Linux, the GPL, and resale of a unit

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

Here comes "someone more of a prick" :-)

Your read appears to be correct. Follow it to the conclusion: Theoreticaly, their licenses could be immediaely terminated by any copyright holders of code in the unit who cared to get tough, and then it would be straight infringement for every unit they sold. Practically, nobody would be that much of a prick unless they proved to be incredibly unwisely obstinate. Either a nice warning or a little publicity has been all that's necessary to get people's attention and get the GPL violations fixed, given time. In the case of Empeg, I predict that nothing beyond the nice warning will be necessary.

Thanks

Bruce

And people wonder why commercial companies (Apple for example) won't touch GPL'd code. This is rediculous. Empeg has to be one of the most linux friendly commercial companies in existance. They never said "we won't supply code" simply that "no one has asked for it yet". They have contributed their modifications back to the tree from which they came, but you guys are bothering them because there isn't a big flashing button on their website that says "Download Debian code here" and a printout of the GPL in the users manual? What a waste of everyone's time.

PB and Dredd if free software is this important to you wouldn't your time be better spent writing code than searching for companies that may be failing the "letter of the law" but definately abidding my the "spirit of the law"?

-Mike

Is it to late to change the OS to *BSD ;-)

Bruce,

I'd like to point out that this is a public forum maintained by a client and is in no way supported by empeg. Employees who may post here, including myself, do so in a personal capacity and are not representing the company or, necessarily, the views of the company.

Perhaps you have already done so, but to be certain of getting a message to Hugo (empeg Technical Director) you should email him ([email protected]).

Regards

Rob

As has been noted already, the GPL wasn't included on all CDs that went out - it's definitely been there since 9a cds were burned, and might have been on 8c's (I'm not near the machine with the CD images on it, so I can't currently tell). This was an oversight, and we apologise for this.

If the licence holders decided not to let us "play with their toys" then the net result would likely be that yes, we would move away from open-source software, with a bad taste in our mouths. We've always provided kernel source (and have been asked for this) and so the minimum effect would be we carried on using the kernel, but dumped the developer image and made the unit a "sealed box" setup. The worst case would be we move to a RTOS with similar capabilties (Posix, threads, etc) - our software is not tightly tied to unix, we always wanted to ensure that it wasn't as there are some places empeg is going which can't support the overheads.

The point is, we're a small company who *most definitely* abides by the spirit of the GPL. If you ask, you will receive. Our kernel mods are not only posted, but fed back and have appeared in the linux 2.3 tree, giving linux some new facilties such as a consumer IR driver, a USB slave driver and so on. Mike, the most debian of us, has been the main GNU-conscience-holder of the company and has nudged gently to get things done on the tool sources front. The source to bash (et al) will appear on the sources page - though you'll probably be able to get better bandwidth to another site with exactly the same code on it.

It's my personal feeling that the GPL is avoided by many companies simply because if you use it, you're followed by a h[eu]rd of zealots who watch every step you make and pounce on you if you've (for whatever reason) not followed the letter of the GPL - even when you want to comply and have no problems with doing so. The thought of this type of free-range legalish sabre rattling makes most think twice - and this is not a good thing if you ask me. If open source wants to pervade every part of the software industry (especially embedded software) then a slightly more understanding approach to enforcement of the GPL is needed; I'm not saying change the GPL, but I'm saying the best way to get people to follow it is to communicate *with* them, as opposed to communicating to *everyone else* that they appear to have a problem.

Hugo

Posted by Bruce Perens

The Bruce Perens ? :-)

Guys, let's get over with this, please! Hugo, DO include verbatim GPL text somewhare in the distribution, along with prescribed offer to provide source code. Having several CD-Rs with Debian distribution and your patches handy will not kill you, either.

BTW, I don't have impression that even greatest FSF 'zealots' are that crazy. Remember, there was a lot of 'bad blood' in the movement concerning 'Free Softvare' vs 'Open Source', with Richard Stallman accusing 'The Bazaar' Eric, 'Maddog' Hall (then in DEC), 'VA' Augustine and even Linus himself of 'commercialization' (or prostitution) of The Movement, but I think things have cooled down considerably. (When receiving an award from Linus (I think is was some IDG-sponsored Open Source award), Richard even said he did not insist on the name 'GNU/Linux' anymore...)

