Something which occurred to me while discussing the empeg.com web site.

Linux is released under the GPL. The GPL mandates that whoever distributes or redistributes it must make available the source code.

Problem: I don't have the source code for the version of Linux installed on my empeg. (is it available somewhere? If not, it needs to be - soon - before someone complains loudly about it, bringing the FSF and others to turn their attention to it)

Worse Problem: If I sell my unit, according to the GPL, *I* am responsible for providing the source code for whatever version I have installed on the unit at the time (because _I_ am the one redistributing the binaries at that point), otherwise *I* could bear the brunt of legal hassles.

I don't even know where *I* can find the code, let alone be able to give it to a purchaser if they asked for it.

Can we get this problem corrected before others force a correction upon us? :) I'm not planning on selling my unit, but a number of people have already done so, and as near as I can tell, have opened themselves up for a fairly serious GPL violation as it stands right now.

D

I think you might be confusing "Linux source code" with "Empeg source code". I know I sure was for a while. Someone jump in here and correct me if the following is wrong:

I don't think there's any issue with the Linux distribution. Isn't the distribution that Empeg uses called "Debian" or something, and isn't that available on the web?

The source code for the Empeg playback, visualization, and user interface are under different licensing and are a totally different issue.



-- Tony Fabris -- Empeg #144 --
Caution: Do not look into laser with remaining good eye.

No, I mean Linux.

1.) Regardless of whether Empeg is using Debian or not, THEY are still required to make the source code available, even though they can simply point to www.debian.org and say "They're making it available". The GPL is fairly clear on that point. The person doing the distribution needs to make it available according to the terms of the GPL.

2.) It is my understanding that there were a bunch of patches made to the kernel (probably in the areas of USB, but also others as well I suspect), which under the terms of the GPL would also have to be released EXCEPT in the case of "new kernel modules" (although if they were built on OLD modules, then they would be derivative works and their release would still be required).

I agree that the Empeg playback, visuals, UI, etc., are all a different issue (and while I'd like to see them open source, I can understand their not being so).

D

Try

http://www2.empeg.com/sources/

This url was on the "Developer Site" under "Links".

This contains the kernel with modifications for the empeg.

I presume all the system programs (e.g. bash, cp, mount etc) are just the
normal ARM linux versions.

Richard.

Cool about the kernel sources.

BUT, the other stuff (cp, mount, bash, etc.) must still be made available by Empeg, even if it is "just the normal ARM linux versions".

I'm not trying to be a prick here, but if Stallman got a bug up his ass about bash being distributed in binary format by Empeg without Empeg making the source code available themselves, there'd be trouble for Empeg, which is a bad thing, since I like their stuff and they should spend money on development, not defending themselves against the FSF. :)

The sources to the GPL part of the empeg have always been available upon request: in fact, they're at www2.empeg.com/sources. We have to provide them, but we don't necessarily shove them down everyone's throat :)

TiVO have the same sort of system - there's a page where you can download them, but it's not obviously linked as most of their customers really don't care what the unit runs and if the source is available - which is the way it should be with an appliance.

Hugo

So, if i go down to "Cash Converters", my local buy sell 2nd hand store, and buy an old computer that happens to have linux on it rather than windows, then the store has to provide me with source code for all the GPLed software on it? After all they are distributing the machine and hence the binaries on it.

I mean they don't even know what source code is, let alone have a web site to make it available on.

I seriously don't think there would be a problem with the standard toolset provided on the developer image. We don't even compile it ourselves, the tools are taken from the debian-arm setup - and again, we only have to provide these on request. Noone has asked for them from us for the simple reason that if they want them, they know they can get the sources for (eg) bash anywhere.

Bearing in mind we're a small company, us spending several days before every release getting every tool's source up on the website before we post the latest code is probably a bad use of time - especially seeing as noone would be particularly interested in recompiling bash for their empeg as far as I'm aware. We have no problems with doing this, and we *do* post the source to the kernel for every release (which is where all the changes to GPL stuff are). Mike's particularly concerned about GPL and being the debian guru has been looking at the other GPL software on the box so I'm sure that by release 1 the tool sources will be up - however, at the moment we have many other pressing issues to chase.

