Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Your Rights Online

Exploitation of Open Source VoIP 156

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hate-when-that-happens dept.
n8twj writes " With John 'Maddog' Hall pointing out that Open Source VoIP will be bigger than Linux ever has been. How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own? Recently, I have become aware that SysMaster has been redistrbuting a version of the Asterisk PBX written by Mark Spencer from Digium and many others. SysMaster claims that they wrote everything in-house, while they have surely done their own development, they are using Asterisk to power their product line without following the rules. In terms of full disclosure, my company also provides Asterisk-based solutions, however we have fully embraced Asterisk and gladly contribute back to the GPL."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exploitation of Open Source VoIP More

Exploitation of Open Source VoIP

Comments Filter:

  • Motive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oniony ( 228405 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:37AM (#10812949) Homepage
    Is this a serious question or an attempt to discredit a competitor?
  • This one company (NuFone) making an accusation about a competitor (SysMaster).

    Where's the evidence? Or did slashdot just post this without checking?

    Oh, wait... this is slashdot...

  • its simple (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:40AM (#10812963)
    When the company starts to gain financially at the expense of a competitor it will be sued by the competitor for breaching the GPL. The competitor will get backing in this from open source organizations.

    It is a little absurd for us to all think that open sources licenses won't get abused to some extent. But, for every quality open source based product that tries to "rip off" the developers (if that can be considered possible in open source) there will be several following the rules who will be glad to keep them in check and sue them into oblivion.

    • Re:its simple (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mpe ( 36238 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:40AM (#10813219)
      When the company starts to gain financially at the expense of a competitor it will be sued by the competitor for breaching the GPL

      No the competitor has no standing to sue. Only the copyright holder can sue the infringing party.
      • That in this case, the competitor is also a significant contributor to the GPL'ed code. Therefore, the competitor's contributed code is at stake as well, giving them a standing to sue.
    • It is a little absurd for us to all think that open sources licenses won't get abused to some extent.

      Huh? Its not the license that's abused. Source code with any license can be abused like this. Its the source code thats abused. If its just a grammatical error, make sure you get stuff like this right the next time.

  • Let the Copyright Holder Handle It (Score:5, Informative)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:41AM (#10812966) Homepage
    Please follow this advice [gnu.org]: gather what details you can & notify whoever holds the copyright on the GPLed software you believe is being abused.

    • Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is also a problem for other people, not just the original author, and they have a right to complain about unfair competition. If you and I produce a similar kind of widget or service, and you beat me in the market by breaking the rules, I should have and do have the right to take the issue to the media and to court.

      • I agree but... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Noksagt ( 69097 )
        it takes no time at all to contact the copyright holder in most cases. It is also better if they fight their own battles, especially in court. It would benefit both the copyright holder and you if you team up to handle the violation. You can share legal expenses, public relations duties, etc.
      • Hahahaha. Yes, I guess in your fantasy world you could do that, but in the real world one must have standing. You can sue anyone for anything but if you aren't the copyright holder in this case, it will be thrown out. You might argue some sort of other damages, but not copyright violation.

        What you COULD do is go to the copyright holder and finance his lawsuit against the copyright violator.

        Also, anyone who violates copyrights by downloading files on p2p networks (myself included) is very hypocritical if h
        • Couple of comments

          You might argue some sort of other damages, but not copyright violation.

          Whether you get damages for copyright violation, or for unfair competition, doesn't really matter - as long as the court finds that your competitor is doing something wrong, orders them to stop, and maybe gives you some cash from them, do you really care what the grounds were?

          Of course, it might work better if the first case to court was a copyright case, so you could later quote that precedent, and then you'd

    • And... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:48AM (#10813002) Homepage
      If the copyright holder doesn't know what to do, direct them to this story [slashdot.org] for now.

      Someone should really setup a site which helps handle GPL violations by directing copyright holders to the right legal people & offers advice for how to handle violations. A database or wiki could also be setup to record alleged GPL violations & how they were resolved. IIRC, the mplayer project keeps some information on GPL violations on their website. Many were resolved & their site records this.

