From tokul at users.sourceforge.net Thu May 1 16:27:35 2008 From: tokul at users.sourceforge.net (Tomas Kuliavas) Date: Thu May 1 16:28:15 2008 Subject: delays in reply In-Reply-To: <20080429151251.62BE44BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk> References: <39595.195.22.180.233.1209449181.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> <20080429151251.62BE44BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <54491.78.61.224.253.1209652055.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> >> How long does it take to get non-automated reply to email send to >> license-violation@gpl-violations.org > > I don't think I've ever got such a reply to any of my reports. Then who do I have to contact if I need legal help in enforcing my copyrights in GPL licensed software? GPL violator is in UK. -- Tomas From tokul at users.sourceforge.net Thu May 1 17:18:42 2008 From: tokul at users.sourceforge.net (Tomas Kuliavas) Date: Thu May 1 17:19:07 2008 Subject: delays in reply In-Reply-To: <20080501145105.C97464BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk> References: <39595.195.22.180.233.1209449181.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> <20080429151251.62BE44BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk> <54491.78.61.224.253.1209652055.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> <20080501145105.C97464BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <33473.78.61.224.253.1209655122.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> >> > > How long does it take to get non-automated reply to email send to >> > > license-violation@gpl-violations.org >> > >> > I don't think I've ever got such a reply to any of my reports. >> >> Then who do I have to contact if I need legal help in enforcing my >> copyrights in GPL licensed software? GPL violator is in UK. > > I suggest the Software Freedom Center as another port of call. > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > BTW, because this list is poorly set up and has been for years, my > replies don't make it to the list so you may wish to attribute me when > you quote. > > Cheers, > > Ralph. I have already contacted them. SFLC can work only in US. I will ask them for help only if I can't find help in Europe. -- Tomas From armijn at uulug.nl Thu May 1 16:36:53 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Thu May 1 17:38:50 2008 Subject: delays in reply In-Reply-To: <54491.78.61.224.253.1209652055.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> References: <39595.195.22.180.233.1209449181.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> <20080429151251.62BE44BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk> <54491.78.61.224.253.1209652055.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> Message-ID: <1209652613.7413.0.camel@cletus.local> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 17:27 +0300, Tomas Kuliavas wrote: > >> How long does it take to get non-automated reply to email send to > >> license-violation@gpl-violations.org > > > > I don't think I've ever got such a reply to any of my reports. > > Then who do I have to contact if I need legal help in enforcing my > copyrights in GPL licensed software? GPL violator is in UK. rt@gpl-violations.org Please note: we are beyond swamped in violation reports at the moment. armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn@uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From tokul at users.sourceforge.net Thu May 1 17:58:07 2008 From: tokul at users.sourceforge.net (Tomas Kuliavas) Date: Thu May 1 17:58:34 2008 Subject: delays in reply In-Reply-To: <99682DF4A312C34F81DDAE2669F510F826E45E@cranems-eur1.cranems-eur.com> References: <39595.195.22.180.233.1209449181.nsm@avilys.eik.lt><20080429151251.62BE44BDE@blake.inputplus.co.uk><54491.78.61.224.253.1209652055.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> <1209652613.7413.0.camel@cletus.local> <99682DF4A312C34F81DDAE2669F510F826E45E@cranems-eur1.cranems-eur.com> Message-ID: <55126.78.61.224.253.1209657487.nsm@avilys.eik.lt> This message was send to legal@lists.gpl-violations.org mailing list. You are subscribed to this mailing list. If you don't want to receive emails from mailing list, see list management options at https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > This has nothing to do with me > > -----Original Message----- > From: legal-bounces@narasimha.gpl-violations.org on behalf of Armijn > Hemel > Sent: Thu 01/05/2008 15:36 > To: Tomas Kuliavas > Cc: legal@narasimha.gpl-violations.org > Subject: Re: delays in reply > > > > On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 17:27 +0300, Tomas Kuliavas wrote: > > >> How long does it take to get non-automated reply to email send to > > >> license-violation@gpl-violations.org > > > > > > I don't think I've ever got such a reply to any of my reports. > > > > Then who do I have to contact if I need legal help in enforcing my > > copyrights in GPL licensed software? GPL violator is in UK. > > rt@gpl-violations.org > > Please note: we are beyond swamped in violation reports at the moment. > > armijn From francois.cami at free.fr Sat May 17 12:52:42 2008 From: