![GNU is Not Unix GNU is Not Unix](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/gnu_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit 516
An anonymous reader writes "Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News reports that OpenTV is violating the GNU General Public License. He notes that the Free Software Foundation is threatening to file a lawsuit in the case. If you haven't become an associate member of the FSF yet, now would be a good time!" Note that Gillmor is reporting the FSF's claim of violation, not making it himself.
Umm, and (Score:5, Informative)
OpenTV's intellectual property lawyer, Scott Doyle, says there's been missed communications on both sides but that the company has no intention of violating any legal agreements. He says the company plans to post the code in question online.
Too little too late. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a final note cases such as these serve as a warning to any other potentially unscrupulous individuals that may have considered stealing GPL code. Put simply, such a law suite will further legitimize the GPL from a legal perspective and ease future GPL enforcement efforts. Assuming the FSF wins, that is.
Re:Too little too late. (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a question of damages. Unless you are talking punitive, I can't see where any real damages have been incurred here. Who lost money because the source code wasn't released in a proper fashion?
Re:Too little too late. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this is not the argument that is used in court, because I think it misrepresents the intent of the GPL. Claiming that everyone in the community was damaged because they didn't get the benefit of this software without paying for it sounds a lot like the viral GPL that Microsoft warned about.
I think the more relevant point is that by using other people's work as the basis of their software they entered into a contract which said that others could do the same. They have an obligation under that contract to make their work available for others to learn from, adapt, and improve upon.
The intention of the GPL is not, IMO, to allow consumers to have access to other people's work for free. "Free as in beer" access to software is a natural consequence of the GPL that we sometimes benefit from. It is not a requirement nor is it the intent.
That's the relevent point! Take that one to court but leave the first part about everyone getting it for free (As in beer) out.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought you were only on the hook to provide source to whoever you distributed binaries to -- not *everyone* (unless, of course, you are giving away the binaries).
So, if I write XYZ including GPL'd source, I have to make source available to anyone I make binaries available to. So, if that's a single customer contract, they get the source when I deliver on the contract, along with the binaries, docs, etc. If that's anyone willing to pay a sticker price, they get the source when they buy the box (binaries, docs, etc.). But I *don't* need to post the source on a website or anything unless I post the binaries on a website, right??
Xentax
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Informative)
OR You can provide a written offer valid for so many years to provide the soruce to anyone who asks.
Now, that language is a bit confusing, but I interpret "anyone who asks" as meaning that written offer is trasnferrable. I can't refuse to give your buddy teh source if you gave him your offer. It's still an OFFER TO PROVIDE THE SOURCE... meaning: when someone wants to USE that offer, they can provide me with teh written offer, I will provide them with the source, and my obligation is finished.
The best solution, I think, is to provide the source, always, with the binaries you distribute. That ends your obligation under the GPL. You are in no way required to give that source to everyone else on the planet.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:4, Informative)
This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL. When you release a binary under the GPL, you are obligated to provide the source code to "any valid third party." The term "any valid third party" indicates anyone who has received a copy of the binary -- whether it came directly from you or not. In effect, you do need to be prepared to distribute source to anyone who requests it (although, technically, I believe that you could require proof of possession). (Also, posting the source publicly (e.g., on a website or ftp server) doesn't necessarily absolve you of your obligation. You still need to provide the sources to anyone who requests them (e.g., if someone doesn't have internet access, you can provide the sources on disk).
The GPL faq [fsf.org] is very useful in answering these types of questions.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dollar loss- Hard to prove (Score:3, Insightful)
A creator can license his code under the GPL and at the same time license it under different terms (read: for monetary compensation) to third parties. The damages incurred by people using his GPLed code in closed-source applications are the damages of the original creator not being able to license it under a commercial license for licensees, who don't want to be bound by the terms of the GPL.
Re:Too little too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd call those big questions of damages. How much damage might be found to be zero. That could be bad news for GPL.
Not so (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too little too late. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that wouldn't be enough. That's saying that any commercial entity can just steal GPL code at will, and pay $1 if they're found out.
