Palm Sued Over Palm Pre GPL Violation 374
zaxl writes "Palm is being sued by Artifex Software over the PDF viewer in Palm's Pre smartphone, which may violate the GNU GPL. Artifex alleges that Palm has copied Artifex's PDF rendering engine, called muPDF, and integrated it into the Palm Pre's PDF viewer application without the proper licensing conditions. The entire application must be licensed under the GPL if muPDF is part of the application. It seems more and more cell phones are shipping with open source code, but in a closed manner."
the FSF? (Score:5, Funny)
Settlement is probably inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Settlement is probably inevitable... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe a palm pre owner should just ask for the source code. They may get it.
Re:Settlement is probably inevitable... (Score:4, Interesting)
The pre actually ships with a fair amount of code on it: It's based on a Linux system, after all. Hook it up as a USB drive, and there will be a folder with a copy of the GPL and the full code for much of the OS.
If Palm actually shipped this without the right licensing, I'll bet it's an oversight. I'm betting the first Palm knew of this was when the lawsuit reached them.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
I don't suppose someone here with a Pre would mind checking out that folder and seeing if the source for the PDF viewer is there?
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't suppose someone here with a Pre would mind checking out that folder and seeing if the source for the PDF viewer is there?
Umm, don't you think that is probably something they checked before filing the lawsuit?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, don't you think that is probably something they checked before filing the lawsuit?
You never know. :-P
maybe not... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html [palm.com]
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar [cdnetworks.net]
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz [cdnetworks.net]
(info from post #30349382 [slashdot.org])
Re:maybe not... (Score:4, Informative)
What about http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/documentserver.tar.gz [cdnetworks.net] ?
$ ls -1 documentserver/
COPYING-LGPL2.1.txt
debug-x86-org
documentserver
include
lib
Makefile
mustd.h
PDF.cpp
PDF.h
PDFOutline.cpp
PDFOutline.h
PDFPage.cpp
PDFPage.h
PDFRenderer.cpp
PDFRenderer.h
PDFService.cpp
PDFViewer.cpp
PDFViewer.h
Search.cpp
Search.h
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:maybe not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just look at PDFViewer.cpp. That is definitely not GPL. It states that the material in the file is the proprietary property of palm. So this provides evidence that they did break the GPL assuming this is part of the PDF viewer software.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case if Palm is dynamically linking rather than statically linking the software and isn't modifying the GPL software, they have a legitimate argument as to whether or not they have to comply with
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, no.
The terms are really simple here, and the violation is obvious. If you distribute mods, you must distribute code. No evidence of code out there.... and the app doesn't exist in a vacuum. The argument really isn't legitimate. If fact, it's quite clear what the problem is: violation.
Re:Settlement is probably inevitable... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html [palm.com] would disagree with you.
I'd agree, it is quite clear what the problem is. But it's not a GPL violation...
Re:Settlement is probably inevitable... (Score:4, Interesting)
Incorrect. If they statically link or dynamically link, they *must* license as GPL. What you're probably thinking of is if the libraries that they link to (dynamically or statically) happen to be LGPL, then they would have a choice. But if one of the libraries is GPL, then they have to show the complete source for each executable which links to it.
The GPL is not a bullshit license, it's very well thought out so that bullshit companies who just want to leach someone else's code can't do it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not [wikipedia.org] so clear [brouhaha.com]. The jury is still out - not literally though, since the dynamic linking issue hasn't yet been tried in court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How hard is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most common reason in this market might be meaningless product differentiation by simply switching bits. Customers shouldn't know that the only difference between two devices is the "if( expensive ){ enable_features() }" line.
Another reason is that people will see how many patents they use without permission, and stuff like that.
The publicly given reason is of course that it would enable the competition to gain advantage of their oh-so-valuable-software.
Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they would, if they sold directly to their REAL customers, the end-user who uses the damn thing.
This is entirely false. If it were true, then there is no way GSM providers would ever allow an unlocked device on their network. After all, there's no way they could ever be certain about such a device. And the only thing preventing a GSM baseband is patents.
