GPL Violations By D-Link and Boxee 251
An anonymous reader submitted a link to a bit of a rant on GPL issues connected to D-Link and Boxee. They spend quite a bit of time explaining "Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device."
don't ever trust promises of new features (Score:5, Insightful)
some of the complaints are that promised features were never implemented. learned this a long time ago. buy on the feature set at the time of sale, don't ever trust a company to implement new promised features. after the sale they are thinking about selling the next version, not paying developers to code software you already paid for
Re:don't ever trust promises of new features (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:don't ever trust promises of new features (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or an elf.
Re:don't ever trust promises of new features (Score:4, Interesting)
Add in all the problems that the networks are throwing at Boxee and the other network devices and they have a big fight in their hands. I do find this flame post most amusing because he is screaming about a lack of openness as well as the lack of DRM filled streaming services. Odds are very high that the media companies are requiring the locks for security as well as the causing the delay of services!
In other words just get a Roku box. Mine works great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't ever trust a company
I think you could have shortened it to that. A company has one goal: make money. As a general rule, everything not stipulated in the contract is something they can and will stiff you on if the PR won't be too bad, and everything stipulated in the contract is something they can and will stiff you on if the ensuing lawsuit won't be too bad.
no GPL issue with tivoization (Score:5, Informative)
First: there is no issue with GPL and tivoization. GPLv2 allows it and GPLv3 forbids it, full stop. It is as clear as day and every developer can make an informed choice as to what he/she wants to allow with the code.
Now it seems that these things include GPG that is under GPLv3. So it looks an awful lot as a violation, if confirmed. At the same time it seems that the program was removed by online firmware updates, so everything would be kosher for the GPLv3 (that gives the option to stop distributing the offending code and be legally safe)
GPL issue with tivoization (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note, Tivo Inc. is losing customers, and every useless Tivo sitting unsold at a yard sale is a message to consumers that a Tivo box is worthless. If Tivo Inc. were to provide some small amount of functionality for these machi
Re: (Score:2)
Tivo has been relatively stagnant in a market driven by ambitious early adopters on one side and completely apathetic consumers on the other.
Instead of moving their own technology forward, they chose to try to enforce a bogus monopoly based on patents they never should have been granted.
Meanwhile, most consumers really couldn't care less about paying extra money to buy a Tivo and are more than willing to use the device provided by the cable company or even sit through commercials and "channel surf". Plus yo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think obsolete means what you think it means.
I have 2 analog Series 2 TiVos running right now, and they do everything they were advertised to do.
Re: (Score:3)
I've tried some of the cable-company TiVo knock-offs, and they are substantially inferior. It is amazing to me that
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv2 didn't "Allow" what Tivo did, it overlooked it. Once Tivo Inc. showed GNU just how evil a corporation can be, they had to spend time and money creating GPLv3, time and money that could have been spent actually doing something, instead had to be spent on lawyering.
It's a license - if they didn't include specific restrictions or terms than it is allowable.
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv2 didn't "Allow" what Tivo did, it overlooked it. Once Tivo Inc. showed GNU just how evil a corporation can be, they had to spend time and money creating GPLv3, time and money that could have been spent actually doing something, instead had to be spent on lawyering.
By "GNU", do you mean FSF (since those are the guys who wrote GPLv3)?
If so, then what, apart from lawyering and propaganda, do they actually do that would qualify as "doing something"?
Re: (Score:3)
Rephrase ; the authors of GPL v2 overlooked the practice of tivoization because at the time of writing, it was unknown.
The stated purpose of the GPL was to retain the right for users to modify software that was distributed to them to serve their own needs, under that license. Tivo managed to find a way around that - modifying the software they shipped was possible, but pointless, because the Tivo hardware would refuse to load binaries unless they were signed with a cryptographic key only known to Tivo Inc.
A
Re: (Score:2)
As you note, this was not illegal, since Tivo Inc. complied with the license in so far as they distributed the sources they changed for use in their product. On the other hand, the practice was clearly not in line with the spirit of the GPL license and thus the spirit in which that software was offered. Morals are not as black and white as the law, I'll grant you, but I don't think you'll find many who think that shipping a device dependent on a stack of software licensed in a way designed to promote the freedom to tinker, but with a lock on it that prevents any such tinkering, is an unassailable moral position.
