Enforcing the GPL On Software Companies? 480
Piranhaa"I currently use an IPTV box that runs software by Minerva Networks. When you ssh into the box, you are greeted with a BusyBox v1.00 (ash) shell. It's clearly running a flavor of Linux (uname -apm outputs: Linux minerva_10_0_3_99 2.4.30-tango2-2.7.144.0 #29 Wed Mar 16 16:16:16 CET 2005 mips unknown). However, when you look at their Web site there is no publicly available source code. Since the GPL in both BusyBox and the Linux kernel require that anyone using and distributing the binaries of this software make source available to everyone, what would one do in order to enforce this? I've personally emailed Minerva and left voicemails with no reply."
Write to the FSF. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Write to the FSF. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gpl-violations.org/ [gpl-violations.org]
might be a good place to start.
Re:Write to the FSF. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't contacting the company be a better place to start? They are not required to put the source code on the website.
Also if they don't modify the source do they have to make it available? Does Dell offer Ubuntu for download?
Making available... (Score:3, Informative)
And if they aren't making any modifications to said source code, they may be able to get away with referring you to somewhere else that the code is available...
Oh, and you're only required to give source code to people to whom you give binaries; not anyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPLv2 [fsf.org] says:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, ...
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Since this was distributed as a commercial product, they have to make the source available, they can't just pass on the offer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you had read even the summary, you'd see that he has already tried contacting the company and has received no reply.
"I've personally emailed Minerva and left voicemails with no reply."
Wouldn't contacting the company be a better place to start? They are not required to put the source code on the website.
Also if they don't modify the source do they have to make it available? Does Dell offer Ubuntu for download?
Re:Write to the FSF^H^H^H. Author. (Score:2, Informative)
The FSF will of course normally help, but the companies license is with the author of the software. The FSF can't do any enforcement and can't really help if they don't own the copyright to the code. Do clear work to prove the case and then contact the authors of the software with all he information you have. One important thing to do is to ensure you request the source code in writing in a registered letter and keep a copy of it.
License enforcement (Score:5, Informative)
As the parent says, only the copyright holder can actually take any legal action.
For busybox, you can see on http://busybox.net/license.html [busybox.net] that:
"BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the Software Freedom Law Center (you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net)"
This an effective process, but a slow one (expect it to take 6 months+ for any response on past experience).
For the linux kernel, lkml is perhaps an appropriate place.
FSF can't help, since they don't own any of the software.
You perhaps want to consider how you're wording your requests. If a polite (or impolite) request for source code has been refused, you might want to try a different track, pointing out that the hardware contains software that they have no valid license to distribute and is hence illegal, and would they like to discuss this further before you contact the copyright owner.
Under copyright law, there is absolutely no requirement for them to provide the source code. One possible legal conclusion is that they pay court decided damages to the copyright owners for illegal distribution to date, and cease further distribution. If they wish to continue distribution, it's likely that they're only available option is to open the source code, especially since their are often multiple copyright holders, especially in the linux kernel.
(Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, and some points will vary between jurisdictions.)
Re:License enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the sheer number of utility tools the FSF has the copyrights on, its unlikely that they were able to give the box ssh ability without using any of the FSF copyrighted material. The op doesn't mention anything that it would be, but 'info coreutils' should give a nice list of potential thing for them to latch onto, at least on debian boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little bit more complicated. The copyright owner can actually demand that all derivated works are destroyed, that means that all Minerva IPTV-boxes are to be destroyed, sold or not, and that Minerva ceases to sell new boxes.
But the GPL protects the actual owners of a Minerva box from having their item destroyed, because the GPL entitles them to use the (derivate) work of art as long as they abide to the license (which they do, because they don't resell the boxes and thus they don't distribute GPL cod
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright law cannot require them to provide source code; however the terms of the license can, and therefore one particular possible outcome of court action for the GPL is requiring this company to provide the source to the public. IOW, yes, it really is true that a court can make a party of a contract do what they said they were going to do.
C//
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:License enforcement (FUD warning!) (Score:4, Informative)
Quite simply, if you are not following the terms of a license when distributing a copyrigthed work, you are in violation of copyright statutes and can be held civilly and criminally liable.
If you buy a dvd or cd, you are granted a license to perform the work non-publically, and not make and sell copies. If you violate the license by publicly performing the work or copying it and putting it on a P2P network, you've violated both copyright law and the terms of the license. Criminal penalties apply to the violation of the letter of the law (no distribution or performance without license) and civil responsibility results from the breach of license terms.
