Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Note, suspect this didn't appear earlier because of vger disliking
mention of De*tschland!]

Hi,

I've been talking with UK company Amstrad PLC regarding their
obligations under the GNU GPL for the Linux they ship on their new E3
videophone in the UK.

http://www.amstrad.com/default.shtml
http://www.amstrad.com/e3_intro.html

It's based on a TI OMAP ARM SoC and runs MontaVista Linux.

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6619549199.html
http://www.amstrad.com/news_linux.html
http://www.mvista.com/news/2004/amstrad.html

They're shipping the E3 in a box for sale off the shelf in places like
Dixons, Currys, etc. I believe they haven't complied with section 3 of
the GNU GPL. There's no source shipped in the box, i.e. 3(a). There's
no written notice either, 3(b), in the thick manual, or the other sheets
of paper in the box, printed on the box, or on stickers on the E3. I
inspected the contents of a box, serial number available if required, at
my local store with the agreement of a staff member who opened all the
wrappings. The manual had "Issue No. 9 (D1/H4)" printed at the bottom
right corner of page 1, as does the online PDF of the manual available
for download.

ftp://ftp.amstrad.co.uk/e3_userguide_web_v1.zip 9,614,278 bytes

I am not an E3 owner, nor have I been passed the GPL'd binaries with or
without a written offer under 3(c).

Initially I tried discussing their compliance with
support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx but they were only willing to discuss source
access details on presentation of proof of purchase, e.g. serial number,
registered phone number, etc., and weren't willing to discuss if they
were complying with the GPL.

So I next emailed Sir Alan Sugar, Amstrad Chairman, and got a reply from
Brian Eaton, E-Business Director. He initially, like Support, seemed
confident they were complying but I got the impression he hadn't
actually read my argument so I tried once more to point out how what
they were doing wasn't complying. This time I got a reply saying

"Your comments are noted. We will get back to you shortly. In the
meantime can you let me have your postal address please so that I
can send you something?"

This, coupled with activity to my Amstrad Linux page from several
browsers at an IP address similar to Amstrad's public ones around the
time Brian's reply was sent, makes me think I should make the issue
public before anything that would prevent me doing that may happen.

All my correspondence is attached but the most interesting is message 9
where I spell out the license requirements to Brian Eaton, 10 where he
yesterday asked for my address, and 11 where he re-stated they've don't
have to discuss it with me. I think they're failing to comply with
section 3. There's other minor things too in the manual that I've
highlighted. They're right in saying they've no obligation to discuss
their compliance with me. I'm hoping that by posting here a copyright
holder will query their apparent lack of compliance and Amstrad will be
happy to converse with them.

To re-iterate, there's no source code or written offer in the box. They
say they'll provide a URL to an E3 owner on proof of ownership but
that's insufficient. The situation is made more complex by the E3
downloading software updates, including seemingly the kernel, so they'll
be multiple versions to provide source for over time.

Cheers,


Ralph.

Forwarded Messages

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 16:44, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
[snip]

> All my correspondence is attached but the most interesting is message 9
> where I spell out the license requirements to Brian Eaton, 10 where he
> yesterday asked for my address, and 11 where he re-stated they've don't
> have to discuss it with me. I think they're failing to comply with
> section 3. There's other minor things too in the manual that I've
> highlighted. They're right in saying they've no obligation to discuss
> their compliance with me. I'm hoping that by posting here a copyright
> holder will query their apparent lack of compliance and Amstrad will be
> happy to converse with them.
>
> To re-iterate, there's no source code or written offer in the box. They
> say they'll provide a URL to an E3 owner on proof of ownership but
> that's insufficient. The situation is made more complex by the E3
> downloading software updates, including seemingly the kernel, so they'll
> be multiple versions to provide source for over time.

You did an awesome work. I will save this message as an example
just in case I will need to do something similar.

