Suit Claims Diebold Voting Machines Violate GPL 252
An anonymous reader writes "Diebold Inc. and its subsidiary, Premier Election Solutions, is using Ghostscript in its electronic election systems even though Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works,' Artifex claims in court papers filed late last month in US District Court for Northern California. The gs-devel list first brought up the possible GPL violation a year ago."
The thing is (Score:2, Interesting)
The GPL only applies when you distribute software. They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.
For one of the people who will be running the election hall on election day, when they get delivery of the election machine, is that counted as receiving a copy of the software?
The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.
If that is not the case, hit me with a cluebat.
GPL was violated (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.
Voters don't have standing here (Score:5, Informative)
It's my understanding that anyone who has "object code" is also entitled to "source code."
This means the owners of the voting machines have standing to sue. If the machines are leased, depending on how the courts determine what distribution means when a lease is involved, the local governments may or may not have standing.
The copyright owner might only have a claim of "license violation" if an owner asked for and was denied the source code.
There's also the whole issue of "how viral is viral." If the printing code is done as an independent program, then Diebold might only be obliged to release it. After all, if I publish a BSD LiveCD that contains some GPL programs, I'm obligated to publish the GPL source but not the source to BSD-licensed code. The same would apply if the PDF-generating code were in a self-contained application in the "rom filesystem" in the firmware.
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright owner might only have a claim of "license violation" if an owner asked for and was denied the source code.
Read Section 3 of the GPL, reproduced a few comments up. PES MUST inform their licensees as to how to obtain source for the Ghostscript module. If they did not do so then PES is not authorized under the GPL to distribute Ghostscript. If PES also has no license to distribute under the AFPL, then they're making unlicensed copies. Ergo, pwnt.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.
Looks like we have another person that doesn't understand how the GPL works - the voters get to demand nothing, since the software was not distributed to them. Only the people that received the hardware from Diebold can request the source code from Diebold, the voters are not receivers of anything in this case.
So, the question becomes - has anyone who purchased or rented a Diebold voting machine actually requested the source code, and if so what was the result?
Remember, Diebold doesn't have to conduc
Re: (Score:2)
Except we are only entitled to the GPL parts. I doubt Diebold has made substantial improvements to Ghostscript.
Re:The thing is (Score:5, Informative)
They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.
Considering they *sell* the machines to the government, that most certainly counts as distribution.
Just because it's loaded on closed hardware doesn't mean that it's not being distributed.
For one of the people who will be running the election hall on election day, when they get delivery of the election machine, is that counted as receiving a copy of the software?
Unless Diebold is
A) a part of the US government
or
B) running the election
that's pretty much irrelevant. They're distributing the machine to the government, who sends them to the election halls, and *that* is what counts as distribution.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A) a part of the US government
Well it looks like A) came true: DRE 700 for pres! [theonion.com]
Re:The thing is (Score:4, Interesting)
Many people have said this, but delivering software on a hardware platform is delivering it. This is why we have source code for things like the linux running on Linksys routers. The routers are mean to be as locked up as a voting machine, but because of the GPL they are forced to distribute the source.
Re:The thing is (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
1. If I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you borrow my laptop, have I distributed Linux and am I required to provide you wish the source? 2. What if I let you borrow it for money, aka "lease" it?
3. What if I run Linux on my laptop, and I let you into my home or office to use my laptop; have I distributed it then?
I'm pretty sure the answer to 3. is NO. I'm not so sure about 1. or 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't be so paranoid (Score:2)
The stakes are very low, and powerful interests really don't care who wins.
Relax!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But how would they (the GPL folks) handle it if the hardware was leased just for election day. I.e., the precincts pay Diebold $LARGE sum to deliver, set up, run, tear down, and take back the machines each election. Then Diebold isn't distributing anything. They're just providing a service.
How would the MAFIAA handle it if someone were to do the same with DVDs or BLU-RAYs and large portable theaters? I'm pretty sure that not only would the MAFIAA see such use as distribution, so would the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be nice if that were true, but I'm pretty sure it's not true in U.S. law today. For example, I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to publicly perform that DVD (project it to a public audience) without a special license that doesn't come from the DVD store.
forced to distribute the source .. (Score:5, Informative)
No one is forcing Diebold Inc. to use Ghostscript in its electronic election systems
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect. The GPL governs copy, modifying, distributing, and sublicensing. If you do any one of those (outside of any rights you have under law that do not require a license from the copyright holder), you are permitted to do so only under the terms of the license. Some terms of the license are only relevant to certain of those acts (or certain combinations of them).