More to the point, if you buy a volume licensed Windows CD, you can make as many copies as you need to within your business to support installation activities. You will still get busted by the FBI for uploading the CD ISO to a P2P network. Just because you are licensed for SOME redistribution or copying rights does not mean you have ALL rights and no criminal responsibility if you violate the license.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Competitors can also get their hands on the source code. Also, anyone that downloads the source can also compile it and release it for free.
And then under the GPL, they can get their hands on the competitor's source and improve upon it.
Also, unless I'm greatly mistaken, they don't have to release the source to the entire world for free. They are only required to release it with the binaries, so they can give the source only to people who buy the product.
In addition, these people are not just selling the software. They're selling a physical object that uses that software, so the software in of itself would be of little use to someone without
Re:Write to the FSF. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're absolutely right. I made a mistake. I just grabbed a hardcopy of the GPLv2 and it says:
Apparently my memory doesn't serve me well.
Not available to everyone (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but as I understand it the GPL requires that source is made available to customers, not everyone. Of course in this case they don't appear to be making it available to customers either.
Re:Not available to everyone (Score:5, Informative)
It depends. If they give the source code with the programs, then they can give it only to their customers, and they don't have to give it to anyone else. However if they decide instead to only give a written offer to ask the source with their programs, as allowed by the GPL, then they should give the source code to whoever is asking, not only customers.
Re:Not available to everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that is correct. I am work for a company which I won't name(Not the company that the OP is talking about) that uses exactly this provision in the GPL to keep Source Code off of the main Website. I know that sounds bad, but the real reason is that we don't actually have 100% of the source code our self.
One of the original developers that worked on this product got lazy and originally most of the smaller parts of the system were actually pulled into the project in binary form from several different Linux distributions. The problem is we too this day don't know for sure where he got all of this stuff. We have been weeding it out of the image as time goes on but I know that even today there are a few things that are just being pulled into new images in binary form. I know that currently most of the stuff still in binary form is stuff that could be replaced with BusyBox but we don't like the busybox version for one reason or another.
But one really interesting thing I have learned is since we actually see all of the code requests come in is that so far nobody has really wanted to the code for a practical reason. All of the requests have been done for "GPL Activism". In the majority of cases when people ask for code they just wanted to see if we would let them have it. I only one case that I know of did anyone go so far as actually getting code. I am rather sure we just shipped him a burned CD with all of the code on it. But after he got it he told us that he didn't really want the code, he just wanted to see if we would give it to him just like all of the other requests.
In most cases these forms of source code dumps don't really give you much of anything useful. What you end-up with is a source code package on company server that may or may not have anything really useful the to rest of the open source community included in it. Someone could diff the public version and these private forks, generate patches and see if anything would be useful to merge into the mainline. But that is a lot of work for something that you don't even know is worthwhile from the get go. I will tell you that the majority of the software included in our firmware isn't modified.
I feel instead that when the company in question makes changes it's FAR more important that they submit patches to the mainline developers for possible inclusion. This is what we are actually doing, we have been working very closely with normal maintainers to add some major new networking features to Linux. And I know patches are going into the mainline version. I guess in the end what would most people rather have... Some files on a webserver that might have something really useful buried inside them or companies working with developers to get new features added to the mainline source code. I feel that this pressure to have source code posted on websites would be better spent trying to actually get a real dialog between these companies and the open source developers. Working with a developer is always going to be harder than just slapping up some source code on a webserver. Which is why I feel that it's just an easy out in many cases but doesn't really help the community.
p.s. Our biggest sort-of competitor also uses open source software... They allow everyone to download the software in binary form. But if you want source code... you have to Wire Transfer ~$50 to former a USSR country... which in and of itself is a violation of the GPL. And given some of the features that they have added is to software packages that they don't even list as being included really makes me wonder what you get for $50...
End User Not Owner? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:End User Not Owner? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if the end-user, the guy with the box, doesn't own it? Suppose the IPTV company maintains ownership of the box? Than the end-user wouldn't need to be provided with the code?
That's what free.fr (a french isp renting box running linux and other GPL software) is doing. But this is sort of a grey area here, the GPL doesn't talk about ownership, it talks about distribution, and this is up to the judge to decide whether it is distribution or not in this case. Here some people are going to sue free.fr because they refuse to distribute the sources they modified, we'll see what happens ...
