On 28/02/2010 11:45 a.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On 28/02/2010 2:27 a.m., Squiggle wrote:
>> MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
>
>>> D-Link DIR 655
>>> Not listed there at all.
>
>> Given that they have released GPL code for all those other devices, it
>> strongly suggests that that model doesn't use any GPL code. It possible
>> they missed it in updating the website, but far less likely.
>> How exactly did you determine that it does run linux?
>> It appears that it is running ipOS developed by Ubicom judging by the
>> top post on this page : http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=5955.45
>
>>> Raidon NAS SL3610-2S-LB2
>> http://www.raidon.com.tw/content.php...000096&p_id=42
>> The link labelled GPL would be the source code.
>
>
>>> Snip the rest. (not my hardware)
>
>>> So I bought the hardware and embedded software without being able to
>>> read the GPL and agree to it's use of the hardware BEFORE handing over
>>> my money?
>>> Why should I have to agree to the GPL or the manufacturers
>>> 'requirements' about using the hardware and embedded software then?
>
>> Because the GPL increase your rights, not restricts them. It grants you
>> permission to copy and distribute the software if you wish (subject to
>> some conditions), which is not a right you have by default. And you do
>> it all the time with products that have embedded propreitary code, or
>> did you get to review the T& Cs of the software that runs your
>> microwave, dvd player? how about the code that runs your cars engine
>> management system or ABS brakes?
>
>>> So you're telling me I can copy the OS on the above hardware and
>>> distribute it as I like?
>>> I'm sure D-Link and Raidon would have something to say about that.
>>
>> D-link and Ubicom certainly might if you tried to copy the firmware from
>> the d-link router since it is proprietary code.
>> Raidon provide the source code as they are required to under the GPL. So
>> long as you strip out any non-GPL code or images (logos etc) then you
>> can copy and distribute to your hearts content so long as you comply
>> with the GPL. ie, you dont try to pass it off as your own, or remove the
>> GPL.
>
>
>> So far you are zero from two, one isn't running linux, the other has the
>> source code available as required. Want to quit now?
>
> Not at all.
>
> All Raidon has is a column headed GPL.
> Is that all the GPL requires, is it?
Whichcontains a link, which if you click on it lets you download what
appears to me to be a whole lot of source code (145MB compressed IIRC),
including a lot of GPL licenced source.
The other requirement is to include a copy of the GPL to be distributed
with the software. However since I don't have access to the CD that came
with the NAS or the many bits of paper that are usually included in the
box, or the physical NAS unit I cannot verify that the licence is
there. However, I find it very unlikely that a company would publish
the source code to comply with the GPL (which is what contains their
development work if any) but not include the GPL text on the CD or in
paper form.
So far all we have is your assertion that there is no GPL licence text
included, and considering how accurate your assertions were on both
pieces of hardware running Linux, and no GPL code being available I'm
not inclined to place any faith in your assertion.
There also a chance that they do normally include the GPL in paper form
but the person packing your box left it out.
>
>>> But you're sidestepping the point. How am I able to agree to the GPL
>>> when I cant read it, before I pay for the hardware and use the
>>> hardware. Why do I have to comply with something I haven't seen, read,
>>> or agreed to?
>
>> You don't, it does not limit your use of the software in an unmodified
>> form beyond what normal copyright law does.
>> From the GPL (v3)
>> "9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
>
>> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a
>> copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring
>> solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a
>> copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than
>> this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered
>> work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this
>> License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you
>> indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."
>
>> EULAs (attempt to) restrict your rights below what is granted in the
>> default case of no licence agreement (ie, standard copyright).
>
>>> BS!!!!
>
>> So you are trying to tell me this statement (from a Microsoft EULA) is
>> not in anyway limiting your use of the software?
>
>> 5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or
>> provide commercial hosting services with the Software."
>
> No it doesn't. Because:
Really? it says in plain English: You may not provide commercial
hosting services with the software.
"You may not" sure sounds like it is stopping me from using the software
in a way in which I may have wanted to use the software, and the
software is capable of doing. That is a restriction in the normal sense
of the word.
>
>
> A. I have to read and agree to the above condition BEFORE I install
> and use the software.
> If I dont agree to that condition then I dont get to use the software
> (legally anyway)
Maybe this will help you understand.
If the software was not subject to the EULA term above, I could legally
use it to host commercial websites.
But since the EULA includes that term I cannot. How can you say that
the EULA has not limited/restricted how I can use the software when it
plainly has?
> Are you REALLY telling me I should be able to install software covered
> by an EULA then be legally allowed to use it outside the terms and
> conditions of the EULA I had already agreed to abide by? What sort of
> bush lawyer thinking is that?
Not at all, I am pointing out that the GPL does not restrict your use of
software in any way, while (most/all?) EULAs do restrict your use of
the software. The software the EULA term above is from is capable of
being used to host a website, but the EULA restricts you from doing that.
>
> The point (that so often gets missed in these 'debates') is that an
> EULA REQUIRES your legal agreement IN FULL before you can install and
> use the software under the EULA terms and conditions.
>
> The GPL requires NO AGREEMENT of the user of the software but
> restricts the users right to redistribute the software without the
> explicit agreement and conditions on the user.
No, wrong. The GPL does not restrict you in anyway. Copyright law is
what restricts your from copying and redistributing the code. The GPL
grants you rights to copy and redistribute if you comply with the terms
of the GPL. You need to grasp that distinction or you will continue to
be confused as to what the GPL actually is.
>
> Breaches of implied agreements (GPL) are very hard to prove in court.
Technically, its a breach of copyright that would be occurring if you do
not comply with the terms of the GPL. Not a breach of the GPL.
Similar Threads