No, it's not an "unassailable moral position." TIVO complied with the terms and made the software available - you are free to do whatever you want with it; including creating hardware to run it. I find unreasonable the idea that using software under the gpl requires you to make your hardware open to modified versions as well. Clearly, some people don't agree and thus we have v3.
Ultimately, I think v3 is counterproductive if the goal is to increase the acceptance of OSS. Separate from the licensing issue t
Re: (Score:2)
Except they are still distributing GPLv3 code.
The fact you can "factory reset" the box and the GPLv3 binary is still present implies that they are still distributing GPLv3 code (it would be interesting to get a recently made Boxee box and see if they are still distributing this obsolete firmware version). Even if it was "removed" by a firmware update, that does not change their responsibilities for "correcting" the license violations of the past: further, the fact that the binaries are still present and ab
Re: (Score:2)
Dirty Tricks Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Did someone at Boxee actually edit a forum post to change the author's intent?
Forum Post Screenshots [infinityoverzero.com]
Is Boxee's operation really this shady?
DLink has a ... history (Score:3)
DLink has a history [gpl-violations.org] of GPL violation in the past. I am frankly not one bit surprised...
Wording (Score:2)
"tivoization"-- Nice word.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd get one (Score:4, Insightful)
...If it was "hackable". But it seems that hardware makers today want more than selling you their product. They want to make sure you don't use it unless it's in a way they approve of.
For now, I have alternatives (buy something else), but I am afraid my daughter will not have that option.
Re: (Score:2)
But it seems that hardware makers today want more than selling you their product. They want to make sure you don't use it unless it's in a way they approve of.
This isn't new; companies have always tried to make more by controlling their product after the sale. What's new is including a "service" attached to every product, so they have a new legal basis for demanding control. Adding a service isn't exclusive to computers and software either, it's the same strategy that "voiding the warranty" was in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure she will. But I'm definitely teaching her that there are different ways of doing things, and sometimes they are more efficient, challenging or outright fun.
She most likely won't pursue a career in CS, but the value of hacking goes beyond that.
On a side note, I can't help noticing that my complaint is extremely similar to the ones I remember from the electronics enthusiasts in the 90s. Funny, it seems our time has come.
Companies have become serious about GPL compliance (Score:4, Interesting)
My consulting firm helps law firms and their customers come into compliance with the GPL and other Free Software licenses - both before and after they distribute the product. I can tell you they do take it seriously when they run into trouble, because there is not just the threat of a lawsuit, but the threat of having infringing products prohibited from being imported into the nations where they wish to sell them.
What a lot of companies are having problems with is establishing a compliance program before they get that letter from the Software Freedom Conservancy (which has sued about 40 companies, no kidding). Too many of them fix the problem after it's happened.
Tivo-ization is not one of the things the companies are in trouble for, because the software in question is under GPL2, not GPL3. The problems are from simple non-compliance with the license terms.
I just sold mine because I couldn't install XBMC (Score:2)
I just sold mine because I couldn't install XBMC on it. They (Boxee) made it seem like the new D-Link Box was going to be hacker friendly and it's far from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhypK3egeQ [youtube.com]
TiVo has a valid point in securing their platform! (Score:2, Redundant)
TiVo would be obsolete if it publicly allowed modification of its software, because Cable Labs would withdraw TiVo's permission to transfer recordings in any capacity. And this capability is one of the reasons I will never use a cable company or IPTV's inferior DVR solution. The TiVo software is outdated (granted, I do not own a TiVo premiere, because without the OLED front display, I view it as a downgrade), but it still does what it does better than anything else on the market. I do not get why people rag
Re:Yeah? (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL is based on copyright, dictating the rules by which the work can be transferred (or sold, or given). It's the same as breaking the Microsoft EULA when you pirate your Windows copy.
Surely, there may be not enough GPL authors going after people breaking their licenses, but it falls on the same category [I *think* the FSF sometimes offers legal help for those trying to sue companies to enforce their GPL-licensed products.]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's the same as breaking the Microsoft EULA when you pirate your Windows copy.
No. An EULA takes away rights on something you bought, the GPL gives you rights on something you've copied for free (or bought for money, but GPL gives you the right to copy it for free after that).
Pretty harsh characterization (Score:2)
an EULA spells out the terms under which your bought something.