francois.cami at free.fr (FD Cami) Date: Sat May 17 12:52:45 2008 Subject: Fw: GPL Violation: Compro Technology Inc, 2.6.17 modified binary-only kernel distribution Message-ID: <20080517125242.7cf7cc87@olorin> (retry, since try #1 did not work due to my not being subscribed to the list...) ---- (adding gpl-violations.org in CC) -- fdc On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:00:12 +0100 Jo Shields wrote: > Hi, > > I've discovered a GPL violation by Taiwanese TV card manufacturer Compro > Technology. > > On their site, they are offering a "driver" for Mandriva > Linux 2007.1, in the form of an 18 meg "linux.rpm"[1,2,3,4]. This > "driver" is, in fact, an entire kernel image (from snd-emu10k1.ko to > libata.ko, with everything in between), generated from Mandriva's kernel > source package, with local modifications to at least two files (major > file size gap between Compro and Mandriva kernels in tuner.ko and > cx88xx.ko). > > Their "driver" is being offered in binary-only form, without any > accompanying license, and I have received no replies to a formal request > for source after 2 (Taiwanese) working days. Obviously, this violates > several GPL clauses, and infringes on the rights of every kernel > developer with code in 2.6.17. > > It is also the opinion of a LinuxTV developer with whom I've been > discussing the matter that their modified drivers appear to contain > large un-redistributable portions of code from a chip vendor's > proprietary SDK, but we obviously can't adequately check this with > only .ko files to work with. > > They appear to be offering a similar "driver" for Fedora Core 6, which > is non-functional, presumably due to a failed upload (cpio fails to > extract the rpm)[4,5]. > > I'm not 100% certain what my next step should be, so I decided this was > the best place to give a public airing. One suggestion I've had > suggested is to file a DMCA takedown notice with their (US-based) ISP, > but I've no idea whether it's the right stage to do something like that, > nor do I have any claim to any code contained in the kernel. At any > rate, I wanted to make the kernel developers informed of this discovery. > > I'm not on this mailing list, so a CC: would be appreciated. > > --Jo Shields > > > [1] http://www.comprousa.com/downloadfiles/linux.rpm > [2] http://www.comprousa.com/en/download/sseries.html > [3] http://www.comprousa.com/en/download/tseries.html > [4] http://www.comprousa.com/en/download/xseries.html > [5] http://www.comprousa.com/downloadfiles/kernel-2618prep-3i386.rpm > From stan.cunningham at yahoo.com Tue May 20 00:39:44 2008 From: stan.cunningham at yahoo.com (Stan Cunningham) Date: Tue May 20 02:29:00 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL Message-ID: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Hi, SplashTop is an extension of BIOS that runs on the Linux kernel and has been distributed by ASUS on certain high-end motherboards and laptops since October, 2007. In May 2008, ASUS announced that it will ship SplashTop on *ALL* its motherboards. The problem is that ever since SplashTop's inception ASUS has been infringing on the copyright of Linux kernel contributors. SplashTop's so-called source code (http://www.splashtop.com/download3.php?token=1bfb156d0cd5fef5df4a43ad2b46a531) contains a few patches to the Linux kernel but not the whole, compilable modified kernel source code as the GPL requires. This clearly constitutes a copyright violation. I haven't bought any of the motherboards or laptops containing SplashTop, but ASUS may have left out the obligatory notice on boxes and/or manuals informing the recipients that the product contains GPL code and where that source code can be obtained. If they indeed left out the notice, that constitutes another violation of the GPL and consequently of copyright law. Another product that likely violates the GPL is Hyperspace, which is marketed by the infamous proprietary PC BIOS maker Phoenix. Even though Hyperspace clearly runs Linux and has been reported to do so in the press, Phoenix doesn't even mention the word Linux or the GPL on its website (http://www.phoenix.com/en/Products/Browse+by+Products/Phoenix+HyperSpace/default.htm), and certainly doesn't provide any source code. I am not sure what motherboards Hyperspace is distributed on, but I would expect that they also fail to mention Linux, the GPL and the availability of source code. This again violates the GPL and the copyrights of Linux kernel contributors like yourselves. I urge you to uphold your copyrights and protect the rights of Free Software users by making unscrupulous companies like ASUS and Phoenix respect the conditions set out by the GPL and give back their improvements in the form of source code. And if they refuse, sue them in court! Some of the improvements to Linux that they try to illegally keep secret would really help distros in areas such as hardware support and extremely quick boot time. Thanks, Stan From mrintegrity at gmail.com Tue May 20 11:07:01 2008 From: mrintegrity at gmail.com (mr) Date: Tue May 20 12:47:39 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> http://www.splashtop.com/developer.php you