      I'd be happy to help with such a project with my time and content.

  • ah the /. crowd (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This will be modded down, but .... When someone could potentially violate the GPL, they call for their head, but will vehnemently defend their right to download movies via p2p networks.

    • Re:ah the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:51AM (#10813012) Homepage
      So it looks to me like "the /. crowd" has a general lack of moral outrage over people sharing copyrighted material for free without the person being shared with buying a license, but does have moral outrage over people taking copyrighted material, repackaging it, presenting it as their own work, and selling it to others for a profit in violation of license.

      So... congratulations! You have demonstrated that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

      Something analogous to gpl violations in the music world would be not file-sharing, but bootlegging-- people who bulk-fabricate copies of commercial CDs and then sell them-- a practice which I've yet to see anyone on slashdot defend.
      • that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

        I see. So you five-finger-discount a shirt at a local store and when caught you claim:

        A) I made it myself with a sewing machine.
        B) I bought it at another store.

        If you're the shopkeeper, is there any difference between the two? Probably not. Whether they're seperate issues depends entirely on which side of the issue you're on.

        Plagiarism adds insult to injury, but make no mistake about it: the plagiarism is just an

        • Re:ah the /. crowd (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcc ( 14761 )
          I see absolutely no connection between your post and the one you are responding to. So you're trying to compare different two different ways in which a hypothetical shoplifter claims that an item they have just stolen was their legal property before they entered the store to the difference between possessing a copy of an intellectual property without purchasing a license and selling the intellectual property as another as your own? This analogy does not seem to connect at all.

          Of course, I'm sure you'll po
        • > I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft

          See, this topic really erks me.

          I agree with you fully. Copyright voilation IS theft!

          Unfortunatly, I live in the USA, and their laws disagree with us both by saying they are two different things :{
          Don't worry brother. One of these days we will get them to rewrite the laws in some country (Hopefully the USA) as to say copyright violations are theft.
          Then we will have the last laugh!

          --
          BTW, incase you couldnt tell, I wa
      • So it looks to me like "the /. crowd" has a general lack of moral outrage over people sharing copyrighted material for free without the person being shared with buying a license, but does have moral outrage over people taking copyrighted material, repackaging it, presenting it as their own work, and selling it to others for a profit in violation of license.

        So... congratulations! You have demonstrated that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

        Or more clear
        • Or more clearly - the /. community thinks it's ok to steal as long as it's not their work being stolen

          No, that would not be an accurate way of stating things, nor was it what I said.
        • So if a company simply doesn't claim ownership of the code, but merely gives it away free if you buy the hardware, it's ok since all they're doing is sharing a file in violation of a license?

          YES!!!!

          I see you are finally beginning to understand.

          Oh, no, it seems you thought you were being sarcastic, right? Unfortunatly you actually pointed out the HUGE difference between downloading a copy of music and somebody attempting to claim they wrote that music themselves.

          Nice trolling, but you lose.

          There is ton
          • Unfortunatly you actually pointed out the HUGE difference between downloading a copy of music and somebody attempting to claim they wrote that music themselves.

            (SNIP)

            There is tons and tons of GPL software available without source code on the net. Nobody does anything about it

            I see. So a small disclaimer "some software not written by us" then it's ok to ignore the GPL. I doubt if that is a general concensus on /., but you're free to feel that way.

            That's because the people here are not hyprocrites,
            • I am in no way saying copyright violations are ok. Personally I have NEVER downloaded an illegal copy of music, though I have bought quite a bit from iTunes and BLEEM.

              But I am still quite annoyed at your attempts to equate two vastly different levels of copyright violation.

              None of those illegal music downloaders claim they wrote Metallica's songs or sold copies of them claiming it was their own music.
              • I am in no way saying copyright violations are ok.

                (snip)
                But I am still quite annoyed at your attempts to equate two vastly different levels of copyright violation.