If the original authors are giving away the code for free, it's a bit hard to calculate compensatory damages. However, punitive damages should be assessed, so that companies don't get away with the act. Either they should be required to remove t
stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel obligated to point out that violation of the GPL is not stealing... it is copyright/license infringement.
Slashdot discussions hold various examples of folks who refer to p2p copyrighted file sharing as "stealing". Some people (with whom I agree) then respond that this is not an example of stealing, it is an example of copyright infringement. This clarification is not intended to condone (or condemn) the sharing of copyrighted material; the point is to not sink to the same level of newspeak as the RIAA/MPAA which claims (for example) that not watching commercials is "stealing". The reason this is important is that it has everything to do with what legal analysis and remedies can and should be brought to bear on the matter.
When something has been stolen, there are clear answers to the questions (1) who has lost, and (2) how much. It is in the world of copyright infringement that these questions become enormously debatable.
Re:yes, it *is* stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
When somebody takes another's life it might be due to murder, or manslaughter, or euthenasia, or state sanctioned execution. The legal differences between the 4 are huge.
When somebody takes another's money it might be due to theft, or robbery, or fraud, or embezzlement. The legal differences between the 4 are huge.
So when you claim that copyright infringement is the same thing as theft I think you're just ignorant. You can rant and rave all you like but the law doesn't agree with you.
It's time to understand more detail. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting about your claim in a thread that centers on the GNU General Public License is how you are simultaneously misrepresenting two authorities you appeal to. Neither the FSF [gnu.org] nor U.S. Copyright law consider copyright infringement to be theft.
And it's not surprising you would make such a mistake, considering you are arguing in terms of "IP" or intellectual property [gnu.org]. It's important to understand that copyright law is not the same as patent law, trademark law, and other laws commonly discussed as "IP" and therefore it doesn't help anyone to think of them as a cohesive whole.
Re:yes, it *is* stealing (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "deserved."
Hint: "Whatever the fine folks at the RIAA think they deserve" is not a good working definition. At what point do you ask yourself if, say, the Andrews Sisters have been well and fully compensated for contributing "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" to society? After 50 years? Seventy? Setting aside the issue of whether the last surviving Andrews sister actually gets even pennies on the dollar at this stage, at what point do you ask whether society is paying too much? When do you ask whether our society is, in fact, being ripped off, fleeced, and cheated of its rightful heritage by greedy, self-interested, amoral business interests, rather than the reverse?
How do you measure the creative works lost to us because our copyright laws prevent their publication? How many more Shakespeare in Love stories are unheard and unwritten because the lock on Jay Gatsby has yet to expire? What brilliant works of fiction about the making of Citizen Kane die with their would-be authors in copyright limbo? For what good purpose would you deny the people the same right to Steinbeck as they have to Shakespeare?
Copying the RIAA's IP is most certainly illegal, under our existing copyright laws... but if that's the extent of your thoughts on the issue, I suggest thinking about it a bit more.
Re:yes, it *is* stealing (Score:3, Insightful)
What's valid IP? Is it theft if I watch you selling ice to eskimos and I start importing the same product? In any rational way, no. But with the new business-model patents you could own that IP and by your standard it would be theft. Bullshit.
Intellectual Property is a misnomer. It's a government granted monopoly to help fund research. You can violate the monopoly but you can'
Re:Too little too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds to me like people have tried to request it, but they have refused to give it. It is not a matter of not posting it online.
Re:Not exactly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Umm, and (Score:2)
But if the FSF is right that OpenTV is violating the GPL, and if this behavior is found to be legal by the courts, the entire free-software and open-source movements could be derailed. Agreeing to share the improvements you make in the GPL-licensed software you've used is an essential part of the larger ecosystem.
Re:Umm, and (Score:3, Insightful)
Derailed? No. Affected? Certainly.
The code that exists now can't be taken away, but the momentum can be stolen.