Note, particular
Re:The thing is (Score:5, Interesting)
The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.
That you can make from pictures foolishly posted online. Does anyone seriously doubt that Diebold machines are, at best, woefully badly made?
To put it another way (true conversation):
Nerd One: I don't get it, it's not hard to design a machine with buttons that counts ballots fairly in a secure manner.
Nerd Two: It's not hard, there's just no market for it.
Overlook the matter (Score:5, Funny)
Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works
In a later statement, Artifex said that they would overlook this violation if all the machines were reconfigured to auto-vote for Obama.
Re:Overlook the matter (Score:5, Funny)
Whoops, got modded as a troll. I reckon I can still claw this back though:
In a later statement, Artifex said that they would overlook this violation if all the machines were reconfigured to auto-vote for McCain.
There, that should keep everyone happy :)
Good thing Diebold is helping with the election (Score:5, Funny)
Perfect /. story (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, these days it'd have to work in something about the software being rejected from the iPhone application store by Apple to hit the real Slashdot-buzzword bingo.
Doesn't Sound Like A Violation (Score:4, Informative)
Based on the totally inadequate summary it seems like there is no violation, except perhaps the minor one of Diebold not having their own ftp site with the normal GPLed gs code available (which they could fix in an hour).
I mean if Diebold didn't modify gs but merely used it on their machines they are only required to distributed the standard gs code. The mere fact that gs runs on the same machine doesn't make the rest of the diebold code a derived work. It's all about what is a derived work of the gs code.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I should add to this that I suspect something more is going on otherwise no suit would be being filled. I was just saying that from just the info in the summary it didn't seem like a violation.
Bad Summary: likely in-house license, not GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They would have to do that if it's GPL. This would not require them to release source to other software on the disk. There is a difference between aggregation and the creation of a derivative work. A program that just calls Ghostscript to run isn't a derivative work of Ghostscript.
GPL issue ok, but whose issue is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That was changed, it's now open to third parties requesting the source. Otherwise, the secondary market (used equipment) is locked down again.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to provide the source with the binary on media commonly used for source code distribution, or they need to provide a written offer to provide source code to any third party.
Well what do you know... (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently elections aren't the only thing they steal.
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Interesting)
When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.
Google Linksys, they were in a similar situation a few years ago. I'd love to see the same outcome this time!
Re: (Score:2)
The outcome of the Linksys situation was that code was released giving people enough information to run Linux on consumer hardware. I can't imagine they have changed Ghostscript in any way that would be useful or interesting to consumers.
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Informative)
The code was already found on a public FTP site by the founder of blackboxvoting.org
The code is totally insecure, and has many vulnerabilities.
Rest assured, there are multiple ways to rig the voting machines.
We Tax payer want our money back! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Diebold,
Due to security problems, many states are no longer going to use voting machines sold by by your company. From a warranty standpoint, your product never lived up to our expectation, there for we want our money returned.
American Tax Payer
PS: Don't you also provide Bank ATM's? Should we be concerned about security of these devices too?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always felt that the poor security and poor implementation on the voting machines is intentional to allow for the possibility of fraud - or more to the point to allow for officials to say, "these have been hacked...by someone else!" after they are themselves caught hacking them.
Re:We Tax payer want our money back! (Score:5, Informative)
From what I understand their ATM security is just fine.
uhh what?
Jeff Dean, Senior Vice-President and Senior Programmer at Global Election Systems (GES), the company purchased by Diebold in 2002 which became Diebold Election Systems, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft for planting back doors in software he created for ATMs using, according to court documents, a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of two years[7]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The threats are different. With an ATM it's usually the man on the street attacking and the institution (i.e. bank) trying to stop the attack. With voting machines it's the institutions (i.e. political parties) that would be attacking and the man on the street that wants to see it stopped.
With different threat models, come different security methods. I'm sure ATM's are quite secure (at least up to the banks insurance amount). But the same techniques and assumptions don't work to secure a voting box.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Diebold's voting systems division was an acquisition of Global Election Systems. The ATM and votings systems share nothing but the brand. They also spun off their voting systems to a new company called Premier Election Systems, I suspect because all the scandal was hurting their brand in other lines of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that scenario, under the GPL, is Diebold still required to make a copy of the ghostscript code available, if they've made no modifications to it? Or could they simply put on their web site, "Diebold uses the open-source tool Ghostscript, v8.2.1, which can be downloaded from "?