Re:End User Not Owner? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:End User Not Owner? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How much does the company gain from giving those enhancements back?
Having a good name with some FOSS projects is not bad; profit starts when other people maintain your private extensions for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as you only have to provide the source to those who you have also provided the binary to, your legal department appear to be wrong.
If you're distributing it to yourself, then you have to make the source code available to yourself. Shouldn't be too hard.
Actually, there's a more subtle problem here - if you operate as different legal entities in different parts of the world (Company PLC in the UK, Company INC in the US, Company GMBH in germany, whatever), then I believe you have to make the source
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But making available does not imply you have to put a link for the srouce code on your website.
If you had a process where someone had to fill out a form, include a product receipt, send $5 for shipping and then the party was sent a DVD in the mail with the source code, you would be meeting the requirements of the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
If they use Busybox or the kernel unmodified, it might be enough if they point you to the default repository. They also have no obligations, to make available applications they build on top of those packages or the configuration parameters.
Things usually get messy, if those people start to include their own drivers or modify the packages. Then they need to publish those for their customers.
Finding out which is the case can take time, and if they just tell you to get the sources at www.busybox.net, you have
Re: (Score:2)
Just a thought here. Could it depends on who the custom is here or what the customer is purchasing. Who owns the box? My guess is Minerva Networks owns the box and not you. They are letting you use the box as part of a subscription.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see why they would think this was easy to get away with.
Even sourceforge have allowed projects to use their services which state they are open source, under the GPL, and yet do not make source code available.
Here's one example.
http://audiobookcutter.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
The company concerned used sourceforge until their product was ready, then moved it onto their own site, changing the product to a free, but feature reduced version, and a paid for full feature version. The source code has never been made a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They can do that because they own the copyright because they wrote it. It may or may not violate Sourceforge's TOS, but that's a completely different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
But the company concerned can't do anything about people downloading the source while it was still under GPL and now redistributing it or modify it on their own. Those people got a copy under GPL, and this entitles them to use the copy to their will as long as they comply with the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
One cannot enter into a contract with one's self. Just a little FYI there.
C//
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The end user, on the other hand, has to go to the set-top box manufactu
Re: (Score:2)
Quite, but my slighly dodgy understanding of the GPL says that you don't even have to make it available to anyone, just those who "have" (whatever that means - ownership? liense? use?) the binary.
Can someone tell me if I'm reading that one right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They need to provide only in case if it was modified.
This is completely false. A distributor of GPL software must *ALWAYS* provide sources, in some way acceptable to the GPL. Whether the software is modified or not is irrelevant.
The only case where this duty can be discharged without actually providing source-code, on media or download, is not open to commercial redistributors OR to redistributors who had the source. So an STB manufacturer is disqualified, independently, in two different ways from availing
Re: (Score:3)
Humm, I thought you can download the source deb and build the binary package yourself, thus you get the source if you want it.
And you do need to provide the source, when asked for, if you distribute the binary. Distributing is the keyword, not modifying or making derivate works.
This makes downloading GPL binaries over bittorrent troublesome because everybody becomes a distributor of the app and must provide sourcecode, though I think it was fixed in GPLv3.
GPL doesn't extend to the application (Score:2, Informative)
most STBs that i am familiar with are largely stock linux builds, running a proprietry IPTV application on top. The GPL does not requre a standalone application that sits on the linux box be distributed as source code
gpl-violations.org (Score:2, Informative)
Notify the authors (Score:5, Informative)
Unlike Linus, they are pretty strict on companies infringing on the GPL, and have sued (and won) several times.
Take a look at gpl-violations.org [gpl-violations.org] or google "busybox gpl violation" for more information.
Re:Notify the authors (Score:5, Informative)
From busybox.net:
"The email address gpl@busybox.net is the recommended way to contact the Software Freedom Law Center to report BusyBox license violations."
Contacting the busybox developers and the SFLC is the first to do. Then post all information you know at the technical mailing list of gpl-violations.org.
thats at least what i did to get to the Hammer MyShare GPL sources -> http://blog.nas-central.org/2008/06/18/on-the-news-gpl-violation-of-bell-supermico/
Really now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you checked /src/? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an asinine thing to say but, if they just dropped their source for the shipping product in the /src dir like most linux distros do for whatever version kernel they're using, shouldn't it then put it in line with the GPL?