Is it? I suppose to allow any fully open source, reprogrammable computer on the internet is an invitation to disaster. And yet the least open source of OSes, Windows, causes the most havoc. What's your logic in this?
If your phone can screw up the towers, then there's something wrong with the towers. Eventually they will ignore your device, if it persists the company will register an FCC complaint. You aren't going to knock out a tower because of bad programming, at worst your phone will be ignored, and if you're unlucky you'll see a bunch of minutes or data billed on your account because it bugged out (after the battery dies in a flash.)
Re:How hard is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
The truth is in the middle. No, a truly open phone isn't going to wreck anything. But the carriers won't sell it, because that would endanger their nickle-and-dime model. They do NOT want people to see them as just a mobile ISP.
Yeah, a handset maker could sell them directly to the customer, but that market is simply too small. Almost everybody leases their phone directly from the carrier. What we need is an Android-type device running on a WiMAX network that realizes it's just a dumb pipe...then we'll get some progress.
Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't the latest FIC phones allow complete access to all parts of the system code, including the bits that control the radios?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This way, the cell tower is safe and you get to run any application/library, add external devices to the phone without requiring the blessings of the manufacturer or the cell phone providers.
I dont understand why this is not possible. Hell, they could even make a USB based GSM/CDMA card
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the iPhone it's still a separate chip. As far as I know, the interface isn't a serial line. Instead, it's a higher-bandwidth interface with a multiplexing protocol for several channels. Some of these virtual channels do emulate good old serial lines, and the AT command part is completely true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no. Talking to a baseband chip is like talking to a 3G USB modem. Barring exploits and other ways to actually run code on the chip and mess with the radio, there's nothing you can do to break FCC rules.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Palm's case, they would never sell any phones, not because the software is Open Source but because no US carrier would let it on their network.
fixed that for ya, in EU you can buy any phone (at a higher price) and 3 pay as you go sim cards from different carriers and use whichever card you want when you want. The US is the only country I am aware of with a phone-tied-to-carrier system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even in the US, as long as you use GSM pones, they are not tied to the network. T-Mobile will provide unlock codes for phones they sell, so you can unlock your phone and take it to AT&T. I know this works because I have done it. I have also used phones bought in Europe on T-Mobile's network.
Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh come on... I can buy a GSM modem and stick it on an embedded board from embeddedarm.com. I now have a fully programmable open phone that, according to you, I can now use to wreak utter havoc on the cell phone industry. (I know, I programmed one. A direct bridge between the GSM network and our wifi network. Wneee! Hear those towers toppling!)
Not really. It's the same bullshit argument you hear about almost anything these days - can't trust the user, have to lock it down, we need DRM, those users are all thieves.
BULLSHIT! It only inconveniences the legit users, not those who really want to destroy civilization.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it is entirely another when you take out a whole cell tower or several cell towers do to either malicious programing or just bad programming
Don't be silly. You drank the Apple FUD coolaid. Anybody can build, or even easier, buy a GSM scrambler for a small range [dealextreme.com]. Make it a bit more powerful and you can blanket whole blocks. You could have done so for decades.
And now Apple (and others) are getting comments on their closed ecosystem, and they respond with FUD: "teh evil terr'ists can COMPLETELY jam our phones ZOMG". And you actually believe there isn't a much easier way?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am quite sure many people have tried to hack the tower interface in the spirit of Captain Crunch [wikipedia.org] but who knows how many have tried and succeeded and kept quiet ( although I am quite sure the bragging rights would be legend ), tried and succeeded and ben arrested, tried and succeeded and been paid to be quiet or tried and failed.
Trust me, I am pretty sure we will never know because I am quite sure that the phone companies want that kept quiet.
I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Slashdot for or against copyrights this week? You know, since the GPL is a copyright license and relies on copyright law to have any power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Slashdot for or against copyrights this week?
