The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement • Hacker News Board

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#81

Post by nona » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 9:17 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #28

dman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's easy to avoid trade secrets in unrelated code being exposed. Don't infringe on the GPL in the first place!

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#82

Post by vidarh » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 9:50 AM UTC

dedward wrote: post #68

tikhonj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more than fair: you can use our code as long as you don't rip anybody else off either.

fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......

If Sony has received licenses to software X, then there's no problem:

> "you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution"

If Sony has a different license from the copyright holders of software X that means they're not required to distribute source, presumably all they need to do is produce that license if their claim is challenged, or get said copyright holders to confirm it.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#83

Post by thristian » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 10:22 AM UTC

dedward wrote: post #70

thristian wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not what Linux and GNU did, because they rewrote all the software they wanted to use. The linked article accuses Sony of only wanting to rewrite the software that gets them caught , so they can continue ignoring the GPL obligations on the rest of the software they use.

Thats how things work..... why would you spend time and money on something that is not likely to cause you damages? It is a calculated risk..... andnthey arent eliminating the risk, just reducing it.

If you honestly believe that it's acceptable to screw over your business partners (and the people who write the software that your business depends on are your partners, even if there's no monetary recompense involved) as much as you want up until you get caught, I'm not sure I can explain this in terms you'll understand.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#84

Post by atakan_gurkan » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 10:26 AM UTC

dedward wrote: post #61

jevinskie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be fine but the article indicates that they want to continue to use other GPL code (like the Linux kernel) without complying with the GPL. Only Busybox copyright holders have been eager to prosecute violators - removing Busybox would let vendors violate the GPL with little practical consequences.

is it realistic for someone who releases their code to expect an unrelated party dealing with a license violation to just give them a free ride to enforcement? I mean, fine if they do, but it is by no means expected. I dont disagree with how this looks on sony's part, but mucking about with other peoples license enforcement smells kind of funny. Who says sony doesnt have a license from the author on a given piece of…

Hypothetically, Sony products could be coming bundled with unicorns. Just because something is possible does not mean that it needs to be considered. What you are saying is highly improbable. In fact if we had any chance to find out, I could bet you on this, with outrageous odds.

> If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.

Your ability to do this also depends on the legal system, which makes it hard for the little guy with respect to a big corporation. This is why we have mechanisms like SFC.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#85

Post by earl » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 10:42 AM UTC

CPlatypus wrote: post #78

kryptiskt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

if you go here:

https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/

you'll see other products such as webkit with updates in 2011

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#86

Post by wisty » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 11:56 AM UTC

dman wrote: post #23

astrange wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Looks like the s90 has some barrel distortion, but you expect that with a wider zoom lens. Otherwise, there's not much to differentiate them. But the picture was taken in good light.

The E-P1 has a much much larger sensor, and should be much better than the s90 in bad light. Also, you can get a nice 10mm prime for the E-P1 (20mm full frame equivalent, compared to the s90's 28 mm FFE at its widest), or a fast portrait lens, or a telephoto.

On the other hand, u4/3 lenses are often insanely overpriced (at the moment), and the s90 fits in your pocket.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#87

Post by tnorthcutt » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 12:09 PM UTC

dedward wrote: post #68

tikhonj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more than fair: you can use our code as long as you don't rip anybody else off either.

fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......

for all we know they decided to let sony have software X....

If they did, there should be evidence (a licensing agreement, perhaps) of that decision. If there's no formal agreement, the existing license has authority, and it's perfectly reasonable for the SFC to require adherence to the licenses of other packages used as a condition of re-licensing BusyBox to the infringing party.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#88

Post by dkersten » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 12:40 PM UTC

pasbesoin wrote: post #30

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.

I have refused to buy any Sony products for a good number of years now and have no intention of ever buying any of their products in the future. Their actions have lost me as a customer[1] and they will never get me back.

Sadly, I am currently using a Sony Ericsson phone, though somebody gave it to me - I did not buy it.

[1] I have owned many Sony products in the past, including (but not limited to) the Playstation and Playstation 2 (and many many games for both of these), so I am definitely a lost customer and not someone who claims to be one but who never bought their products to begin with.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#89

Post by larrik » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 1:38 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #60

larrik wrote: post #55

SFC enforces copyrights on others behalf's?? Isn't that where Righthaven failed because it isn't actually allowed?

Looking at SFC's website, it appears that people actually assign their copyrights to SFC.

I can see why other projects are hesitant to join in.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#90

Post by HerraBRE » Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 2:17 PM 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.

Free Software is not a gift. That is where you go wrong. Just because you want it to be does not make it so.

Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others, is an attempt to remedy the ethical problems posed by closed source software, which has a strong tendency to lead to monopolistic behavior and unfair power balance between the consumer and the producer of a program.

Free Software may be many other things as well, depending on who is writing the software and releasing the code, but it's almost never a gift. The developers almost always want something in return, whether that is recognition, assistance with development or support for their ideals.

People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses. :-P Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work.