Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Doesn't open-source software deserve protection from pirates?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Doesn't open-source software deserve protection from pirates?

 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
MaxLVB wrote:

>
> Well I am running to versions of Linux on hardware, a NAS unit, and a
> router.
> Neither of them have the GPL any where that I can find. Yes I have looked.
>
> I have never had to agree to the GPL for these versions of Linux, the
> hardware doesn't require me to do that and there is no mention of the
> GPL in the documentation or manual for the NAS or router. There's
> nothing on the manufacturers websites about Linux or the GPL.
>
> I've just realised my cable modem supplied by y ISP proably has a
> version of Linux as well. My ISP has never asked me to agree to the GPL,
> the modem never asks me to agree to the GPL, I guess that makes the
> manufacturers, and me guilty of pirating Linux huh...
>
>


The GPL is a only copyright license for the source code, not a EULA, so
you may have to look a bit deeper as it is will be compiled in the
firmware source. It grants extra rights under compliance with the
licence conditions
If you don't agree to the GPL conditions, the normal copyright applies.
The GPL doesn't affect usage, only the copying and distribution of the
source code.
Publication of the source is an obligation for the manufacturer, you
needn't worry about it unless you use the source code to compile a
modified version then distribute it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On Feb 28, 10:26*am, MaxLVB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> As none of the of the hardware manufacturers have supplied me with a
> copy of the GPL (to prove they're authorized to distribute it) or the
> [binary] code of the software/OS they are in breach of the GPL. At least
> that's what others in this discussion are telling me...


So they haven't answered your enquiries or have a webpage for
downloading the code?

If they don't and you feel strongly about it, you could report the
violation to the FSF.

> So what are the GPL owners going to do about the hardware I legally
> bought and own, that according to some here are running versions of
> Linux that have supposedly breached the GPL.


If the owners know about it, they can ask the manufacturer to supply
the code. And if they refuse, they can be taken to court.

Generally the owners aren't interested in suing people, just getting
them comply with the GPL is enough of a solution. And most will do so.

>
> snip rest.
>
> > I'm surprised you still don't understand the GPL Max, you've had years
> > of people explaining it to you.

>
> Explaining what exactly. Everyone in nz.comp who 'explains' the GPL has
> their own version of what it represents, what it's legal 'standing' is,
> who 'owns' the code supposedly covered by the GPL, and what can and cant
> be done with code covered by the GPL.


That the GPL is not a EULA or anything else that requires accepting an
agreement.

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MaxLVB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
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?

>> 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:

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)

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?

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.

Breaches of implied agreements (GPL) are very hard to prove in court.
Breaches of explicit agreements (an EULA, being a contract) are
relatively easy to prove in court.

> It seems to me it is very much limiting my use of the software,
> preventing me from hosting a website with the software.


If you want to argue/alter the terms and conditions of a EULA then do it
with the copyright owner. I'm sure they'l come t some legally binding
agreement/contract with you that will allow you to use the software in
the way you want to.

Just thinking they're unfair or restrictive is NOT a legal defence if
you breach those terms and conditions.

--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:45:48 +1300, MaxLVB wrote:

> 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.


Actually that is not the case.

The GPL explicitly states what conditions you must comply with if you wish to have the rights to use or
distribute modifications to the software. It also states that provided those certain specific conditions are
strictly complied with then you may use the software for any purpose.

It further states that if you do not comply with all the conditions of the license in their entirety then any
rights granted under that license are automatically and immediately revoked and rendered null and void.

Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose are entirely governed by your
compliance with the terms of the license.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:45:48 +1300, MaxLVB wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Actually that is not the case.
>
> The GPL explicitly states what conditions you must comply with if you wish to have the rights to use or
> distribute modifications to the software. It also states that provided those certain specific conditions are
> strictly complied with then you may use the software for any purpose.
>
> It further states that if you do not comply with all the conditions of the license in their entirety then any
> rights granted under that license are automatically and immediately revoked and rendered null and void.



True

>
> Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose are entirely governed by your
> compliance with the terms of the license.
>
>


Not true

Compliance or not with the copyright conditions doesn't affect the end
usage, just the act of distribution.
For instance there have been several gpl violation cases where embedded
firmware has been found to infringe the conditions.
All this means is that the infringing party has no right to distribute
the software, the end users who have bought the hardware are entitled to
continue using it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:27:20 +1300, victor wrote:

>> Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose are
>> entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the license.

>
> Not true
>
> Compliance or not with the copyright conditions doesn't affect the end
> usage, just the act of distribution.
> For instance there have been several gpl violation cases where embedded
> firmware has been found to infringe the conditions. All this means is
> that the infringing party has no right to distribute the software, the
> end users who have bought the hardware are entitled to continue using
> it.


Bullshit!

Any rights _you_ may have to use that GPL'd software for any purpose are
entirely governed by _your_ compliance with the terms of the GPL.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2010
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:53:44 +1300, Squiggle wrote:

> Really? it says in plain English: You may not provide commercial
> hosting services with the software.


"You may not" merely gives the option to the licensee.

They _may_.

It does not say "you shall not provide commercial hosting services with the software".


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2010
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:27:20 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>>> Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose are
>>> entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the license.

>> Not true
>>
>> Compliance or not with the copyright conditions doesn't affect the end
>> usage, just the act of distribution.
>> For instance there have been several gpl violation cases where embedded
>> firmware has been found to infringe the conditions. All this means is
>> that the infringing party has no right to distribute the software, the
>> end users who have bought the hardware are entitled to continue using
>> it.

>
> Bullshit!
>
> Any rights _you_ may have to use that GPL'd software for any purpose are
> entirely governed by _your_ compliance with the terms of the GPL.
>
>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_so...e_restrictions
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2010
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:09:36 +1300, victor wrote:

> Sweetpea wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:27:20 +1300, victor wrote:
>>
>>>> Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose
>>>> are entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the
>>>> license.
>>> Not true
>>>
>>> Compliance or not with the copyright conditions doesn't affect the end
>>> usage, just the act of distribution.
>>> For instance there have been several gpl violation cases where
>>> embedded firmware has been found to infringe the conditions. All this
>>> means is that the infringing party has no right to distribute the
>>> software, the end users who have bought the hardware are entitled to
>>> continue using it.

>>
>> Bullshit!
>>
>> Any rights _you_ may have to use that GPL'd software for any purpose
>> are entirely governed by _your_ compliance with the terms of the GPL.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_so...e_restrictions


The GPL is a very clear, agreeable, and reasonable license. If you do not like the terms of the license,
then do not use that software.

That's it. End of story.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Doesn't open-source software deserve protection from pirates? peterwn NZ Computing 13 03-02-2010 01:21 AM
OT: Do we deserve an acknowledgement? Jonathan Bromley VHDL 10 07-29-2007 08:26 PM
Does Canon deserve a third try? jalezocy@hotmail.com Digital Photography 38 07-03-2005 09:18 PM
GREECE DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN THE FINAL mark_digital Digital Photography 192 07-20-2004 03:03 PM
Palestine does NOT deserve a state Lisa Horton Digital Photography 79 04-23-2004 11:15 PM



Advertisments