Linux GPL violations.
Joseph Elwell
good place to report this, but have not been able to
find anything.
Where is a good place to report GPL violations
concerning the Linux Kernel?
I recently got a virign webplayer
(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
the GPL in the license that is included in the manual.
In fact the license in the manual concerning the
"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
The people who sell the machine to virgin, is Merinta
(http://www.merinta.com/). You can verify that the
machines virgin use are running linux
(http://www.merinta.com/news/release000411.html).
Merinta, from what I understand from posts by
(presumedly) employees of Boundless (their mother
corporation) have many GPL violations according to:
http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=vwgeneral&Post=17&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session=
I like the idea of all these new Internet devices
coming out, running Linux. But it worries me that
they'll all ignore the GPL as they go. Making it more
difficult for fututre improvements in the kernel code.
I'm not on the Linux kernel mailing list. So please CC
me directly at jel...@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
Joseph Elwell.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Pavel Machek
> I've read through months of archives, trying to find a
> good place to report this, but have not been able to
> find anything.
>
> Where is a good place to report GPL violations
> concerning the Linux Kernel?
Maybe we should make small portion of kernel copyright FSF, then you
could ask r...@gnu.org to defend you.
Pavel
--
I'm pa...@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at dis...@linmodems.org
Mike A. Harris
>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Joseph Elwell <jel...@yahoo.com>
>To: linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu
>Subject: Linux GPL violations.
>
>I've read through months of archives, trying to find a
>good place to report this, but have not been able to
>find anything.
>
>Where is a good place to report GPL violations
>concerning the Linux Kernel?
Right here. It's the best place indeed. It might not be the
most appropriate place, but if you are looking for results, it
generally reaches the widest audience of insane bigmouths (and I
don't exclude myself) that will fight to no end arguing about it
and causing a big public stir. This causes it to get seen on
Slashdot and the rest is history. If the FSF doesn't jump in,
they likely will eventually, or someone will try and establish
communications with the offending vendor.
It usually results in one of:
1) The vendor eventually realizes they're screwed and does what
is required to get themselves out of the mess legally.
2) The vendor pulls the product
3) Darth Vendor joins dark side of the source. (releases code)
Either way, a huge pissing match occurs that goes on for at least
a month or so, but it usually ends up getting the job done, so it
is worth it.
>I recently got a virign webplayer
>(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
>it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
>the GPL in the license that is included in the manual.
>In fact the license in the manual concerning the
>"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
>mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
Hmm. I don't know for sure that a product using Linux must state
that it does, however if you know it does and can prove that, I
believe you can ask them for the source, and the source of any
modifications must be provided. If they use Linux, and run
proprietary software on top of it that isn't linked with GPL code
however, they need not provide source for anything other than the
kernel and other GPL code and modifications that they've made.
>The people who sell the machine to virgin, is Merinta
>(http://www.merinta.com/). You can verify that the
>machines virgin use are running linux
>(http://www.merinta.com/news/release000411.html).
>Merinta, from what I understand from posts by
>(presumedly) employees of Boundless (their mother
>corporation) have many GPL violations according to:
>http://www.kenseglerdesigns.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=vwgeneral&Post=17&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session=
Then they likely are violating GPL if they've had many cases of
it in the past. I haven't checked up on your info, but if it is
legit, you should consider emailing the FSF/GNU about it as well
with as much info as you can. Email the authors of any of the
software to which they may be infringing GPL on as well. If
someone infringes on GPL, it is up to the author of the GPL code
to persue it, although many people will often help or advise
along the way.
>I like the idea of all these new Internet devices coming out,
>running Linux. But it worries me that they'll all ignore the
>GPL as they go. Making it more difficult for fututre
>improvements in the kernel code.
That is bound to happen indeed. Until a true lawsuit is filed
relating to GPL, companies are testing how far they can
go. Eventually a suit will occur and follow through to
completion. Should that case be won by the GPL side, then other
companies will have to look out. If it is lost though, it would
be a sad day for GPL indeed.
>I'm not on the Linux kernel mailing list. So please CC
>me directly at jel...@yahoo.com.
yahoo.com? Try http://www.linuxfreemail.com - Much more
friendly don't you think? ;o)
Take care.
TTYL
--
Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
Gregory Maxwell
> [They would not avoid problem altogether: there would still be 1000
> other people to sue them.]
Unfortunatly, history has shown that most of these 1000 people don't care
to take it all the way.
> > Perhaps someone could talk linus into attributing
> > linux/arch/i386/mm/init.c to the FSF?
>
> That's i386 specific. init/main.c is better.
> Pavel
Sounds good. :)
Pavel Machek
> > > I've read through months of archives, trying to find a
> > > good place to report this, but have not been able to
> > > find anything.
> > >
> > > Where is a good place to report GPL violations
> > > concerning the Linux Kernel?
> >
> > Maybe we should make small portion of kernel copyright FSF, then you
> > could ask r...@gnu.org to defend you.
>
> It would have to be an important and hard to replace segment or they could
> avoid the problem altogeater..
Idea is they are stupid and don't care about GPL. They will not do the
work of removing segment. (But I agree it needs to be core piece, not
driver.)
[They would not avoid problem altogether: there would still be 1000
other people to sue them.]
> Perhaps someone could talk linus into attributing
> linux/arch/i386/mm/init.c to the FSF?
That's i386 specific. init/main.c is better.