It does not 'take away rights' it identifies purchase terms you agree to (even if you don't agree with them)
Re:Pretty harsh characterization (Score:4, Informative)
Then why aren't the terms provided at the time of purchase?
Last time I bought software at a retail store, nobody asked me if I agreed to any terms before I paid for it.
Let me guess... some judge somewhere says that the purchase is not complete until I proceed to install the software, and it asks me to agree to the EULA. If I don't agree, I'm free to return the software or not use it. Even if the retailer won't allow the return (the box is open) and the manufacturer directs me to the retailer.
If you can't tell, I have little respect for EULAs.
Re: (Score:2)
An EULA defines the terms under which the copyright holder allows you to use their work, for which you may or may not have paid money for.
Just like the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
That is incorrect. The GPL puts no restrictions on use, ONLY on copying. Thus, it relies on copyright and not the (legally dubious IMO) EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
SOmething they have no right to do, unless it is proffered up before a plain old sale is made.
Additionally: you appear to be clueless about what hte GPL actually does. THe GPL gives you rights to copy something you have acquired. EULAs attempt to restrict your rights to use the product you legally bought over the counter by pretending it is a "licence", and attempting to hold you to the terms of a contract you never saw.
Re:Yeah? (Score:4, Informative)
This is why the FSF asks for copyright assignment in GNU projects. They become party to the license, and can act on its infringement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By whom? Maybe the EFF.
I think part of the problem is that, to the best of my knowledge, the GPL hasn't been fully tested in court, and there is no single body (and certainly not with a lot of resources) who can police this. I'm not even sure the EFF has standing to sue everybody who might do this ... unless the GPL says they're the effective copyright holders for everything GPL'd, short of an amicus curiae the EFF d
it HAS been tested as far as I remember (Score:3)
Quick Google Search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court [wikipedia.org]
http://techrights.org/2007/11/23/gpl-court-test/ [techrights.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And, from your own link [techrights.org]:
A settlement with a comment from the judge saying "she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license".
Some guy was denied standing to sue since he didn't establish a valid anti-trust claim.
In one case a judge ruled "the GPL was not material to a case dealing with trade secrets derived from GPL-licensed work".
A legal precedent in Germany.
Apparently BusyBox has mostly settled, and agreed to release code.
Again, Linsys and Cisco settled.
As much as we all would like to GPL uph
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to offer some of the things I've read about in the past when I researched the GPL license and it's history in court. I'm pretty sure I read a much more thorough article involving GPL related disputes but, as you say, it might not be sufficient depending on the case, the jurisdiction and the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that seems to be the crux of the problem. Lots of people write what essentially amount to opinion pieces ... but depending on the case, the lawyers, and the judge I fear there might be far too many grey areas in which the GPL might be only partly (or not at all) enforced.
It would be nice to think that you could
Re: (Score:3)
It would be nice to think that you could pretty much say "we've proven they're not adhering to the GPL, the GPL is backed with copyright law, therefore they need to be censured" -- I'm just not sure you might not find yourself fighting Microsoft or some other large company for years, only for them to say "OK, we'll release 4 year old code, and we'll give you $200 for your legal defense fund, but we admit no wrong doing".
Except by violating GPL they never had the right to distribute, and are legally responsible for distributing. Agreeing to distribute code is not a remedy, nor can the plaintiff demand that they distribute code. Ceasing distribution and paying damages for each copy improperly distributed is a remedy. In practice, most plaintiffs will accept an undisclosed cash settlement and an agreement for them to follow the license in the future which is why we've never seen a full test in the courts.
I once had a mee
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA:
The Truth
Your Boxee Box was shipped containing GPLv3 software. You should be able to install modified versions of software to your Boxee Box.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet he doesn't even name a single piece of this GPLv3 software that Boxee uses. The entirety of his proof is:
Once you have a command prompt on your Boxee Box, type “gpgv2 --help” et voila, you are greeted with the GPLv3 header.
Wow, soooo convincing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea, notice step 1: Reset your box to factory default. The only GPLv3 piece of software on the box is GPG, and it was removed in a firmware update, so the case here is extremely weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as weak as it may seem.
Being as they distributed gpgv2, which is licensed under the GPLv3, means that somebody can make a claim for the cryptographic keys required to make gpgv2 run on the target hardware. The fact they removed it in a software upgrade doesn't change the fact that a GPLv3-licensed binary was distributed: the fact that the binary is still on the machine (and able to be restored by a factory reset) actually proves that GPLv3 code is likely STILL being distributed.