Re:Have you checked /src/? (Score:5, Informative)
First place I checked actually =)
The system only comes with 60MB of non-volatile flash on a jffs(2) filesystem and 32MB are free.
Big Companies and Hotshot Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
- Bully Open Source developers
- Bully your employees
- Bully your customers when they ask for the source
- ...
- Profit!
And then "meet the SFLC!"GPL requires source code with distribution (Score:2, Informative)
If you distribute someone's code which is under GPL, then you have to make available the source code.
You don't have to make available your own source code unless your code is a derivative of GPL code.
In this instance, they should be supplying the source code to the kernel and any other GPL applications they have bundled. That's the whole point to OpenSource and the GPL.
If they have altered the Kernel or BusyBox, which are both GPL'd, they have to release those alterations when they distribute. They don't ha
I use GPL code, but I don't understand the licence (Score:2)
If I use GPL code, I must provide the GPL code that I use.
If I code my own stuff using GPL, my code isn't automatically GPL too.
So if I make an game with security through obscurity, but use GPL code, I'm fine right? Or am I wrong, and all code I write using GPL code suddenly becomes GPL too?
Re: (Score:2)
security thru obscurity is bad in general, do it right! if your security can't handle source code examination it wont handle some hacker poking in the binary
Re: (Score:2)
If you use GPL code then yes your code must be GPLed to avoid violating the license for the code you use.
You can however use LGPL code, which most libraries are.
PHB (Score:4, Funny)
I'd be a Pointy Haired Boss and comply with any request for GPL'd code by sending the requester the code...printed on paper. ;)
Re:PHB (Score:5, Informative)
I know you're joking, but section 6 of the GPL prevents this most commonly by using the phrase: "on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange."
The GPL is a very carefully written document.
Re:PHB (Score:5, Interesting)
It is, isn't it? While Richard Stallman certainly did not write all of it, the document shows his experience and intelligence at dealing with odd interactions. It's what I'd expect from someone so deeply involved in creating gcc and glibc and emacs, and the development of so many other GNU software tools.
Richard does not put in the odd language or strange requirements for no reason: he's usually quite correct in being paranoid of those strange cases, because as an experienced programmer and now an experienced political activist he's seen compelling reasons to handle them specifically. It's why code by older programmers often is longer and more extensive than the simpler, cleaner, but more trusting software written by less experienced developers. The new developers with exciting new approaches often haven't learned the lessons of our experience, and by the time they've done all the patching to avoid the same pitfalls, their code will be as arcane as ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately the GPL uses the word 'reasonable' in a few places to get around attempts at this sort of obfuscation :)
About 2 years ago I was approached by a company that wanted some changes made some in house software. The programmer had left and couldn't be re-employed to make the changes (he was pensioned off
Paper can be machine readable... (Score:2)
Ok then. Punchcards it is!
Re: (Score:2)
Paper tape! (With barcode indexing)
Only copyright holders have standing here (Score:2)
If you do not hold a copyright in the material being distributed, you lack legal standing to enforce the license. That may be the reason why they are ignoring you. You need to contact someone who is a pertinent copyright holder and who is interested in enforcing the license to his or her work.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't actually lack legal standing to enforce the license... but he does lack legal standing to bring a claim of copyright infringement.
If they admit they are distributing the software under the GPL then anyone who receives it has enough standing to enforce the license.
It is when they say "no, we don't want to follow the GPL" that you need one of the original copyright holders to jump in. This usually doesn't happen as most companies realize this is an astronomically bad idea.
Point being... he actuall
Wording (Score:2)
I don't think they're in violation unless they deny a request for the source code.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they're in violation unless they deny a request for the source code.
You think wrong. The GPL says the notice must be published "conspicuously and appropriately".
But even if the GPL didn't say this, you'd still be wrong - because the GPL also says that you must *provide* the source. It does not say a request has to be made first.
In any resulting copyright case, do you *honestly* believe that a judge would say "oh, well they threw the letters in the garbage, that means they're not in violation"??!?!
Make sure to notify the FSF and gpl-violations.org (Score:5, Interesting)
FSF and gpl-violations.org are co-operating closely. gpl-violations and FSF have handled some cases regarding busybox before and have handled them successfully (i.e., out-of-court settlements have been achieved).