can download the source code after filling out this form. As for the other product, please actually get some proof/evidence beyond just conjecture before launching accusations. Alan On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Stan Cunningham wrote: > Hi, > > SplashTop is an extension of BIOS that runs on the Linux kernel and has > been distributed by ASUS on certain high-end motherboards and laptops since > October, 2007. In May 2008, ASUS announced that it will ship SplashTop on > *ALL* its motherboards. The problem is that ever since SplashTop's inception > ASUS has been infringing on the copyright of Linux kernel contributors. > > SplashTop's so-called source code ( > http://www.splashtop.com/download3.php?token=1bfb156d0cd5fef5df4a43ad2b46a531) > contains a few patches to the Linux kernel but not the whole, compilable > modified kernel source code as the GPL requires. This clearly constitutes a > copyright violation. > > I haven't bought any of the motherboards or laptops containing SplashTop, > but ASUS may have left out the obligatory notice on boxes and/or manuals > informing the recipients that the product contains GPL code and where that > source code can be obtained. If they indeed left out the notice, that > constitutes another violation of the GPL and consequently of copyright law. > > Another product that likely violates the GPL is Hyperspace, which is > marketed by the infamous proprietary PC BIOS maker Phoenix. Even though > Hyperspace clearly runs Linux and has been reported to do so in the press, > Phoenix doesn't even mention the word Linux or the GPL on its website ( > http://www.phoenix.com/en/Products/Browse+by+Products/Phoenix+HyperSpace/default.htm), > and certainly doesn't provide any source code. I am not sure what > motherboards Hyperspace is distributed on, but I would expect that they also > fail to mention Linux, the GPL and the availability of source code. This > again violates the GPL and the copyrights of Linux kernel contributors like > yourselves. > > I urge you to uphold your copyrights and protect the rights of Free > Software users by making unscrupulous companies like ASUS and Phoenix > respect the conditions set out by the GPL and give back their improvements > in the form of source code. And if they refuse, sue them in court! Some of > the improvements to Linux that they try to illegally keep secret would > really help distros in areas such as hardware support and extremely quick > boot time. > > Thanks, > Stan > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080520/b0b3bd7d/attachment.html From joshua at eeinternet.com Tue May 20 21:45:12 2008 From: joshua at eeinternet.com (Joshua J. Kugler) Date: Tue May 20 23:47:01 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> On Tuesday 20 May 2008, mr said something like: > http://www.splashtop.com/developer.php > > you can download the source code after filling out this form. Yes, that may be true, but remember a while back when the FSF went after "downstream" distributions for not distributing source code when they distributed (unmodified) Debian binaries? It would seem that in this case, ASUS needs to distribute the source code as well, or they are in violation of the GPL as well. Just my understanding...I make no claim that I'm right. :) j -- Joshua Kugler Part-Time System Admin/Programmer http://www.eeinternet.com PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ ?ID 0xDB26D7CE From cdibona at gmail.com Tue May 20 23:55:51 2008 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Wed May 21 01:32:50 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> Message-ID: <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> No one has mentioned if they have the documentation requirement filled. People can distribute whatever they want if the offer by mail is in place under v2. I mean, I think it is easier to just offer the full required source on a mirror , but I think that providng a patch set and a link to kernel.org , again provided you are satisfying the doc requirement, is fine by the text of the license. Chris On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Joshua J. Kugler wrote: > On Tuesday 20 May 2008, mr said something like: >> http://www.splashtop.com/developer.php >> >> you can download the source code after filling out this form. > > Yes, that may be true, but remember a while back when the FSF went > after "downstream" distributions for not distributing source code when > they distributed (unmodified) Debian binaries? It would seem that in > this case, ASUS needs to distribute the source code as well, or they > are in violation of the GPL as well. > > Just my understanding...I make no claim that I'm right. :) > > j > > -- > Joshua Kugler > Part-Time System Admin/Programmer > http://www.eeinternet.com > PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ ID 0xDB26D7CE > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From armijn at uulug.nl Wed May 21 09:25:43 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Wed May 21 09:26:20 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 14:55 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: > No one has