What if Dell were to sell hardware with DRM that would only run their modified, proprietary version of Linux. They would sell lots of these machines, because Linux is cool and useful and large companies have
Re:Umm, and (Score:5, Insightful)
But if the FSF is right that OpenTV is violating the GPL, and if this behavior is found to be legal by the courts, the entire free-software and open-source movements could be derailed.
It seems to me that if the GPL were weakened by a court decision, that same decision would also weaken copyrights generally and eula's specifically. Which brings to mind and interesting possible scenario:
The lawyers at MS, realizing that the GPL is about to put on trial, initially rejoice but then realize that their own eula is also in danger. Bill Gates donates a billion dollars to the FSF legal fund as a "gesture of goodwill".
Re:Umm, and (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like their using delaying tactics. They plan to, they added conditions, etc. Personally I don'y know who these OpenTV yokel's are,but clearly they are trying to avoid making the code public, else the line would have been: We have made the code public at . That the FSF has to file suit to make this happen means that they have to push the suit, else others will take code and abuse it until the FSF finds them and sues. Just dropping the case once they comply will set a bad precedent, they need to get expenses+ as a discouragement to others.
Don't jump to conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)
The FSF has always made it a matter of policy to always try to raise these issues quietly and solve them in private whenever possible. Since this guy doesn't give his sources, and there is nothing on the fsf.org website about it, we really don't know what is going on.
They could be settling this amicably, and this guy found out about it and either ignorantly or maliciously decided to make it public without need. Or the FSF could have been trying to get these guys to honour their obligations in private for the past year, and the lawyer just being a lawyer and lying for his money. Who knows. Not nearly enough information in the article to know. Hopefully it will be clarified shortly.
This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:4, Interesting)
The line from the article:
"But legal agreements are supposed to matter in our system. Just because the GPL turns the idea of intellectual property somewhat around doesn't make it less valid."
Seems exactly correct. IF the GPL is not enforced, what makes any other license agreement from any piece of software "enforceable". Aside form the amount of monetary grease being supplied to lawmakers that is.
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL uses copyright to enforce restrictions on distribution. Copyright has a LOT of legal precedents.
EULA's are a license to use something. There are fewer precedents for that, and this case shouldn't be relevant.
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:4, Informative)
The issue is, if you don't own the copy of the software (which is a distinct issue from holding the copyright), but just license it, 117 doesn't apply to you.
The really annoying part is that the courts have totally fucked up here with the decision you allude to (MAI v. Peak), because Congress clearly said when they passed the 1976 Act that putting things into volatile memory didn't rise to the level of copying that is actionable under the Copyright Act. But for some reason the legislative intent hasn't been convincing.
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:3, Informative)
As such, they can do whatever with it.
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Copyright makes no mention of money - the creator of a work has exclusive rights to distribution. He can give his works away for free, but that doesn't mean he gives up his rights. There is no method, besides the copyright expiring, of anything going into the public domain.
jon
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:2)
Money and Consideration (Score:2)
For a contract to be valid consideration is required, it does not have to be money.
GPL is just a way to get people to share equally with each other.
damages (Score:3, Interesting)
The interesting part of suits like this is they are usually based on monetary business loss, or personal loss, or usually both if say it's a defective product knowingly sold. Here though is a case that is more similar to "theft of service", something like when a contractor hasn't
Re:This is a very interesting decision I think (Score:5, Interesting)
When you purchase a product, you have certain expectations of what you can do with it. EULAs generally work to restrict your actions.
However, code is copyrighted, and there is no reason to think that buying a copy of a piece of software would allow you to modify it and sell copies to other people. The GPL permits actions that otherwise would be illegal, while EULAs usually try to restrict actions that would otherwise be legal.
Not to mention that the GPL has no effect on a user. There is no user license. The GPL only comes into play when the software is redistributed. This really doesn't have anything to do with EULAs.
FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit (Score:2, Insightful)
But... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the company does put the code online and issue a serious apology and a statement about their commitment to open source then sueing them may just send the wrong message about the open source community. However, if they show even the slightest sign of offending again the FSF should put their balls in a vice and squeeze hard - decent programmers who choose to give their work away should not be taken advantage of.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
And assuming that the code was accessible in the first place. I thought the article was stating that OpenTV left out parts of the source code or refused to provide it at all.
Either way, if they do correct their blunder and provide the code, I think the FSF will stand down and consider it a victory. It would be nice for a case like this to get to court, however. Not because I get off on legal battles or anything, but because the GPL could exert itself much easier knowing that it has the legal precedent to do so.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they should, they gave it away!
Now those who license it under the GPL did NOT give it away and should have their license respected.
Back before my time the BSD license said you had to display the credits. Some little company (AT&T wasn't it) didn't want to play by the rules, I wonder how that turned out?
The old BSD license was very close to giving it away, much closer then the GPL, and courts ruled it was enforcable. I would be surprised if the GPL was any less valid.
Re:But... (Score:2)
Since the GPL license forbids to sell it under an additional restricive license agreements, the seller would not have the right on the code first place, since he violated the GPL rules.
HOWEVER since the did not have rights on the code, as receiver you also do not automatically receive any rights! Neither on the original GPL codes, nor on their extentions. Howeve
How many developers get away with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How many developers get away with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the worst offenders are Viglen Computers in the UK, who sell a network proxy/security/mail 'black box' that nmap reports runs on Linux, and the proxy appears to be Squid. The GPL is included in the webmin interface (well buried) but no source code is supplied on CD and there is no way to recover it from the box (without some pretty dedicated reverse engineering).
Re:How many developers get away with this? (Score:2)
Re:How many developers get away with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
None (Score:2)
None. Because if they were in a statistic, it would mean somebody found out and so, they didn't get away with it. I'd bet most companies would lie even on an anonymous survey, someone might choose to raiding based on that survey.
People will answer truthfully to surveys only if they believe there are no directly harmful consequences. Try asking the questions "Do you bu
Re:How many developers get away with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Try this little thought experiment; You're a (reasonably smart) software developer. You're paid to develop a portion of a proprietary software product. You find a function in a GPL'd program which does what you need. You do the copy/paste/globalsub dance and complete the project.
Then a bit later, you get called into a meeting with your manager and some junior coder dude from another part of your company.
"Hey dude, like, it kinda looks like, for your code, you like just copied the GPL'd stuff and substituted your own identifiers, man."
This brings up the common questions of:
If this was some "simple" piece of code, why didn't you just write it yourself? Are you incompetent or just an idiot?
If it was complex stuff, did you really think no one would notice your implementation was identical to the GPL'd one, or are you just an idiot?
Did you think your company could get away with this because you supposedly keep all your code secret (as if no one ever leaves your company, or there aren't any honorable, clued, and GPL-sympathetic people employed there) or are you just an idiot?
Believe me, it's not that much more comfortable to be "that coder dude" having to ask the questions like "did you really write this yourself?" and "Do we have the rights to ship this to our customers?" and "...ummm...BugTrak just reported a vulnerability in the GPL'd one, do we need to go back and check our implementation?" Been there, done that. It's no fun counting dots on the ceiling why the Legal guy explains that we can't ship the product as planned, or have to recall everything we've already shipped.
Re:How many developers get away with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious... how did a library that has a BSD-ish license reveal a GPL violation?
MythTV is a better product and it's OPEN SOURCE! (Score:2, Informative)
fully open source! I love the GPL!
Re:MythTV is a better product and it's OPEN SOURCE (Score:2)
Looked like an odd place (Score:5, Funny)
I always thought that it must have been a dot-com front for drugs or something.
Interesting to see that it's an actual company.
Whew... (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks! I almost had to read the article this time...
Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:5, Informative)
This is completly wrong! It does not restrict the right of programmers - it's more the opposite, it gives programmers the right to view technology and learn from it, and even more importantly - they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. What is this with forcing them to open what they have done to the world? It is not forcing anyone, it is just a license which the programmer choose to distribute his software under, or he choose not to, I can't see how that is forcing anything on anyone.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:2)
"Some people I respect say the GPL is a bad idea, period. They say it's too restrictive of programmers' rights, in the sense of forcing them to open what they've done to the world. Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place. Then put different licensing terms on what you've done."