It's a lot more than a
Re: (Score:3)
> there is an actionable claim here for a license violation.
Sounds like the license violation has already been cured - if they have stopped distributing the software and removed from existing installations best they can with updates.
If they haven't acutally stopped distributing, then the copyright holder could sue them to get them to either a) come into compliance or b) stop distributing. Looks like we know what they will do, since they've already gone down that route.
Question is, is it worth suing them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if any virus scanners can be set to detect GPL code to keep your product/project from being infected.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if there was no GPLv3 code on the device, then in precisely what way would it have the header for GPLv3 in the device?
That would imply two broad conclusions:
1) Boxee is including license headers for software they don't ship, just in case you would like to be able t
Re:No GPL-3 software means no violation (Score:4, Informative)
Almost no software, and certainly no major projects. Except, of the top of my head: GCC, GPG and Samba
Re: (Score:2)
That was my tought too ... GCC and Samba.
Interestingly enough, notice the major players in this industry which are pretty good at supporting OSS are also moving away from ... GCC and Samba ... to things that don't have such restrictions.
The major products are free to use GPLv3, but the writing is on the wall, they're going to lose support from the big guns and be replaced by alternatives without those restrictions. Basically cutting of their nose to spite their on face.
Re: (Score:2)
By 'major players' you mean Apple. One company does not a trend start.
Yeah, can't see Apple capable of starting a trend really.
That touchscreen pinch-zoom phone thingy never took off, and those big tablet things are just dead in the water - no one's copying them.
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically GPL is a violation of my rights to publ,ish source code and make money off of it. No one has the right to force me to release my developed code for free.
You're under no obligation to release your code under the GPL. You can release it under any licence you want. If you choose not to abide by the GPL, you cannot base your software on GPLed code. Go and write your own software from scratch, and don't steal mine.
Re: (Score:2)
While I get the humor of your trolling, how does any of that say that GPL is or isn't free, or how is that even part of the discussion?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not in the spirit of free software to mop up "free" code and turn around and slap it into a proprietary product.
It's like eating fruit without planting a seed.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody said you can use it as you see fit.
GPL says you can use it as you see fit providing you give the same freedom to anyone you distribute the software (the original, or your modification of the original) to.
If you find this a great burden then don't use the GPL software and stop whining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should look at licenses that don't place any restriction on what people do with your code.
Then, once you've got a really great project, I'll take it, place it under my own licence that forbids you from even mentioning it again, and call it my own. Since I can afford scarier lawyers than you, there's nothing you can do about it.
How does that sound?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should look at licenses that don't place any restriction on what people do with your code.
Then, once you've got a really great project, I'll take it, place it under my own licence that forbids you from even mentioning it again, and call it my own.
With many licenses, you could redistribute the software with a new license, but you're making it sound like you could change the license of the original (which you can't). You can place your copy under whatever restrictive license you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the original is still free (and the original author probably owns the copyright).
Since I can afford scarier lawyers than you, there's nothing you can do about it.
Having scarier lawyers has nothing to do with it. BSD-style intentionally let other people re-license the code, because some people want their code to be
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me. My lawyers will just ask for 10 times possible damages, and I'll be able to retire.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL is not free in the same way that I'm not "free" to murder you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole aside, they are in fact the same principle.
No, actually they're completely different. One is committing violence, while the other involves a voluntary acceptance of goods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See you in five years once you have a working implementation!--all harshness aside, you're free to have no connection to foss.
Consigning somebody to a sort of 'siberia' because they don't follow the party line seems a bit... well, stalinist.
I was going to misspell it 'stallmanist' but decided not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy, do not link to GPL code. You ask for your rights but do not want to respect the rights of the GPL code authors?, When you link to GPL code, nobody is forcing you to release your code, your decision to link and use GPL and distribute it is what force you to do that, do not want to do it? do not take the decision to use GPL code in your software
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry we are violating your liberty by preventing you from committing rape and murder.
Fortunately, we do not use the Marquis de Sade's notion of what liberty means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
-- Carlie Coats
author/distributor of >380,000 lines of GPL/LGPL environmental modeling code
Re: (Score:2)
The same way DRM allows you to play stuff, but it comes with restrictions? You mean that kind of freedom?