My (personal) opinion of Stallman is that he goes too far with some people who have good intentions, and turns a lot of people off open-source by doing so.

Hugo

Whoa, Tivo? You mean that television-hard-drive-cache thing? That runs Linux? I had no idea. Too cool.

-- Tony Fabris -- Empeg #144 --
Caution: Do not look into laser with remaining good eye.

So long as the company has some "plan" on what to do, should someone ask for it. I know there's been a bunch of people "testing compaanies responses to GPL requirements", so its entirely possible that someone could see that you're running Linux/bash/cp/etc. and say "Great! Let me have all the sources!", just to test your responsiveness. Our local Linux Users Group has a number of people who do this time and again as companies "embrace" Open Source, just to see how clued in they are. When they encounter someone less than prepared for it, they're quick to notify the FSF, who then start complaining even louder, etc. etc. ... Can cause bad press which is a Bad Thing. :)

As for Stallman.,... yeah, he can be a prick, but he's the holder of the license for a lot of the stuff you're using, so you have to play by his rules on that stuff. :)

Yes, that would be accurate from a legal standpoint, anyway.

I know there's been a bunch of people "testing compaanies responses to GPL requirements", so its entirely possible that someone could see that you're running Linux/bash/cp/etc. and say "Great! Let me have all the sources!", just to test your responsiveness.

Yes, but they'd have to own an empeg. The GPL just says I have to give you the source if I've given you the binaries.

--
Mike Crowe
I may not be speaking on behalf of empeg above :-)

True, but given the linux world,

(a) it isn't hard to find a zealot who also happens to own an Empeg.
(b) It isn't hard to find a zealot who KNOWS someone with an empeg who can make the request for them to use as a test case. Heck I don't know any zealots, and I'm almost willing to put you guys to the test, just to get it over with. I just can't bring myself personally to make you guys do the work when I don't really need the code myself. I like you guys too much to make you do work I don't need, but I also want to make sure you don't take grief from the open source folks. :)


*sigh*

D

It's been amusing watching this exchange. I just got done reading an article by someone who mentioned that the zealotry was the only remaining obstacle to the Open Source movement gaining wider acceptance. I didn't understand what he was talking about until now.

I do understand the zealotry to a certain extent, though. Without the hard and fast commitment to supplying sources, it's ripe for abuse.

This is going to be a neat decade. We're going to see the software business reinvent itself again thanks to the Internet and things like Linux. It's sure been a wild ride so far.

-- Tony Fabris -- Empeg #144 --
Caution: Do not look into laser with remaining good eye.

Stallman wrote the license a lot of the code is covered by.
He doesn't hold it - the actually authors of the various bits have that.
One thing I will say for Stallman is that he does have strong principles and lives by them, and occasionally tries to make others live by them too.

Empeg did say that they had done a number of changes to the ARM code and posted
them back to the main kernel developers (If I remember correctly).

David

If a 'Zealot' has an Empeg then they would also know where to get all the code
themselves and so not need to hassle Empeg Ltd for the code, since their GPL'd changes are all available on their website.

'Zealots' seem to be just people who want to make a point for the sake of making it with nothing constructive by anyone resulting.

A fair number of the open source movement don't like the way that people are
forcing this issue. The GPL is there to give you the OPTION of having the
source if you wanted it.

Plus - if you wanted to force the issue you would need to prove that you were
using a copy of the developer image first to get them to give you the code for
the various tools. Any decent developer doesn't trust pre-compiled tools so
they would have re-compiled all the standard tools provided by Empeg from the code available on the 'net anyway :-)
Which just leaves the player which is not GPL'd.

The fact that Empeg Ltd has made available a lot more info to us that they needed to, should be enough of an assurance to you that they are decent people
and not trying to rip off the people who put the effort into making the tools protected by the GPL.