Pavel
--
I'm pa...@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at dis...@linmodems.org
-
Andreas Bombe
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Joseph Elwell wrote:
> >I recently got a virign webplayer
> >(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
> >it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
> >the GPL in the license that is included in the manual.
> >In fact the license in the manual concerning the
> >"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
> >mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
>
> Hmm. I don't know for sure that a product using Linux must state
> that it does, however if you know it does and can prove that, I
> believe you can ask them for the source, and the source of any
> modifications must be provided.
If they distribute GPL software in binary form they do have to either
include the source or a written offer for the source. GPL clause 3 a)
and b). If they don't include source and don't lose a word about that
they are violating the license.
--
Andreas E. Bombe <andrea...@munich.netsurf.de> DSA key 0x04880A44
http://home.pages.de/~andreas.bombe/ http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Ralf Baechle
> > Hmm. I don't know for sure that a product using Linux must state
> > that it does, however if you know it does and can prove that, I
> > believe you can ask them for the source, and the source of any
> > modifications must be provided.
>
> If they distribute GPL software in binary form they do have to either
> include the source or a written offer for the source. GPL clause 3 a)
> and b). If they don't include source and don't lose a word about that
> they are violating the license.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
In other words they don't have a license anymore, so sue them for piracy.
Ralf
David Schwartz
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
>
> In other words they don't have a license anymore, so sue them for piracy.
>
> Ralf
Good luck. You don't need any special license to distribute something to
someone who is already licensed to receive it, possess it, and use it. You
are confusing the distribution of the physical data with the distribution of
the associated rights.
DS
Mike A. Harris
>Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:40:48 +0200
>From: Andreas Bombe <andrea...@munich.netsurf.de>
>To: Mike A. Harris <mha...@meteng.on.ca>
>Cc: Joseph Elwell <jel...@yahoo.com>,
> Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-...@vger.rutgers.edu>
>Subject: Re: Linux GPL violations.
>
>On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:28:30AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Joseph Elwell wrote:
>> >I recently got a virign webplayer
>> >(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
>> >it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
>> >the GPL in the license that is included in the manual.
>> >In fact the license in the manual concerning the
>> >"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
>> >mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
>>
>> Hmm. I don't know for sure that a product using Linux must state
>> that it does, however if you know it does and can prove that, I
>> believe you can ask them for the source, and the source of any
>> modifications must be provided.
>
>If they distribute GPL software in binary form they do have to either
>include the source or a written offer for the source. GPL clause 3 a)
>and b). If they don't include source and don't lose a word about that
>they are violating the license.
Correct, however unless their own source includes GPL they don't
need to provide THEIR source. Only source of GPL and any
modifications. Providing source can be as simple as saying
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/ in an email...
I doubt that they have a stock kernel though in an embedded
device so it likely has kernel modifications, and the above
doesn't make much difference.
--
Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
Andreas Bombe
Correct. But the GPL code is still there, and that's what it's all
about.
> Only source of GPL and any
> modifications. Providing source can be as simple as saying
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/ in an email...
No. Read clause 3 of the GPL. Distributions of executables generated
from GPL code require it to be accompanied either with the source or a
written offer for the source. They have to make the offer, not wait for
email.
If they go for the written offer, they have to distribute the sources
themselves. Referring to those sources from which you got the
unmodified code is only valid for noncommercial distribution (clause
3.c). Selling a hardware/software combination looks quite commercial to
me.
It's the distributors task to offer the source, not the receiver's to
find out by luck that there is GPL'd code in the product so that they
may ask for source.
--
Andreas E. Bombe <andrea...@munich.netsurf.de> DSA key 0x04880A44
http://home.pages.de/~andreas.bombe/ http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
-
Mike A. Harris
>> Correct, however unless their own source includes GPL they don't
>> need to provide THEIR source.
>
>Correct. But the GPL code is still there, and that's what it's all
>about.
Certainly. Any GPL code requires source availability.
>> Only source of GPL and any
>> modifications. Providing source can be as simple as saying
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/ in an email...
>
>No. Read clause 3 of the GPL. Distributions of executables generated
>from GPL code require it to be accompanied either with the source or a
>written offer for the source. They have to make the offer, not wait for
>email.
Correct. However, in practice, unmodified sources are often
acceptibly pointed to from their originating source. This allows
one to obtain the latest sources as well. They are required
nonetheless to provide source themselves should someone want it,
but in practice pointing out where it is available online is
usually is technically what someone is looking for. They are
required however, as you state.
There has been discussion lately about loosening the wording of
the GPL so that one can point out somewhere on the internet that
the exact source they've used is located to meet the source
requirement. Changing world...
>If they go for the written offer, they have to distribute the sources
>themselves. Referring to those sources from which you got the
>unmodified code is only valid for noncommercial distribution (clause
>3.c). Selling a hardware/software combination looks quite commercial to
>me.
Yes, that is the legal wording of the GPL, but in practice, if
someone shows where it can be obtained, most people are sane
enough to get it from there. If they can't however for whatever
reason - if just to prove a point, they can of course get it from
the company directly by means of the GPL requirement.
>It's the distributors task to offer the source, not the receiver's to
>find out by luck that there is GPL'd code in the product so that they
>may ask for source.
Absolutely.
--
Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
Alan Cox
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
>
> In other words they don't have a license anymore, so sue them for piracy.
Doesnt the DMCA have a few things to say about piracy ;)