Well, that depends. If the discussion revolves around people wanting to share files regardless of copyright, this community is probably against copyright law. If the discussion is about [insert large company here] violating the GPL, then copyright law is awesome. It's a simple conditional.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to be confused. If we can talk about a copyright law consensus on slashdot, that consensus would be that copyright is there to benefit the authors but it should not be used as a weapon to hinder any social, cultural and educational use of any copyrighted work. That, oddly enough, is the premises where the french copyright tradition is built upon. That is the reason why commercial distribution of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is frowned upon (i.e., piracy) but if you can (or at least should) be able to freely access copyrighted works without the need for an authorization of the copyright owner if it's strictly for personal use and your distribution does not have any meaningful and measurable impact on the commercial distribution. It's straight forward and it has been the norm in an awful lot of countries, at least until the US started to force it's version of copyright law onto the world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
should not be used as a weapon to hinder any social, cultural and educational use of any copyrighted work
I strongly disagree on two points. First, to say that the average Slashdot reader honestly has the public good in mind when talking about copyright policy is laughable. The most frequent post simply amounts to "damn those big companies, I'll do what I want."
Next, I personally disagree with your view on the purpose of copyrights. While I accept that copyright law has gotten completely out of hand with absurd extensions on the lifetime of copyrights, I vehemently oppose the idea that there should be varyin
You are confused. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't (nor can anyone) speak for all slashdotters. Yet, I believe the explanation of why everyone should be able to freely access copyrighted works without the author's explicit authorization if it's for personal use and the commercial distribution i
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to popular belief, comments on Slashdot are written by multiple users just like yourself (but different!).
As it actually happens, the set of people who feel compelled to comment and moderate on "Pirate Bay" stories may not be exactly the same set of people that comment and moderate on GPL licensing stories.
Of the users who comment or moderate on both kinds of stories, some might have what appear to you to be contradicting viewpoints, but you may need to stop looking at everything as black and white - maybe you'll learn something.
I understand how "RIAA should not be destroying people's lives for downloading songs" could be interpreted by you to mean "Copyright sucks, and anyone should have the right to copy anything they want." But there's actually a not-so-subtle difference between those two viewpoints.
I also understand how you might interpret "Corporations need to comply with the terms under which they licensed others' software by releasing their source code or remove the copyright software from their product" as "Burn the evil corporations at the stake", but again, these arguments are not the same thing.
I hope this helps resolve at least some of your confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, the GPL isn't a copyright license, it's a procedural use of code that may or may not otherwise be bound by copyright. The 'open' side of the license, should a coder be bound by it, doesn't nullify copyright, and never did. It's a usage license that defines the procedure under which the code can subsequently be used, how modifications are treated, and says how the use of the code binds one to the obligations of the license.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL never has, and never will be, about usage. It's about distribution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not correct.
From the standpoint of copyright law, nobody needs a license just to install, or run, a legally acquired copy of GPL software, nor any other software.
U.S. copyright law, 17 USC 117(a)(1), specifically states that the owner of a program has the right to copy it, as an essential step in utilizing it:
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason we have software licenses at all is copyright. Installing software requires at least one copy of the software to be made; thus, unlike a paper book, you must get the permission of the copyright holder to use their software even after you purchase (or otherwise obtain) a copy. The copyright holder can give you such permission with all sorts of restrictions, or without any restrictions at all (such was with the BSD license).
I am not saying that this system is ideal or that I support it, but it is the reality that we have to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
If your comment is taking a stab at those who over generalize, you understand this already. I realize I'm generalizing too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is neither for nor against copyright, and neither for nor against copyright reform. Slashdot is both for and against copyright, and both for and against copyright reform.
In case you hadn't noticed, we don't walk in lockstep here. There are varied opinions on every subject, including copyright.
http://opensource.palm.com/ looks like it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They've been busy, haven't they? The patch to busybox I looked at was well commented. Looks like the kind of thing which could be taken upstream.