Most people here are audiophiles and general tech geeks, not particularly Linux geeks. The fact that general audience benefits from free software in the way we see here is a kind or realization of Stallman's dream. I really don't think we should be affraid of 'FSF zealots' trying to catch Hugo on some technicality, but, on the other hand, sticking to the letter of the GPL does not cost so much (I think we agree Hugo sticks to it's spirit already).

Cheers!

P.S. I am happily using GNU programs and, later, Linux both proffesionally and privatly for ten or so years now, and I appreciate them being free in both meanings of the word.

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
#5196

I know, I bet PaulH never expected Bruce Perens to visit the unofficial empeg bbs when he started it :)

Hugo

We are fixing it (including the paper documentation, which is well overdue for an update... I'm sure there are some features in the software that I've not found yet...)

I'm also glad to hear that LinuxOne is being talked to. Every time I read a new article about them I'm amazed even further by what appears to have been going on there...

Hugo

This is all very interesting...

One more step on the road to getting that Linux thorn out of my side

Keep up the good work...

Bill G (as if...)

FUD, FUD, glorious FUD...

I'm saying the best way to get people to follow it is to communicate *with* them, as opposed to communicating to *everyone else* that they appear to have a problem.

Bear in mind, though, that I started this mess (the topic anyway, not the situation), and not once did an Empeg employee say something like "Let's take this to e-mail" or anything like that.

Another thing to think of is this: You're including the GPL on the new CD's (kudos, BTW), but you also may want to make sure there's wording somewhere with whatever OTHER license you're using (for emplode, the player, etc.) otherwise someone might think (potentially rightfully so) that those are under the GPL as well, when they're not.

It should not surprise you so much, Hugo. I, too, am a frequent lurker on the BBS. Now, if Linus were to show up, THAT would be pretty fucking cool.

By the way, Hugo, while I admire your evenhanded principle in denying me a Mark I unit because of my low queue number (#9666), you may want to rethink your position from a theological perspective. Dad has a long memory, and we really don't want to have to revisit this matter when you are seeking admittance to Heaven.

And as for you, Dredd, surely you are the most blessed of all my children. Yes, you hold yourself up to ridicule by making yourself to appear an anal, self-absorbed, egoist who has no regard for the fact that Hugo has every intention and is making every effort to comply with the GPL. But I know you speak the truth when you say, however preposterous a claim it may seem at face value, that you are actually acting out of love for Empeg in an effort to protect them from geeks more zealous than yourself. No, you do not quote verse and scripture of GPL in a vain attempt at self-validation, or to be noticed by Bruce Derens, no matter how much it may appear that way. Rather, you selflessly expose yourself for the sake of Empeg, much as I suffered ridicule and sacrificed myself on the cross two thousand years ago.

Jesus Christ
Queue #9666, John 3:16
(...and getting impatient)

Mike,

Don't say big companies are unwilling to touch the GPL, it hasn't been true for a while now.

Empeg has made the correct response, and it was easy for them to do so, so this isn't going to be a problem. I would hate to get into the situation later on where a worse violator is arguing in court that
we are enforcing our licenses selectively. Even though it might not win a case, who wants to spend expensive time in court arguing that?

There's also the problem that if it's percieved that the GPL is not enforced, companies will tend to violate it in major ways and thus we will end up having to go to court to enforce it rather than use warnings or publicity as we do now. This way, without the courts, is better.

GPL is pretty fair, and its use is increasing (just look at the Freshmeat.net listings) because volunteer programmers percieve that it gives _them_ a fair deal as few other licenses do. Aren't the volunteers rights important too?

Thanks

Bruce

All of this "THE Bruce Perens" stuff is overblown. It's useful because people pay attention, but I'm really just another hacker who speaks his mind.

I came to this BBS because someone dropped me an email. He said I should take a look and gave the reasons why. Everybody knows my email, and I would have responded the same way for anyone who chose to write.

I had seen the Empeg at a Linux conference in the Debian booth, and most recently at The Hacker's Conference, and I think it's cool.

Thanks

Bruce

All of this "THE Bruce Perens" stuff is overblown. It's useful because people pay attention, but I'm really just another hacker who speaks his mind.

You might feel so, but you did appear here at 'THE B.P.' (after all, you do hold those copylefts...). Anyway, I wanted to ask: has the person turning your attention to Hugo's efforts merely asked you to clean up some missunderstanding about GPL, or complained about 'the company that exploits Linux without respecting open source licensing'. I would really be worried if it was the latter.