Unfortunately I have no E3. Hope someone who has will contact you.
--
vda

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 15:52, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> You did an awesome work. I will save this message as an example
> just in case I will need to do something similar.
>
> Unfortunately I have no E3. Hope someone who has will contact you.

Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up from
Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for three years
to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units start up with.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

Hi Alan,

Alan Cox wrote:
> Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up
> from Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for
> three years to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units
> start up with.

dwmw2 is reporting off-list that the URL is "for the [MontaVista] devkit
they started from".

And the written offer is in the welcome email *now* but probably wasn't
until I hassled them. It also doesn't meet 3(b) so they're not
complying. The way the E3 works is that it won't do anything after
power on until you plug it into your phone line. Then it dials Amstrad
(Amsurf), asks you questions, e.g. name, and registers this along with
your phone number, serial number, and preferred email address with
Amstrad.

*After that* you get a `welcome email' containing the written offer.
Sorry, but I have the binaries once I walk out the shop. Where's my
written offer? What do I do if I bought one and got it shipped to
France and so it won't `phone home'?

Cheers,


Ralph.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:59:41 +0100, Ralph Corderoy
<ralph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up
> > from Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for
> > three years to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units
> > start up with.

The E3 uses Montavista Linux and as far as I am aware they made little
or no changes to that for the product. Most of the perceived problem
here is, I think, just misunderstanding.

It also seems you're overly keen for Amstrad to be in the wrong here,
but the reality is that Alan Sugar (or his son/relative in charge of
various PR activities) is not going to have these answers readily
available for you. Someone will know and provide you with the
information that you are after - but it's worth treating the lack of
informtation as a small oversight.

While the E3 is quoted as not using any other "Open Source" software,
it does use Monta's Linux. I would suggest that you contact the folks
at Montavista's UK offices in Bracknell and ask them about obtaining a
link to the source.mvista.com and similar websites where you can
obtain a copy of the sources used in their distribution. They are
friendly people.

> And the written offer is in the welcome email *now* but probably wasn't
> until I hassled them.

They probably overlooked it. Yes that's not great - but I wouldn't get
too worked up over it. The reality is that you asked for a copy of the
source and eventually it seems that you will get what you want. It
would be nice if this process were entirely seemless but it's
certainly a lot better than many examples I've seen elsewhere.

> It also doesn't meet 3(b) so they're not complying.

Technically I think you might be correct there - but I'd give them the
benefit of the doubt and assume they just need to read the license
over and make a change to some packaging.

I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
these issues then.

Cheers,

Jon.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 17:24, Jon Masters wrote:
> I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
> these issues then.

Everything I've seen from Amstrad on the subject has ben friendly,
helpful and clear. I've dealt with a few cases of vendors clearly
trying to break the rules, but Amstrad is not one of them. They answer
email, they give clear and honest answers, and the code is out there.

If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
ftp for all.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:59:44 +0100, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 17:24, Jon Masters wrote:
> > I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
> > these issues then.
>
> Everything I've seen from Amstrad on the subject has ben friendly,
> helpful and clear. I've dealt with a few cases of vendors clearly
> trying to break the rules, but Amstrad is not one of them. They answer
> email, they give clear and honest answers, and the code is out there.

I don't think they're evil either. Hassling vendors can do more harm
than good, let's not do that.

> If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
> so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
> ftp for all.

I'll be talking to Monta about doing a review of the E3. I'll look in
to getting hold of the source at that point.

Jon.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 16:59, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> And the written offer is in the welcome email *now* but probably wasn't
> until I hassled them.

Well fine, you can't magically fix mistakes in documentation. You'd also
I think find the law took the same view.

> *After that* you get a `welcome email' containing the written offer.
> Sorry, but I have the binaries once I walk out the shop. Where's my
> written offer? What do I do if I bought one and got it shipped to
> France and so it won't `phone home'?

