What is Digg?49 Comments
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -1/+26These companies understand linux well enough to build products and try to sell them based on the capabilities of linux, but then they pretend they forget the rest of it.
- KewlerKid3, on 11/22/2007, -1/+13It's about time. GPL offenses have gone unchecked for so long. But it takes money to defend and money is something Linux doesn't have like such giants as say: Microsoft
- islingt0ner, on 11/22/2007, -1/+11Defenders...highly aggressive defenders.
--terry pratchett - mvent2, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7You don't understand at all...
The problem is they take the code but don't honour the license that comes with it. The GPL says you must allow your code to be as freely available as the GPL'd code you based it off. This has nothing to do with payment. - Garfunkel, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7the SFLC is funded my many large businesses and government entities, they have plenty of money. But it's fantastic they are enforcing the GPL.
- baalzebub, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6Oops, wrong company, Hy-Gain is who i was thinking about, High-Gain is a different company...
- willfe, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4You mean like how the RIAA and MPAA are doing (successfully in cases where they actually *prove* infringement)?
Should be a cakewalk :) - DickBreath, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Aren't damages statutory? $150,000 per instance of infringement? No need to provide evidence of damages, only evidence of actual infringement. These guys are distributing copyrighted code without authorization. Damages are statutory. Seems open and shut to me. Probably that's why nobody so far has actually wanted to go to court over the GPL.
Amusingly, one of IBM's counterclaims against SCO (counterclaim ten I think) is SCO's infringement of IBM's copyrighted code in Linux by SCO's acts of distributing Linux after disavowing the validity of the GPL. - inspireology, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4If these companies wanted to create a closed product then they have other options apart from linux like developing their own system from scratch or purchasing a commercial embedded OS. Heck they could even base their product on BSD which allows closed derivatives at no cost.
If these people are not prosecuted and the GPL is seen as some kind of joke, it will eventually tear the linux community apart as some people will be working hard creating free software while others are getting rich and not giving anything back. I can imagine that killing the open spirit of the community. - inspireology, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4What does Linux have to do with copying movies? And which part of the GPL says piracy is fine?
- drag, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Keep in mind that GPL violations are common place. The vast majority of the time it's a misunderstanding and a letter from the copyright owner is usually enough to solve the problem. Lots of times these companies are hardware companies.. they are actually very clueless about software. It's two different worlds.. most of the time they just hire third party programmers to work on Linux and those third party programmers don't do a good job of explaining the licensing of the software they are selling the hardware companies. A lot of the time the hardware folks don't even get source code themselves.
Literally they've found hundreds of busybox violations. The FSF and busybox folks work hard to resolve these problems out of court. They make sure that the other people know that they are not interested in money at all and that they only want those companies to provide a offer of the source code with their products.. _that's_all_. No money, no open sourcing those company's own software. They just want GPL software to remain GPL.
90% of the time when those companies are told that the copyright holders don't want money, they just want their customers to get a chance to get teh source code then they quickly solve the licensing issue.. usually no sweat and everybody goes home happy. (I suppose especially when these companies find out they can download the source code for free that they've been paying for)
These lawsuites are only a last resort. It's only happens after months and months and months of trying to contact and deal with these companies. Literally when your dealing with a company for 6-8 months or more and all they do is tell you to ***** off then there isn't anything else you can do. - John213, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4The difference I think, is that the open source movement makes enemies with corporations that don't follow the rules, whereas DRM makes enemies with the consumers who pay for the product
- init100, on 11/22/2007, -1/+5One big difference between the RIAA and the FSF in the lawsuit department is that the FSF is not suing consumers. They are only suing businesses, which usually are much more capable of defending themselves than consumers.
