymore? What is this world coming to??
Re:Positive move? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder if this provider uses something based on the Dreambox.
The providers very often don't support using those Linux receiver because they have more options then the locked down p
Re:Positive move? (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, if someone picks up a copyrighted work and intentionally breaks the license agreement that made it possible for them to access that copyrighted work to begin with then that person just set him/herself for a lot of legal pain. That is true for any type of copyrighted work, including open source and any flavour of proprietary software. So no, it doesn't affect the uptake of linux, as any copyright dispute involving proprietary software affects the uptake of proprietary.
Re:Positive move? (Score:4, Insightful)
And, why, exactly, can you not modify them? Any box I've ever touched had an option to "update firmware". Granted, I haven't touched them all, but I can't imagine one without the option. If your box is using open source, people can build their own firmware - look at all the WRT firmwares available, starting with Tomato, DDWRT, OpenWRT - and there may be more.
A bright individual might roll his own, or not.
Actually - it might be to the ISP's advantage to allow this sort of thing. Some people are going to brick their boxes while tampering with them. Warranty is void, of course, if the box has been tampered with. So, the ISP gets the opportunity to sell another 20 dollar (or Euro, kroner, or whatever they use up there) box for 50 dollars.
Inform people that they have options. I'm all for that.
On the other hand, I wonder if pursuing these sort of actions might not scare vendors away from open source?
Re:Positive move? (Score:4, Informative)
Because the device only accepts firmware with the proper digital signature? At least, that's how TiVo did it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is the whole point of "Trusted Computing", Microsoft's much applauded "security" suite that fortunately seems to be have shown as seriously flawed that I'm just not seeing anyone developing for it. The signature/authentication/encryption chip was built into the motherboard or the CPU: there was a very tight toolchain to have signed tools open other signed tools to access data, designed to prevent non-authorized tools from reading media but also able to protect data files.
The problem was it was also
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, their lawsuit is not going too far, unless they personally are the copyright owners of the code. Just having a violation is not enough. The copyright owner needs to sue them for it. It's not enough for someone who have heard about the work to sue them.
From http://duff.dk/viasat/ [duff.dk] (TFA)
August 16th, 2009 - It has been brought to my attention that I do not state which part of the GPL code I am claiming copyright ownership on. I have some patches in the Linux kernel and a direct copyright notice in e.g. therm_adt746x.c [linux.no]. However my patches alone are not going to make a very strong case and it is my hope that big contributors to busybox and uClibc will help out making a bigger group of people who had their copyright violated. I have already contacted several people who have very clear violations of their copyright in the product, and we are looking to sue on their behalf too. But let me please be very clear about the fact that I would rather this case could be settled in a peaceful manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully we will see less Danish satellite boxes using Linux.
Linux is a plague that tricks suckers in to throwing away their business and intellectual property.
The sooner people learn that Linux and the GPL is a cancer, the better off we will all be.
Given your busy schedule, Mr. Ballmer - it's good to know you have time to read Slashdot!