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?

 
 
MaxLVB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On 27/02/2010 1:35 p.m., impossible wrote:
> There's way too much confusion among open-source advocates about the
> property rights that open source developers are entitled to. Lots of
> ideologically motivated rants out there that seem to undermine any claim
> to protections that I'm sure the ranters themselves would prefer
> open-source software to have -- that is, if they stopped to think about
> the issue for just one moment.


> Larry D'Loser, for example, claims that intellectual property is a myth
> invented by Microsoft, Adobe. But don't open source developers have
> copyright protection for their original contributions? Of course they
> do! That gives them the right to issue a license specifying terms of
> distribution use. No one but the author of the original work -- the
> copyright holder, ie., the intellectual property owner -- can do that.
> Indeed, the GPL (v3) itself defines the rights granted in the license in
> terms of actions "requiring copyright permission"


> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html>


> Without those protections on intellectual property, which are embedded
> in law virtually every jurisdiction in the world, how would it be
> possible for open-source developers to prevent piracy?


> One thought is that piracy, too, is a myth invented by Microsoft, Adobe,
> etc . Nothing wrong with downloading whatever you can find on the net,
> the claim goes. But isn't open-source software as vulnerable to pirates
> as closed source? Perhaps even more vulnerable when you consider that,
> by definition, the source code for open source software is....well open
> for the taking. Another developer could easily pirate the intellectual
> property of an open-source developer and claim it as their own closed
> source invention. Right? Wrong! Because the intellectual property rights
> that inhere in copyright prevents that, and because the author of the
> original work would have an open-and-shut case to present on that matter
> in court, if need be.


> So please, COLA trolls, get your act together. Are you for or against
> protecting open source software from piracy?


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...


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

Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On 2010-02-27, MaxLVB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
impossible wrote
>
>> So please, COLA trolls, get your act together. Are you for or against
>> protecting open source software from piracy?

>
> 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 test is to ask the place/manufacturer you obtained the binary form of
the software, for the code of it. (as it contains open source software). One
does not have to agree to use the open source software, but you do have to
supply the code for it if asked.

In the case of modems and routers it is the manufacturer who has taken and
used the software for profit. No problem as long as they give you the code
if they are asked. The NAS unit sites I have seen lately do have this code
there.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MaxLVB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On 27/02/2010 5:44 p.m., Gordon wrote:
> On 2010-02-27, MaxLVB<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> impossible wrote
>>
>>> So please, COLA trolls, get your act together. Are you for or against
>>> protecting open source software from piracy?


>> 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 test is to ask the place/manufacturer you obtained the binary form of
> the software, for the code of it. (as it contains open source software). One
> does not have to agree to use the open source software, but you do have to
> supply the code for it if asked.


No mention of the code on any of the websites for the hardware. (see my
previous post where I said I had already looked)

> In the case of modems and routers it is the manufacturer who has taken and
> used the software for profit. No problem as long as they give you the code
> if they are asked. The NAS unit sites I have seen lately do have this code
> there.


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?

You know like the claim that is often made in this forum by OSS and
Linux advocates that as you cant read the EULA in closed source shrink
wrapped software before you pay for it or try to install it, you
shouldn't be required to abide by the EULA...

I guess the same rule applies to hardware with embedded Linux huh...
--
(E-Mail Removed)

Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
 
Reply With Quote
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
>
> No mention of the code on any of the websites for the hardware. (see
> my previous post where I said I had already looked)

Conveniently you have forgotten to mention what the hardware is, which
makes it somewhat hard to prove that they have indeed released the
source code, or whether it is in fact using GPL code in the first
place.. Why not name the hardware?

Or is it one of the following brands and you just didn't google "$brand
gpl code" or "$brand source code"?
Dlink :
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads200...ownload&OS=GPL
Netgear: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2649
Linksys: http://www.linksysbycisco.com/gpl
Seagate/Maxtor:
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...00dd04090aRCRD
WesternDigital:
http://support.wdc.com/product/downl...id=116&lang=en
Qnap:
http://www.qnap.com/download_detail....cal%20Document
Synology: http://www.synology.com/enu/gpl/index.php
Thecus: http://www.thecus.com/dl.php
Motorola: http://broadband.motorola.com/consum.../gpl_codes.asp



there are many more brands, but the links above cover the NAS units in a
top 10 NAS unit review on cnet, and some of the better known router makers.
>
> 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?
>
> You know like the claim that is often made in this forum by OSS and
> Linux advocates that as you cant read the EULA in closed source shrink
> wrapped software before you pay for it or try to install it, you
> shouldn't be required to abide by the EULA...
>
> I guess the same rule applies to hardware with embedded Linux huh...