Nice plagiarism
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:5, Interesting)
This appears to be, in essence, the same position as that of Gillmor (and of myself), that certainly it is a programmer's right to release the code however he wants, and, to some extent, we should be thankful that the code has been released at all. As Gillmor puts it, "Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place."
However, the arguments against using the GPL (as opposed to saying it is somehow immoral or Bad) are perfectly valid; if you are not making money off of keeping your code secret, and you are going to release the code anyway, does it hurt you to allow others to make their code, which is derived from your code, secret?
For many programmers, I suspect, the GPL is more intended as a means of preventing someone from selling their hard work. Perfectly valid, but other licenses can accomplish this more directly, while at the same time not creating such restrictions on other programmers who would like to use your code, say, with other open code which is not and cannot be converted to GPL.
Picture a hypothetical situation (derived from a real one I experienced) where package derived from two open sourced applications violates the GPL because one is GPL and the other is a commercial/proprietary license which also states that works derived from its code cannot be licensed under another license. In other words, trying to incorporate code from two open, and nearly identical, "viral" licenses violates both.
In this situation, the coder is prevented from doing something for no profit, simply to benefit the greater community in the original spirit of the GPL but hindered by the license itself.
Surely the GPL is a double-edged sword, and not a miracle cure for all situations.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:2, Informative)
I wrote a native java extention which was licensed under the GPL, however it used the SUN JVM. Which is corporate code. Impossible situation? No as the FSF has answered my request the solution is to put an extention to the GPL, like "As special exception the author BLALBA allows this software package to be linked again
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:3, Informative)
Also, re: choosing the GPL - I do it for a couple reasons. One is that I'm proud of my work and I
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
As a result, the GPL has proven itself to be an excellent source for back-office proprietary, offline tools that never see the light of day and are never intended for release to the public in any form. Then you don't have to provide source code, and lose nothing of your technological edge to your competitors.
While I admire the spirit of GNU, they're very impractical, and cause tremendous heartache among programmers that are generally in favor of their movement than not. Unfortunately, its primary target, the packaged software industry, is largely unscatched.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:4, Interesting)
If some code doesn't have the GPL and just has standard copyright applied to it, you don't get to use it at all. You can't copy it. You can't change it and use the changed stuff you have made. You can't do anything with it. Apply the GPL and others get the right to copy, change, re-use and a whole host of other rights. It makes no sense to talk about the GPL as "restrictive", unless you compare it with some other arrangement (ie not standard copyright). So the GPL imposes a restriction as compared to (say) BSD licences, but so what? What is relevant is what you would have without a licence (nothing) versus what the originator grants you by applying the GPL (considerably more than nothing). You can't sensibly say that some other programmer should have applied (eg) BSD to some code so as not to "restrict" users. If you like BSD, you apply it to your code.
Am I feeding the troll? (Score:5, Funny)
Bollocks!
1) There is nothing to stop you selling GPL'd software
2) If you're the copyright holder of the code you can do anything you like with it, including making proprietary derivatives
if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
Excuse me while I fall down at your feet and beg for your wisdom.
the packaged software industry, is largely unscatched
If you were that professional you would use real words rather than making up your own.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good thing you're a programmer, because you suck at being a lawyer.
In absolutely no way does the GPL restrict your ability to sell software. Just because you aren't smart enough to come u
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not a restriction at all. No-one forces you to make a derivative work. If you don't like the licence the original author used, you can do a clean room reimplementation - something I personally have had to do [weft.co.uk] a number of times.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! (Score:3, Insightful)
> applications, but he has nothing to defend himself against companies
> like RedHat distributing his "music" in ways that make the RIAA look
> like a generous patron by comparison.