It doesn't make sense that running the ghostscript app on their system would force them to provide "all the source code for their entire system," and it also doesn't make sense that if they're using the app unmodified, they should have to provide for some sort of hosting mechanism when there's already a definitive hosting platform for it and they're "just using" the app as distributed by that company.
So I'm curious - anybody have any insight?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're right. 1) At most they only have to provide this to the people that they've sold machines to. Anyone else can go roger a knothole. 2) Aggregation, as you note, doesn't lead to licensing infection.
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. The GPLv2 makes it perfectly clear that the "offer to provide source code" method of binary distribution can only be passed on from a third party for non-commercial distribution.
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:
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.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
It's pretty straightforward english.
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I appreciate the information you provided & thank you for it, please bear in mind that not all of us have read the GPL from start to finish, or have a copy on hand to cut and paste from. The condescension is not strictly necessary.
I asked that question seriously, because I don't understand the legal nuances of the GPL and hoped someone could answer the question - I've received several informative answers, yours included. When you answer questions in this fashion, you only serve to alienate people who are just looking for information or clarification.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, sorry. We've been discussing the GPL on Slashdot for a good decade now. It's required reading material. You wouldn't go to a bible meeting and ask "Who's this Jesus guy you keep talking about?" Ok, bad example, their eyes would light up like Christmas trees. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, bad example, their eyes would light up like Christmas trees. :)
One gets the impression reading Slashdot that a geek questioned about the GPL would have a similar response.
Re: (Score:2)
Understood. But to refine your example of a bible meeting further, I didn't ask "What is this GPL thing you're talking about?" I asked about how the "distribution" clause of the GPL would impact this particular scenario, because it isn't immediately obvious to me how it would work. Think of it more like going to the bible meeting and asking, "What's all this I hear about turning water into wine?"
It may be obvious and well-k
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They would have to give source for the version they used. Putting a gostscript.tar.gz in the c:/ would have been good enough.
Linking to a license text or source code on servers other than yours. This amounts to GPL Section "3c" (passing on a written offer), which is only valid for non-commercial distribution. They committed commercial distribution. So they should have just dropped a src tar on the machine or on a cd that came with it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you distribute binaries you have to distribute the source or provide some mechanism for getting the source for 3 years. It doesn't matter what makes sense or not: these are the rules the GPL makes up.
There was recently a court case that said since that the GPL and other such licenses could make up any sort of rules they want essentially.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what makes sense or not: these are the rules the GPL makes up.
Hrmph. That accurately sums up my take on the GPL/FSF, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL does specifically state that you need to host the source for at least 3 years, if its modified or not.
Its so you will always be able to find a copy.
Older versions seem to be more difficult to find.
And no they only need to provide source to their customers for the GPLed parts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The software is distributed with the voting machines.
IANAL, but that should mean that Diebold are required to supply the source to people/organizations that buy their machines.
Yes it does. (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is pretty strict about any distribution requiring source being made available. Embedded devices are no exception.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL only states you have to provide the source code to those who you distribute the binaries too. There is no requirement that the source be available the public at large. While most companies provide the source without any requirement to also have the binaries, this is not a requirement of the GPL.
Anyway, this suite is seems stupid. Isn't the whole point of the GPL and open source in general that the developer is explicitly giving permission to anyone to "modify, copy, or distribute" their software
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't provide the source *with* the binaries (Section 3(a)), then you must make the source available to everyone (Section 3(b)).
The third option, pointing to the upstream provider (Section 3(c)) only applies to non-commercial distribution, which this isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
That section specifically applies to distributing unmodified source code; this thread was about distributing binaries.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, ...
Obviously you don't need to offer the original source code to those to whom you're distributing unmodified source code; they already have it.
Re: (Score:2)
From the above:
Re: (Score:2)
The software is distributed with the voting machines.
IANAL, but that should mean that Diebold are required to supply the source to people/organizations that buy their machines.
More likely, they will buy the alternative license for GhostScript: GS's own "AFPL" license.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they sell the electronic ballots. This _is_ distributing the software and, as far as I understand the GPL, it's also a copyright violation.