And a settlement resulting in GPL compliance - that's what enforcing the GPL is all about.
As Eben Moglen, legal counsel to the FSF for many years, put it (in a keynote address in October 2006):
---
When I went to work for Richard Stallman in 1993, he said to me at the first instruction over enforcing the GPL, "I have a rule. You must never let a request for damages interfere with a settlement for compliance."
I thought about that for a moment and I decided that that instruction meant that I could begin every telephone conversation with a violator of the GPL with magic words: We don't want money. When I spoke those words, life got simpler. The next thing I said was, We don't want publicity.
The third thing I said was, We want compliance. We won't settle for anything less than compliance, and that's all we want.
Now I will show you how to make that ice in the wintertime. And so they gave me compliance.
---
http://www.geof.net/blog/2006/12/10/eben-moglen [geof.net]
Not the first time (Score:5, Informative)
P903iTV mobile phone (Score:3, Interesting)
Different product, but I've seen and heard indications that my Docomo P903iTV by panasonic is running on top of Linux. I can't find any mention of Linux in the manuals, let alone an offer of source for the kernel, etc., or any indication of a way to access a shell, etc.
There is a java API, called, I think, iAppli. I haven't found much on getting dev stuff for it in the manuals, but it can be found on the web. I think. I haven't actually tried it yet, and it doesn't look like they make it easy to figure out where to start.
While I'm complaining, the USB adaptor is "not guaranteed to work with Macs or Linux". The sales guy I talked to seemed almost proud to say that and seemed quite anxious to discourage me from buying the adaptor to see if I can even mount the internal flash or the microSD card. I let him discourage me because money is really tight.
If anyone knows anything about this phone, I'd appreciate some pointers.
Lousy Japanese market. The government promotes Linux. Industry likes Linux in industry as long as it's nowhere near the consumer market. Marketing is strictly under the thumb of Microsoft/iNTEL. Can't get a Linux eeePC (not that I'm that anxious to buy an iNTEL processor) in Japan because "this is Japan, of course!" (Implicitly, otaku are expected to be happy to pay the Microsoft tax.)
Re: (Score:2)
[...] Panasonic [...]
Panasonic as well as several other Jap CE producers maintain their own distribution for such embedded products. It is all done under roof of CE Linux Forum [celinuxforum.org]. Probably you can Google for more info.
Last time I read, their goal was not to fork and to distance themselves from the development - but to simplify communication with Linux community.
Chances are good that recent Linux kernels do support embedded device in your TV without extra patches.
Enforce? That's eeeevil! (Score:3, Insightful)
How can we decry copyrights as evil, when we keep trying to enforce the GPL? What if a company wants to use that piece of code, and not release the source for it? Information wants to be free, you know.
Re:Enforce? That's eeeevil! (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL uses copyright law to turn that situation around, effectively guaranteeing the freedoms of the end-user.
There is no contradiction.
However, if they wish to distribute it to end-users beyond themselves, then they must ensure that those end users are given the same amount of Freedom that the company received.
GPL Requirements (Score:2)
The GPL does not require you make the source availible to everyone. It requires you make the source availible to anyone to whom you provide the software. Since you said you have one of these boxes you must have the software on it and are thefore entitled to the source code from the provider of the box, where as say I am not.
There is no need at all for them to host the source on the web. They just have to make the source availible to you in the cononical form (not exactly the words in the license) if you
why are YOU trying to enforce it? (Score:3, Interesting)
you're like the guy on the Garden State Parkway who drives 65 in the left lane to keep everyone else from speeding. at most you should drop a note to the copyright holders, and then stay the hell out of it.
They are in TROUBLE (Score:3, Insightful)
The Busybox devs are a hyper-active active enforcer of the GPL, and it's amazing that anyone still tries to get around it with that project. These guys sue everybody who misues their work, and has been very successful in that effort.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
that's a lie. You can't point at someone else's FTP site, there's also requirements for being able to reproduce binaries (this can include system images). They don't have to provide the sources for free, but they can't charge a profit for it.
Giving someone the binaries means you need to make the sources availiable to them, including build tools a lot of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't point at someone else's FTP site
You can, there's nothing that prevent you from doing this if it works. Or actually 99% of people will be happy with this and you can send the source on a CD to the other 1% that want to be annoying.