Wrong model. If not for the GPL RedHat would have probably turned into another BSDI. I.E. taken freely available software and turned it into a closed product to sell to the corporate world instead of becoming the major evangelising force in the b
Inaccuracies are adding to GPL FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
I've also seen some pretty convincing arguments that the GPL is on pretty solid legal ground. The GPL gives you the right to view the source -> modify it -> release it. In return for that right, you agree to the conditions of the license. Namely , that if/when you release your work, you use the GPL. IANAL, but this sounds like a simply contract you are agreeing to when you release your code.
Re:Inaccuracies are adding to GPL FUD (Score:2)
It depends on how you read the sentence. "You must release it under the same license" does not necessarily mean "you must release it". It could be read to mean "you must relase it under the same license, or not at all". "You must drive on the right side of the road" doesn't mean "you must drive".
Yeah, it could have been clearer, but I wouldn't accuse him of
Not a big deal (Score:2, Informative)
True, if it does go to court it will be the first big test of the GPL. However, I doubt it will go that far.
once and for all, the diff between bsd and gpl (Score:4, Funny)
39
340
i wonder which one is easier to understand, use, and just flat out makes more sense.
Re:once and for all, the diff between bsd and gpl (Score:2)
Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how mu (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted maybe its a good thing that when lawyer actually see what the GPL states, they fold like cheap suits.
BUT there should be costs to violate the GPL, if only as a deterrent. Otherwise people will try to get away with it and only come clean when FSF gets huffy and puffy and simply distribute the source code in question. Its like bank robbers stealing from a bank, getting caught, and only have to give back the money w/o penalties.
If the RIAA can get major damages out of college students for "sharing" mp3s with no business intent, then someone abusing GPL code should also be taken to the proverbial woodshed financially.
For those who worry that we will get "mercenary" lawsuits, offer to distribute all cash (minus reasonable expenses) to some worthy charity (other than the FSF).
All that being said...IF there are damage awards, how much do you ask for violating a free product's license. Your avg jury probably will simply say "The offending parties should post their code, but the original person didnt lose sales" and probably give squat.
I dont even presume to know a way to properly calculate damages, but I do think it shouldnt be discriminatory amongst popular projects like Linux kernel vs. little projects of the week. Hence the lil guys are even more likely to be screwed over. Maybe the % of GPL source code in the overall body of product source can be a factor, but also relevant functionality overall too.
Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how (Score:3, Informative)
Well, The simplest place to start would be to determine how much money the offending party made off of the free code. If they didn't release their code to begin with, then it is likely because it is being released as some sort of commercial product and they feel like they have trade/tech secrets to protect. Just because the author didn't lose money, doesnt mean people should be allowed to violate
Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how (Score:3, Insightful)
The Free Software Foundation wants people to use GPLed software, and you don't entice people to use your software by crucifying organizations that make licensing mistakes. They don
Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how (Score:4, Informative)
i would donate but ... (Score:2, Interesting)
I try to donate every year to different charities like the EFF and others. I'm not wealthy so it usually amounts to ~$300/year. I've never dontated to the FSF, because it is unclear to me where my money is going. I will not give the FSF a dime until until they stop childish behavior such as this [gnu.org], and another reservation I have about donating to the FSF foundation is what projects are funded? Does the FSF fund any "open s
Subtle but important correction (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK you only have to release the source code to your software if you release the binaries. This may seem like a pedantic point, but in fact it makes a profound difference for any business that wants to go the "service bureau" route. Suppose your business consists of processing digital image files that customers submit. If the software that does this is built from GPL'd components, you nevertheless do *not* need to release the source code as long as it runs only on your servers. If instead you release a consumer version of the software, that is the point at which you must release the source as well.
Re:Subtle but important correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! Isn't this much of the point of the GPL? That users who buy software can do their own support (via the source code) but in this case the users are getting an end product so they have no need for the source code. If the code is buggy and the images are bad they'll complain to you to make them another picture but don't have the right to the source as they bought an image, not a program. The GPL attempts to keep non-proprietary code that way but doesn't restrict use of the resulting code itself.