You know I regularly hear people talking about the "spirit of the
license", but that goes in both directions. From discussions my own
impression is that in this case they may or may not have forgotten to
put it in the manual but they've done their best to be compliant and
they have no desire not to be compliant.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Who cares about GPL violations in Linux . What can anyone do about it anyway. The FSF
isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the money to do it. Most of this
banter and name calling people do about it is a waste of time. What punishment will
anyone get for it. A few people writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah --
this will really stop someone from doing it. If you give your code away GPL, or not
you have just done just that. Tigrian is correct in his statements.

Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The GPL is flawed
since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
for commerical use. This is the only way you will ever stop these people. So instead
of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language. Then anyone
who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you
can actually do something about it.

Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written. So
anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though
we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally
circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.

:-)

Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:40:07 -0000, jmerkey@xxxxxxxxxxx said:

> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written. So
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though
> we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.

Umm.. It's OK to take the GPL'ed source and make your own fork for your own
amusement. Trying to distribute it without accepting the GPL on the parts
you're shipping copies of *is* a problem. As the COPYING file says:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
mail to start arriving.....


 

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:40:07 +0000, jmerkey@xxxxxxxxxxx
<jmerkey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .

Companies shipping Embedded Linux.

Most people working on devices which run Linux are not evildoers who
are hard bent on undermining the GPL and causing us all headaches.
They have legal teams and rediculously large chains of management,
project managers, etc. etc. All these people are interested in doing
the corporate making money thing but without being sued. Even the
notion that they might be able to be sued for something will be enough
to get most corporations to sit up and at least think about working on
that situation.

> What can anyone do about it anyway.

You could take legal action yourself. You're right, most people won't
bother to do anything and nothing more than a formal compliant would
get made - but then, much of the legal action in the world today
doesn't end up in court precisely because companies would usually like
to avoid this kind of thing from happening in public.

> What punishment will anyone get for it.

The threat of not being able to distribute an infringing product is
probably enough incentive for many companies to not want to be caught
breaking the GPL. They might try to conveniently ignore the license
until someone moans about it (I'm sure many would rather just send you
source when you moan about it) but I don't actually want to risk court
action.

> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The GPL is flawed
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use.

This is a good thing from my viewpoint.

> This is the only way you will ever stop these people.

No. That's your reasoning and yours alone. Nobody else here has stood
up and agreed with you on this point and I doubt you'll find too many
who will.

> So instead of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.

The GPL isn't broken. At least as far as I am concerned. Therefore it
doesn't need fixing :-).

> Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
> license, and you can actually do something about it.

They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.

> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.

Pretty cool stuff huh?

> So anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license
> even though we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid

You can say that, but you can't then distribute the code. You're
talking out of your arse ;-)

Jon.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Jon Masters wrote:

>> Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
>> license, and you can actually do something about it.

> They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
> by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.

Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything with some of these big companies and their employees
will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They will always come back to the table like foxes from the
henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the chickens."

>> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
>> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.

> Pretty cool stuff huh?

Yep.

Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 03:53:49PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all
> GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
> wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They
> will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the
> chickens."

You should have attended Harald Welte's "Enforcing the GPL" talk at
the Linux Kongress this year. There are plenty of worked examples
where Harald and the Netfilter kernel developers have successfully
taken commercial vendors to court and got them to either (a) release
their enhancements under the GPL, or (b) stop distributing the GPL'ed
code. It can and has been done in the real world, with multiple
vendors, and they haven't lost a case yet.

- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 22:53, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all
> GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much

The German counts didn't think so.

> wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They
> will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the
> chickens."

If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
"its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.

Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
advantages for them to cheat.

One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say

GPL v 2 blah bla

or you may choose to distribute the software without source
code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.

This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
value for damages....

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
> would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
> "its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
> mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.

Alan, you put the finger on the right thing : motivation.