mentioned if they have the documentation requirement > filled. People can distribute whatever they want if the offer by mail > is in place under v2. I mean, I think it is easier to just offer the > full required source on a mirror , but I think that providng a patch > set and a link to kernel.org , again provided you are satisfying the > doc requirement, is fine by the text of the license. The license would only allow that in certain circumstances (GPLv2, section 3c). The GPLv2 license talks about 'complete corresponding source code', 'source code', etc., but nothing about patches. armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn@uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From arnoud at engelfriet.net Wed May 21 12:44:43 2008 From: arnoud at engelfriet.net (Arnoud Engelfriet) Date: Wed May 21 14:00:09 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> Armijn Hemel wrote: > On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 14:55 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: > > No one has mentioned if they have the documentation requirement > > filled. People can distribute whatever they want if the offer by mail > > is in place under v2. I mean, I think it is easier to just offer the > > full required source on a mirror , but I think that providng a patch > > set and a link to kernel.org , again provided you are satisfying the > > doc requirement, is fine by the text of the license. > > The license would only allow that in certain circumstances (GPLv2, > section 3c). The GPLv2 license talks about 'complete corresponding > source code', 'source code', etc., but nothing about patches. I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches and refer people to the original source. You have to make available source for anything you distribute in binary form. Arnoud -- ICT-jurist, blogger en octrooigemachtigde ~ Partner bij ICTRecht.nl http://www.arnoud.engelfriet.net/ ~ http://www.iusmentis.com/ From joseph at heenan.me.uk Wed May 21 14:16:22 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Wed May 21 16:15:12 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> Message-ID: <48341296.3090700@heenan.me.uk> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Armijn Hemel wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 14:55 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: >>> No one has mentioned if they have the documentation requirement >>> filled. People can distribute whatever they want if the offer by mail >>> is in place under v2. I mean, I think it is easier to just offer the >>> full required source on a mirror , but I think that providng a patch >>> set and a link to kernel.org , again provided you are satisfying the >>> doc requirement, is fine by the text of the license. >> The license would only allow that in certain circumstances (GPLv2, >> section 3c). The GPLv2 license talks about 'complete corresponding >> source code', 'source code', etc., but nothing about patches. > > I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches > and refer people to the original source. You have to make available > source for anything you distribute in binary form. I think the point was that it is absolutely fine to make patches available via a website without making the full source available. *However*, if you do that, the object/executable code must be accompanied by: "a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange". ie. you can't just point at a link that offers patches and say "ooo, bad company!" without seeing how the binaries have been distributed. Joseph From kaloz at openwrt.org Wed May 21 14:58:12 2008 From: kaloz at openwrt.org (Imre Kaloz) Date: Wed May 21 16:15:37 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> Message-ID: On 2008.05.21. 12:44:43 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Armijn Hemel wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 14:55 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: >> > No one has mentioned if they have the documentation requirement >> > filled. People can distribute whatever they want if the offer by mail >> > is in place under v2. I mean, I think it is easier to just offer the >> > full required source on a mirror , but I think that providng a patch >> > set and a link to kernel.org , again provided you are satisfying the >> > doc requirement, is fine by the text of the license. >> >> The license would only allow that in certain circumstances (GPLv2, >> section 3c). The GPLv2 license talks about 'complete corresponding >> source code', 'source code', etc., but nothing about patches. > > I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches > and refer people to the original source. You have to make available > source for anything you distribute in binary form. Read the GPL. That option is only valid if you are a non-commercial project/entity. Companies have to provide the full source code. Imre From armijn at uulug.nl Wed May 21 16:29:14 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Wed May 21 16:29:48 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> Message-ID: <1211380154.22954.