EULAs (attempt to) restrict your rights below what is granted in the
default case of no licence agreement (ie, standard copyright). If you
can't grasp that difference then you are beyond help.
 
Reply With Quote
 
MaxLVB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On 27/02/2010 7:03 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>> MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
>> No mention of the code on any of the websites for the hardware. (see
>> my previous post where I said I had already looked)


> Conveniently you have forgotten to mention what the hardware is, which
> makes it somewhat hard to prove that they have indeed released the
> source code, or whether it is in fact using GPL code in the first
> place.. Why not name the hardware?


> Or is it one of the following brands and you just didn't google "$brand
> gpl code" or "$brand source code"?
> Dlink :
> http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads200...ownload&OS=GPL


D-Link DIR 655
Not listed there at all.

Raidon NAS SL3610-2S-LB2

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.

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 know like the claim that is often made in this forum by OSS and
>> Linux advocates that as you cant read the EULA in closed source shrink
>> wrapped software before you pay for it or try to install it, you
>> shouldn't be required to abide by the EULA...


>> I guess the same rule applies to hardware with embedded Linux huh...


> EULAs (attempt to) restrict your rights below what is granted in the
> default case of no licence agreement (ie, standard copyright).


BS!!!!

--
(E-Mail Removed)

Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On Feb 27, 6:16*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > 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...

>
> No one cares whether or not you agree with the GPL. But if you violate the
> terms of the GPL, be prepared to be taken to court.


See my posting to Max's posting. The end user of the 'tainted'
software would not be in breach of GPL terms, and if I am wrong on
this point, the copyright owners of GPL copyrighted material would not
take such end users to court in any case. The manufacturers of such
products are not taken to court - they see the light and settle.
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On Feb 27, 8:32*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>
> > 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?

>
> But the GPL **does restrict** your rights. *If it didn't, there would be no
> reason for a license at all.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> No one can simply poach open-source code and wrap it into a closed source
> product. The GPL forbids that.


Not always. Running a proprietary application which was compiled with
GCC with GCC libraries linked in and running under Linux is quite
OK. GPL is far less restrictive than the average EULA.

>
> The GPL is no different in principle from a EULA. Both impose restrictions
> defined by the owner(s) of the intellectual property on what end users and
> developers can do with their works.


Except that the GPL imposes no restriction on end users, not even on
end users of code that was tainted further up the 'food chain'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Squiggle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On 27/02/2010 7:03 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>>> MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
>>> No mention of the code on any of the websites for the hardware. (see
>>> my previous post where I said I had already looked)

>
>> Conveniently you have forgotten to mention what the hardware is, which
>> makes it somewhat hard to prove that they have indeed released the
>> source code, or whether it is in fact using GPL code in the first
>> place.. Why not name the hardware?

>
>> Or is it one of the following brands and you just didn't google "$brand
>> gpl code" or "$brand source code"?
>> Dlink :
>> http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloads200...ownload&OS=GPL

>
> 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?
>
> 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."

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On Feb 27, 5:23*pm, MaxLVB <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 not a EULA. It is a distribution license not a usage
agreement. It doesn't apply to anyone who is not distributing the
software.

It is a license that allows anyone to distribute the code to others if
they obey certain conditions. The conditions basically state that the
distributor cannot add any further restrictions than what they had
when they originally acquired it.

By using the GPL, the author automatically grants distributors
permissions they wouldn't have under standard copyright rules. The
distributors don't have to agree to anything to get these permissions.
It is not a contract.

A EULA is something a user has to agree to so they can have the
authors permission to use something. The GPL is designed to preserve
full unrestricted usage rights 'downstream'.

The only way there is any "pirating" going on is if those
manufacturers refuse to give you the source of any GPL code they used
in the products you bought. And courts have enforced the release of
code in cases like that.

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

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
MaxLVB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2010
On 28/02/2010 9:05 a.m., AD. wrote:
> On Feb 27, 5:23 pm, MaxLVB<(E-Mail Removed)> 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 not a EULA. It is a distribution license not a usage
> agreement. It doesn't apply to anyone who is not distributing the
> software.


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 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.

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.

All I see here is a lot of 'bush lawyers' claiming to know what they're
talking about...

It's laughable that there are so many different opinions about what the
GPL can and cant do, while anyone of us can legally buy and use the code
embedded in hardware that does not comply with any of the claims being
made about 'the GPL' in this forum.


--
(E-Mail Removed)

Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
 
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