It would be sweet if by some courtroom magic we could use Diebold to fund lots of open source development.
Re:Are they distributing the software? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be sweet if by some courtroom magic we could use Diebold to fund lots of open source development.
More likely, this will turn into MS FUD about how the GPL is cancer.
Re:I liked this video. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But not half as cheap and simple as using paper and pencil, and having thousands of volunteers counting in parallel. Oh I know, sometimes the electoral ballots are huge in the US, but really, why does it have to be such bloody rigmarole every time there's an election there?
Re: (Score:2)
"'He Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage'"
Every vote needs to count, even people too stupid to know better get to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
For those without a computer web accessible computers with printers could be used by people at the polling place. Would be pretty reasonable, and probably cost less than the specialized eVoting hardware.
Re:How are they violating the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Moron. The machines in question are running win2k. The software they are distributing with their close systems is ghostscript, which is dual licensed. They either have to have the AFPL commercial license for closed distribution, which they do not, or they have to adhere to the GPL, which they are not.
According to the MPAA and RIAA, Diabold are stealing software. The fact their systems are flawed and they fight tooth and nail to avoid any inspection of their voting machines, also adds insult. Now we know why, they are thieving pirates.
Re:How are they violating the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Look, the GPL gives Diebold the explicit right to use that software, so long as they distribute it themselves.
What? The GPL gives them the right to use and modify the software, as long as they don't distribute it. If they distribute it (say, by selling a voting machine that runs a copy of the software) they have to provide the source. They have not provided any source.
all they've done is establish that the free software movement is really free subject to arbitrary whims and conditions.
The conditions are not arbitrary. They are clearly spelled out in the GPL, which is much easier to read and obey than any proprietary license.
At least if they had used Microsoft Windows internally, they would have been free of any political considerations for license compliance.
Read the second link in the blurb. The voting machines in question run Windows 2000. Guess what, GhostScript runs on Windows too.
Re: (Score:2)
What? The GPL gives them the right to use and modify the software, as long as they don't distribute it.
Wrong, the GPL does NOT give them the right to use and modify it. They already have the right to use and modify it under normal copyright law, as long as they don't distribute it. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but it's actually a pretty important distinction, because it's important to understand that you have these rights with non-GPL'd software too.
The GPL only gives them additional rights concerning redistribution (including distributing modified versions), subject to certain conditions which they a
Re: (Score:2)
Are they withholding the source to the GPL code?
Would they be sued if they were?
There's absolute no reason you need ghostscript on a Windows box when GDI is perfectly capable of producing device independent output natively. .mdi is propietary. .ps is open and understood by just about every printer in existance. That's plenty of reason to use ghostscript.
Re: (Score:2)
As trolls go, this one is far too unsubtle. You need to try harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if you look at the mail thread linked in the summary, they *ARE* doing this on Windows.
Someone looking at the setup noticed some Ghostscript files being changed so he mailed the gs-devel list asking for ideas.
Re:remember freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the GPL ensures freedom for the people who use the software down the chain?
Why give out free software and not make sure it is free for all under the same conditions you gave it?
Why should someone have their opensource software closed up by someone else?
In making opensource software the idea is to make opensource software, not to make the basis for closed source software.
If you intend to never give source, do not use free software, write your own. It is not a huge burden to put the source on your webpage somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is my actual belief.
The company I work for makes money with GPLed software, we distribute source, so can diebold.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this has to do with the fact that the software is dual licensed. If diebold want the close source version the must pay, since that is what they want they should pay.
Artifex has every right to be paid for someone using the software for commercial closed source distribution, they do have a license just for that. Diebold should be happy this option exists so they may use it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the violation occurs because they did not include it or any offer of it.
At the very least they must have a written offer to the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the sales contract for these voting machines?
What about the tech guide?
What about the trouble shooting manual?
For all we know they do offer a the source for Ghostscript. I really think this is more about money then GPL enforcement. Heck I am all for following the GPL but as I said I think this is more about money then freedom.
I am even all for them getting paid. What I don't like is the wrapping a copyright dispute in the GPL when they really are not connected.
The one thing I have always won
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! The users of Diebold machines have no freedom to inspect, modify or redistribute the Diebold software. The copyright holders of Ghostscript just want Diebold to give users the freedoms they gave Diebold. When Diebold wants to open up their software, they can come talk.
