The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement • Hacker News Board

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#71

Post by el_presidente » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 4:58 AM UTC

mjg59 wrote: post #50

fpgeek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only code that they'll ever be obliged to release is code that's covered by licenses that already require them to release it, and if their trade secret containing modules aren't derived from GPLed works then it's not an issue. If they are, then getting rid of Busybox reduces the probability of a lawsuit - but shipping other GPLed code (like, say, the Linux kernel) means they're still vulnerable.

The wiki page mentions "review authority over unrelated products". It sounds like someone (the SFC? the busybox people?) will be able to see all their code to ensure that there aren't any more violations. Anyway, it's hard to believe that the person who wrote that page is whining about something or someone being unclear.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#72

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 5:31 AM UTC

trotsky wrote: post #62

SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does. It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworke…

Please don't confuse the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC, providers of legal services to numerous FOSS projects) with the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC, a GPL enforcement organization who holds some of the copyrights to Busybox). In particular, even if you don't like the work of the SFC, please don't use that to complain about the SFLC, an entirely separate organization.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#73

Post by AmazingBytecode » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 5:53 AM UTC

I'm not saying it's OK to violate the terms of open source licenses, but the GPL has never fit with my idea of what Free Software should be like. I see Free Software as a gift given to the world as a whole, regardless of what they plan to do with it. Thus I see GNU and the FSF as terrible gift-givers.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#74

Post by dthunt » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 6:02 AM UTC

This article mostly seems to be suggesting that vendors derive more benefit from GPLv3 - which is more focused on coming into compliance, rather than punishing companies that get it wrong.

I'm not sure what this has to do with busybox, save that under GPLv2 there are vendors who are afraid to use them because they have actively been pursuing an aggressive course of action under GPLv2 for several years.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#75

Post by rickmb » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 6:16 AM UTC

AmazingBytecode wrote: post #73

I'm not saying it's OK to violate the terms of open source licenses, but the GPL has never fit with my idea of what Free Software should be like. I see Free Software as a gift given to the world as a whole, regardless of what they plan to do with it. Thus I see GNU and the FSF as terrible gift-givers.

The GPL and the concept of keeping software free permanently embodies the very definition of Free Software.

What you're saying is "the absence of color doesn't fit my idea of what black should be, I see black as having a little touch of yellow in it".

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#76

Post by trotsky » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 6:42 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #72

trotsky wrote: post #62

SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does. It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworke…

Please don't confuse the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC, providers of legal services to numerous FOSS projects) with the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC, a GPL enforcement organization who holds some of the copyrights to Busybox). In particular, even if you don't like the work of the SFC, please don't use that to complain about the SFLC, an entirely separate organization.

Rob Landley sure seems to believe the SFLC is in control, as he repeatedly faults the SFLC for their judgement in what suits to bring regarding busybox. They share a number of directors and staff and a few years ago the conservancy's web presence was hosted on a subdomain of the sflc.

In the SFLC's own press releases on the subject they note that they (the SFLC) identified organizations not in compliance, set the terms for getting into compliance, and decided who and when they should sue. At least at the time, the director of the SFC was a paid staff member of the SFLC.

Doesn't really sound like entirely separate organizations to me.

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/SFC-and-SFLC-sues-Sam...

EDIT: quote: Because many of its clients could benefit from the protections of having a legal entity as well as tax exemption status, but were reluctant to pay the fees associated with formation or dedicate the time necessary to start and maintain a tax exempt nonprofit, the Software Freedom Law Center has established The Software Freedom Conservancy. Since its launch in 2006, the Conservancy has grown to include free and open source software projects active in a wide range of fields.

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.h...

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#77

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 7:07 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#78

Post by CPlatypus » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 7:27 AM UTC

kryptiskt wrote: post #14

lukeschlather wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that Sony is presently shipping software with Busybox and knowingly violating the licensing terms. If they rewrite Busybox in the interim they will be able to get away scot-free despite their years of flagrant copyright violation. Given the variety of devices Sony ships and their complete lack of respect for the GPL, their plan could very well work unless someone catches them red-handed. And the po…

Sony is presently shipping a lot of stuff with Busybox in, but they are not violating the license terms. Here you can download a zillion Sony-patched versions of Busybox to your hearts content: https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/source_tv.shtml

The "2010 and later" section is empty. I guess it's possible that they stopped building new products which use GPL code in 2009, but somehow it seems unlikely that they stopped updating or patching old ones at the same time. If it takes them two or more years to ship the source, after they're already shipping the binaries, are they in compliance?

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#79

Post by nodata » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 7:28 AM UTC

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 stopped giving Sony money since they failed to protect my personal information on their Playstation network - three times!

Things I have not bought because of this: a TV, an ultrabook, a tablet and an Android phone.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#80

Post by danielpal » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 8:31 AM UTC

Someone should re-write this blog post and re-submit it to Hacker News. It's so confusing what the problem really is, or what the author is really saying. I had to read this about 3 times to understand it. He should just say: many hardware manufactures use several GPL projects on there embedded devices, one of those projects is BusyBox. Since BusyBox copyright holders allow SFC to defend their copyright, the SFC is able to force this manufactures to comply with the licenses of all the GPL projects they use. Sony and other manufactures are looking to have a BusyBox alternative so that they can infringe the other GPL product licenses they use, since they know no-one enforces this licenses. Those who own GPL licenses should contact the SFC and allow them to enforce there copyrights.