Here's what the GPLv2 says about this :
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you didn't follow "b" closely. If you don't have an official relationship with that FTP site, you aren't even close to compliance- item "b" clearly states you have to provide the copy. Pointing someone to an FTP site that you have no official relationship (they don't know about you or haven't stated that they're providing the sources for you) isn't sufficient, even though it may "work" and is "convenient". It's not really compliance with that term of the GPL licensing grant.
Re:They is no such requirement... (Score:5, Informative)
When you think about it, it makes sense. Even if they base their software off a distribution from a known source that source might not be around when it is needed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to provide the source themselves. They could say "send us $2 and we will mail you it on CD, or alternatively, download version 2.6.15 from kernel.org". Most people will be quite happy to download, but you must provide the source yourself for anyone who wants to be difficult
Re:They is no such requirement... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like you need to take the GPL quiz [gnu.org]. This particular issue is addressed in Question 1 of said quiz.
Don't worry, you're definitely not alone in any misunderstandings of the GPL...lots of people think they understand all the legal aspects of it completely when they don't. I used to be guilty myself. Now I just don't claim to know everything about the GPL ;-).
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that mean that every GPL-project needs to be very very careful and make backups of the source code of all releases, however old?
If someone downloaded binaries without source 15 years ago, you still have to be able to give him the source code for that version (if I understand everything correctly). How many projects are able to do that? Or can they just give her the source code for a more recent version? What if the project is dead?
And doesn't that mean that even Debian is not 100% following the rule
Re: (Score:2)
If someone downloaded binaries without source 15 years ago, you still have to be able to give him the source code for that version (if I understand everything correctly). How many projects are able to do that? Or can they just give her the source code for a more recent version? What if the project is dead?
No, you only need to provide source for three years from distribution:
GPL, v2, Section 3b:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. In the case of the example, the requirement for keeping source available for that instance is only for three years from the initial release of said binaries- of which, pretty much all the mainline distributions are in compliance.
Re:They is no such requirement... (Score:5, Informative)
No you don't. If you distribute any version of a GPLed piece of software, you must make the source available upon request to the person you distributed it to. Modification is irrelevant. Modification only matters when you modify something for your own use and do not distribute it- then you don't have to provide source because there's no one to provide it to.
However, this does not mean you need to put it up on a webpage for everyone to download, or provide it on the disk. The GPL requires only a written offer of source code upon request, at a cost of no more than shipping and the media. I have no idea if this particular vendor is complying, but not having a link on their webpage does not mean non-compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. If you distribute any version of a GPLed piece of software, you must make the source available upon request to the person you distributed it to. Modification is irrelevant. Modification only matters when you modify something for your own use and do not distribute it- then you don't have to provide source because there's no one to provide it to.
See, are you sure about that?
Because if so, two copyright lawyers have explained things wrong to me, and I am in violation of the GPL.
The only GPL source I have avail on my own website is the one program I modified.
I use other GPL software in the whole package, however my site simply provides URLs to the authors site where the source code is available for download.
I didn't make any modifications, so fail to see how linking to the authors source (the exact copy im running) vs the url pointing to a local cop
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that if your distribution of GPL software is entirely non-commercial, your lawyers thought provision C applied to you. That provision is explicitly left unavailable to commercial distributors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you distribute any version of a GPLed piece of software, you must make the source available upon request to the person you distributed it to. (...) However, this does not mean you need to put it up on a webpage for everyone to download, or provide it on the disk. The GPL requires only a written offer of source code upon request, at a cost of no more than shipping and the media.
You are confused, there are three alternatives:
a) Provide the source with the binaries or a download next to the binaries - only needs to be available for those you give binaries to and as long as the binary download is up.
b) Provide a written offer for source - must be available for 3 years and for anyone, since the offer may be passed on under c)
c) Non-commercially and occasionally - to pass on an offer as given in b)
So you can give it just to those with binaries, but then you must give it or make it ava
Re:To quite true (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you misspelt shit. Seriously, though, so what? Who cares how the GPL makes you feel? This is about a company *choosing* to use the GPL. If you choose to use a GPL'd app you do so in full knowledge of the copyleft restrictions that in requires. If the GPL "makes you angry" you don't use GPL'd applications. It really is that simple. It's easy to avoid the anger - avoid licenses that anger you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more that your post was utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. It was little better than the "M$ is teh suxors" every time there's a post tangentially related to Windows, or "Theo is an asshole" every time there's a BSD story. When the topic is license violation, someone's personal view on the license tends to be regarded as irrelevant at best and trolling at worst, particularly when peppered with "...for the win" and "...for the sux". Let's have a grown-up conversation.
