Bell, SuperMicro Sued Over GPL 273
Markus Toth writes "The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of the developers of the Linux-based BusyBox utility suite. The suits allege that Bell Microproducts and SuperMicro Computer each violated redistribution stipulations of the GNU General Public License (GPL).The Bell Microproducts suit pertains to the Hammer MyShare NAS (network-attached storage) appliance, which is sold by Bell's Hammer Storage division. I was the one who alerted the busybox developers about the GPL violation after providing a script for disassembling the firmware and instructions about mounting the contained initrd. As you see in my first post at the gpl-violations.org mailing lists where I posted all mails that I sent to and received from Hammer Storage, they refused to provide me the GPL sources several times. Looks like they will have to provide them soon; I will post any updates in the nas-central blog."
How stupid can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)
We hear so many of these large companies have problems with this. Why?
For those that use this... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would have happened if they instead used a copy of WinNT4.0 without paying Microsoft? Microsoft would want blood, and would extract it via the BSA.
The creators of Busybox just want you to host the changes you've done to it. They wanted no money.
In other words: What would $proprietary_software_manufacturer do?
Others may decry it, but I support it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:4, Insightful)
The usual suspects...
Why NOT hand out the source? Its an app. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can sort of understand their motivation (if not their ethics/commercial sense!) if they've got a highly modified Lunix kernel where they've made extensive changes to the networking stack to enable their "unique" feature or similar, but why with Busybox? Surely the path of least resistance is just to make the tar ball available (or realise, you've stuffed up, and start making the offer and send any that ask the tarball to play catch-up). Are any of these guys really making proprietary improvements with amazing IP involved to Busybox? It seems an unlikely place to do it..
Maybe they've ported it to the latest tiniest CPU, but they still get a time to market advantage their (particularly versus producing Busybox like functionality from scratch!), but even that seems unlikely to be worth fighting hard when you'll quickly realise you'll lose.
Why go to the hassle?
I suspect that this probably boils down to default policies and a lack of understanding of the GPL more than anything, sadly. By default most companies would have a "We don't make available ANY of our IP unnecessarily" and that hasn't yet gelled with the GPL. No one wants to stand up and make the call that compiling Busybox didn't involved much of the companies IP, and releasing the source is an obligation.. The people involved with the IP aren't the same people that make the 'legal' calls and so companies come across with these silly positions..
--Q
Better late than never (Score:5, Insightful)
The myshare source files are made available under various open source code licenses, including the GNU General Public License (GPL). Please review the license terms included with each download for the rights, obligations and restrictions associated with the open source file.
Installation instructions
title / description download posted release notes
Myshare Home v.1 GPL Source Code
47.6 MB 06/11/08
Myshare Home v.2 GPL Source Code
158.1 06/11/08
Myshare Office v.2 GPL Source Code
220.8 MB 06/11/08
-Rick
Re:Understandable response... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For those that use this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Im an end user, I can install it anywhere, copy it anywhere, give it to my friends without worry, hack it.... The list goes on.
Most of the restrictions only exist to ensure community efforts. After all, you got it for free, so submit your changes you sell for free.
Re:I'll guess "money". (Score:2, Insightful)
Fear. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm serious. If they UNDERSTOOD the process, they would ANNOUNCE that it was GPL'd and that anyone who wanted to could modify it or add features, etc.
Just like LinkSys found with their wireless routers.
Re:For those that use this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then if you don't like the license, don't use the software. Using GPL software against the terms of the license because you couldn't find any other free code to use is hardly an excuse.
If you can find BSD or public domain code that allows you to re-use it and not have to write it, go ahead. If you can't, then either write it yourself, or quit whining that it's unfair you can't use the GPL stuff without adhering to the terms because it cramps your business model.
A lot of companies just figure they can have the best of both worlds -- get the OSS stuff because it already does most of what they want, and then treat it as proprietary software they won't tell you anything about.
As the GP said -- this isn't about software released under the GPL or if people should use it. This is about companies trying to get something for free.
Cheers
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think, with proper grammar and some respect, Markus might have been able to motivate Mr. Vang to be a bit more interested in meeting the requirements of using GPL code. This whole thing might have been resolved with out lining the pockets of more lawyers.