Another thing: does this 'any third party' provision mean, in effect, that anybody deriving anything from GPL'd software must become a Linux distributor? (In other words, why does it not suffice to provide source of their changes together with pointer to Debian or whatever?) I know GPL can't be interpreted any other way; I am asking about logic behind this.

Thanks!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
#5196

Bear in mind, though, that I started this mess (the topic anyway, not the situation), and not once did an Empeg employee say something like "Let's take this to e-mail" or anything like that.

I hope you consider this openess commendable.



Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
#5196

It's my personal feeling that the GPL is avoided by many companies simply because if you use it, you're followed by a h[eu]rd of zealots who watch every step you make and pounce on you if you've (for whatever reason) not followed the letter of the GPL - even when you want to comply and have no problems with doing so. The thought of this type of free-range legalish sabre rattling makes most think twice - and this is not a good thing if you ask me. If open source wants to pervade
every part of the software industry (especially embedded software) then a slightly more understanding approach to enforcement of the GPL is needed; I'm not saying change the GPL, but I'm saying the best way to get people to follow it is to communicate *with* them, as opposed to communicating to *everyone else* that they appear to have a problem.

It would really be good that both FS and OS crowds (myself not seeing such a big difference) consider this seriously... As I said, when I first read Richard Stallman's Free Software Manifesto in a preface to an Emacs book, I thought him a bit shy of utopian lunatic. Now his dream is realised, but not so much through millions of us geeks playing with free software, as through other millions about to have better and more accessible appliances thanks to it.

Finally, let me state that I agree with those on this board who think that, ultimatelly, Empeg guys would benefit by opensourcing their software. I don't believe Matsushita or somebody would clone the hardware in order to be able to exploit it... But, of course, it is up to them, and, sadly, Hugo has already expressed his firm opinion about it.

(BTW, as we are becomming allarmingly formal in this thread, let me 'disclose', ridiculous as it might be, that my company distributes Red Hat.)

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
#5196

I was asked to convince them to take a license requirement seriously. They weren't represented to me as nasty exploiters, they were pointed out as a high-visibility Linux project which could do us damage by visibly not taking a GPL obligation seriously. They only needed a tiny nudge, they were collecting the source code today (and it's probably still Sunday where they are) and are implementing all necessary changes. In other words, the problem is well on the way to being fixed and I am satisfied with their response.

Yes, you might think it's sufficient to just post your changes and point to some other place where you can find the files. But it turns out that the Debian distribution site has upgraded its versions since the Empeg load was produced and the versions of programs that were shipping in the Empeg weren't available online any longer! That's one reason it makes sense for the people who distribute the binary to distribute source - the version information gets lost otherwise. The other reason is that it's sloppy to expect someone else to fulfill your legal obligation - sometimes they stop doing so without telling you.

My own opinion is that if businesses don't keep an eye to the quid-pro-quo represented by the GPL, a lot fewer people will write free software.

Thanks

Bruce

Makes sense. Thanks.

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
#5196

But it turns out that the Debian distribution site has upgraded its versions since the Empeg load was produced and the versions of programs that were shipping in the Empeg weren't available online any longer!

The binary distribution we based our developer image on is still being distributed from the location we originally retrieved it from. The source is not available there and the binary packages it was based on have moved on.

I find it quite ironic that when I went out to find the source code to meet our obligations the binary version was still available but not the source. :)


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

Bruce,

Is there any reason why you couldn't have taken this matter into private email with Hugo directly, instead of making a rather embarrasing post on a public BBS? This action is akin to standing up in the middle of a party and shouting at the top of your voice "That man {points to offender} is interfering with my wife!!". Subtle, Bruce, subtle.

Empeg Ltd has absolutely commercial connection with this board; it is run by enthusiasts of the product using private resources. This could have meant that you would have had no response from any member of the empeg staff. A far more appropriate action, should you have felt it necessary, would have been to make direct contact at a commercial level via the appropriate points of contact specified in the company webpage or with the head office of the company via snail mail.

This is now the third or fourth time I have observed a Linux oriented "zealot" thread appear on this BBS; regardless of the merit of the complaint, this is NOT the place to voice it. One of the reasons why I enjoy this board is the genuine enthusiasm and lack of bickering that reminds me of Usenet around the mid-80's prior to the "Idiot Infusion" that occurred in the early 90's. Every time the L-word pops up these days, I rapidly remember the reasons why I have consistently found FreeBSD a better choice both commercially and for hobby. And here I was beginning to seriously consider allocating expensive computer resources to check out Debian. Not any more, matey.