                None of those illegal music downloaders claim they wrote Metallica's songs or sold copies of them claiming it was their own music.

                I'm not saying they are equal (nor that they are vastly different) - just that both are wrong and to argue it's ok to steal music online (as many on /. do) and then get all upset over GPL violations is hypocritical.
                • Actually it cannot be hypocritical. They are Two seperate things. As pointed out ealier and agreed on, down loading and claiming ownership are two seperate thinngs.

                  At most it can be a differing standard of ethics or morals. Some people think the pot smoking is ok because eveyone is doing it and they don't see the harm it causes. While still being an ilegal drug they don't catagorize it in the same way as crack cocain. For some reason cocain has a higher moral priority then pot and is seen as the worse of t
                  • Actually it cannot be hypocritical. They are Two seperate things. As pointed out ealier and agreed on, down loading and claiming ownership are two seperate thinngs.

                    Ah, rationa;ization. At the root, both are stealing - different ways, but the same thing in the end.

                    At most it can be a differing standard of ethics or morals.

                    Sure - people want it both ways - "when I do it it;s because data wants to be free, when someonelese does it it's stealing." - which is why I call it hypocritical to take that stanc

                    • So if the company puts a disclaimer that the underlying software is OSS based and you're buying the hw not the sw - it's OK - after all, then their just d/l'g it and not claiming it as their own work.

                      thats the general practice. BTW opensource doesn't mean free of charge either. they can and do charge for open source products. If you make changes to the source then you must release them changes depending on the license. It you make a program that runs on open source then that program is your.

                      But you stil

                    • But you still don't get the differences in the types of stealling. You cannot compare a head on colision in a car with a side impact because they are two different thing.

                      They are both car accidents - different types, but at the root, the same thing. And it isn't sharing music - it's stealing.
          • There is tons and tons of GPL software available without source code on the net. Nobody does anything about it.

            Nor would that be necessary. The GPL requires that the source code be provided upon request by the distributor of the binaries - it even allows you to charge shipping & handling. It does not require that the source code accompany every binary copy.

      • Yea right, when Slashdot speaks in one voice is when I turn to another site for commentary.
      • Well I'd pay attention to the fact "/. crowd" is a wide generalization, bound to contain error as any other generalization. There will be /.ers fitting your description and /.ers not fitting it at all.

        As for your analogy on bootlegging, I'd like to differ as bootlegging is also known, in the amateur music circles, as the amateur practice of recording live concerts of some artist.
        That practice is, usually, exercised in precarious conditions , often leading to poor quality recordings, no matter how sophistic
      • Cheating a man who is already giving things away for free with only the requirement that you be generous in return is NOT the same thing as stealing from a thief.

        Slashdot users do tend to play fast and lose with copyright, but there is a certain respect (not without merit) for the selfless who contribute to free software that makes it beyond the pale to rip that off whilst others who are less altrustic get no such status. What's so surprising about that?

    • Re:ah the /. crowd (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You address a "crowd" of perhaps 90.000 persons, but still attempt to base a point on the history of perhaps 6.000 users you likely have seen with the comments on free exchange as the same perhaps 20.000 concerned with open source IP rights. Angry? There is no real justification but what is happening in your mind for that shallow statement.
    • The GPL promotes fair pricing and technological progress.

      P2P piracy promotes fair pricing and technological progress.

      Slashdot has a lot of cheap nerds.
    • The slashdot crowd at large doesn't support or defend their right to download movies and music for free. They support and defend the terms of fair use and complain about legislation that is eroding those rights protected by copyright law.

      This story is about one company presumably profiting off of someone else's work. That's not even a close parallel to debating about the laws that the RIAA and MPAA are buying these days with campaign contributions.

      You've got 4, Insightful for your "will be modded down"
      • You are like my wife. She thinks one dollar bill is different from another, that money she earns at one place is different than money she earns at another.

        Here is absolute proof that copyright violation isn't stealing in a legal sense, it's copyright violation. If it were stealing then the value of the items ($17 for a CD for example) would be the damages instead of $150,000 per violation.