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true ... it prevents you from taking code you got under the GPL, modifying it, and releasing it as closed source. You are free to write your own code from scratch. You just can't write derivative works and not play by their terms.
Things like LGPL allow you to use the library to connect to, and the stuff you write is completely your own and you can do anything you like with it.
Yes, that's true. If you want to have your code not be "tainted" by the implied socialism of a license which forces you to share, then don't start with GPL'd code as a base.
You're arguing that you should be able to take the GPL code, modify it, and then change the terms of the license so you don't have to play by the rules. If you want to do that, something like a BSD or an Apache license might be more suited for you. But, just because you want to take GPL stuff and make it not GPL, doesn't mean you have any right to use the code in a way that violates their license.
You are completely free to write something from scratch and not look at anything GPL'd at all. If you don't have the time and energy (or the skillset) to write your own version ... well, nobody is required to provide it to you. You're whining about the GPL being socialist while at the same time acting like it's someone else's responsibility to write the software you base your own off ... which is socialism, but geared to your benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's free as in freedom *for the end users*, not for the person using the code in a commercial product. An end user can freely take the code and do what they want with it, and never release any of their changes. If, however, someone wants to redistribute it (as in, say, a Boxee box) then they need to follow the rules of the GPL & allow the end user the same freedom that they had. It's pretty simple really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the BSD license is more free in one sense, but I also think that the one restriction in the GPL leads to more freedom overall. But really it's just semantics, and you can argue it either way. And I'm sure there will be plenty of that here!
Re: (Score:2)
It's free as in freedom *for the end users*
But that's just a bunch of propaganda, 1984 Newspeak style. Adopt the word "freedom" where it actually means "restrictions". What compels a free man to not copy? What compels a free man to give away source code? Surely it isn't freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
What compels a free man to give away source code? Surely it isn't freedom.
The free man chooses to use the code, and accepts the terms it's offered on. He was free to use it, and needs to allow others the same freedom. If he's not willing to do that, then he can use something else. I agree that it's not absolute freedom, but it's ensuring that the freedom you have enjoyed doesn't end with you.
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes ... that's hard to dispute, and it more or less comes down to some philosophical stuff which not everyone always agrees with.
I guess it depends on "which" version of "free" you mean ... free as in beer, free as in free, free as in Libre, and who knows what else.
BSD is free and unencumbered, and it has its place.
GPL is free almost in the sense that the software itself is "liberated" and has its own rights, intended to ensure that the software remains equally free for anybody who might ever want it, and that you can't take away the rights of the software to remain free -- I like to think of the GPL'd software as almost emancipated and with a stake in things.
Some software is free as in free, but you have no rights to do anything with it or make derivative works.
The GPL is more like a "bill of rights", both for the software and anybody who might like to use it, and is intended to benefit pretty much everybody, in perpetuity, and part of the way it achieves that is to limit the extent to which you can take it and stop adhering to that ideology. Since it uses copyright as its foundation, it necessarily has to retain restrictions to you ... you only have rights to make copies of this work if you adhere to the terms. BSD is more along the lines of "have this for free and do anything you like", no restrictions or limitations, no obligations ... just code to do with as you please.
Unfortunately, the two camps often have very opposite points of view in terms of which is "better" or "more free" -- I've used both fairly extensively, and they each have their place. It's really hard to come down on one side or another without it more or less devolving into screeching monkeys, which is what usually happens when this comes up on Slashdot. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference is that the BSDL affects code you write, and the GPL affects code other people write.
If
Re: (Score:2)
This is clearly not true.
Only if you define freedom in the strictest, purest, most idealistic sense, used by nearly nobody in the real world.
As an American, I don't have the freedom to become someone else's slave, yet I would consider myself to be "free". In the real world, freedom is not an absolute, and there is no government agency declaring what it means to be free or have freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Author of >380,000 lines of GPL/LGPL environmental modeling code.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has the right to force me to release my developed code for free.
You're right. Nobody has the right to do that, IF you developed the code from scratch yourself. If you took someone else's work, which was published under the GPL, and ran with it, however, the original developer has every right to bring you to court and have them force you to release, if not the whole thing, at the very least the relevant sections.
If you don't want to release your stuff, fine, don't. But don't use GPL-protected material during development either!