This website represents my most important personal hobby and I simply refuse to allow this sort of thing propogate on this board. The board is moderated, and PaulH can at his discretion remove offending posts. This comment will, of course, start a whine about "suppression" and "censorship". Oh dear, oh dear, oh dearie dearie me. Have you even got, or have any interest in, an empeg player?

I'm afraid it's time for me to say that I would prefer you withdraw any further postings and refrain from showing your face here again, regardless of your involvement with the sources of the suporting software. If you are unsubtle enough to consider this type of public post "appropriate" then you are not welcomed here by me for one.

Yeah, I had it on the tip of my tongue to say the same thing...

Free the Daemon!

I am happily using GNU programs and, later, Linux both proffesionally and privately for ten or so years now,

I have been using GNU tools since about 1990 in the same way. I was an early subscriber to the paper version of the FSF's newsletter (with a certain Mr. Stallman portrayed riding a "righteous GNU", if I remember rightly - I'll have to look at my old comics later).

That all stops today, as everything relating to the GPL comes off all my personal machines as soon as I get home tonight. I am this afternoon going to withdraw the push I have been making at work to use Debian in a major development for the company I am currently working for.

How I am going to reconcile this with my ownership & usage of the empeg machine, I don't know - but I do know that this exchange has finally gelled my so far ambiguous attitude to GPL source and the GPL itself which has persisted in me for some 10 years now.

All of my own work released so far has been public domain, and I have seen at least two places where the code (especially so in the case of a device driver) has simply been lifted, comments and all, and dropped under a GPL without acknowledgement or contact from the perpetrator. I have been tolerant of this so far, as I considered that it benefits everyone in spite of me having a horse and cart trampled through my rights as a developer.

Public pillory of offenders certainly has it's place - in the market square, somewhere around 1540 - 1680 AD. Not on this BBS.

Like probably a lot of people on this BBS, I'm at 'that certain age' that means I got into computers back in the early '80s, with 8-bit machines. Back then there was a fairly extensive market of public domain software (shareware hadn't been heard of as far as I can remember) and magazines published listings of programs you could easily type in and learn from. The internet wasn't quite so accessible from home, but there were dozens of BBS's where you could discover and share information with other people... Essentially, it was 'only' a hobby, and people enjoyed sharing their hobby with others.

In my case, the 8-bit computers I used most were the Ataris (400 & 130XE) Atari were probably one of the few computer manufacturers around at the time who made the source code of their OS available... I learned a lot from reading over that 6502 assembly listing over the years, along with the detailed technical reference notes.

Then I got an IBM-compatible... everything was suddenly closed off, to write your own programs meant handing over hundreds of pounds for compilers... it was no longer a hobby, the pc was a black box that did some amazing things, but I no longer had the faintest inkling how...

Where am I going with this message? Well, the Open Source/Free Software thing (in my view) restored the hobbyist aspect for me... I could download 'free' compilers (cost a bloody fortune in phone bills, but that was part of the fun ) and see actual source code again; the internet took off in the home, and all was well with the world.... well, I thought it was....

Anyway, to get back on thread...

Much is made in the Open Source community about Microsoft and their tactic of spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt among end users to try to destroy, or at the very least marginalise, Linux, GNU and the Open Source concept. This thread over the past few days has made me realise that by some cruel twist, the Open Source movement, by threatening legal action over GPL infringements, are doing nothing more than spreading the same Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt... not among end-users, but among the very developers who are needed to make Open Source work!

I know for sure that I would now think more than twice before distributing code under the GPL. I had always thought that the GPL was a way to ensure that the source would always be freely available to those who wanted it, and I suppose it does, but to me it looks like a whole lot more trouble than it's worth right now.

Sorry for the rambling post, but I'm feeling very sad, in a way I haven't felt since I boxed up my Ataris all those years ago and booted up my shiny new 486, only to wonder how I was going to program the damn thing...

Geoff
---- -------
Reg No. 554, s/n 00064 - It's mine I tell you.... all mine :)

This thread over the past few days has made me realise that by some cruel twist, the Open Source movement, by threatening legal action over GPL infringements, are doing nothing more than spreading the same Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt... not among end-users, but among the very developers who are needed to make Open Source work!