Re: GPL makes me angry. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF?
The GPL applies only to GPL code ... in this case the Linux kernel and the Busybox code. It is a license that lets some people, who did not write that code, nevertheless use the code ... often without any fee. The only "restriction or rule" is that the code must not be hidden if you re-distribute it. Since you received the source code yourself, and you did not write it ... you are obliged to give it to other people under those same conditions.
Why should there not be such a condition? It isn't your code, you didn't write it ... and the source is already public anyway so how on earth does it hurt you to give the source out when you distribute your product?
Re: GPL makes me angry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ikarys, you either have a lot of fun trolling this way, or you've not looked into the history of the GPL and the other licenses. Your posting history shows that you enjoy doing these drive-by instigations, but nevertheless, some newer folks on Slashdot may not know enough to realize why some folks say this.
GPL was formed to protect developers and users against restrictive licenses that prevented them from seeing or modifying their programs. It's a bit paranoid, but with reason. The DRM being inflicted on software, the security by obscurity, the locking in of software by refusing to permit non-vendor software to be installed, the refusal to allow others to modify and publish the software, all have been a real problem with other licenses.
GPL has effectively prevent hardware/software lockins, by Netgear and Linksys. The new GPLv3 will block patent lockins, such as those espoused by Microsoft, and DRM lockins, used by Tivo. None of the other licenses would have prevented this. We've also seen very specific abuses of the other licenses already, such as the Microsoft abuse of the MIT license on Kerberos to break non-Microsoft published Kerberos clients. And the GPL has already helped several companies that I'm aware of from simply adding on their own modifications, refusing to publish their modifications, deliberately making it inoperable with other's versions, and locking clients in this way.
The GPL protects the freedom of users, and other developers. The sacrifice of what is not freedom over the software, but power over its modification, comes at the benefit of retaining such power over the rest of GPL freedom, and I find it very handy.
Re: (Score:2)
MIT and BSD licenses are "free" for the developer wanting to use the code. The GPL license is "free" for the user using the code and wanting to look at it to learn something or become a developer. With GPL code, some developers are a bit, pardon my language, fucked when it comes to using the code for anything they wanted. Still, they can, e.g. contact the developers of the GPL code for LGPL dual-licensing for them or something like that. It happens. On the other hand, with BSD and MIT code taken by $BAD_BIG
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit amazed at the flamebait vote I got, my intent wasn't to piss people off, just to voice my dislike, and my preference for the other "better" (imho) free licenses. GPL feels very much like DRM... a set of restrictions which mean I can't use the software.
(bold added by me)
Either confusion still, or poor selection of words.
The GPL covers nothing about using the software. It grants you the right that copyright restricts, so you are allowed to make a copy into memory to run it, and all of that. And there are no restrictions at all there.
The only restrictions are when you plan to distribute GPL software, at which point there are a number of things you must do to be compliant with the license.
It's quite possible that is what you meant, and due to the restrict
Re: (Score:2)
Depends whether you think freedom to restrict other peoples' freedoms is freedom.
Re: GPL makes me angry. (Score:4, Informative)
I think it's real easy:
If you're an end user of GPL code, you're always free to modify and improve it.
If you're an end user of BSD code, you can't do anything with it. Oh sure I can maybe somehow, somewhere find the BSD source code that the proprietary tool is using somewhere, but I still couldn't incorporate any changes in any way. With BSD you only have freedom if you use pure BSD software with source. If you restrict yourself to pure BSD software, the BSD license works like a really crappy version of the GPL. The BSD license benefits those who produce software, for each non-free software copy the company sells the company and its employees benefit and the end-users and society loses. Thanks, but it gives me no comfort to know this leash was made with Open Source(tm).
Re: (Score:2)
Clever troll, you're almost right. Here's what the GPL, v.2 (the version Linux is licensed under) does say:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Irrelevant. If they distribute binaries without providing access to source they violate the GPL. The 'We only do hardware' argument is utterly bogus.
If they shipped copies of Windows on there in violation of the license do you think that Microsoft would accept such an argument? Same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
more... [motorola.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a perfectly good product? It relies on illegal copies of software to run.
Re: (Score:2)