From bananeweizen at tvbrowser.org Wed Oct 1 00:30:41 2008 From: bananeweizen at tvbrowser.org (Michael Keppler) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:30:41 +0200 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL Message-ID: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> Hi all, I'm one of the TV-Browser developers (tvbrowser.org). We recently found that the German website opendownload.de hosts thousands of popular downloads (including TV-Browser) which you can only download by agreeing to a 2 years subscription for 96 Euros per year. All that written with little fonts, light colors and other things you expect from a bogus website tyring to trick you into something you don't really want. We are quite sure that we (as developers) can not do much about the "subscriptions" that people may get into (unwanted). Nevertheless we don't want our software to be connected to such a malicious website. As the TV-Browser software (and a lot of other software) is described there as "freeware" without mentioning the GPL, linking to it or providing any source code, does anybody have an idea if we can use that as a legal argument to stop them providing our software (and maybe others, too)? And even if so, how are the chances of enforcing such arguments in reality? I guess this question is a bit different to the "usual" violations discussed here. If I'm completely wrong on this mailing list, please guide me to a better place to ask these questions instead. Ciao and Thanks, Michael From clemens at ladisch.de Wed Oct 1 09:16:11 2008 From: clemens at ladisch.de (Clemens Ladisch) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:16:11 +0200 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL In-Reply-To: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> Message-ID: <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> Michael Keppler wrote: > We recently found that the German website opendownload.de hosts > thousands of popular downloads (including TV-Browser) which you can only > download by agreeing to a 2 years subscription for 96 Euros per year. > > We are quite sure that we (as developers) can not do much about the > "subscriptions" that people may get into (unwanted). It looks as if they are quite careful to comply with all applicable (German) laws. > Nevertheless we don't want our software to be connected to such a > malicious website. As the TV-Browser software (and a lot of other > software) is described there as "freeware" without mentioning the GPL, They use "freeware" as a license category, and even explain what they mean with that label. > linking to it or providing any source code, The GPL does not require this _before_ any binary has been distributed. > does anybody have an idea if we can use that as a legal argument to > stop them providing our software (and maybe others, too)? And even if > so, how are the chances of enforcing such arguments in reality? If you have the law on your side, enforcing it is rather easy (since both you and the website are in Germany). However, it doesn't look as if they violate the GPL. It might be possible that they do not provide (an offer for) the source code when distributing the binary, but you won't be able to find this out without buying a subscription. Their contract terms do not restrict the usage of the software in any way. They do not misrepresent the authorship of the software (they even link to the respective authors' websites), so they do not violate trademark or copyright law in this regard. It looks as if you have no legal argument to go against them. (In fact, the GPL protects them from any further restriction that you might try to impose.) Regards, Clemens From sascha at killerhippy.de Wed Oct 1 19:17:58 2008 From: sascha at killerhippy.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sascha_W=FCstemann?=) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:17:58 +0200 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL In-Reply-To: <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> Message-ID: <48E3B0C6.6020700@killerhippy.de> Clemens Ladisch wrote: > Michael Keppler wrote: >> We recently found that the German website opendownload.de hosts >> thousands of popular downloads (including TV-Browser) which you can only >> download by agreeing to a 2 years subscription for 96 Euros per year. >> >> We are quite sure that we (as developers) can not do much about the >> "subscriptions" that people may get into (unwanted). [..] > It looks as if you have no legal argument to go against them. (In fact, > the GPL protects them from any further restriction that you might try to > impose.) Ack, I share the same impression _but_ it is a web rip-off site. To get a download of an elsewhere freely available download you have to sign a trade which binds you for 2 years paying fees. I suspect their contracts being immoral at least or even against public policy which is near illegality - which may be my feeling only and not the state of law. I'd never sign their trade, I am not that silly :-) Sascha From matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu Wed Oct 1 20:39:57 2008 From: matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu (Matthew Flaschen) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:39:57 -0400 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL In-Reply-To: <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> Message-ID: <48E3C3FD.40401@gatech.edu> Clemens Ladisch wrote: > It looks as if you have no legal argument to go against them. (In fact, > the GPL protects them from any further restriction that you might try to > impose.) Actually, it looks like there's no evidence either way, so I'm not sure why you're drawing so many conclusions. The next investigative step to take is to purchase a subscription or speak to someone who already has. Then, you can determine whether they are actually violating the GPL. Matt Flaschen From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 11:13:08 2008 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:13:08 +0200 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL In-Reply-To: <48E3C3FD.40401@gatech.edu> References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> <48E3C3FD.40401@gatech.edu> Message-ID: <7dc12d290810030213p6328774ep58c6e12205830fc6@mail.gmail.com> i would like to know if apple has violated the GNU General Public License with the iphone. it seems that the browser is GNU General Public License and was not distributed on http/ftp/cvs/svn/fd/cd/dvd the source code. at the same time apple has not any respect for GNU General Public License Free Software and seems that search other ways to use the free softwares, without respect the GNU General Public License apple think that can do the same thing with