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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. MaxLVB

    MaxLVB Guest

    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...


    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MaxLVB

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-02-27, MaxLVB <> 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.
     
    Gordon, Feb 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MaxLVB

    MaxLVB Guest

    On 27/02/2010 5:44 p.m., Gordon wrote:
    > On 2010-02-27, MaxLVB<> 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...
    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #3
  4. MaxLVB

    Squiggle Guest

    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/downloads2008list.asp?SourceType=download&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.j...toid=02d819e56cdee010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD
    WesternDigital:
    http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=118&sid=116&lang=en
    Qnap:
    http://www.qnap.com/download_detail.asp?pl=1&p_mn=104&ct_name=Technical Document
    Synology: http://www.synology.com/enu/gpl/index.php
    Thecus: http://www.thecus.com/dl.php
    Motorola: http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/support/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.
     
    Squiggle, Feb 27, 2010
    #4
  5. MaxLVB

    MaxLVB Guest

    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/downloads2008list.asp?SourceType=download&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!!!!

    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #5
  6. MaxLVB

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 27, 6:16 pm, "impossible" <> 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.
     
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #6
  7. MaxLVB

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 27, 8:32 pm, "impossible" <> 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'.
     
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #7
  8. MaxLVB

    Squiggle Guest

    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/downloads2008list.asp?SourceType=download&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?sno=0000096&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.
     
    Squiggle, Feb 27, 2010
    #8
  9. MaxLVB

    AD. Guest

    On Feb 27, 5:23 pm, 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 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
     
    AD., Feb 27, 2010
    #9
  10. MaxLVB

    MaxLVB Guest

    On 28/02/2010 9:05 a.m., AD. wrote:
    > On Feb 27, 5:23 pm, 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 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.


    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #10
  11. MaxLVB

    victor Guest

    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.
     
    victor, Feb 27, 2010
    #11
  12. MaxLVB

    AD. Guest

    On Feb 28, 10:26 am, MaxLVB <> 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
     
    AD., Feb 27, 2010
    #12
  13. MaxLVB

    MaxLVB Guest

    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?sno=0000096&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.

    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #13
  14. MaxLVB

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Feb 27, 2010
    #14
  15. MaxLVB

    victor Guest

    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.
     
    victor, Feb 27, 2010
    #15
  16. MaxLVB

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Feb 27, 2010
    #16
  17. MaxLVB

    Squiggle Guest

    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?sno=0000096&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.
     
    Squiggle, Feb 27, 2010
    #17
  18. MaxLVB

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
     
    Sweetpea, Feb 28, 2010
    #18
  19. MaxLVB

    victor Guest

    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_software_licence#Unacceptable_restrictions
     
    victor, Feb 28, 2010
    #19
  20. MaxLVB

    Sweetpea Guest

    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_software_licence#Unacceptable_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"
     
    Sweetpea, Feb 28, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lisa Horton

    Palestine does NOT deserve a state

    Lisa Horton, Apr 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    79
    Views:
    1,625
    nkdatta8839
    Apr 24, 2004
  2. mark_digital

    GREECE DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN THE FINAL

    mark_digital, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    192
    Views:
    3,392
    Henry Hooray
    Jul 20, 2004
  3. Does Canon deserve a third try?

    , Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    841
    eric phillips
    Jul 3, 2005
  4. Evan Platt
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    853
    §ñühw¤£f
    Apr 3, 2009
  5. peterwn
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    571
    Stephen Worthington
    Mar 2, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page