The ipkg changes might be useful on the openmoko.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Palm Mentions mupdf on the phone (Score:3, Informative)
libgpg-error (only certain files are licensed under GPL), linux-hotplug, libsamplerate0, fuse, freefont, vpnc, sysfsutils, iptables, dosfstools, alsa-plugins, busybox, ipkg, netbase, oprofile, pmeloop, alsa-utils, PPP (only certain files are licensed under GPL), readline, setserial, upstart-initscripts, e2fsprogs (only certain files are licensed under GPL), module-init-tools-cross, module-init-tool, base-passwd, iproute2, usbmon, mupdf, libpurple, makedevs, update- modules, netcat, gdbm, cifs, rsync, update-rc.d, upstart, wireless-tools, udev, bootchart, fbset, dnsmasq, binutils, libgcrypt (only certain files are licensed under GPL), libfuse, Sysvinit, Linux Kernel, pulseaudio, procps, psmisc, mtools, UN Batang Korean True Type Font, faad2, e2fsprogs-libs (portions are licensed under GPL, other portions are licensed under LGPL), sysstat, screen
I don't know why there's a suit unless someone requested the code and was denied, but Palm clearly advertise the fact that they use the app. The document is 37 pages long, but it's not hard to find references to the software they use.
Re:Palm Mentions mupdf on the phone (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC GPLv2 allows Palm to distribute the application as they are doing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Old Article Is Old (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else notice this? -> Mikael Ricknäs (IDG News Service) 07/12/2009 07:53:00
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh dear, I've travelled back in time to the seventh of December in the year 2009.
There's still time, I have to warn people about Stallman before its too late.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why we're very careful that any libraries we use in distributed software are licensed under BSD or MIT style licenses.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Palm actually uses a bunch of GPL'd code (the Pre is Linux based) and they do make the code available. In fact, I think some of it even comes on the device itself.
I'm sure this is just an oversight if the code really is GPL and isn't available.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
... you must be new here? Or you're technologically impaired and know not a thing about Palm.
This is not the place for you - go back to Digg/Wikipedia where you belong. This is a place for people with EXPERIENCE AND FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE to discuss things, not provide bullshit citations from some wiki that any moron can edit, for morons with the weakest google-fu on the fucking planet or just plain lazy fools without a clue.
IOW - Sit down little one, adults are talking. Speak only when spoken to.
...stunned silence.... ... wow. What the hell ?
You are the official elitist-asshole-of-the-day.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What? If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, this is not the site for you. Digg and Reddit are for those that demand everything spoon-fed to them.
Here on slashdot, the subject we discuss tend to be a major part of our lives, as usually it's our JOB. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE'RE PAID TO KNOW THIS.
Elitist? No, I'm sick and tired of you too-lazy-to-work/study-for-yourself gimme-everything because I'm too stupid to look for myself people. If you can't do your own research and either confirm or outright
Re:Well (parent needs a clue) (Score:2)
Since it doesn't say that, I'm sure you'll agree that this is a problem.
Like all licences, GPL constrains how you may used the licensed thing. All you have to do is satisfy those terms and conditions and you're fine.
Re:Well (parent needs a clue) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally not seeing any way in which what you said could be read as disagreeing with what I wrote. Distribution is only one way to use software. It happens to be the one that Palm chose for this, so no other terms could apply.
Re:Well (parent needs a clue) (Score:5, Informative)
You said "used" which I assumed was supposed to be "use". Use and distribution are two different things. Distribution is not a way to use software. Even if it was, the gpl is very explicit in its goal to only cover only distribution. Many people get confused over this point and think that they are not free to use GPL in a personal project that will never be distributed.That's why I responded: to clarify your statement in the general sense. Yes, in the case of palm they did distribute. But, I think its more important that people understand what the GPL says, then the specifics of any one case. This is why you will notice any actual reference to this case in my first post.
A great example of this is something like MySql. I can change the software to do what ever I want, and use it on my server to build a facebook killer, without being required to distribute the source code for it, even though its licensed under the GPL. Because, again the GPL only covers distribution, not use( or other uses if you insist on your ridiculous definition of use that includes distribution).
Also, you misspelled licenses. I'm usually the guy that people point out grammatical errors to, rather than visa versa. But, still, if you are going to offer advice about a subject, it helps your creditability to actually spell it correctly. Or at least use a web browser with integrated spell checking. Again, the point of posting was not nitpicking, but clarifying as posts similar to your last one have led to quite a bit of misinformation about the GPL license.