Sorry for the rambling post, but I'm feeling very sad, in a way I haven't felt since I boxed up my Ataris all those years ago and booted up my shiny new 486, only to wonder how I was going to program the damn thing...



Thanks, Geoff, for putting into words the same things I am struggling to express myself. My sentiments, almost to the word (and computer).

I'm off to see the optician tomorrow to get these damned rose-tinted spectacles replaced... nothing but a bloody nuisance

Geoff
---- -------
Reg No. 554, s/n 00064 - It's mine I tell you.... all mine :)

I dunno, Rob. I found the entire discussion enlightening and educational. I don't think it embarassed anyone, because everyone involved was perfectly honest and candid about all of the facts.

Before this thread popped up, I knew very little about the GPL. Now I know a lot more.



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

Seems to me that free software sometimes cost more than the shrink-wrapped stuff... at least emotionally.

Yes, there's a reason why I took it up here. It's because the thread was already public before I got here. Consider that a number of people were already publicly making protests over clear GPL violations when I got here. Those protests were visibly not being taken seriously by a known Empeg employee who happened to be posting to your board and, perhaps unwisely, appeared to be representing his company even if it was "unofficially". In general we want it publicly known that you have to take the GPL seriously, that keeps the problem from getting worse so that we would end up in court. We do not want to go to court with anyone and no lawsuit threat was made here.

I can understand why you would not want this sort of stuff on your board, but in that case you should have stopped it earlier. To terminate the discussion now gives the appearance of silencing one side of an argument, and I'd protest more if the argument wasn't already over. The Empeg folks said they'd fix the simple problems they had with GPL compliance, as far as I'm concerned that is the end of my discussion with them. Now, on to you.

In a later post on this board you claim to have placed two programs in the public domain, and then you protest that at least one of those programs was lifted wholesale and placed in a GPL program, and you weren't credited. That would make me unhappy, too. If you want to give me the details, I'll see that you get credit, and I doubt it will require any public postings.

It is ironic, though, that you express annoyance about what happened with your public domain program, because by placing it in the public domain and abandoning your own copyright you were making it legally permissible for someone else to claim authorship. That's just one of many reasons why we use the GPL. The important reason in the Empeg matter, however, was that we wanted to be able to rebuild the software in the Empeg that was ours, not Empeg's, and online copies of some of the versions they used no longer existed. You ask if I have any personal interest in Empeg player. Yes, I think it's a pretty cool product and I might buy one. And if I do buy one, I probably want to hack around inside of it. So, I want to make sure that the GPL provisions that would let me do that are being taken seriously. This should benefit any other Empeg customer who wants to get inside of the player, as well.

Since you made your own programs public domain, they can be considered a gift. That is, there are essentially no rules regarding what someone does with them. GPL progams are not a gift, they are to be shared, and we have rules for sharing that we really need you to take seriously, or fewer people will write. It took about a man-day for Empeg to come into compliance with those rules, no big deal.

I honor that you've made two programs public. If you had put in as much time as I had, literally years without pay, into making your software public, you might have even stronger feelings about other people complying with your license than you have about the mis-attribution of your public domain software. It's sometimes dishartening to have put in all of that time to make a good public system like Debian and Linux and then to have someone who has done a lot less work call you a "zealot". Remember that the people who created the BSD system were on government grants or worked for an industry consortium (the ARPA grant for the Berkeley 4BSD distribution from which the free BSDs were derived, The X Consortium, The government-funded NCSA Web Server that Apache is derived from, etc.) or were otherwise getting paid, and thus did not see a need for any additional quid-pro-quo as with the GPL. Most GPL authors, in contrast, were on their own time from the start. It happens that I will get my very first paycheck for working on GPL software in a few days. Since 1993, I've been doing that with no pay.

So, I wish you'd be a little bit more understanding when we ask for people to take our software license seriously.

Thanks

Bruce

In reply to:

---

All of my own work released so far has been public domain, and I have seen at least two places where the code (especially so in the case of a device driver) has simply been lifted, comments and all, and dropped under a GPL without acknowledgement or contact from the perpetrator. I have been tolerant of this so far, as I considered that it benefits everyone in spite of me having a horse and cart trampled through my rights as a developer.

---

When you release something into the public domain, you are specifically giving up your rights, and it is perfectly within anyone else's rights to take your code and redistribute it, with or without modifications, under a license of their own choosing. They needn't even give you acknowledgment as, technically, you've given up all ownership interest in the work.