David

And if it had Windows(tm) on it then they would have to provide you with the
little 'certificate of authenticity' from Microsoft that comes with the software
(usually on the cover of the CD or booklet you get with the software). As well
as the software license for all the software on the machine, which technically
is not transferable so you shouldn't be buying a machine 2nd hand with software on it. :-)

David

But he (and the FSF) do hold the rights to a LOT of the code in use.. such as bash (on the developer image) among others.

Any FSF member could easily sue Empeg for breach of the GPL -- and win -- if Empeg doesn't make the sources for EVERYTHING that is under the GPL available. That's the point I've been trying to get across here for quite some time.

D

Knowing where to get the code is not the issue.

Case in point: Corel. Look at the backlash they suffered because they were not making the source code for their beta Linux distro available. They were threatened by license-owners of GPL'ed code with lawsuits.

This is EXACTLY the same situation. There are people who go around "spot-checking" for GPL violations, asking for the source code to any/all GPL'ed apps, to check to see if people distributing GPL'ed code are living up to their committment.

If I download, for example, the developer image (or actually ANY image, if there is GPL'ed code on it), I have a right to say "Hey, I want the sources to all this so I can compile it myself, and the GPL says you have to give it to me, so cough it up." Empeg cannot (legally) point me at www.debian.org and tell me to get it from them, "cuz its the same", they have to provide it to me themselves. They have an obligation under the GPL to do that for a certain number of YEARS.

I'm not claiming that they're not decent people. I think I've talked with just about everyone there at some point in time via e-mail, and they're all great people. What I'm trying to do is make them realize that they've got to get prepared for this, otherwise someone WILL piss and moan and cause bad press for them in the open-source community, and that's a Very Bad Thing, because they're good guys. :)

D

I know of one owner of GPL'd code (and an Empeg user) contained in the Empeg who would complain most strongly if those tactics were used regarding their code.

I have to ask if these people who are taking it onto themselves, to test the GPL
with companies using code released under it, have anthing approaching a real life :-)

They could spend their time much more productively creating new tools and applications.

There are those who work to the specific letter of the law and there are those
who work in the spirit of the law. The code is written in the spirit of the law, I would have hoped that people used it in the same spirit rather than having people forcing issues because they 'have the right' to do so.

I have right of way when crossing the road. That doesn't mean I enforce that right when ever possible.


David

That's certainly their right, BUT, consider this: If authors of GPL'ed code DON'T enforce the terms and conditions of the GPL, then OTHERS - less friendly - can thwart the GPL and point to a "lack of prior enforcement" as a defense. This is the same principle that makes Fox crack down on X-Files fan web sites, regardless of how "nice" the nature is. If they DON'T, then someone could copy the trademarked/copyrighted material and say "But Fox abandoned it by not enforcing it."

Unenforced, the GPL loses it protective value. THAT is the reason why there are "compliance hit squads" as it were. If nobody enforces the GPL on, say, "bash" (included in the developer image), then someone could later take bash, closed-source it, and do whatever they want, in complete violation of the GPL, precisely BECAUSE the license-owner allowed the violations in the past.

Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer. They'll tell you the same thing.

D

What you're talking about is trademark law, which is quite different from the applicable laws in this case. At least, that's my current understanding. Let's remember, it's whoever licensed the code using the GPL that has to prosecute. Any joe random cannot get a case just because of a license violation--the person who granted the original license must persue the case.

Fly me to the moon...

Copyright law works, to my knowledge, the same way. If you don't defend your ownership of the copyright, then you risk losing.

And there are owners of "significant" applications who are more than happy to press the issue, given the opportunity. As has been mentioned before, "bash" wouuld be a good example, and Stallman and the FSF would probably happily go for the carotid artery if they saw someone violating the GPL on it.

D

...strange noone has gone for LinuxOne then, who appear to be willfully violating the GPL all over the place...

Hugo

Actually, Rick Moen (LinuxMafia) and Bruce Perens both had discussions with LinuxOne and you CAN get the sources from them now.

Neither is very HAPPY with LinuxOne, but they are no longer in violation of the GPL.