Once again:GPL covers distribution only, not use.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly you're not a typical grammar Nazi or you'd know that the phrase is "vice-versa" and that you used creditability when you mean credibility.
Now cue the next grammar asshole to pick my post apart...
Re:Well (parent needs a clue) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is for open source software whose authors wish to encourage the development of open source software. If you're not writing open source software, you look for another solution or write it your damn self. If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly the point. You have the freedom to use GPL code so long as you release any linked code as GPL as well, or you can rewrite it yourself or use an alternative. Everybody wins!
However, if you take
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't win, as someone who writes software licensed under BSD/MIT.
I have to compromise.
Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).
Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
That's because everyone isn't working towards a common goal. Open source is a means to an end, but that end is different for different people.
Some people just have the goal of creating software that others can freely incorporate into their own projects (providing freedom for developers and quality software for end users). BSD is fine for them.
Other people have the goal of creating software that will always be free for its end users to examine and modify (providing freedom for developers, quality software fo
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
You can win by relicensing as GPL.
Not always possible. I've released BSD-licensed programs that depend on Apache-licensed libraries. The GPL is not compatible with the Apache license, so I can't change the license of my code to the GPL, even if I want to. I could ask the upstream author of the Apache licensed library to make it GPL'd, but why would they? They don't want people to integrate their code with less permissively licensed code.
Re: (Score:2)
The developer of the hypothetical 1kloc library is under no obligation whatsoever to licence his code in any particular way(unless you have him on contract or something).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).
[Emphasis mine.]
You're forced? Is the GPL being implemented at gunpoint now? Nobody forced you to use GPL software. It's your choice if you want to avail yourself of the hard work of others or not. If you do, then the least you could do is to respect their wishes about how the fruits of their labour are used.
So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).
If by 'certain circumstances' you mean that the GPL is a bullshit license because you want to use it in ways that it wasn't intended to be used, well... you have less than my fullest sympathy.
Look, I re
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post has forced me to either respond or not respond. Damn you and your restrictive discourse.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, you would like the freedom to choose the Free Software license of your choice, but you don't think that the folks writing GPLed software should have the same freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The thing is the GPL isn't the "golden chalice" even for the FSF. That's why they have the LGPL. And nobody (that I've ever heard of, anyway) is going to criticize anybody for choosing another free license (like BSD) either. Choosing the correct license is a very important thing and every developer should think very carefully about it before they release. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard developers complain about being "ripped off" because somebody used their code in a "commercial product
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is a distribution license; you only need to actually agree to and follow it if you plan on distributing it or derivatives of it to others.
Other than BSD trolls, I don't see how anyone could find the above complicated. Would you rather take proprietary EULAs? Those DO govern what you can do with the software itself.
If you want to be able to use source without having to give back, there is PLENTY of it under more permissive licenses like the BSD/MIT. Use those, don't bitch about the GPL.
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.
Honestly, I have some issues with the LGPL, but they're a hell of a lot less because that aspect is gone. The "linking to my code counts as directly using my code" clause in the GPL is complete and utter bullshit.
Can you please point to that clause in the GPL? My google search [google.com] for that clause isn't working very well.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what you're looking for is covered under this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception [wikipedia.org]
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't license my stuff under the GPL; I prefer BSD-style licensing. However, the copyright holder is free to choose how they want their stuff distributed. Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.
Re: (Score:2)
Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.
I'd prefer them to just publish the viral parts of the app. These private entities should pay the real price for including GPL code with their own. By taking bribe money, the copyright owners only reinforce bad behavior, showing that instead of abiding by the terms, these devs can be bought.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
If you use someone else's (copyrighted) code you must abide by the license restriction. If it would be too costly to do so then you can't use the code.
Developers should fully understand whatever license they release under. If someone wants to restrict usage of their code to only open-source projects they are free to do so. If they want to release for the benefit of everyone they are free to do so. If they want to try to make some money off their efforts they are free to do so. The key is understanding what you're doing when you choose a license.