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:58 +0200, Imre Kaloz wrote: > >> The license would only allow that in certain circumstances (GPLv2, > >> section 3c). The GPLv2 license talks about 'complete corresponding > >> source code', 'source code', etc., but nothing about patches. > > > > I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches > > and refer people to the original source. You have to make available > > source for anything you distribute in binary form. > > > Read the GPL. That option is only valid if you are a non-commercial > project/entity. > Companies have to provide the full source code. I think that is exactly what Arnoud said :-) armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn@uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From hub at figuiere.net Wed May 21 16:39:13 2008 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Wed May 21 18:39:58 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> Message-ID: <1211380753.3785.18.camel@quagmire> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:58 +0200, Imre Kaloz wrote: > > I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches > > and refer people to the original source. You have to make available > > source for anything you distribute in binary form. > > > Read the GPL. That option is only valid if you are a non-commercial > project/entity. > Companies have to provide the full source code. AFAICT the GPL makes no distinction on usage or users. They are all equal. Whether you are an individual or a big corporations, you have to abide on the same terms if you *redistribute*. Hub From joseph at heenan.me.uk Wed May 21 18:49:29 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Wed May 21 18:49:36 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <1211380753.3785.18.camel@quagmire> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> <1211380753.3785.18.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <48345299.1020701@heenan.me.uk> Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:58 +0200, Imre Kaloz wrote: >>> I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches >>> and refer people to the original source. You have to make available >>> source for anything you distribute in binary form. >> >> Read the GPL. That option is only valid if you are a non-commercial >> project/entity. >> Companies have to provide the full source code. > > AFAICT the GPL makes no distinction on usage or users. They are all > equal. Whether you are an individual or a big corporations, you have to > abide on the same terms if you *redistribute*. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Joseph From cdibona at gmail.com Wed May 21 18:41:57 2008 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Wed May 21 20:19:34 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <1211380154.22954.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> <1211380154.22954.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7d9492d90805210941v472c778u42668c780b0cb0c2@mail.gmail.com> I hate to disagree (well, I don't) but start citing sections. There is no such clause in GPLv2. Please read all of section 3. Note it says "one of the following" and section b is what I'm talking about. There is nothing wrong with holding people to the license, that's an important thing to do, but just making up things is wrong. Chris 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Armijn Hemel wrote: > On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:58 +0200, Imre Kaloz wrote: >> >> The license would only allow that in certain circumstances (GPLv2, >> >> section 3c). The GPLv2 license talks about 'complete corresponding >> >> source code', 'source code', etc., but nothing about patches. >> > >> > I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches >> > and refer people to the original source. You have to make available >> > source for anything you distribute in binary form. >> >> >> Read the GPL. That option is only valid if you are a non-commercial >> project/entity. >> Companies have to provide the full source code. > > I think that is exactly what Arnoud said :-) > > armijn > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > armijn@uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From twaffle at gmail.com Wed May 21 19:12:28 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Wed May 21 23:01:45 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <1211380753.3785.18.camel@quagmire> References: <631852.45308.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> <7d9492d90805201455k6197c926i839bdd0a78956941@mail.gmail.com> <1211354743.3039.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080521104443.GA1355@stack.nl> <1211380753.3785.18.