FreeBSD License, but FreeBSD License is compatible with the GNU General Public License apple must have respect for developers and software bye bye paolo 2008/10/1, Matthew Flaschen : > Clemens Ladisch wrote: >> It looks as if you have no legal argument to go against them. (In fact, >> the GPL protects them from any further restriction that you might try to >> impose.) > > Actually, it looks like there's no evidence either way, so I'm not sure > why you're drawing so many conclusions. The next investigative step to > take is to purchase a subscription or speak to someone who already has. > Then, you can determine whether they are actually violating the GPL. > > Matt Flaschen > > From armijn at uulug.nl Fri Oct 3 14:01:43 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:01:43 +0200 Subject: apple (was: Re: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL) In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290810030213p6328774ep58c6e12205830fc6@mail.gmail.com> References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> <48E3C3FD.40401@gatech.edu> <7dc12d290810030213p6328774ep58c6e12205830fc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1223035303.2994.4.camel@hibbert.loco> hiya, First: don't start a new topic in an existing thread. It makes searching, indexing and all a lot harder and it may break mail clients. > i would like to know if apple has violated the GNU General Public > License with the iphone. it seems that the browser is GNU General > Public License and was not distributed on http/ftp/cvs/svn/fd/cd/dvd > the source code. > > at the same time apple has not any respect for GNU General Public > License Free Software and seems that search other ways to use the free > softwares, without respect the GNU General Public License > > apple think that can do the same thing with FreeBSD License, but > FreeBSD License is compatible with the GNU General Public License > > apple must have respect for developers and software Wowowowow dude, get your facts straight first before you accuse someone of breaking a license. Yes, Apple is using Safari on the iPhone. Yes, this browser is based on WebKit, which is based on KHTML, which is LGPL licensed (*not* GPL). AFAIK Apple has been very careful with complying with the license terms. Yes, the BSD license is GPL compatible, but that does not automatically make BSD code GPL licensed. armijn -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From twaffle at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 17:09:34 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:09:34 -0400 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL In-Reply-To: <7dc12d290810030213p6328774ep58c6e12205830fc6@mail.gmail.com> References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> <48E3C3FD.40401@gatech.edu> <7dc12d290810030213p6328774ep58c6e12205830fc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810030809o46d64bd6g7965ece94d3b63c5@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:13 AM, paolo del bene wrote: > i would like to know if apple has violated the GNU General Public > License with the iphone. it seems that the browser is GNU General > Public License and was not distributed on http/ftp/cvs/svn/fd/cd/dvd > the source code. Why, do you own an iPhone? Their web browsers are all based on WebKit, which is duel licensed, GPL or BSD. > at the same time apple has not any respect for GNU General Public > License Free Software and seems that search other ways to use the free > softwares, without respect the GNU General Public License Name specific examples instead of making a blanket statement. > apple think that can do the same thing with FreeBSD License, but > FreeBSD License is compatible with the GNU General Public License > apple must have respect for developers and software Again, this is a blanket statement that doesn't actually provide anything besides a personal opinion of a company. It would save many electrons to simply say, "OMG, Apple Sux0rs!' and leave it at that. -- -- Thomas From hendrik at enyo.de Fri Oct 3 19:05:15 2008 From: hendrik at enyo.de (Hendrik Weimer) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:05:15 +0200 Subject: malicious "subscription" websites and GPL In-Reply-To: <48E3B0C6.6020700@killerhippy.de> ("Sascha =?utf-8?Q?W=C3=BCs?= =?utf-8?Q?temann=22's?= message of "Wed\, 01 Oct 2008 19\:17\:58 +0200") References: <48E2A891.7000307@tvbrowser.org> <48E323BB.50207@ladisch.de> <48E3B0C6.6020700@killerhippy.de> Message-ID: <867i8p8v90.fsf@mid.gienah.enyo.de> Sascha W?stemann writes: > Ack, I share the same impression _but_ it is a web rip-off site. To get > a download of an elsewhere freely available download you have to sign a > trade which binds you for 2 years paying fees. So what? Even the FSF tells us to charge as much as we can for the sale of free software. Hendrik From ericjameslowe at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 22:38:50 2008 From: ericjameslowe at gmail.com (Eric Lowe) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:38:50 -0700 Subject: Gpl violations of "zodttd" of zodttd.com Message-ID: <31b109f0810061338k4799ec5as84d4109092ba4756@mail.gmail.com> The author of this website distributing gpl licensed binaries through his cydia repo (iphone apt-get) (http://zotdd.com/repo/cydia) without explicitly mentioning what its licensed under (gpl) and not including the source or providing a means to attain it. Eric From stefan_wuttke at arcor.de Mon Oct 20 16:43:10 2008 From: stefan_wuttke at arcor.de (stefan Wuttke) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:43:10 +0200 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes Message-ID: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> Hello, here a GPL-Viaolation extreme, the complete Movie Cube series from Emtec Movie Cube series is based on GPL-Software. Emtec doesn`t share the source! I had ask Emtec for the Source, the answer: Dear Stefan, Thanks for your email, We do not supply for the moment source code for the Movie Cube products. Regards, Mario Alves Lopes EMtec Support Firmware Movie Cube Q100 http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q100/firm_e_moviecube_v2_0_9_204_fo.zip Firmware Movie Cube Q120 http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q120/firmware_q120.zip Firmware Movie Cube R100 http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/MOVIECUBE-R/firm_moviecube_r_v2.0.9up.rar Firmware Movie Cube R700 http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/R700/firmware_r700.zip From mathfox at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 20 18:23:45 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:23:45 +0200 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> Message-ID: <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> Could