        If you give away someone else's copyrighted work for free when you don't have permission, you are hurting them just as

    • Re:ah the /. crowd (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's because the GPL is much more highly respected around this small planet than nearly all proprietary software licenses.
    • This will be modded redundant, but .... When someone could point out a hypocrisy within the /. crowd, but instead misses the mark, they are mocked to absurdity.
    • I know...don't feed them, but... 1. They are not violating the GPL; they are violating copyright law. 2. We *do* have a right to download anything we want from P2P networks (with the copyright holder's permission (and in some cases without as specified by your local laws)). Do you want to live in some kind of fascist society where books are burned...
    • Oh ye, and also, as a news site where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, there is no inconsistency in different opinions within the /. crowd....

  • Is it possible... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:43AM (#10812976)
    Is it possible they are using Asterisk? yeah I dont see why not Asterisk is a Great Product, but like mySQL, Asterisk does offer a commercial NON-GPL license.

    It could be possible that they paid for a NON-GPL'd Version that they used as a base.
    • It could be possible that they paid for a NON-GPL'd Version that they used as a base.

      Except that the article (very short article, you can do it), explicitly states that the company claims to have developed the whole thing in house, and not to be using Asterisk under any license at all.

      If they did have a legitimate commercial license, don't you suppose they would want to quickly clear the whole thing up by saying so as soon as allegations came out?

  • lobby your government officials (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The government needs to be keeping tabs on this, or at the very least making inquiries when complaints are launched.

    Why? Because open source licenses protect the public good.

    In fact, I suggest that FSF and others lobby the government to have open source licenses registeres with an agency. Any software released under a registered license will have that license protected by the government. The simple establishment of the rules should scare most out of eploitation.

    IALs can work out the details.

    • Re:lobby your government officials (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:58AM (#10813040) Journal
      In fact, I suggest that FSF and others lobby the government to have open source licenses registeres with an agency. Any software released under a registered license will have that license protected by the government. The simple establishment of the rules should scare most out of eploitation.

      Yeah, I propose calling it "copyright" and setting up a US Copyright Office to enforce it.

      • USCO --does not enforce--. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:49AM (#10813257)

        It is astounding given how much attention copyright gets here on slashdot that people still Don't Get It.

        Yeah, I propose calling it "copyright" and setting up a US Copyright Office to enforce it.

        The USCO does not enforce copyright. It registers copyrights.

        There are no US Copyright Office boogeymen in black who run around arresting people either. If I steal your work, it is entirely your responsibility, in civil court (not criminal) to sue me and recover damages.

        Further, copyrighting your code with the GPL license DOES NOT entitle you to expect the Free Software Foundation to go around suing people for you. They'll politely give you some suggestions on who to talk to and maybe a little basic advice, but that's it.

        So many people don't get it- they whine about their code being stolen, but then don't do anything about it. As a result, corporations are fearless in violating the GPL license as has been proven again and again. The GPL license, as a result, is quickly becoming irrelevant.

        When SCO claims Linus and others stole code, Linus and others need to sue them for liable(or slander, I forget). When Linksys fails to follow the GPL and steals code, the people who wrote the code need to immediately send them a cease and desist, and if they fail to comply, sue them to FORCE them to cease.

        In this case, the Asterix developers need to pay a lawyer to file suit against the offending company, seek evidence by court order (if they are using GPL code, it'll be very easy to prove once you're in the door with a court search order), and if they find evidence, hammer them into the ground.

        This is in bold because people need to wake up and get a clue. YOU NEED TO START BACKING UP THE GPL WITH LAWSUITS OR IT WILL BECOME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND UNENFORCEABLE.

        • As a result, corporations are fearless in violating the GPL license as has been proven again and again. The GPL license, as a result, is quickly becoming irrelevant.