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80805211012r350bfcf7j60566df0c0705331@mail.gmail.com> On 5/21/08, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:58 +0200, Imre Kaloz wrote: > > > I do not think it's compliant with GPLv2 to only distribute patches > > > and refer people to the original source. You have to make available > > > source for anything you distribute in binary form. > > Read the GPL. That option is only valid if you are a non-commercial > > project/entity. > > Companies have to provide the full source code. > AFAICT the GPL makes no distinction on usage or users. They are all > equal. Whether you are an individual or a big corporations, you have to > abide on the same terms if you *redistribute*. Next time, read it. :-D See 3.c in gplv2, and 6c in gplv3. Specifically, section 6c of v3 says YOU don't even have to offer it, you just have to ensure it IS available and how to get it. If it becomes unavailable, I'd infer that you would then have to host it yourself, as it must be available somewhere. -- -- Thomas From joseph at heenan.me.uk Wed May 21 22:07:00 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Thu May 22 00:11:38 2008 Subject: [Fwd: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL] Message-ID: <483480E4.1000508@heenan.me.uk> Sergei has apparently had problems posting to the list, so I've forwarded this. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Sergei Krupenin" Subject: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:02:45 -0700 Size: 15410 Url: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080521/f74f7e2d/ASUSSplashTopandPhoenixHyperspaceinfringingkernelcopyrightandGPL-0001.mht From mcuelenaere at gmail.com Wed May 21 20:07:42 2008 From: mcuelenaere at gmail.com (Maurus) Date: Thu May 22 01:38:55 2008 Subject: Follow-up: GPL violations continue by OEM manufacturers using Sigma systems SDK Message-ID: Hi, I'm a developer at the Rockbox project and we're currently trying to port a Aigo e235 (aka Reddmango Angora VX435). As this particular device uses ?Clinux sources (and probably others), we would like to complaint about this hoping we could get some source code released. In the firmware there is definitely some proof of ?Clinux + some mentioning of the Sigma SDK. As the Aigo is a Chinese company, I think we should focus on Sigma for releasing (some of) the source code, as these Chinese companies tend to not respond and cooperate. A link to the firmware can be found at [1] and a picture of the VX435 at [2]. There were some earlier attempts to get some source code from Sigma (see [3] and [4]), but these ended in nothing as the busybox sources needed by the author of these mails were provided by the ?Clinux sources. I hope this will lead to something and that the constant GPL violations by these OEM manufacturers get stopped. Thank you. [1] - http://gazr88.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/20020061114V957SL_AIGO_EN_PAL(1C0F10FB).bin [2] - http://gazr88.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DSC00047.JPG [3] - http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2007-February/001007.html [4] - http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-March/000035.html -- Mvg, Cuelenaere Maurus From brenlla at gmail.com Thu May 22 13:15:20 2008 From: brenlla at gmail.com (Roberto Brenlla) Date: Thu May 22 14:59:44 2008 Subject: Ellion - HD Media Recorder infringing GPL? Message-ID: Hi people, I send this message to Ellion Digita Inc. (1) because I saw things like LinuxUDF and lost+found directories. Well, I really don?t have a strong and technical knowledge to say that it has GNU/Linux inside but.... everything seems like yes it has. Surprisingly no mention about it, neither Linux nor GNU or GPL. So, I wrote them this email (3): --- I bought a HMR-700A ( 2) and by chance I found something about Linux. Linux is free software licensed under GPL but I could not find any kind of advertising or legal note about this. May you explain this? Do you know that, if my hypothesis is correct, you are infringing that license? What are you going to do about this issue? --- After this I ask to a lawyer who thinks it is an infringement of GPL. So, I want to report this. (1) http://www.elliondigital.com/ (2) http://www.elliondigital.com/eng/product02_1.html (3) support_1@elliondigital.com Thank you e best regards, -- Roberto Brenlla CKO en C.T.I. TEGNIX, S.L. http://www.tegnix.com http://www.agnix.org http://brenlla.blogaliza.org/ VoIP: brenlla@ekiga.net From kees.bakker at xs4all.nl Sun May 25 18:22:39 2008 From: kees.bakker at xs4all.nl (Kees Bakker) Date: Sun May 25 20:24:28 2008 Subject: Follow-up: GPL violations continue by OEM manufacturers using Sigma systems SDK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D55E6E3-0314-4105-B003-2AF275D78F45@xs4all.nl> Resent, because for some reason the previous attempt it was going to legal@narasimha.gpl-violations.org On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Maurus wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a developer at the Rockbox project and we're currently trying to > port a Aigo e235 (aka Reddmango Angora VX435). > As this particular device uses ?Clinux sources (and probably others), > we would like to complaint about this hoping we could get some source > code released. > > In the firmware there is definitely some proof of ?Clinux + some > mentioning of the Sigma SDK. > > As the Aigo is a Chinese company, I think we should focus on Sigma for > releasing (some of) the source code, as these Chinese companies tend > to not respond and cooperate. > > A link to the firmware can be found at [1] and a picture of the > VX435 at [2]. > > There