In my opinion, it is quite a big difference between suing a corporation and suing a teenage kid or their mother. - CAPSLOCKISCOOL, on 11/22/2007, -2/+5The people who are being sued are people who make money off the software that is violating the GPL. I doubt they would get sued if they gave their software away
- init100, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Since the GPL does not limit use, no consumers are being sued. The GPL concerns distribution, and is only infringed if you distribute a product licensed under the GPL or a derivative of such a product without abiding by the GPL.
- DickBreath, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3It is in the best interest of all honest players to enforce the GPL. No wonder why some businesses support enforcement.
- DopplerDuck, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Bravo!
- TechCF, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3No. They either don`t get paid or are paid for by companies. HP, IBM, Novell and many more "big boys" have opensource gpl programmers on their payroll.
- ubergeek09, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3This is a great thing. If we want people to take the GPL seriously we have to go after the people violate it. If we don't the GPL will just be looked at as a joke.
- clperez390, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3That is perfectly legal, so long as they provide a copy of the license. Try reading the GPL. It has to be free as in speech, not necessarily Beer.
- drag, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2If they lose that means they will have to make a new license that works. It'll be a mess, but it's not the end of the world.
The thing to remember is that the GPL is a copyright license. The only reason you have a right to use the software is because of the GPL.. otherwise you'd not have anything. So if the GPL fails then it defaults back to having full copyright protections and the winners would have to work with the original copyright holders to get a new license.
You see that's the trick. If the GPL losses in court then it does not mean the work goes into the public domain.. it's the opposite. The worst that would happen is that the people that defeated the license would lose all right to use the software. They'd have to go back and get a new license from the people they just f-ked over! - daftman, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2ever heard of punity damages? Go and look that up son. You might learn something.
- init100, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2"why worry about the other company that won't?"
Because if the GPL is not enforced, every company will view the GPL as unenforced, and nobody would contribute their modifications back. - DBoone, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2What about the case where they're just slacking and haven't taken the time to package the code and give it to their customers? How should one apply a bit of pressure? I'm in a situation where I could use the source for a product based on Linux, and have been unable to get it from the manufacturer of the device.
- raynevandunem, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1And? What about their modifications is so important that they need to be forcefully extracted from the offending party? Is the source code that important?
If they don't want to put the source code back up for modification by interested developers and hackers, that's the offending party's loss and prerogative, not that of the interested developers. If it's not up for hacking, then it is not up for improvement from outside sources, which means that they may have improvement capabilities from the inside of the company instead.
As I said before, the code that is being held to the word and spirit of the GPL will flow on. Having to uphold it through arbitrary, litigatory means is amazingly petty. - inactive, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2Oh noes, a stalker. What ever will I do.
- mattcurrie, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Um... what?
- raynevandunem, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1The BSD license? Not exactly, after the rift between OpenBSD, the Linux mailing list and SFLC over the dual-licensed wireless drivers.
The MIT might be a tad more liberal than the BSD, but I think the most centric license in existence is the WTFPL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL - kinghowdy, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2I hope one of these GPL violation lawsuits go to trial. I know the GPL has been tried and German courts and won and I hope the same will happen here. On the other hand if the GPL goes to court and loses what does that mean for other software licenses?
- init100, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1"If they don't want to put the source code back up for modification by interested developers and hackers, that's the offending party's loss and prerogative, not that of the interested developers."
If someone does not want to abide by the GPL, they are free to steer clear of GPL software. Why should they be able to take advantage of GPL software while ignoring its requirements? They can use BSD software if they don't want to give anything back. - jlabs, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3The funny thing is that the same laws that protect GPL software also protect musicians and commercial application developers (IE: the pirating of their software). But, as an earlier poster has said, what is actually "stolen"? Once a piece of software is released under this license, it is always free. The fact that a company closes it does not prevent anyone from getting the original source.
This is why I hate the GPL. It's run by a bunch of zealous hypocrites that are just as bad and evil as the RIAA. If you truly want free software, either 1) use public domain software or 2) use software released under the BSD license. - shanesemler, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1You get a digg! Pratchett is awesome!