New GPL code is not a donation to the community. It is a payment to those who have written GPL code in the past, released on the understanding that others will pay for it by contributing further code. GPL carries restrictions, learn what they are before you use or write GPL code.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit license? Listen buddy, nobody is making you, Palm, or anyone else use it. I am sure if you used a proprietary company's source code you would be bound to worse restrictions. I honestly don't see what is with you anti-GPL trolls. Here's the deal with the GPL, I am offering you code to inspect, compile, and distribute to anyone on the planet. The only thing I require in return is that if you DISTRIBUTE changes to the code that you contribute with your changes. You may not like it but tough. You didn'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do I risk being labeled as an anti-GPL troll for saying that the people who aren't willing to offer one for any price are assholes?
You risk being labeled ignorant. A lot of GPL software has more than one contributor to the code base...
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you have thousends of programmers? Use BSD. (Score:4, Insightful)
No?
Who is going to troubleshoot your software?
Who is going to fix it?
How are you going to gain technical credibility if nobody know it is your company who is doing that great software?
That is why companies are using GPL. At the very least bugs are easier to find and if your product is any good your own users become your best QA team.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
The second option is expensive and the third option will probably push the price of the device up (you need either more RAM or to pay ARM for the Jazelle extensions in the CPU core). The GPL'd option looks the least expensive. It's worth noting that iRex follows the GPL path and includes a GPL'd PDF reader on their devices. This has been forked by the community, and the community version is much nicer than the one that they supply. The rest of their software stack sucks (although the hardware is nice).
A lot of companies choose BSD licensed alternatives when they exist, but they are not always available. A lot of companies that choose BSD licensed alternatives contribute code upstream, because it's cheaper for them to do this than maintain their own fork. A lot of companies that use GPL'd code either spend time and effort isolating the GPL'd component so that they can avoid releasing their code, or just ignore the GPL and hope that they won't get caught. The latter option is quite common, but it's starting to become a lot less safe, so hopefully that will push more companies to seriously evaluate other options.
By the way, I recently interviewed the creators of a Linux-based handheld and asked them why they picked Linux over a BSD variant. Their answer had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of the platforms; they said it was simply to do with brand recognitions. If you say 'Linux based' then geeks buy it and non-geeks have probably heard something positive about Linux, even if they can't tell you what it is. If you say 'BSD-based' then a few geeks buy it and no one else knows what it means, so you don't get any marketing advantage.
Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."
Either you're a troll or your lawyers are idiots. the FSF specifically explains this isn't the case.
Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:5, Informative)
Pls don't feed the copy&paste troll ... ... this very same 'story' has been posted way too many times *sigh*
Re:GPL: Intellectual Theft (Score:5, Funny)
ext2 stores data through the specific pattern of its fragmentation. Defragmenting would be like formatting your hard drive. Bad idea.
Actually, GPL stands for "General Public License", after the late General Reginald Franklin Public, who inspired Richard Stallman to much of his Free Software ideals when both were working on a then-classified national defense project (a device to automatically hack enemy computers that later was scrapped and reformed into the VAX line of computers).
The GPL has a "mere aggregation" clause. It states that for any program on any computer aggregate with a computer running GPL software ("aggregated") you have to release the full source code to any program running on it. This is why Microsoft has come up with the "Shared Source" initiative - they accidentally installed the GIMP without reading the license.
Note that you are now required to acquire and release the source code for Windows 2000 through whichever means neccessary.
Do note that Shared Source exists to satisfy the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause, which also sttes that the license you release the source code under must be GPL-compliant, which is defined as being "at least as draconic as the GPL". That is why the Shared Source license not only incorporates all of the GPL's restrictions but also prevents any company reading any Shared Source-licensed code file, for use in programming or as a reference or otherwise, from making any profits at all ever again (Shared Source License, art. 19.b.ii.).