It should be noted that what happened with LinuxOne, as a nice parallel, is exactly what I am describing with Empeg. They said "Want the sources? Ask Red Hat.", and the community came back with a clear response, from lawyers, saying "nope, YOU need to make it available", and finally they caved and agreed, achieving lots of bad press at the same time.

That's what I suspect will happen with Empeg, if you guys don't watch your step.

This isn't the case at all. We don't *have* to provide the sources until someone *asks* us. We are under no obligation to put them up in advance of anyone asking, and when someone asks us, we have to provide them in a timely manner.

I suspect that to prove the point someone will now ask us and delay the next release, but that's their perogative.

Hugo

Strictly speaking, and not to belabor the point, the GPL states that if you don't provide the source code directly, you must explicitly offer to make it available upon request. Otherwise how is one to know it is even available?

While I'm on the subject, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the other conditions for distributing copies of GPL programs: namely, retaining copyright notices, statements of warranty, and a copy of the license itself. Debian normally keeps this information organized under /usr/doc.

-v

First off, to jump back to Rob's message: Yes, you're correct, you don't have to provide the sources, except if someone asks, but, consider this:


Section 3 of the GPL. Either
(a) accompany the Empeg unit with the machine-readable source code, (or)
(b) accompany the Empeg unit with a written offer, valid for at least three years to give ANY THIRD PARTY, the source code, (or)
(c) [not applicable to Empeg since it applies only to noncommercial distribution]

Section 1 of the GPL: Did you include a copy of the GPL in the Empeg package, as required by the GPL.

As near as I can tell, the answer to both questions is "No.", which puts Empeg in a very tenuous position of having violated the terms of the GPL.

This is why I brought this up the first time -- I think its GREAT you guys are using open source stuff, but there's rules to how its done, and right now you guys are not following the rules. Anyone who wanted to be a prick could just point it out to the license-holders, and a world of shit would rain down, bad press, legal fees, you name it. That's a Bad Thing, right?

Jeez, I try to give you guys a heads-up that you're missing something before someone more of a prick than I am notices, and you basically act like I pissed on your breakfast. "Oh, I suppose we COULD do that, but it would delay the next release". So what?! Delay the next release, but make the next release LEGAL, lest you suddenly find that the license-holders decide to not you play with their toys anymore because you're violating the license. Then what? A WinCE-based Empeg?!

*sigh*

Hi Hugo,

There are a few points of GPL compliance I'm told that Empeg is falling down on, although I don't have proof yet. You can no doubt confirm or deny them for me. I am copyright holder for a good bit of Debian code and am assuming I have direct rights here as well as the rights of people I represent who have complained to me. In enforcing my license I'm not attempting to be a "zealot". Having people obey your software license, especially one as fair as the GPL, is a pretty basic right and one that Empeg exercises as well.

1. Is the complete text of all licenses for any free software in the product delivered to the customer along with the software? If the license is on a disk rather than in printed form, does the printed documentation say where to find it and that the customer has some special rights under those licenses?

2. If you do not distribute the machine-readable source code with the unit, you must accompany the unit with a written offer to give all GPL source code for binary code in the unit to _any_ third party. Not just your customers, anyone. This is verbatim from the GPL 3(a) and 3(b).

We know your intentions are good so please _fix_ this stuff if it is happening and tell us right away that you are doing so.

By the way, you mentioned "Nobody is going after LinuxOne". That's not so. I know one person who has hired an attorney and their underwriter has put their IPO on long-term hold while they fix problems that have been reported widely in the press. This is at least in part due to my efforts. I wouldn't _dream_ of doing something like that with you, you're just making a paperwork mistake while they had serious bad intent.

Thanks

Bruce Perens

If you think that's complicated, it gets much worse when there are commercial Windows programs on the disk. Read their licenses sometime.

If you casually sell software without reading the license you're probably not going to be caught and prosecuted, but that doesn't mean you aren't liable for both civil and criminal penalties if you _were_ caught. In the case of Empeg there's no excuse, they are making volume sales of a product containing someone else's software and due diligence would require they become familiar enough with the licenses to be able to execute them properly.

Thanks

Bruce