This is why you have to release your own code if you release linked binaries. Just releasing the original code would not let them support the program as bugs in your code could be the cause.
OpenTV SDK 3.0 GNU Code (Score:3, Informative)
source has been released (Score:5, Informative)
[sourceforge.net]
freetv has the announcement.
Intriguingly, the postlink sources have a makefile for linux even though OpenTV doesn't officially support linux. Hopefully they'll release their toolchain for linux RSN.
Re:source has been released (Score:3, Funny)
Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... movement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider, the BSD-derived operating systems (and by operating system, I mean the core and all the related tools) have been around for a LONG time, and have attracted a large number of developers. These developers have improved the BSD systems as a whole, and have contributed their changes back into the code base, despite there being no LEGAL requirement to do so. Granted, some companies have coopted BSD code, but who cares? In the end the BSDs have progressed just fine.
So, why is this? It's because, in the end, the core of the free software movement is about creativity, generosity, and a sense of community, and NOT because they feel that *have* to contribute their changes back to the community. . I would contend that the reason the Linux kernel has progressed so well has little to do with the license and everything to do with the spirit of the community. Heck, I suspect that if the Linux kernel had been licensed under the BSD license, or even the Artistic license, it would have done just as well. Why? Because people *want* to work on the kernel. They want to be part of that community, and to feel like they can contribute. In the end, the GPL serves as nothing more than a political statement about the views of that community.
Thus, I have to seriously question the idea that, if the GPL was defeated, this would "derail" the free software "movement". This so-called movement has been around for a long time, and will continue, whether or not the GPL is legally tenable.
Here Here... I second that (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as two machines could exchange files via UUCP, people and organizations were sharing software for no charge. There were even cases before any kind of communications based transfer were possible where, if you supplied the tape and shipping, you could get a vast array of software for that day.
Of course, b
Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it isn't. My whole premise is that the free software "movement" (as in, the process of providing software for others to modify, use, or abuse as they see fit) would probably be chugging along just as well if the GPL never existed. Why? Because what drives the "movement" is its spirit, NOT its license! This contrasts with the article which claims (wrongly, IMHO) that this "movement" will somehow "derail" if the GPL is defeated. Bull, I say! It wi
Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it is. Nowadays, "Free Software" means pretty much what the FSF suggests it means. It's not a term you can "re-apply" any more, because the FSF definition is established. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different kettle of fish, or a "philosophical argument that no one will win", as you so eloquently put it. But I don't think it's terribly productive in 2003 do be debating the meaning of "Free Software".
Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. The BSDs had a huge headstart and even taking into account the lawsuits they were not making significant progress. My personal belief is that the BSD license was too permissive. There were commercial derivative works (eg, BSDI) that took a lot and contributed relatively little. The problem is that people are generous but companies are not. Companies are greedy. The GPL forces companies to be generous by using the threat of lawsuits. The GPL was a catalyst that made the "free software movement" explode from a hobbyist plaything into a market force.
My only evidence I can suggest for this is the huge influx of BSD developers into Linux when BSD was clearly superior. I'll agree the problem is not black and white: there were contributing factors like the lawsuit and the core developer politics. But it doesn't explain why there is STILL a vast number of Linux developers. So all I can do is draw from my own experience; given a choice I will always contribute to a GPL project instead of a BSD project simply because I have absolutely no faith in the BSD license to deliver "returns". I don't believe that we can expect companies to play fair. This is why I'll stick with projects like Linux that are predominately GPLd; we need to beat companies with a big stick if we're to get any returns.
It is time to stop questioning the GPL like this (Score:5, Interesting)
Why on earth do we question it in the first place? It is based very solidly in copyright law, a field that is pretty much tried and tested by now.
If you take copyrighted code and distribute it without consent you are doing something illegal. The GPL is no different. Without that license, the user has no distribution rights.
You are the copyright owner for code you have written, that does not change by you licensing it out with the GPL. The case where a receiver of the code, uses it against in breach of the GPL-license is pretty much a open and shut case. If the GPL is found invalid, OpenTV would not have the rights to distribute the software at all.