were some earlier attempts to get some source code from Sigma > (see [3] and [4]), but these ended in nothing as the busybox sources > needed by the author of these mails were provided by the ?Clinux > sources. > > I hope this will lead to something and that the constant GPL > violations by these OEM manufacturers get stopped. I wish that were true. But until today even KiSS (the company that is considered "one of the better behaved OEMs") does not make the source code available of their latest firmware. They do not respond to email requests, nor does Linksys (who owns KiSS nowadays). I get the impression they deliberately put up an old version of the source code on their website and for rest they simply act dumb, and now nobody cares anymore. For them problem solved, and for me pure frustration. Nevertheless, there is always hope. I wish you all the best, and I hope you succeed. > > Thank you. > > [1] - http://gazr88.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/20020061114V957SL_AIGO_EN_PAL(1C0F10FB).bin > [2] - http://gazr88.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DSC00047.JPG > [3] - http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2007-February/001007.html > [4] - http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-March/000035.html > > -- > Mvg, > > Cuelenaere Maurus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080525/36ca297e/attachment.html From allaunjsilverfox at gmail.com Mon May 26 17:56:06 2008 From: allaunjsilverfox at gmail.com (Allaun) Date: Mon May 26 17:56:12 2008 Subject: I contacted a company in December....... Message-ID: <483ADD96.1050106@gmail.com> I contacted the company on 12/22/2007, and then again a few weeks later. I am quite sure they are a busy company and I can't prove it since archive.org didn't index the site but I swear they were offering wince 5 AND linux as options for the device. Now they are merely willing to support it. Of course my memory is more shoddy then a mobster's irs tax return. :-p I was just wondering what steps I should take now? I offered to pay the shipping and media costs for the kernel sources. Or even a download link. But I never even recieved a autoreply. Thanx From cdibona at gmail.com Mon May 26 18:28:45 2008 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon May 26 18:35:17 2008 Subject: I contacted a company in December....... In-Reply-To: <483ADD96.1050106@gmail.com> References: <483ADD96.1050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d9492d90805260928s6fd9cb95v9e7898e2bef2b7a9@mail.gmail.com> What company/device are we talking about? Did you google for a cached copy? On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Allaun wrote: > I contacted the company on 12/22/2007, and then again a few weeks later. I > am quite sure they are a busy company and I can't prove it since archive.org > didn't index the site but I swear they were offering wince 5 AND linux as > options for the device. Now they are merely willing to support it. Of course > my memory is more shoddy then a mobster's irs tax return. :-p I was just > wondering what steps I should take now? I offered to pay the shipping and > media costs for the kernel sources. Or even a download link. But I never > even recieved a autoreply. Thanx > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com From stan.cunningham at yahoo.com Fri May 30 01:20:10 2008 From: stan.cunningham at yahoo.com (Stan Cunningham) Date: Fri May 30 01:20:44 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <5dfaf390805200207l571a2419ybb4863720efa4dc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <763819.35444.qm@web57411.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/20/08, mr wrote: > From: mr > Subject: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL > To: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org > Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 9:07 AM > http://www.splashtop.com/developer.php > > you can download the source code after filling out this > form. What they offer is incomplete, and a whole lot GPL-ed of code is missing from the download. DeviceVM admits (http://www.splashtop.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/20/reminder-source-code-and-how-to-get-it/) that the "Source Code" they provide is only ~12MB, which is blatantly insuffcient considering that the code for a linux-2.6 kernel is at least 41 MB. Thanks, Stan From stan.cunningham at yahoo.com Fri May 30 01:20:48 2008 From: stan.cunningham at yahoo.com (Stan Cunningham) Date: Fri May 30 01:21:20 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <200805201145.12715.joshua@eeinternet.com> Message-ID: <554676.3587.qm@web57409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/20/08, Joshua J. Kugler wrote: > From: Joshua J. Kugler > Subject: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL > To: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org > Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008, 7:45 PM > On Tuesday 20 May 2008, mr said something like: > > http://www.splashtop.com/developer.php > > > > you can download the source code after filling out > this form. > > Yes, that may be true, but