          I do not agree that the GPL is weakened if it is not enforced by everyone. The laws of copyright do not appear to have been weakened by widespread flouting of the law. Unlike trademarks which may lapse if not protected, authors still have the right to enforce their copyright (and hence the GPL) selectively, even if they choose not to.

          When SC

        • 1) Yes, I am aware that the Copyright Office does not actively police copyrights. My original comment emphasized snideness over precision.

          2) In the US, at least, Linus could not possibly make a workable libel case against SCO. In a country like Britain with a lower threshold for libel, there might be some value.

          3) Lack of enforcement does not weaken copyright, and certainly does not weaken GPL licensing as a whole.
    • I'm not sure what country you live in, but what makes you think that the government will do a better job looking out for a victim's interests than the victim himself (or herself)?

      One of the NICE things about civil litigation is that you don't have to depend on the government to do anything except sit there and make decisions about issues that are put directly in front of it. You get your own lawyer to do the hard work, and (s)he's more than willing to go the extra mile because you're paying the bills.

      Con
    • Why? Because open source licenses protect the public good.
      I don't think our present government has any interest in that.

  • don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geg81 ( 816215 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @10:48AM (#10812999)
    I don't see GPL violations becoming a big problem. First of all, the loss to the open source community from abuses of the GPL is mainly the lack of contributions. That is partially balanced out by the fact that the company in question is at least not using some proprietary solution. Second, the problem is self-limiting: if a company gets to be large enough, someone is going to notice the GPL violation and the company will likely settle the resulting legal action quickly.

    For BSD-licensed software (are there any BSD VoIP solutions?), companies are even welcome to use the software and make it proprietary. Proponents of BSD probably believe that it's better to have companies use open-source derived software even if they don't give back than to lose more companies to proprietary vendors. (Personally, I think it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.)

    • just curious (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Goosey ( 654680 )
      Maybe I am just ignorant in the issue, but I am curious.. What advantage is gained by companies using OS software and not contributing back?

      I am not saying that everyone that uses OS software should be working on contributions. It certainly doesn't hurt the OS community.. But you seem to have a tone that there is some benefit from companies using OS software without giving back.

      Unless I am missing something, that leaves the software right where it started.. And while it doesn't hurt it, it doesn't seem
      • In a macro-sense, it helps the concept of open source by undermining money going to other closed source competitors.

        Whether or not company A gets money for their open source product, company B selling a closed source product doesn't get any money to further market to other companies when companies X Y and Z use company A's product.

        It's a very long-term view, but one could make that argument.

      • Re:just curious (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @12:02PM (#10813302) Journal
        There are three possibilities when using Open Source software (for the rest of this comment, assume I'm talking about BSD/MIT licensed code, where all three are permitted).
        1. Just use it. Don't make any changes. This is very cheap and easy to do, but offers little capability for a company to differentiate its product from the competitors.
        2. Use it, modify it, keep the modifications secret. This makes it very easy to differentiate your product. The disadvantage is that you are forced to maintain a fork. Any security fixes, new features etc. from the main trunk must be merged into your branch at your expense. Since you are not contributing your changes, it is possible (and quite likely) that at some point changes will be introduced that break some of your modifications. You will need to work out these problems in your own branch, which may be difficult (read: expensive).
        3. Use it, modify it, give the modifications back. This is relatively cheap, since you do not need to maintain your own fork. On the other hand, it makes it harder for you to differentiate your product. By timing your code releases with your product launches, however, it is possible that you can keep a head start on competitors.
        Sometimes, case 3 is not possible. Apple, for example, release all of their changes to GCC (as required by license) but do not always have them accepted back into the main trunk. Examples of this include support for Objective-C++ which has been present in the Apple tree for a while, but not in the GNU tree. Recent changes in the Apple tree have allowed the changes to be imported, so GCC 4.0 should support Objective-C++.

        In general, option 3 is best if you are using an open source project that is not your core business - Apple lose no commercial advantage by allowing other people access to their compiler, and maintaining a complete fork of GCC would be far more expensive.