you tell us what you mean with "based on GPL-Software": what GPL components are used by Emtec and how did you verify that those components are in the distribution files? Peter. stefan Wuttke wrote: > Hello, > > here a GPL-Viaolation extreme, the complete Movie Cube series from > Emtec Movie Cube series is based on GPL-Software. Emtec doesn`t share > the source! > > I had ask Emtec for the Source, the answer: > > Dear Stefan, > > Thanks for your email, We do not supply for the moment source code > for the Movie Cube products. > > Regards, > > Mario Alves Lopes EMtec Support > > > > > Firmware Movie Cube Q100 > http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q100/firm_e_moviecube_v2_0_9_204_fo.zip > Firmware Movie Cube Q120 > http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q120/firmware_q120.zip > Firmware Movie Cube R100 > http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/MOVIECUBE-R/firm_moviecube_r_v2.0.9up.rar > Firmware Movie Cube R700 > http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/R700/firmware_r700.zip From twaffle at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 20:10:17 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:10:17 -0400 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Peter Roozemaal wrote: > Could you tell us what you mean with "based on GPL-Software": what GPL > components are used by Emtec and how did you verify that those > components are in the distribution files? > > Peter. > > stefan Wuttke wrote: >> Hello, >> >> here a GPL-Viaolation extreme, the complete Movie Cube series from >> Emtec Movie Cube series is based on GPL-Software. Emtec doesn`t share >> the source! >> >> I had ask Emtec for the Source, the answer: >> >> Dear Stefan, >> >> Thanks for your email, We do not supply for the moment source code >> for the Movie Cube products. >> >> Regards, >> >> Mario Alves Lopes EMtec Support >> >> >> >> >> Firmware Movie Cube Q100 >> http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q100/firm_e_moviecube_v2_0_9_204_fo.zip >> Firmware Movie Cube Q120 >> http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q120/firmware_q120.zip >> Firmware Movie Cube R100 >> http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/MOVIECUBE-R/firm_moviecube_r_v2.0.9up.rar >> Firmware Movie Cube R700 >> http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/R700/firmware_r700.zip > > > -- -- Thomas From joseph at heenan.me.uk Mon Oct 20 21:02:17 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:02:17 +0100 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FCD5B9.9070809@heenan.me.uk> Thomas Charron wrote: > Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering > there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. There are other operating systems that can read/write ext3. (Admittedly it would be a strange choice of file system when not using linux though.) Joseph From hub at figuiere.net Mon Oct 20 20:57:32 2008 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:57:32 -0400 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:10 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering > there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. That's not a proof. But using "strings" on one of the "install.img" file of the r700 firmware show the following: Linux version 2.6.12.6-VENUS (parden at realtek) (gcc version 3.4.4 mipssde-6.02.03-20050629) #2 Sat Apr 12 12:50:32 CST 2008 Hub From hub at figuiere.net Mon Oct 20 21:45:50 2008 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:45:50 -0400 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1224531950.16131.55.camel@quagmire> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: > Hi Hub; > > > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? The .zip archive I downloaded does not have it nor any acknowledgement about the use of GPL code. For the rest, no idea. Ask the OP. Hub From twaffle at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 22:09:30 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:09:30 -0400 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810201309r9590765ja8b8d0a5a23e4389@mail.gmail.com> I'm not the OP, but the manuls located online via the web site have no mention of the GPL. http://www.emtec-international.com/PDF/manuels/R700/R700_manual_EN.pdf On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: > Hi Hub; > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? > Chris > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Hubert Figuiere wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:10 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: >> > Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering >> > there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. >> >> That's not a proof. >> >> But using "strings" on one of the "install.img" file of the r700 >> firmware show the following: >> >> Linux version 2.6.12.6-VENUS (parden at realtek) (gcc version 3.4.4 >> mipssde-6.02.03-20050629) #2 Sat Apr 12 12:50:32 CST 2008 >> >> >> Hub >> >> > > > > -- > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com > -- -- Thomas From cdibona at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 21:48:15 2008 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:48:15 -0700 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <1224531950.16131.55.camel@quagmire> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> <1224531950.16131.55.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <7d9492d90810201248p64b08d6cx33141781812707e0@mail.gmail.com> oops, sorry. Stefan? On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: > > Hi Hub; > > > > > > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? > > The .zip archive I downloaded does not have it nor any acknowledgement > about the use of GPL code. For the rest, no idea. Ask the OP. > > > Hub > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081020/0fa73b36/attachment.htm From cdibona at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 21:27:00 2008 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:27:00 -0700 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> Hi Hub; Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? Chris On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:10 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > > Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering > > there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. > > That's not a proof. > > But using "strings" on one of the "install.img" file of the r700 > firmware show the following: > > Linux version 2.6.12.6-VENUS (parden at realtek) (gcc version 3.4.4 > mipssde-6.02.03-20050629) #2 Sat Apr 12 12:50:32 CST 2008 > > > Hub > > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081020/d6cc747f/attachment.htm