remember a while back when the > FSF went > after "downstream" distributions for not > distributing source code when > they distributed (unmodified) Debian binaries? It would > seem that in > this case, ASUS needs to distribute the source code as > well, or they > are in violation of the GPL as well. That's right. If ASUS is the one distributing a binary derived from GPLv2-ed code, ASUS needs to host the source code themselves. Whether or not DeviceVM is distributing the source code is irrelevant: DeviceVM is only obligated to give the source code to their customer, which in this case is ASUS. Thanks, Stan From stan.cunningham at yahoo.com Fri May 30 01:59:11 2008 From: stan.cunningham at yahoo.com (Stan Cunningham) Date: Fri May 30 01:59:43 2008 Subject: [Fwd: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL] In-Reply-To: <483480E4.1000508@heenan.me.uk> Message-ID: <167915.81838.qm@web57404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/21/08, Joseph Heenan wrote: > From: Joseph Heenan > Subject: [Fwd: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL] > To: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org > Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 8:07 PM > Sergei has apparently had problems posting to the list, so > I've > forwarded this. Sergei's message can be found at http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080521/f74f7e2d/ASUSSplashTopandPhoenixHyperspaceinfringingkernelcopyrightandGPL-0001.mht Hi Sergei, DeviceVM is only obligated to provide the source code to whomever DeviceVM is distributing the binary to. If ASUS is the one distributing the binary to consumers, it is ASUS' obligation to provide the full source code as well. ASUS cannot hide under section c) of the GPL and point to Splashtop/DeviceVM's website because ASUS is distributing the binary on a _commercial_ product. As for whether DeviceVM is fulfilling the obligations of the GPL to your direct customers: pasting the link to the 12MB download containing only patches into your "written offer" is _not_ enough. The Source Code must be complete, and sorry, patches don't qualify as complete by the farthest stretch of the immagination. As people have said earlier on this thread, the GPL doesn't mention patches at all -- it talks about "complete machine-readable" source code. As for your assertion that you're in the process of releasing the full source code: it's at least 6 months too late, and all this time you have been infringing on the copyrights of Linux kernel developers whose code didn't appear on the patches. I suggest that DeviceVM promptly post the complete, modified source code of the exact Linux kernel you are distributing in Splashtop. Thanks, Stan From stan.cunningham at yahoo.com Fri May 30 01:28:57 2008 From: stan.cunningham at yahoo.com (Stan Cunningham) Date: Fri May 30 03:19:36 2008 Subject: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90805210941v472c778u42668c780b0cb0c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <626871.15360.qm@web57412.mail.re1.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/21/08, Chris DiBona wrote: > From: Chris DiBona > Subject: Re: ASUS SplashTop and Phoenix Hyperspace infringing kernel copyright and GPL > To: "Armijn Hemel" > Cc: legal@lists.gpl-violations.org > Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 4:41 PM > I hate to disagree (well, I don't) but start citing > sections. There is > no such clause in GPLv2. Please read all of section 3. Note > it says > "one of the following" and section b is what > I'm talking about. Has anyone on this list bought a Splashtop-containing ASUS motherboard or laptop and can they verify that section b of the GPLv2 is adhered to? The product must be accompanied by a written offer for the source code and the source code must include the complete Linux kernel and not just patches. > > There is nothing wrong with holding people to the license, > that's an > important thing to do, but just making up things is wrong. > > Chris > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work > based on it, > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under > the terms of > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the > following: > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding > machine-readable > source code, which must be distributed under the terms > of Sections > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software > interchange; or, > > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at > least three > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more > than your > cost of physically performing source distribution, a > complete > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, > to be > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above > on a medium > customarily used for software interchange; or, > > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to > the offer > to distribute corresponding source code. (This > alternative is > allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if > you > received the program in object code or executable form > with such > an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)