        Option 2 may be better if it is your core business, since you can maintain a commercial advantage by not releasing code (or by releasing it late, when you have a new feature that distinguishes your code from the others).

    • If you knowingly ignore a copyright violation, you are considered to have waived your copyright. As soon as a copyright holder becomes aware of the violation, they have to do something about it.

  • Thanks for your contribution... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:03AM (#10813053) Homepage
    In terms of full disclosure, my company also provides Asterisk-based solutions, however we have fully embraced Asterisk and gladly contribute back to the GPL.

    but I think the GPL is pretty full and doesn't need any more contributions at this time.
  • think about the netfilter and reactos cases...
    And this will increase with time, with companies not caring for licenses just to make more profit...
    The internet community should care and take such cases to the courts. netfilter has been successfull with this in Germany.

  • not all of them ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheLibero ( 750207 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:12AM (#10813094)
    i work for a networking bluechip, and here they have been working in a project to clean their code (or code coming from OEM's) from any GPL-kind of code; and if that's not possible they will be marking the code clearly for public as an open source code. the legal department have been pushing this so hard!

  • follow the BSA model (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do what the Business Software Alliance does. Encourage disgruntled employees to be anonymous whistle-blowers. A nonprofit can set up a clearing house which receives evidence and even pays out rewards for verified infringements.

    With enough money, they can also take out radio ads similar to the ominous BSA warnings that get played here in Chicago once a year.

  • Community based web collaboration (Score:4, Interesting)

    by seanellis ( 302682 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:19AM (#10813129) Homepage Journal
    ...to uncover those in breach of the GPL.

    GrokCheat, anyone?

  • UmmmM (Score:2)

    by _aa_ ( 63092 )
    Last I heard the entire point of open source code was using the code and redistributing it. As long as their product is open source and GPL'd as well, who cares? If they can use an OS project to aid the creation of a new OS project, I say more power to them.
    • Did you even read the summary? They're allegedly redistributing it claiming it as their own and trying to make a profit. Its also obvious that the product is not open source, otherwise this would not be an allegation, but a fact.
  • Hard to believe a statement like that could be published - lets see now.
    1. Asterisk is dependant upon Linux
    2. Massive Asterisk growth = massive LINUX growth
    3. Less any dedicated standalone jobbies
    4. So an explosive growth in ASTERISK would = an explosive growth in LINUX PLUS you would have Telecoms developers their eyes to the world of LINUX - and become new users.
    Really a classic case of the "Cart before the horse"!!!

    HYPE etc - someone needs funding for something. sounds very MLM

    • Re:What a load of old cobblers! (Score:4, Informative)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:36AM (#10813203) Homepage
      Your point (1) is faulty. Linux may be Asterisk's primary platform but since it's open source you are just as free to go ahead and run it on, say, BSD [digium.com] or Solaris [voip-info.org] or Mac OS X [apple.com]. Meanwhile ports to more esoteric platforms are certainly an option, and it's already possible to run it on Windows [voip-info.org] if you have compatibility layer software. Linux will probably be the most likely platform to benefit from Asterisk being popular, but Asterisk definitely has potential outside of Linux.
      • Linux will be the primary platform, if not, it'll be Windows (if someone ports it - not sure if it already is).

        BSD has lackluster hardware support. It simply doesn't have the interest nor the amount of coders on it. Not trying to put it down here but if you have to fight with BSD and hardware when it 'just works' on Linux, guess which one will be the favorite.

        Solaris is never going to happen. Overpriced hardware, with no tangible benefits apart from being locked into it.

        OSX, also, not going to happen. Th

  • Mob action not needed, return to normal trolling (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:31AM (#10813182)
    Since Digium also sells non-GPL'd copies of the work in question, they have a strong economic incentive to force these guys to either pay up for their non-GPL license or go GPL.

    Put out your torches, save them for another day.

  • Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 14, 2004 @11:49AM (#10813256)

    How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL

    Easy - just keep backups. That way, if somebody steals your code, you still have it.