- thbirdman, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I think you're looking for the next story down
- mattavila, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Anybody use an EMC centerra? (the archiving platform). That is choc full of Linux.... Reiser FS, and other little goodies. Ive yet to see anything "open" about that product, but then, I may not be looking in the right place either.
- daftman, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2Nobody said it is a crime. It's a civil lawsuit *****. Furthermore, your point is entirely different from willfe point in which he said that RIAA and MPAA actually DO successfully sue people for infringement. Learn to read *****.
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1check any open-source software u can think of , on eBay.....there will be someone trying to sell it to u
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -1/+0Nice news!
- raynevandunem, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Taking what, exactly?
Software (in fact, all data) is not physical, therefore it cannot be "stolen", only copied. If someone decides to not share the source code of their modifications of GPL'ed software with others, who cares except for those who have an axe to grind? Someone else will use that same source code and distribute their changes under the same license, so why worry about the other company that won't? The code will move on.
Accusing someone of "stealing" or "taking" from free software development is just as disingenious as Microsoft accusing those free software developers - hell, even closed-source developers as well - of "stealing" their "innovation". It makes use of the judicial system, particularly that of the United States, which enforces some of the most draconian laws upon software and idea distribution in the world; how would anyone want to deal with the U.S. justice system in this area?
It's fruitless, IMO, to go after offenders of the GPL. The GPL, in its current form, has already been useful to millions of users and distributors who do observe the license, so why go after those in the minority who don't? As long as they don't accuse those who do observe the license while obtaining their software from others who also observe the license of taking "their" ill-gotten "innovation", then they haven't proven a serious threat to the longevity and usefulness of software which are distributed and obtained under that license. - inactive, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2they should also go after the dirtbags who put open-source software into packages, and sell them online....example.... http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40& ...
- Flakor, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1This is Two Weeks out of a Year....
So I'm thinking everyone in Japan owns a Wii at this point. - sahernasir, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1GPL is truly makes internet accessible and beneficial to all
- shark72, on 11/22/2007, -5/+2That's correct. This is because there are lots of Linux users here, and many of us even contribute to FOSS projects. Thus, we can emphasize with developers who release under the GPL, and we want to respect their rights. We also hate people who would attempt to rationalize the act of violating those rights.
On the other hand, most of us aren't in the music or film industry. Frankly, the rights of filmmakers and musicians just aren't as important to us. - inactive, on 11/22/2007, -5/+2Well that's my point, especially from the group of people who've spent the past ten years yelling at everyone that copyright infringement is not a crime.
- baalzebub, on 11/22/2007, -7/+2High-Gain Antennas used to make antennas for amateur radio (Ham) but after visiting their website it looks like High-Gain dropped everything other than WiFi, looks like a bad move on their part, some of that Ham Radio equipment can be some high end stuff with a high price tag attached...
- LlamaKing, on 11/22/2007, -5/+0After getting hit so hard by Microsoft claims....I guess this is just the community's way of exacting revenge.
- fatdog789, on 11/22/2007, -9/+4SO...it's okay to copy movies without paying for them, but to hell with people making use of software which is supposed to be freely modifiable and distributable?
If not paying is fine, then not crediting is a far lesser offense. - cheapskate, on 11/22/2007, -8/+2This is just wrong. Copyright is a government-enforced monopoly, with no basis in natural rights. If consumers buy and find useful a product, why deprive them of that product because some silly rules were not followed that had _nothing_ to do with them? The Open Source movement will only make enemies with these actions, like Microsoft did with their DRM.
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -8/+2Going after violators and demanding compliance with the license is all well and good, but the moment they start talking about "recovering damages" and "damages" they get into very shifty terrain. I'd love to see the FSF and friends (same group of people) try to extract *damages* for *copyright violations*.
- 9a3eedi, on 11/22/2007, -9/+2Hmm.. so is this how opensource programmers get their money??
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is