-Rick
Re:Understandable response... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. They know they're violating the GPL and just want him to get lost
2. They don't know what the GPL is, that they're using GPL'd products, that they don't read the GPL right, they don't understand who he is, why it's any of his business, why he thinks he's got any right to their products source code and so on.
In the latter case, good communication skills that presents your case in a serious, professional and understandable manner that makes them realize their error or at least begins a closer investigation of the issue may be an advantage. Besides, it looks to me like his legal skills are severely lacking:
Re:For those that use this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, I'd say this isn't a problem with the GPL.
It's a problem with commercial entities trying to use the GPLd software without abiding by the rules.
If you can find some BSD/public domain code which does what you need, fine. If you can't, that doesn't mean you should be able to just take the GPL software -- it means you should write your own.
I don't really see a problem with companies avoiding GPL software because of the license. That doesn't reflect badly on the GPL, it reflects badly on companies who are trying to do an end-run around the license.
Cheers
Re:For those that use this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be greedy.
Ok, go ahead, mod me as a troll. It's the truth.
Re:Fear. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)
From this I presume that you have never tried to read a typical redistribution license for a commercial software library.
Re:I'll guess "money". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so hard to read about the GPL? It's a whole lot easier to read and comprehend than your average commercial software license. If a company's lawyers are expected to routinely understand complex contracts running close to a hundred pages of dense legalese, why should they have any trouble whatsoever with the GPL?
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading is hard, yo! they have like, long words 'n shit!
Seriously, the GPL is about as simple as it gets. It has to be written in legalese so it's going to be a bit obfuscated no matter what, but come on. It's actually in some of the plainest English I've seen in a legal document.
Of course, you do have to understand some technical terms to read it, and people have deliberately fucked around with the meaning of those terms, and tried to get around the GPL in other ways, so now we have a new version. (Or do we? Is that thing out or what? Was the plan for the GPLv3 to dither until no one cared if it was changed all along?)
Or, you know, BSD licensed code. Go fingers, cutwhatchyalike. Seriously though, there's no nasty legal repercussions to GPL code if you just make the whole thing GPL. It's when you start closing parts of it that you have problems. Of course a lot of companies don't want to operate that way. But the cost of saving all that time is helping others save time. You can still differentiate on the copyrighted parts of the product (case design, web interface, et cetera.)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, their general policy is as follows: the MySQL client library (which you need to link to, to talk to the server) is GPL'ed, so it can only be used in a GPL'ed application. If you want to use it in a non-GPL application, you need to obtain a license from MySQL AB. MySQL supports many more languages/interfaces than just PHP, so this is a real concern.
So although you are right in saying that you can create a closed-source application using MySQL if you are using PHP, the other guy is right in saying that in general you cannot use MySQL in a closed-source application without obtaining a license from MySQL AB.
Re:Fear. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slavery - Freedom To Take Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
The "fuzzy" is because your LAW is "fuzzy" (Score:1, Insightful)
The only place where GPL is "fuzzy" is where it gets bundled or where it gets a derivative. And that's ENTIRELY your legal definition of laws defined to cover books and music (which are inherently Open Source) being stretched to cover binary software (which is Closed).
Fix your laws.
Re:They should fight the GPL all the way.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those that use this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whereas the GPL says you can copy the software to more than one compouter, you can give people a copy, you can disassemble the software (though you don't need to as you can get the original source) - more than Copyright Law in itself allows.
I seme to recollect that the GPL also states something like that, but let's do a quick comparison.
If I pay £0.00 for some software and it fails causinng £xxx worth of damage how much have I lost? £xxx. However, if the software costs £299.99, how much have I lost? £(xxx+299.99) - unless the supplier refunds the FULL cost of the software (plus costs incurred in obtaining said refund).
Still looks like GPL software is the better bet.
Yes, the GPL is unusual in that it DOES allow you to distribute the code unlike most other licences. However, if you don't like the terms of the distribution, you can always contact the original author(s) and request a different licence - negotiate for what you want; just remember that they may require some form of payment in this case. The difference is that the GPL automatically allows you [restricted] distribution rights before you even have to ask!