    Oh... wait. Did you mean copyright infringement and not theft? When the RIAA and MPAA start talking about those nasty thieves, people are quick to point out that copyright infringement is not theft.

    Double-standards stink. When somebody infringes upon the GPL, it's not theft, so don't exaggerate your grievance or accuse the other party of crimes they didn't commit. It just makes you look like a whiny liar and doesn't help your case.

    • That's right. Nobody is suggesting that criminal charges be levied or that people go to jail. In fact unlike the RIAA nobody is asking for money either. They are simple asking that you either stop or contribute your code like you were supposed to.

  • How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own?

    Start a covert GPL enforcement militia group that goes around and, uh, takes care of GPL violators. The world will know that you do NOT steal GPL code, and then everything will be ok.

  • in case you wish to read the source [digium.com]

  • How can we make sure a suspected company is not following the GPL rules before accusing them and taking some form of legal action against them?

    He may be right in accusing them, but he may be wrong. Many concluded without proofs he is wrong, that's not better than him concluding this company is violating GPL rules without disclosed proofs.

  • Say there's a telco that uses Asterisk (or some similar software).
    And let's suppose they distribute their products/boxes with just an OS that downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center when the owner boots the box.

    In this situation they do not (re)distribute the GPL-based code so they're not obliged to give you the source code. (Of course Asterisk may have a non-GPL license for commercial use but most other GPL apps don't.)

    To get around GPL restrictions h/w manufacturers should make the c
    • Say there's a telco that uses Asterisk (or some similar software). And let's suppose they distribute their products/boxes with just an OS that downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center when the owner boots the box.

      Interesting idea, but futile, fortunately. The "downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center" would be the distribution upon which the GPL relies. If a vendor provides you with a box and causes some software to be loaded on to the box (other than by telling you

  • Are they just *using* the product, or have they made proprietary modifications to it? If the former, they are not violating anything. Redistributing an *unmodified* copy of a GPLd program is not restricted.
    • True, but if a customer asks for the source code they must give it.. even if it's unmodified.

      Apparently they've been asked for the source and point blank denied that they use asterisk.
    • Are they just *using* the product, or have they made proprietary modifications to it? If the former, they are not violating anything. Redistributing an *unmodified* copy of a GPLd program is not restricted.

      YES IT IS!!

      for commercial redistribution the binary has to be accompanied either by the source code or by a written offer to give you the source code for a nominal fee. (see GPL 3 a,b,c)

      although the internet has fascilitated distribution of source code, you'd still have to make sure that the source co
  • At my company we use open source projects such as BIND (for an ENUM / DNS based call routing directory) around the edges of our VoiceXML [vxml.org] / VOIP IVR [voxeo.com] hosting service, but not in our core platform.

    Originally we did use early open source VOIP projects such as OpenH323 [openh323.org]. OpenH323 was great, but it needed to be replaced as we moved to SIP and required reliability beyond what OpenH323 offered.

    Asterisk [asterisk.org] is in a similar place - it is a great project that has seen some great early success in voip. I have heard th
  • You put out your code, people will use it.. Its a fact of life..

    If you are concerned about it being 'stolen', then dont release it..

    It may not be 'right' to take code when its under the GVL, but dont be suprised when it happens..

  • The simplest solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Sunday November 14, 2004 @02:17PM (#10813978) Homepage
    How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own?

    The simplest way is to use a BSD license and not worry about it. There are plenty of ways to make money off of GPL'ed code without violating GPL that if money is your concern, GPL isn't going to stop people anyway, so might as well just let anyone use it for whatever they want and be done with it.

  • Arrange the subroutines and coroutines in nontrivial ways with subtle dependencies that can easily be detected through reverse engineering (chasing the flow control graphs of an executable and looking for tell tale watermark patterns.) This would require a closed source knock off to do a lot of rewriting (and if they have the expertise and time to do this, they have more than enough time to write their own 'good enough' implementation from scratch.)

    How exactly one does this would the a fruitful research s

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close