The opposite, where the copyright holder tries to retract the rights to use the code (which is supposed to be irriversible except when the GPL is breached), is more interesting.
From OpenTV's Website (Score:3, Informative)
FSF has registered 19 copyrights (Score:3, Informative)
I saw only 19 registrations, but most of the "biggies" (GNU C, Emacs, GNU tar, diff, make, m4, etc.) are covered. These are existing registrations. There are potentially serious consequences for infringing these - even with no "actual" damages. Plus FSF could register more of their copyrights any time they wanted.
This looks pretty serious to me. I don't see why there's any doubt about FSF's ability to enforce this. My guess is that they'd rather settle it without having to spend any real money. Even with volunteer lawyers, lawsuits can cost a lot.
The guy in the paper needed somthing to write about. This will quietly settle and it will not be big news.
Re:potentially much more important than OSS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:potentially much more important than OSS (Score:2)
I personally feel that if you can read a license before you open (i.e., unwrap or download) and install a piece of software, then it is certainly valid as a binding agreement. HOWEVER, if you can't read it until you've already purchased, opened (again, unwrapped or down
Re:In case... -- a slashcode feature request (Score:2)
How likely is it that the San Jose Mercury News would get slashdotted? Not very, I'd guess.
That aside, does anybody else think it would be a good idea to implement something on slashdot that checked every n minutes to see if a link was still responding, and if it wasn't, rendered page views with links to the google cached version instead?
I think this would be a great idea. It would keep smaller sites from getting hammered too badly, but would still keep pageviews going to the site, or at least a cach
Re:In case it gets ./d (Score:2)
asshat.
Re:You can't threaten a lawsuit. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You can't threaten a lawsuit. (Score:3, Informative)
Eh? Such a threat is best phrased as follows: "You used my software without respecting the terms of the license. Either release the source per the contract, or I will sue your ass into the middle of next week."
You can't threaten violence ("release the source or I'll break your kneecaps") o
Re:This really is getting old ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I think giving them a full year to allow their customers access to the code is more than enough. I mean, after a year it's pretty hard to claim any excuses whatsoever.
Furthermore, this isn't a problem unique to free software. Had they used a commercial
Re:This really is getting old ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This really is getting old ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mirror sites (Score:2)
Re:Different from SCO lawsuit? (Score:3, Insightful)
For one SCO is deliberatly making this as big a FUD campaign as possible against Linux. Also SCO isn't disclosing the infringing code (possibly because there isn't any), this lawsuit is specifically aimed at damaging Linux as much as possible so that SCO can possibly get bought up or supported by microsoft. If the FSF didn't disclose what code they felt was infringing, turned to have a strong relationship with a competitor of OpenTV and dragged the preceedings out as l
Re:Different from SCO lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a lot of us believe that SCO has no actual basis in fact. First: their complaint is vague, and does not discuss the merits. It pretty much says, "It would impossible for Linux to be this good unless they ripped us off." (Read it. It's on SCO's homepage.) Second: they didn't follow procedures they would have if they had any basis in fact, such as filing for an injunction. Third: they have taken procedures-- such as filing in state court instead of federal-- to avoid disclosing facts.
These lead me (and probably others) to the conclusion that they are doing a lot of chest-beating and posturing, and their allegations likely have no basis in fact. They're trying to spread FUD and dissuade people from using Linux, taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people don't understand the issues (and indeed, shouldn't need to). They're doing a lot of posturing, likely on behalf of MS.
I haven't read the FSF's letter (I don't know where to find it), but they historically have been very up-front about specific issues, and have worked to a resolution. This isn't them trying to spread FUD. Some FUD may happen, but the FSF isn't pushing it.
Re:Different from SCO lawsuit? (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO, on the other hand, is very secretive, giving absolutely no evidence to support their vague allegations. They persue drastic legal measures before even giving the option of a more peaceful resolution, and in the process disparage the enti