From mathfox at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 20 22:26:44 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:26:44 +0200 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <48FCE984.7090400@xs4all.nl> Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:10 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: >> Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering >> there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. > > That's not a proof. > > But using "strings" on one of the "install.img" file of the r700 > firmware show the following: > > Linux version 2.6.12.6-VENUS (parden at realtek) (gcc version 3.4.4 > mipssde-6.02.03-20050629) #2 Sat Apr 12 12:50:32 CST 2008 Thanks, THAT is a smoking gun. It would help to know whether there's other GPL code in there (which shell, libc, etc.). The busybox guys might want to take action if their code is in there. And you want to have a reasonable complete map of the software on the device so that you can check that the source code Emtec provides is ALL of the (L)GPL code they have to produce. Peter. From stefan_wuttke at arcor.de Mon Oct 20 22:28:01 2008 From: stefan_wuttke at arcor.de (stefan Wuttke) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:28:01 +0200 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80810201309r9590765ja8b8d0a5a23e4389@mail.gmail.com> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80810201309r9590765ja8b8d0a5a23e4389@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1224534481.16160.25.camel@vaio> okay, Download the http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/R700/firmware_r700.zip Firmware. Extract the zip file . Then ectract with dd a tar.bz2 part of the install.img : dd if=install.img of=install_0x642bfe.tar.bz2 bs=1 skip=6564862 I think there is enough GPL Software to find! Am Montag, den 20.10.2008, 16:09 -0400 schrieb Thomas Charron: > I'm not the OP, but the manuls located online via the web site have > no mention of the GPL. > > http://www.emtec-international.com/PDF/manuels/R700/R700_manual_EN.pdf > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Chris DiBona wrote: > > Hi Hub; > > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? > > Chris > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:10 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > >> > Well, for one thing, it sure as hell is running Linux considering > >> > there's an ext3 file system in there, just from first glance. > >> > >> That's not a proof. > >> > >> But using "strings" on one of the "install.img" file of the r700 > >> firmware show the following: > >> > >> Linux version 2.6.12.6-VENUS (parden at realtek) (gcc version 3.4.4 > >> mipssde-6.02.03-20050629) #2 Sat Apr 12 12:50:32 CST 2008 > >> > >> > >> Hub > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 Mon Oct 20 22:44:36 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes In-Reply-To: <1224534481.16160.25.camel@vaio> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80810201309r9590765ja8b8d0a5a23e4389@mail.gmail.com> <1224534481.16160.25.camel@vaio> Message-ID: <1224535476.3250.152.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:28 +0200, stefan Wuttke wrote: > > I think there is enough GPL Software to find! So? I need more proof to see if it is an actual violation. So, please check the documentation that came with the (physical) device. Check if on the CD there was either the sourcecode, or if there is somewhere in the documentation, on the CD, or on some leaflet a written offer for the sourcecode. Without that information, we cannot know for sure that this devices violates licenses, it is as simple as that. So please (and this goes for everybody), do not claim a company violates the GPL/LGPL/your license here, if you are not absolutely certain about it. Remember: this mailinglist is indexed and search engines have a pretty good memory. armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From twaffle at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 23:52:14 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:52:14 -0400 Subject: DirecTV DVR GPL Software Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810201452g3072c1bdh99066b410efb51bb@mail.gmail.com> I've asked once before with no response, but here goes again. Has anyone frpm the EFF, or otherwise involved in GPL violations, ever dealt with the DirecTV DVR (and other receivers, AFAIK) license requirements for their use of GPL software on a multitude of DirecTV set top boxes? I'd honestly like to have many of the software which can interact with the DVR, such as MediaShare features, work better, but without acess to know what the heck is behind the scenes, this is VERY difficult. Over the last year it's been pretty much proven that there's GPL software on there. As a matter of fact, the uPnp stack announces to the world it's running under Linux. But people are afraid to actually say anything substantial publically, for fear DirecTV will nix their account. They DO have a link within their manual that says 'Certain software is licensed under other terms, please see www.gnu.org for more details'. But there's NO mention of WHAT software. You wouldn't even know what to request the modified sources of, as they never actually STATE it anywhere. It should also be noted that while people have said, 'Ah HA! But they LEASE you the receivers!'. Well, I've heard that argument, HOWEVER, the receivers are covered under a 90 day limited warentee. I'm not sure you could say, 'Well, we own it, but if it breaks, tough nuggets'. So it's kind of contradictory in that regards. Even if they did, they also allow people to purchase some of the other models exclusively, for like 800 bucks. Here's another quote from the manul which kinda kills the lease argument: "Protect your DIRECTV(R) System with the DIRECTV PROTECTION PLAN. For a low monthly fee, the DIRECTV PROTECTION PLAN covers the components of your DIRECTV System, giving you peace of mind and comprehensive support to ensure that you and your family enjoy nonstop DIRECTV(R) entertainment." Another quote from the license in the manul linked to below: "The Software may include some components that are covered by "free software" licenses, open source licenses and other similar license use rights, which require such components to be used, modified and/or distributed only under the terms of such licenses. Any such components are subject only to the terms of such licenses, and not these Terms." The one that specifically mentions the GNU website: "G. Additional Information Certain additional terms and information for the Software and certain third party software (including the text of licenses applicable to any free, open source and other similar software that may be included in the Software) may be found in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, the DIRECTV website located at www.directv.com, and the GNU website located at www.gnu.org." Instead of rehashing information which may be found elsewhere, I'll link to other threads, including some on dbstalk, which is the site many use for 'Cutting Edge' beta releases of the software. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=82621 11 page thread, which actually links to some of the other links below. Some specific posts of note are included below with descriptions. http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52651 First post includes a uPnP broadcast packet announcing that the box runs Linux. http://www.directv.com/see/pdf/060508HR20UserGuidev1_0b.pdf A Link to the PDF manual for the HR20-100, which I specifically own. http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=884081&postcount=63 The result of someone actually requesting information, and informaing DirecTV receieves a printed copy og the GPL http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=302&dockey=xml/7/9/791ccf33e4bf252711de1a41409169b7 at endecaindex&source=19&FREE_TEXT=&rating=99 The company which is referenced as making the uPnP software, software openings. http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1205679&postcount=195 and http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1737756&postcount=253 Link to post showing an actual syslog entries. -- -- Thomas From brett at fsf.org Tue Oct 21 15:27:46 2008 From: brett at fsf.org (Brett Smith) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:27:46 -0400 Subject: Written offers in products with downloads (was Re: Emtec Movie Cubes) In-Reply-To: <1224531950.16131.55.camel@quagmire> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> <1224531950.16131.55.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <1224538683.12004.27.camel@serenity.office.fsf.org> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 15:45 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: > > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? > > The .zip archive I downloaded does not have it nor any acknowledgement > about the use of GPL code. For the rest, no idea. Ask the OP. I haven't looked at any of these downloads myself. But I'd like to make a general point that whether or not a physical product includes a written offer for source has no bearing on the question of whether or not GPLv2-covered software for download is being distributed in compliance with the license. When a company distributes object code over the Internet to the general public -- even if that software is only *intended* to be used by owners of a particular device -- that's a distribution that's completely separate from the distribution of the software on the device itself, and it needs to comply with GPLv2 section 3 on its own terms. In other words, either source code or a written offer for source needs to accompany *that* copy of the object code. A written offer accompanying the product alone would not be sufficient to fully comply with GPLv2 in this case. If a GNU/Linux distribution provided object code on their FTP site, but source code CDs only came with purchased boxed copies, we wouldn't say they were in compliance, would we? The same rules apply to device manufacturers. I agree that it would be useful to try to find out whether or not the physical product has source or a written offer -- it might be helpful to take a different approach in dealing with the company if that's the case. But no matter what, object code that you can download that isn't accompanied by source or a written offer is *always* a violation of GPLv2. I hope this helps clear up a few of the finer points about the license. Best regards, -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation From cdibona at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 17:53:55 2008 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:53:55 -0700 Subject: Android Related Compliance Message-ID: <7d9492d90810210853k29379d15rf7fc49a1b5d395b1@mail.gmail.com> Hi All; You might have noticed that we launched the Android open source site today, with the bulk of the code being hosting on android.kernel.org. If you come across any questions about android phone or device related compliance, we're happy to discuss details. Chris DiBona & Danny Berlin -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081021/cf7e9024/attachment.htm From javiplx at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 21:21:29 2008 From: javiplx at gmail.com (Javier Palacios) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:21:29 +0200 Subject: Probable violation on mobile device Message-ID: Hello, I want to inform about a quite likely violation of GPL on a mobile phone. In brief, manufacturer is Yuhua, and it is reselled at least on Indonesia (i-mobile) and Spain (funker). My phone, so my contacts, comes from the spanish brand (http://funker.es/f901.html). The brochures and so states it is a linux mobile, but GPL is not even mentioned on the hardcopied quick guide nor in the pdf documents in the supplied CD. Reflashing tools are on http://www.cmrmobile.com/funker901.htm, and as the filesystems have no kind of encryption, a loopback mount shows clear traces of GPL'ed software. Specifically, I see busybox, and also dpkg and mii-tool binaries there. I have contacted the firm that solds on Spain. First the technical support for generic questions as well as explicit source code request, attaching some informative links to docs in the GPL violiations site. After I didn't get redirection from tech to legal or any other department, I tried a direct mail to a wider audience (the four contact emails on the web page). I've asked again in similar terms. In both cases I stated that I did only ask for GPL components, as the QT ones might not be covered by the trolltech open source license. In both cases, all I got was a forward to factory of my request, and typical answer that they were considering to release source but very likely will not. I can search for specific dates, but the source code request did start nearly two months ago (long enough I believe), and I'm not the only one who did such a request (I'm in contact with another owner of the same device). There are many other smaller points, but I think that the summary is long enough. My question is how could/should I proceed now? Appart from check any other issues that people from the list could suggest to "certify" that this is a GPL violation. Javier Palacios From stefan_wuttke at arcor.de Thu Oct 23 09:33:30 2008 From: stefan_wuttke at arcor.de (stefan Wuttke) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:33:30 +0200 Subject: Written offers in products with downloads (was Re: Emtec Movie Cubes) In-Reply-To: <1224538683.12004.27.camel@serenity.office.fsf.org> References: <1224513790.17900.18.camel@vaio> <48FCB091.5030409@xs4all.nl> <30dfe2a80810201110k71368871p98fcc4964a6d57d2@mail.gmail.com> <1224529052.16131.52.camel@quagmire> <7d9492d90810201227s17b8e5b4qaa2e1be63fd3dba7@mail.gmail.com> <1224531950.16131.55.camel@quagmire> <1224538683.12004.27.camel@serenity.office.fsf.org> Message-ID: <1224747211.12376.12.camel@vaio> Hi, the problem is that I can't say there is a written offer and source on any media that shipped with this device. A user of a german Forum said there is nothing on it but they don't wan't to post here :/ I hope in next time anyone from this guys confirm here that there is nothing! What I have found is that are some lib static linked in the main application "Dvdplayer" The libdvd* is GPL v 2 strings DvdPlayer|grep lib libc.so. /usr/src/mips/rootfs/develop/lib:/usr/src/mips/rootfs/develop/usr/lib Not an ELF shared library libdvdnav:DVDOpenFilePath:findDVDFile %s failed libdvdnav:DVDOpenFilePath:dvdinput_open %s failed libdvdnav:DVDOpenFilePath:dvd_file malloc failed libdvdread: Can't stat() %s. libdvdread:DVDOpenNewVOBPath: reopen %s failed libdvdread: Invalid domain for file open. libdvdnav:DVDCreateFile:dvd_file malloc failed libdvdread: Can't seek to block %lld libdvdread: Can't seek to block 0 libdvdread: Can't allocate memory for file read! libdvdwrite: Can't write image file now for file read! libdvdwrite: Not implemented yet... libdvdwrite: Invalid domain for file open. libdvdwrite:DVDOpenNewFilePath:open %s failed libdvdnav:DVDOpenFilePath:dvd_file malloc failed libdvdwrite:DVDOpenNewVOBPath:open %s failed libdvdwrite:DVDOpenNewVOBPath: reopen %s failed libdvdwrite:DVDOpenNewVOBFile:open %s failed libdvdwrite:DVDOpenNewVOBFile: reopen %s failed libdvdnav: Can't seek to block %d libdvdnav: Write VOB file error. libdvdnav: Wirte VOB file error. libdvdnav: Write VOB file error, no file handle. libdvdnav: Can't seek to block 0 libdvdread: Can't open file VTS_%02d_0.IFO. libdvdread: Can't open file VIDEO_TS.IFO. libdvdread: Invalid main menu IFO (VIDEO_TS.IFO). libdvdread: Invalid title IFO (VTS_%02d_0.IFO). libdvdread: Invalid IFO for title %d (VTS_%02d_0.IFO). libdvdread: Invalid IFO for VMGM (VIDEO_TS.IFO). libdvdread: ifoOpenVTSI invalid title (%d). *** libdvdread: CHECK_VALUE failed in %s:%i *** libdvdread: Unable to read read TT_SRPT. libdvdread: Unable to read PTT search table. libdvdread: Unable to read PTL_MAIT. libdvdread: Unable to seak PTL_MAIT table. libdvdread: Unable to read PTL_MAIT table. libdvdread: Unable to read VTS_TMAPT. libdvdread: Unable to read VTS_TMAP. libdvdread: Unable to read VTS_TMAP_ENT. libdvdread: *C_ADT nr_of_vobs > avaiable info entries libdvdread: c_adt->last_byte: %d too big! libdvdread: vobu_admap->last_byte: %d too big! libdvdread: Unable to read TXTDT_MGI. *** libdvdread: CHECK_VALUE failed in %s:%i *** libdvdread: Could not open input libdvdread: Could not allocate memory. libfaccess: malloc fail libfileaccess: file %s open error since there is no more space in the data spcae! libfaccess: file %s exist, but this is RING type!! error!! libfaccess: file %s open error1 libfaccess: open file %s success libfaccess: this file %s has already opened by w mode, can't open again libfaccess: file %s exist, open directly! libfaccess: file %s open error! libfaccess: close file handle %d libfaccess: file handle %d close error! libfaccess: unlink file %s error libfaccess: rename %s to %s fail libfaccess: there is file still referencing, don't rename file libfaccess: GFileSetWriteNextFile file mode error libfaccess: set file handle %d's max_eachfile_write_size to %lld libfaccess: open file %s fail libfaccess: file handle %d seek 0 error libfaccess: file handle %d not exist, create more file handles!! libfaccess: file handle %d seek %lld error libfaccess: file handle %d write %d bytes error libfaccess: file handle %d not exist, write part2 error! libfileaccess: file handle %d pos %lld read %d bytes error libfaccess: file handle %d not exist, read part2 error! libfaccess: read bytes %d not enough %d, maybe reach file end libfaccess: canceling file delete mplib: Memory exhausted: Could not allocate %d bytes lib/charcnv.c:558 lib/charcnv.c:606 libdir Path to shared library directory shlibext Shared library extension lib/talloc.c:1035 lib/util.c:1072 lib/util.c:1091 lib/util.c lib/util_sock.c lib/util_str.c:1115 lib/util_unistr.c:407 -lib/data_blob.c:73 lib/data_blob.c:77 lib/debug.c Can not access a needed shared library Accessing a corrupted shared library .lib section in a.out corrupted Attempting to link in too many shared libraries Cannot exec a shared library directly /usr/local/samba/lib/smb.conf /usr/local/samba/lib /usr/local/samba/lib/lmhosts strings DvdPlayer|grep smb ~~~~Error to get smbd! /tmp/smbd chmod +x /tmp/smbd /tmp/smbd -D CMD: mkdir -p /tmp/netb/smb mkdir -p /tmp/netb/smb CMD: mkdir -p /tmp/smb mkdir -p /tmp/smb /tmp/netb/smb.conf %s/smbmore.XXXXXX talloc_new: jssmb.c:2569 smb: %s> talloc_new: jssmb.c:4036 /tmp/netb/smb.conf talloc_new: jssmb.c:4446 smb-passwd-file Path to smbpasswd file smb_xmalloc_array: called with zero size. smb_xmalloc: alloc size too large. smb_xmalloc_array: malloc fail. smb_xstrdup: malloc fail smb_xstrndup: malloc fail smb_xvasprintf: out of memory ERRsmbcmd smbpasswd smb passwd file smb ports max smbd processes smb_io_utime smb_io_time smb_io_enum_hnd smb_io_dom_sid smb_io_dom_sid2 smb_io_uuid smb_io_strhdr smb_io_unihdr smb_io_hdrbuf smb_io_unistr smb_io_buffer5 smb_io_regval_buffer smb_io_string2 smb_io_string2 - NULL smb_io_unistr2 smb_io_unistr2 - NULL smb_io_lockout_string_hdr smb_io_account_lockout_string smb_io_dom_rid smb_io_dom_rid2 smb_io_dom_rid3 smb_io_clnt_srv smb_io_log_info smb_io_chal smb_io_cred smb_io_clnt_info2 smb_io_clnt_info smb_io_logon_id smb_io_owf_info smb_io_gid smb_io_pol_hnd smb_io_unistr3 smb_io_bufhdr2 smb_io_bufhdr4 smb_io_rpc_blob smb_io_rpc_hdr smb_io_rpc_iface smb_io_rpc_addr_str smb_io_rpc_hdr_bba smb_io_rpc_hdr_rb smb_io_rpc_results smb_io_rpc_hdr_ba smb_io_rpc_hdr_req smb_io_rpc_hdr_resp smb_io_rpc_hdr_fault smb_io_rpc_hdr_auth smb_io_rpc_auth_verifier smb_io_rpc_schannel_verifier smb_io_rpc_auth_schannel_neg smb_io_rpc_auth_schannel_chk smb_io_sam_info_ctr smb_io_sam_info smb_io_sam_info_ex %s/smb.XXXXXX /usr/local/samba/lib/smb.conf /usr/local/samba/private/smbpasswd Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 09:27 -0400 schrieb Brett Smith: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 15:45 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote: > > > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code? > > > > The .zip archive I downloaded does