Your company is committing felony copyright infringement and should turn itself in now before ACTA is enacted, which will equalize the legal repercussions for software and high-seas piracy, temporarily extraterritorialize the premises of infringers and set a mandatory bounty on the infringers' heads. If you don't want people to storm your premises and shoot you at their leisure, you should act now while the penalty is merely twenty years of prison time and a permanent ban from working with computers ever again for your entire company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[Citation Needed]
Re:Another example of Not Really Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This simply isn't true. The choices have been there for a long time. Palm could have used something else. They didn't. They could have also complied with the GPL license, and no sweat, no harm, no fowl. They didn't, it appears.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry? Did they actually use GPL-style licenses before? Got anything to back this up? This is one of the most opaque attempt at spreading FUD [wikipedia.org] I've seen here on slashdot.
Re:Another example of Not Really Free (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry?
FATI (Freeloaders And Takers International) made public anouncements that no longer will they stand by and take software that demands they do more than stand by and take software !
FATI have declared they will setup a protest webpage at becomeafati.com where freeloaders and takers from all over the globe can declare their intent to idly stand and waiting for other people to give them what they want when they want it.
LATE NEWS: FATI are demanding somebody else setup their webpage NOW and place it under an anything goes style license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your source for this fact?
It doesn't matter to me what "the industry" does. "The industry" can do whatever it wants, and it has no effect on my ability to run open-source software on my own machine.
Extra points for red-baiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Your source for this fact?
I'm not sure what the OP's source is, but he's probably referring to how the GPL is often thought of as the holy grail or end-all-be-all free license, and how most companies releasing free code nowadays tend to stick with MIT and Apache2.0 among others. That, plus the GPL probably isn't as prevalent as many assume. Many small, inconsequential projects and doodads choose the GPL (hey, it's what people think of when they think open source), but beyond the obvious big projects Linux and MySQL, there are a lo
Re: (Score:2)
Just another example of why the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses. Face it, the GPL is dead and Stallman's socialist dream along with it.
The LGPL, notice the L, will do just fine in those cases where software authors find that the GPL is too restrictive. And the GPL does a great job at protecting real people, if some corporation has a problem with releasing their code under GPL then that is their problem. The GPL says that you can not take free code and make it non-free, I do not see the lack of being able to take freedom away as a problem. But then again, I am not a evil corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one hell of a wild-assed assertion. GPL is far from dead. BSD licenses guarantee that business and industry will take what they want and give nothing in return. BSD licensed code begs to be abused and to be used as a means to abuse the very public it came from. One look at Mac OS or MS Windows should that much easily enough.
I can't say I fully agree with the whole GPL thing, but I get the general idea and I'm pretty okay with it. So it comes with strings attached -- strings that guarantee that
Re:Another example of Not Really Free (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah the "industry" would love all open source code to be BSD so they can use it with impunity. Honestly let's stop this FUD. It's simply not true. Code under the GPL is no different from code under any other license. If you don't use it in compliance with the license then you are in a copyright violation situation, and the law allows financial remedies for such a case. The fact that it is GPL is irrelevant to this. Also the summary is incorrect. Palm is in a copyright violation now and have three choices: 1. remove the GPL code, 2. license the code under a different arrangement, and 3. License their derivative product as GPL.
Why are you upset when copyright holders exercise their rights under the law to prevent a company from knowingly or unknowingly rip them off? How would BSD help this situation? Because the GPL actually has teeth we're starting to see the tip of the ice berg as far as willful license violations go. It's impossible to judge how much code is being used illegally in proprietary products. We're not talking GPL either. Any license. Microsoft code, code from some other source.
Do liberty and capitalism allow one the right to violate copyrights? The GPL exists to protect the rights and freedoms of the developers and the end users while allowing free redistribution of code. I know of no other license that does this so effectively. In my opinion, if all open source code was BSD, there really would be no open source community or ecosystem. Like Adam Smith said, sometimes you have to balance self-interest with self-interest. The BSD doesn't do that really well. Certainly there is zero incentive for a company to release code under the BSD if it's just going to be used directly against them. The GPL allows companies to foster communities and promote development, while maintaining a level playing field for all the players.