People ask what motivation has this vendor not to show his code. But the
reality is different. The vendor waits for some motivation to show it.
It costs lost of time and sometimes even documentation to open some modified
code, and for various time-to-market reasons, vendors sometimes think they
will do it later. I've already been in such a situation : I packaged something
for a customer. Yes I used Linux kernel and GPL tools, and yes I patched some
of them, but considering the time it would take to package something clean
with lots of sources when I knew for sure that the customer does not even
care, I did not do it. Just told the customer that if he wanted, he could
have everything, but when he replies "no thanks", I have no motivation
loosing my time. So from time to time, I put together new patches on my
web site to stay compliant, but there's no urge in that. And the GPL only
says that you have to provide the code or a way to get the code. So when
the customer says that he does not want it, the best way for him to get
the code when he changes his mind is to ask where I finally put it, then
for me to check that everything is up to date.

There is a second level of motivation at not opening the code from the
beginning : there still are some customers who are afraid that they
will use some code that anybody can see ! One of my customers, for
example was very reluctant to use my reverse-proxy (haproxy) because
he felt that if anybody found a flaw in the code, he could exploit it.
So I had to start the long story again from the dinosaurs ;-)

As long as vendors are honnest, and respect their customers' rights, I
don't see any problem. The problem arises when vendors explicitly refuse
to open anything. But most of the time, I suspect it's just a matter of
time and cleanness, and we should not expect too much from vendors who
already acknowledge that they are using GPL software and that they are
doing their best to publish the code ASAP.

> Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
> advantages for them to cheat.

I sometimes wonder if it does not bring cheap advertisement. For example,
Linksys is known to sell linux boxes because of the GPL war they started.
Nowadays, many people buy their boxes because they are both the cheapest
and the most complete devices a linux kernel can run on.

> One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
> for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
> on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say
>
> GPL v 2 blah bla
>
> or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
>
> This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
> value for damages....

Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.

Willy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Sul, 2004-10-03 at 12:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> care, I did not do it. Just told the customer that if he wanted, he could
> have everything, but when he replies "no thanks", I have no motivation
> loosing my time. So from time to time, I put together new patches on my

Which meets the GPL file. Customer can also be expected to work "diff"
unless you are doing daft stuff like obfuscating existing code.

> As long as vendors are honnest, and respect their customers' rights, I
> don't see any problem. The problem arises when vendors explicitly refuse
> to open anything. But most of the time, I suspect it's just a matter of
> time and cleanness, and we should not expect too much from vendors who
> already acknowledge that they are using GPL software and that they are
> doing their best to publish the code ASAP.

On the little embedded box side there is certainly a lot of systematic
abuse, especially in asian originated products. (And I justify the
otherwise apparently racist remark with the statistics).

> > GPL v 2 blah bla
> >
> > or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> > code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
> >
> > This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
> > value for damages....
>
> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.

Well I was thinking the $100,000 would just be for the bits I wrote in
that one file or that one driver, ....

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Alan Cox wrote:

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
> a single Linux version by release number.

That would still be useless, since it doesn't give you any
rights to the (GPL) bug fixes posted to this list on an
almost daily basis.

--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Rik van Riel wrote:

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Oct 07, 2004, at 15:21, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Kyle Moffett wrote:

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:17:25PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who
> were more
> interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$.
> That's easy.

If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.

Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> >If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
> >who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
> >away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
> >believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
>
> We would spend the time or remove the code.

'we' ?

> OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
> According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
> joke). OpenServer is not Linux.

nor did I claim it to be. I claimed that respecting the wishes of everyone
who didn't want a part of your 'vision' would mean you'd end with something
on a par feature-wr B) Alan then we will profer
> a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP
> secure email.

It's not a "Linus and Alan" thing, the copyrights on a bulk of the code
in the tree lies with other people.

> This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come
> and give money as well.
> It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just
> those who
> positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock
> for .com stock market
> Google style IPO scams. It can happen.

You seem to be under the deluded illusion that all kernel hackers
do what they do for the money[1].

Please, either cut down the dosage, or increase it.

Dave


[1] Whereas everyone knows, its all about the fast cars and chicks.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html