not have it nor any acknowledgement > > about the use of GPL code. For the rest, no idea. Ask the OP. > > I haven't looked at any of these downloads myself. But I'd like to make > a general point that whether or not a physical product includes a > written offer for source has no bearing on the question of whether or > not GPLv2-covered software for download is being distributed in > compliance with the license. > > When a company distributes object code over the Internet to the general > public -- even if that software is only *intended* to be used by owners > of a particular device -- that's a distribution that's completely > separate from the distribution of the software on the device itself, and > it needs to comply with GPLv2 section 3 on its own terms. In other > words, either source code or a written offer for source needs to > accompany *that* copy of the object code. A written offer accompanying > the product alone would not be sufficient to fully comply with GPLv2 in > this case. > > If a GNU/Linux distribution provided object code on their FTP site, but > source code CDs only came with purchased boxed copies, we wouldn't say > they were in compliance, would we? The same rules apply to device > manufacturers. > > I agree that it would be useful to try to find out whether or not the > physical product has source or a written offer -- it might be helpful to > take a different approach in dealing with the company if that's the > case. But no matter what, object code that you can download that isn't > accompanied by source or a written offer is *always* a violation of > GPLv2. > > I hope this helps clear up a few of the finer points about the license. > > Best regards, > From antoine.diamant-berger at eads.com Thu Oct 23 17:01:30 2008 From: antoine.diamant-berger at eads.com (Diamant-Berger, Antoine) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:01:30 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a produc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? Message-ID: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC1@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> Hi, My name is Antoine Diamant-Berger (French, living in France, so French Law applies), and I follow closely a few open-source projects. This post concerns one of them, which is released under the LGPL. We have found significant naming similarities in the DLLs installed by a widely distributed commercial application and the dlls obtained by compiling an older version of the project. What kind of techniques may I legally use to discover if the commercial application really is infringing on the project ? What do you think our next step should be ? Thanks. Antoine Diamant-Berger From mathfox at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 24 13:59:37 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:59:37 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a produc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? In-Reply-To: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC1@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> References: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC1@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> Message-ID: <4901B8A9.6000208@xs4all.nl> Hallo Antoine, I can not give you any definite advice on how much reverse engineering is allowed in France, as I am not familiar enough with French law. A good copyright lawyer should be able to tell you what is allowed and he can also give you advice on how to document your findings so that they carry most weight as evidence in court. In general it is the EULA that restricts reverse engineering more than copyright law. Do you own copyrights that you suspect the commercial application is infringing upon? In that case you can file a copyright infringement lawsuit yourself; I strongly recommend that you hire a lawyer: - Getting an independent opinion on merits and risks of the lawsuit - Having someone handling the administrative drudgery of the lawsuit - Preventing you from stupid legal errors (like omitting essential information) If you're not a copyright owner you lack standing in the lawsuit and you might end up doing all your work for nothing. Peter. Diamant-Berger, Antoine wrote: > My name is Antoine Diamant-Berger (French, living in France, so French Law > applies), and I follow closely a few open-source projects. > This post concerns one of them, which is released under the LGPL. > > We have found significant naming similarities in the DLLs installed by a > widely distributed commercial application and the dlls obtained by compiling > an older version of the project. > What kind of techniques may I legally use to discover if the commercial > application really is infringing on the project ? > What do you think our next step should be ? From antoine.diamant-berger at eads.com Fri Oct 24 14:46:30 2008 From: antoine.diamant-berger at eads.com (Diamant-Berger, Antoine) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:46:30 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a pr oduc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? Message-ID: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC3@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> -----Message d'origine----- De?: Peter Roozemaal [mailto:mathfox at xs4all.nl] Envoy??: vendredi 24 octobre 2008 14:00 ??: 'legal at lists.gpl-violations.org' Cc?: Diamant-Berger, Antoine Objet?: Re: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a produc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? Hallo Antoine, I can not give you any definite advice on how much reverse engineering is allowed in France, as I am not familiar enough with French law. A good copyright lawyer should be able to tell you what is allowed and he can also give you advice on how to document your findings so that they carry most weight as evidence in court. In general it is the EULA that restricts reverse engineering more than copyright law. Do you own copyrights that you suspect the commercial application is infringing upon? In that case you can file a copyright infringement lawsuit yourself; I strongly recommend that you hire a lawyer: - Getting an independent opinion on merits and risks of the lawsuit - Having someone handling the administrative drudgery of the lawsuit - Preventing you from stupid legal errors (like omitting essential information) If you're not a copyright owner you lack standing in the lawsuit and you might end up doing all your work for nothing. Peter. Hello Peter, Thanks for the answer. I think I'll effectively try and find legal counsel. Although I'm a copyright owner (not significantly so, I only contributed 1-2 patches) for the most recent versions, I'm not for the old incriminated one, but if I work to