Re:Fear. (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD licensed, MIT licensed, etc code does not share in that power.
Re:When will closed-source companies learn? (Score:1, Insightful)
Mind you, if I was ever to find any of my code turn up in something like Windows, you can bet that I would instantly fire a lawsuit against Microsoft instead of negotiation - only because of their hypocrasy: they come down hard (via the BSA) on infringers so they shouldn't expect any leniency from me.
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:4, Insightful)
Odds on the developers understand the GPL and it's obligations completely. But the packaging and distribution of the product isn't handled by the developers, it's handled by Marketing and Sales. And those guys probably don't even know the software has a license attached, they've got no clue what all went into their software, and they likely don't think they ought to consult with mere software developers about how they can market the product. And they probably didn't ask Legal for an opinion, since it's "their" software and they can (in Marketing's world) do whatever they want with it. Customer Support's likely a division of Marketing, so when the initial e-mails came in they got handled by people with that attitude.
And then one day the package with the letter on a lawyer's letterhead with all the court paperwork arrived, and it went straight to Legal, bypassing Marketing entirely. And Legal, being sensible people, asked the obvious questions of the obvious people. Marketing may ignore the engineers, but Management tends to listen to the lawyers.
Re:Fear. (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that why they bought Linksys? Because the low-end was becoming good enough for many customers?
Better to buy a Cisco-Linksys box than a Netgear.
Not fear, rational decision making. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who produces products has to decide what is more valuable - being able to use free software from the community, or being able to keep your software secret. If all you are going to add to the software is something that anyone else could create without much effort (i.e., software is not your key differentiator) then open source is the way to go.
But if you're going to make a massive improvement to whatever software you might take, something that is going to cost you a lot of money to develop (and would thus cost a competitor lots of money to develop), it makes the most sense to keep it to yourself.
Put more simply, a product that is 90% open source software from the community and 10% improvement is probably best released as open software - you get 90% for the cost of 10%. But a product that would be 10% software from the community and 90% software you develop yourself, it makes more sense to also redo the 10%. Trading away 90% for 10% would just be a bad business decision.
Most BSD devs' arguments are better than yours (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really? How? The terms of the GPL are very clear, and people keep getting sued because they persist making up their own rules instead of following the actual rules. The GPL is only effective because the risk of lawsuits is real.
Oh, cry me a river! If your company can't get its act together, then it's best for everyone that your company's competitors---who actually do follow the rules---eat your lunch.
In effect, that's exactly what you are saying.
Why? Between what extremes? What would be the impact?
What? Who would do the evaluation? How do you judge "value"? Who is going to bear the cost of this process? Why are trade secrets being intermingled with GPL-covered code? What's would the BusyBox gain by doing this? What would society gain?
The FSF and the GNU people have worked a lot of things out. They created the rules that leveled the playing field for all of us. Those rules are codified in the GPL. You apparently don't like the rules, and whine when they are enforced.
Red Hat isn't the enemy. MySQL isn't the enemy. Ingres isn't the enemy. Google isn't the enemy. Microsoft is an enemy, but only because they have a history of trying to screw, well, everyone (and there's no credible reason to believe that they've stopped). The "enemies" are those who persist in acting selfishly to the detriment of all of us. If anything, I'd argue that the BusyBox developers have been too lenient: Linksys routers (to my knowledge, which is a bit out of date) still aren't shipped with copies of the GPL included.
They are. Many work for corporations. Many are corporations.
Then the BSD license is a good match for your goals. Good for you. Not everyone values fame as highly as you do. People who release software under the GPL generally do so either to spread the freedoms that the GPL provides, or because they want to modify and re-distribute software that is already covered by the GPL. I see no reason to prejudice the latter group by letting Bell, SuperMicro, or anyone else get a free pass.
Being a corporation has nothing to do with it.
Re:Why NOT hand out the source? Its an app. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also not at all clear that distributing hardware is also distributing the software. There is no clear point at which the software is an integral part of the hardware and when it is an end user product.
The GPL claims it is based on copyright law, but copyright law is extremely vague on a lot of points.