Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#21

Post by astrange »

dman wrote: post #19

In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder -…

Isn't S90 a compact camera? It's much worse quality than the NEX series. If you care about that, try Olympus E-P1 or some other mirrorless camera.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#22

Post by technomancy »

dman wrote: post #19

In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder -…

I don't know about that; at this point anyone who cares about high standards has been boycotting Sony since the rootkit fiasco. Of course, this makes things worse, but that's not saying much.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#23

Post by dman »

astrange wrote: post #21
dman wrote: post #19

In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder -…

Isn't S90 a compact camera? It's much worse quality than the NEX series. If you care about that, try Olympus E-P1 or some other mirrorless camera.

Yes I know the S90 is a compact camera. Rather than go one down in the category, I decided to go one category down and buy the top camera in that category. fwiw here is a picture from the S90 and one from the Olympus E-P1

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/samples/comparedt... http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/samples/compare...

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#24

Post by anonymoushn »

gcp wrote: post #13
jlarocco wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not seeing the problem. On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. On the other hand, if Sony would rather write it themselves than abide by the GPL then I'm not seeing the problem there, either. Again, it makes no sense, but it's their decision.

On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is ofte…

If there are GPL software developers who are having their licenses infringed and want to enforce, they can grant SFC the authority to enforce. I really don't see the problem here.

On the other hand, more software that is not infected with a proprietary or copyleft license is always good.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#25

Post by dman »

technomancy wrote: post #22
dman wrote: post #19

In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder -…

I don't know about that; at this point anyone who cares about high standards has been boycotting Sony since the rootkit fiasco. Of course, this makes things worse, but that's not saying much.

When I said things like this, I definitely meant to include the rootkit fiasco. The last couple of years I do try my best to not buy from companies that I think have an antipathy to the hacker ethic.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#26

Post by azakai »

jlarocco wrote: post #5

Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…

> I'm also not sure I like the idea of using BusyBox as a backdoor to examine the rest of a product's source code. I didn't realize that was a condition of the GPL, but it makes me glad I've switched most of my projects over to the BSD and ISC licenses.

This is based on one interpretation of the GPL: That if you violate the license, you lose the license to that software forever, including new versions of it, until you get explicit permission from the author. The SFC then made a condition of granting permission to BusyBox, that the violator come into compliance regarding all other GPLed projects.

But that interpretation is not a legal fact. Another interpretation - which seems much more reasonable to me, and was certainly the intention I had when I released GPL code myself - is that you lose the license when you violate it. But as the GPL states, you get a license when you download a new version of the software anyhow, so the problem goes away - unless you violate the GPL again. In other words, if you violate the GPL, you have no license to the code, but once you comply with it, you are fine.

The former interpretation always struck me as bizarre: If you lost the license when you violated the GPL, surely you lost that license to that particular software. But how can that prevent you from getting a new license to a new version of the software? How are those connected? Or how about a new version of the software that was rewritten from scratch, and has no code shared with the one you were temporarily in violation from? Is the mere name enough? How about forks of the project? If any of this were what the GPL originally intended, you would think it would have been specified in some way. The much more reasonable interpretation is the second one: You lose the license to the concrete software you were given a license to before. Download a new version, get a new license. Stop violating the license, and you are ok.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#27

Post by fpgeek »

twstws wrote: post #15
jlarocco wrote: post #5

Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…

You have misunderstood. The current situation has Sony shipping devices running several/many different programs with GPL licenses. They don't want to provide their modified source code for these programs to their users, in violation of their obligations under the GPL. Most of the copyright holders of this code do not have the means to pursue an infringement case. Busybox is the exception. The SFC actively enforces th…

Do you have actual evidence Sony is violating (or intends to violate) the GPL with respect to non-busybox code? Or are you just speculating?

Let me put this another way: Do you think the developers behind editline wrote it because they wanted to violate the GPL? Or did they write it for some other reason?

Personally, I read the Sony post very differently. It sounds to me Sony, in part because of the aggressive stance SFC takes with busybox GPL violations, isn't happy with the business costs of using busybox (e.g. concerns among chip vendors and suppliers). They could easily be wrong in their assessment of the business costs (e.g. concerns from chip vendors and suppliers should not be taken seriously), but given that assessment, it seems to me that writing a busybox replacement is a reasonable response.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#28

Post by fpgeek »

dman wrote: post #20
kryptiskt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't want to provide their modified source code for these programs to their users, in violation of their obligations under the GPL. The fact that a Sony guy wants to build a non-GPL Busybox is not evidence of any Sony violations of the GPL, now or earlier. There is some radical jumping to conclusions here.

This is from the linked elinux page - "Busybox is arguably the most litigated piece of GPL software in the world. Unfortunately, it is unclear what the remedy should be when a GPL violation occurs with busybox. Litigants have sometimes requested remedies outside the scope of busybox itself, such as review authority over unrelated products, or right of refusal over non-busybox modules. This causes concern among chip v…

Chip vendors and suppliers could have concerns even if they are not violating the GPL. For instance, they may believe their modules contain important trade secrets. Given that, they might not want anyone they haven't approved to review the modules period.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#29

Post by fpgeek »

gravitronic wrote: post #7
jlarocco wrote: post #5

Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasona…

The problem is that the rewrite is coming AFTER they've been shipping with busybox and already not complying with the license.

Cite? (besides a wiki page that can be interpreted different ways)

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#30

Post by pasbesoin »

dman wrote: post #19

In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder -…

I, too, refuse to give Sony my money. And I tell my family and friends why. Slowly, it's sinking in.

P.S. For a multitude of reasons. E.g. attempting to rootkit my computer using a legally purchased CD.

Post reply on HN