DrDOS Inc Breaking GPL

Bob Dobbs writes "DR-DOS 8.1 (DrDOS Inc) came out at the begining of this month, however instead of an upgrade to DR-DOS 8.0 the new product is based on work available on the internet. The work includes shareware utilities, a badly patched version of the kernel work by Udo Kuhnt, drivers (Samsung, ESS) and utilities from FreeDOS and others (e.g. pkzip). Full information on the FreeDOS site. (Cheers FreeDOS!)"

And this Suprises anyone HOW ?

[MajorDick]

I mean, Caldera, err...SCO

The funny thing is DrDOS was Sued , pre Caldera, and won, then Sued MS once (or right before) Caldera Bought it, I think Caldera pulled something like 200 Mil if I remeber out of the suit against MS

Maybe we should have taken it as a sign of things to come

Dell?

[GrEp]

Doesn't Dell sell some computers with DrDOS? You might try harrasing Dell's lawyers about it. You would probably get a much quicker response. I don't think Dell will be happy knowing that one of their vendors is giving them "pirated" software to install.

Re:mod me redundant but...

[Lumpy]

no mod you somewhat oblivious.

sorry but you cant SELL the sourcecode under the GPL, you have to give it to me freely. and that webpage talks about pricing for access to the sourcecode. Most likely for their closed source items.

nowhere do they offer the sourcecode to the GPL products nor admit that any gpl items in DRDOS exist.

Re:This is bad?

[complexmath]

It's one thing to play a copy of a Michael Jackson CD and enjoy it. It's another to play that CD for a friend and tell them you just recorded it in the studio. In the first case, Mr. Jackson is getting credit for having produced the music, and may be indirectly gaining fans (and therefore potential revenue) as a result. In the second, the artist is getting no credit for having created the material. This comparison roughly applies to software copyrights, though attributing the use of libraries with software typically requires the company's legal team and often adding stuff to documentation that no one wants there. I've had to avoid the use of some very popular free software before simply because legal refused to put the required blurb where it needed to be.

Re:This is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP!

Yes, the DRDOS guys are violating the GNU GPL, and all that's required here to make amends is to comply with the GNU GPL. Include a copy of the license, and (at least) make an offer to distribute source code upon written (email) request. If they even mentioned that users could download a copy of the same program + source that they used from the FreeDOS web site, but they would still make a copy for you if you wanted it, I think that would satisfy the GNU GPL (section 3).

DrDos Source Code

[graemecoates]

Having looked at the DR-DOS pages, there's a link to "Source Code" (here [drdos.com]).

"Email [e-mail]" regarding source code so the site says. However, if there's no GPL file included then it'd be a breach.

Additionally, from TFA, it'd be interesting to see whether the distribution breaks the terms of the two shareware products that have apparently been included. (Ranish Partition Manager 2.44 & PKZIP 2.04g by PKWARE)

Re:People use DOS?

[Cramer]

A little company called ThinkNIC did the same thing with Linux. (they used a tiny mediagx system complete with a freakin' winmodem.) It'd likely take the same amount of work to build a linux image from scratch, but it'd be much easier to maintain once you had it in hand. (Seriously. Who makes DOS drivers anymore?)

It's too damned early here

[RLiegh]

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I may be wrong; but here's what I understand of the issue:

1)OpenDOS is released circa 1996 by Caldera, with source code for the kernel included. Not sure under what license, but I don't think it was GNU/GPL (correct me if I'm wrong).

2)Someone starts independent work on the OpenDOS source code and creates several revisions.
But relicenses under the GPL

3)A company named Device Logics comes along, buys the rights to DR-DOS from Lineo (who was split off from Caldera a couple of years before they became SCO) and releases a new version (8)

4)THe guy independently working on the kernel releases Fat32 inhancements, which are snatched (against the terms of teh GPL) by DR-DOS nee' Device Logics

5)According to the letter by Jim Hall ITFA they also distribute two FreeDOS programs without providing source (this is cut and dried; the maintainers of those programs clearly have a case there; but I'm mentioning this for completeness).

SOooooooo, what I wonder is this: if the Original IP belonged to Caldera (and now, through aquisition, DR-DOS inc) aren't they free to do with it -and with derived products as
they see fit?

If TFA is true, I don't have a really high opinion of these guys (charging $45 for a couple of 3rd-party kernel inhancements and distributing GNU software illictly -without source); but look back at the original license for the kernel source and I bet you ten to one that there is a clause in there which allows this behavior by the owner of the DR DOS code base.

Re:eula and gpl

[dwandy]

perhaps b/c certain (portions of) certain eula's have been found unenforceable, but the gpl has never been found unenforceable?
search "Eben Moglen" for more...

Illegal vs. Against the terms of the license

[iambarry]

IANAL (BIWIW)...

Illegal means that a law has been broken, and implies a violation of criminal law.

AFAIK, violating a license is not illegal. A license is essentially an agreement between two parties (a form of a contract?). Violating the terms is allowed under the law, however there may be specific consequences of violating terms.

Am I being too picky? Anybody out there that IAL want to correct my ignorance?

--Barry

Re:It's too damned early here

[jdavidb]

As far as I know, there is no Caldera IP in FreeDOS. I think you are conflating FreeDOS and OpenDOS. In particular, I think you're confused on point #2, which may or may not have happened, but was not the genesis of FreeDOS.

Re:bah, here we go again

[mrchaotica]

Actually, there is an explicit statement in the GPL to that effect. Namely, term 5:

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Re:This is bad?

[Ancil]

complying with the GPL only involves them distributing things they already have and can reproduce at no cost to their customers.

Yes, and complying with Sony Pictures' license only involves forking over ten bucks.

There are some things which are acceptable to demand and some which aren't.

Well unless you're a pretty hard-code Socialist, demanding money in exchange for goods and services is "acceptable".

If I want someone to fix my roof or give me a new car, chances are they will demand money in return. Is that "acceptable"?

The songs and movies this guy is downloading from Russian piracy sites didn't just appear from thin air. Real people had to go to work every day to produce them. These people put a lot of work into making music and video products which the original poster desires; why shouldn't they get payed for their work?

Re:Illegal vs. Against the terms of the license

[n0nsensical]

Noncompliance with the terms of the license makes copying and distributing the code copyright infringement, which is illegal.

Re:But they're different companies now!

[John Harrison]

Unless you've lived in Utah you still don't get it. It goes above and beyond anything I've seen elsewhere. Not only are the streets all numbered logically, but the house numbers fall between the street numbers. Thus you know that an address such as 1153 East 600 South is on the street 600 South and between the streets 1100 East and 1200 East. You even know that it is on the north side of the road. The simplicity of it is wonderful.