GPL is really another word for quid pro quo,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, I should be free as in 'no money asked', but I'm not sure about that, it might allow for charging for the code. If it doesn't, you 'pay' back the copying by returning your efforts/improvements/contributions to the commons.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL explicitly doesn't ban selling the product - the FSF has always been very clear on that.
Of course, a side-effect of the GPL is I can buy one copy of a product and release the source code totally free of charge out of the goodness of my heart and there's nothing the person who sold it to me can do. Which means it's vanishingly unlikely anyone will ever have much luck trying to sell GPL'd software.
Re: (Score:2)
That's free, like speech. This is free, like beer. Big difference.
If you've got something against it, use the BSD license, or write your own for all we care.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was free, that payback should be optional as in BSD, not forced as in GPL.
You misunderstand two things:
Basically, under the GPL the software itself is "liberated" (which is commonly called "free") and cannot be "locked up" without a violation of the license.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just referring to the operating principle of torrents: get more by giving back what you have.
Re: (Score:3)
GPL is really another word for socialist run software development.
Actually, 'socialist software development' would be where you let someone else develop the software, then steal it and put your name on it.
Re: (Score:3)
That is what he means. He wants to take GPL software, and use it in his work and not share-alike.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's more like outright theft or Stalinism -- we're taking it from whether you like it or not.
The GPL is socialist more like the way a co-op works ... participation is voluntary, and is intended to benefit everybody. If you don't want to participate in the co-op, you are free to go elsewhere.
Since you still retain the freedom to not use the GPL'd software in
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:4, Informative)
Basically GPL is a violation of my rights to publ,ish source code and make money off of it.
If you want to make money off of what you publish, you are free to do so. One specific business model is verboten -namely, closing the code- but that is only one business model among many. A number of companies are doing quite fine making money off of open-source code, and they do so in a number of different ways. The only thing stopping you from doing this same thing is that you don't want to. That's your prerogative, of course, but you have no grounds to complain that you are being prevented from making money.
No one has the right to force me to release my developed code for free.
By default, no. The GPL is an agreement, not a law. You yourself give the authors of GPL software the right to force you to open your code when you agreed to use their software: those are the terms of the agreement. If you don't want to agree, that's fine: just don't use GPL'd code, and you're golden.
It is a companies right to protect their IP...
Completely correct. This is why you should not violate the IP rights of the author of GPL'd source code by closing it. If you don't like those terms, fine; don't use GPL'd source code.
...and GPL prevents that.
Completely false. In fact, in order to make it work for you, you're going to have to protect your IP. You will, however, not be allowed to tread on the IP rights of the authors of the code you are selling: not your own, and not anyone else's. If you are uncomfortable with this, all you have to do is not use GPL'd code.
All free softare if truly free should be GPL.
Um... did you miss some words in your sentence here? It doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of your post.
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the point. If you had gpgv2 on windows you could update it, Windows won't prevent you from doing that.
If you have gpgv2 on this boxee thingy you can't update it - the tivoisation prevents that.
That is a gplv3 violation, so they have no right to distribute gpgv2.
This may or may not apply to other software on the boxee.
Re:Cue the flamewars (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the basic issue. gpgv2 is GPL3. It's in the box. The user cannot modify it, as per the GPL3 license. Thus, Boxee is failing to meet the GPL3 license obligations.
It doesn't matter if the main code is proprietary. It doesn't matter if the kernel is GPL2. What matters in the court of law is that this particular piece does not live up to the license obligations that the author placed on the code as a condition of copying. If the authors of gpgv2 sued, Boxee would lose, assuming the GPL stands up in court (which I expect it would).
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what TFA says... nowhere in it did I see "download gpgv2 sources, compile, attempt to run on Boxee device, see cryptographic error due to GPLv3 violating limitations."
Simply shipping GPLv3 software on a box does not mean that everything is covered by it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Again... it is not clear that the copy of gpgv2 is in violation of the GPLv3.
Unless the code used to build it is different than that on some major repository or distro... they can simply point to that for the code in question.
If they modified it and are not making available their changes... then yes, they are in violation of any version of the GPL.
If you cannot use your own custom version of gpgv2 in place of what they are without their magic keys... then they would be in violation of the GPLv3.
Nothing said
Re: (Score:2)
Because the proprietor doesn't have the "right" to distribute GPLv3 code without following the terms of the license.