This is precisely why defending the GPL is important. The GPL offers a way to release code generously while still retaining your copyright and guaranteeing the code will always be available under the same terms, no matter what anyone does with it. Nobody else can release the code under lesser or more restrictive terms. You may think people are zealots to enforce the terms under which they release their code, but really what they are doing is no different from your own expectation that the code you write be of benefit to everyone. The difference is that the GPL offers some legal recourse if someone doesn't play by the rules.

I don't agree with the sentiment that using GPL'd software is hazardous in that you're followed by a bunch of zealots who check compliance, because it's very easy to comply and as long as you make that effort, nobody will bother you. (In fact, you'll get praise.) It's even easier to comply if you're already complying in spirit. But you have to comply, especially if you are in the business of selling something that includes GPL'd code -- then it's your responsibility to make sure you are following the licensing terms to the letter.

In the case of Empeg Ltd, I'm confident they will do the right thing. I realize the GPL issue probably only affects their developer releases (other than the kernel modifications, which have always been available) so I am especially grateful for them to correct the GPL issues rather than terminate the developer releases entirely. I'm still glad the issue was brought forward, however, and it's probably better that it was brought forward now rather than later.

-v

I have to agree with Tony. The whole discussion has been very interesting, and enlightening; it has been just that, 'a discussion'. Both sides have raised good questions of the other, and, apparently, a resolution to the initial question has been found. Isn't that what 'discussion' is all about?

It's starting to get like AOL around here!

(although I wonder if S.W. Bell realise the marketing potential that comes with having a divine client on the books)

Bruce : Consider that a number of people were already publicly making protests over clear GPL violations when I got here.

Bruce, I wasn't under impression those were protests; they looked to me as warnings about possible 'GPL zealotry' (OK, that's perhaps a tad too strong a word). What we got here was both 'zealotry' and 'anti-zealot zealotry'.

Why don't we just take Tony's viewpiont and consider this thread just a usefull explanation on GPL and related issues? It would really be sad if Bruce's intervention resulted in somebody abandoning open source software. After all, sticking to GPL is not difficult, nobody treatened anybody here, and Hugo and Bruce came to understanding quickly and easily.

Hugo, I really hope you will stick with Linux. I would really like to be able to tinker with my Empeg.

Let's keep cool heads, everybody, and let's not spoil good times we had here for months.

Cheers!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
#5196

People use this forum to talk about wants, needs, problems, potential problems, potential solutions, and to indulge in the comraderie of early adopters who believed in Empeg as a concept before it was an actual product -- and believe even more in Empeg now that it's produced its first batch of units.

That's all that's happened here; this discussion was right on target as far as I'm concerned. Several valid points/perspectives were aired and I'm glad it occurred as I learned a few things about the GPL. I'm also thankful for the public discussion because its candid nature only serves to strengthen my belief in Empeg as a company; they didn't try to sweep this under the rug like many companies would. I value such open honesty...

As is the nature of early adopters, we tend to hack on things. Bruce's actions seek to keep that priviledge legally available and free. Empeg benefits directly from his work and we, the owners and potential owners, benefit from both Bruce's -AND- Empeg's work. Let's not forget that fact while slinging labels like "zealot" around. Were it not for the GPL and the people who protect their work under it, the Empeg would be more expensive than it already is due to the costs of compilers, shell tools, and other such things that big businesses (I'll name no names) tend to scarf up and sell at ludicrous costs to get THEIR fraction of the pie that someone else is actually earning.

Does a company have a right to charge you an arm and a leg for a tool? Yes.

Do you have alternatives to giving up your arm and your leg? Thanks to things like the GPL -- yes, but you have to do some things to support the GPL in return for what you get from it. They aren't hard to do ... they take a lot less time than writing your own tools ... and a lot less money than buying tools from (still unnamed) big companies. This is a no-brainer in my opinion...

-- Bleys


"If you would judge, understand." -- Seneca

Let's keep cool heads, everybody, and let's not spoil good times we had here for months

Thanks, Bonzi, I believe many of the happy empeggers share your feelings. Let's just say that the discussions have been interesting. Too bad that too many of us are disappointed now and look back on this issue with very mixed feelings.

I would like to suggest that we call a radio silence now on this subject, so we can lick our wounds. Let's not allow this issue to overshadow the fun we all had before this all started. There remain many more pleasant subjects elsewhere on this BBS.

Henno