Re:remember freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
If people are writing software with the sole aim of having it used by others, then there are licences for that too. People publish under the GPL because it represents what they believe in. There's obviously demand for it, which is why its used.
Sorry, I know I should feed the trolls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who pays you to post this drivel?
The GPL is not viral, it is a very clear license. If you do not like it, do not use it or software licensed under it. Many people do use it and prefer it because it ensures that the software they wrote stays free.
Re: (Score:2)
it is a concept that I have never quite been able to grasp.
Try harder then. Seriously.
GPL isn't "weaponized". What does that even mean? Nothing, that's what. GPL is no more pernicious than basic copyright or any other license.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. If by weaponized you mean that it's a weapon against copyright.. why yes, it is, which is why it is called a "copyleft" license.
If you think copyright on software is acceptable then the copyleft philosophy is probably not for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How would the GPL work if there were no copyright on software?
For example, lets say you make a peice of software called TextWriter. I like it, so I take it and modify it, add some stuff and make it incomputable with your version but still use most of the same code and a similar GUI that you developed. I don't give anyone the source code, or anything else but a $100 binary executable. If there is no copyright on the software, you can say you publish it under the GPL all day and I don't have to listen to y
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no copyright, I take your binary and, using my knowledge of the majority of the software you copied, reverse engineer your small number of changes and provide source code for them. There's nothing you can do, because there's no copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL is not only viral, it is weaponized, so you can use it to fuck over or shut down projects and companies you don't like. I doubt that is what most people have in mind when selecting their licence, but it seems to be all the licence is used for these days.
Amazingly enough, companies can avoid malcontents shutting them down but simply following the license. It's not that difficult. And if following the terms of the GPL does present issues... use something else [adobe.com].
Weaponized, indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only companies that "don't understand" what they can and cannot due under the GPL are the ones that are using an "I'm stupid" smoke screen to try and hide their illegal behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only a moron would be scared to legitimately use open source software because someone else illegitimately used open software. That's a little like being afraid to closed source software because a warez site got raided. The only companies that "don't understand" what they can and cannot due under the GPL are the ones that are using an "I'm stupid" smoke screen to try and hide their illegal behavior.
uh, no, there are real grey area issues here, and it's not a matter of stupid people don't get it and smart people do- from the gs-dev message linked, the gs folks 'do not consider bundling as an integrated component intended to work with other software as "mere aggregation" under the GPL.' the point to note is they do not consider it an aggregate- not that it isn't. it's a grey area - look at the gnu fact- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation [gnu.org] : "Where's the line between two separate p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These ridiculous lawsuits scare the crap out of anyone who would want to legitimately use open source software, and they completely go against the idea of freedom.
These lawsuits are no more "ridiculous" than Microsoft suing somebody because they were running 100 copies of Windows XP but had only paid for one.
In both cases, it's an infringement of copyright. If Diebold hadn't infringed copyright, they wouldn't be sued for it. OK, so maybe the RIAA would sue them while they were getting around to everyone else on the planet, but that doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course corporate licenses are significantly worse than the GPL. I just think it's dumb that gs devs don't go after Linux distros etc when often times they also do not provide the source with the disk.
Not that I am a huge fan of voter fraud, but it looks to me that Diebold is being taken to court just because some of the gs authors don't like the company itself.
It seems hypocritical to be writing "free software" and then try to dictate who gets to use your work.
Re: (Score:2)
What distro does not provide the source?
Most distros have src repositories. Those that point to the original sources are not commercial projects I would bet. Which is what paragraph 3c is about.
Because.... (Score:3, Informative)
GPL authors generally do not want to put code out there to be used as a no-cost alternative to commercial development libraries and programs, while getting nothing in return.
Basically, the "license fee" for GPL code is that the person/company reselling it must give back changes and/or distribute source. And they must abide by any attribution demands as well.
Or negotiate a commercial use license. MySQL does that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you distribute you must give source, does not matter if you change it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a requirement of the GPL.
Your little guess is called paragraph 3c and only applies to non-commercial distribution. This was clearly commercial distribution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you distribute a GPL program, you are required to specify that you are using GPL software, and you must let your users know their rights to view, modify and distribute the source code. Additionally, you are required to give them the source, or offer to do so.
The GPL is more or less straightforward and easy to understand. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt [gnu.org]
Re:Ghostscript was found only on (Score:4, Funny)
Oh so THAT's why only blue districts need anti-virus applied just before election day