find evidence, I'll consider that as an other contribution, and forward them to the other copyright owners just as I would contribute patches ... You say that the EULA is the one that would restrict reverse-engineering, but at which point does it take effect? If I don't install the software and only look at it from the "outside", do you think it still is binding? I understand that all these questions are "country/law" dependent, but I thought that there could be somewhere where these questions/answers could be centralized, and that gpl-violations could be such place ... Thanks again for the time/answer. Antoine Diamant-Berger From mathfox at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 24 16:35:52 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:35:52 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a pr oduc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? In-Reply-To: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC3@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> References: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC3@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> Message-ID: <4901DD48.9080405@xs4all.nl> Diamant-Berger, Antoine wrote: > You say that the EULA is the one that would restrict > reverse-engineering, but at which point does it take effect? If I > don't install the software and only look at it from the "outside", do > you think it still is binding? Copyright law will prohibit you from disclosing disassembly listings without permission of the copyright owner. You should consult your local law to check what conditions are placed on reverse engineering; I know Dutch law is pretty liberal, but French law may be different. I do think that a strong argument can be made that EULAs for store- bought software are not binding on the consumer under EU consumer protection laws. However I am not aware of a legal decision saying so. As long as you didn't accept the EULA and _NEVER_ accepted the EULA before, you are not bound by it. (The other party may try all unfair means to make the conditions stick to you.) One thing that is important is that you do your analysis on a legally obtained copy of the software. You'll perform copyright infringement yourself if you don't. > > I understand that all these questions are "country/law" dependent, > but I thought that there could be somewhere where these > questions/answers could be centralized, and that gpl-violations could > be such place ... You would need someone who keeps an eye on changes in the law too... What's correct today may be wrong next year. Peter. From antoine.diamant-berger at eads.com Fri Oct 24 17:32:08 2008 From: antoine.diamant-berger at eads.com (Diamant-Berger, Antoine) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:32:08 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a pr oduc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? Message-ID: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC5@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> > Copyright law will prohibit you from disclosing disassembly listings > without permission of the copyright owner. Couldn't Fair-Use be invoked, if only small "excerpts" are made? If instead of disclosing the "content", I disclose the steps I followed to get my results, and a summary to what kind of results can be found, could it be found as in violation of copyright law? > You should consult your local > law to check what conditions are placed on reverse engineering; I know > Dutch law is pretty liberal, but French law may be different. It seems I'm headed to meet a lawyer next week... > I do think that a strong argument can be made that EULAs for store- > bought software are not binding on the consumer under EU consumer > protection laws. However I am not aware of a legal decision saying so. > As long as you didn't accept the EULA and _NEVER_ accepted the EULA > before, you are not bound by it. (The other party may try all unfair > means to make the conditions stick to you.) That's exactly why I won't install the program at all. If I had previously installed an other product from the same publisher, and the EULA's were valid under the law, would I be legally bound regarding the new product ? > One thing that is important is that you do your analysis on a legally > obtained copy of the software. You'll perform copyright infringement > yourself if you don't. If I find things in a "demo" version of the "infringing" program, can my results be used as a motivation to ask an expert to find out more in the "complete" application ? > You would need someone who keeps an eye on changes in the law too... > What's correct today may be wrong next year. OK, then next step is paying a lawyer ... Let's take my agenda ... Thanks again. Antoine Diamant-Berger From hendrik at enyo.de Fri Oct 24 20:57:58 2008 From: hendrik at enyo.de (Hendrik Weimer) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:57:58 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a pr oduc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? In-Reply-To: <4901DD48.9080405@xs4all.nl> (Peter Roozemaal's message of "Fri\, 24 Oct 2008 16\:35\:52 +0200") References: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC3@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> <4901DD48.9080405@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <86abctstvt.fsf@mid.gienah.enyo.de> Peter Roozemaal writes: > Diamant-Berger, Antoine wrote: > >> You say that the EULA is the one that would restrict >> reverse-engineering, but at which point does it take effect? If I >> don't install the software and only look at it from the "outside", do >> you think it still is binding? > > Copyright law will prohibit you from disclosing disassembly listings > without permission of the copyright owner. Wouldn't that rather be a quotation, which is allowed under the Berne convention? Hendrik From mathfox at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 24 23:26:22 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:26:22 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a pr oduc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? In-Reply-To: <86abctstvt.fsf@mid.gienah.enyo.de> References: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC3@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> <4901DD48.9080405@xs4all.nl> <86abctstvt.fsf@mid.gienah.enyo.de> Message-ID: <49023D7E.20200@xs4all.nl> Hendrik Weimer wrote: > Peter Roozemaal writes: > >> Diamant-Berger, Antoine wrote: >> >>> You say that the EULA is the one that would restrict >>> reverse-engineering, but at which point does it take effect? If I >>> don't install the software and only look at it from the >>> "outside", do you think it still is binding? >> Copyright law will prohibit you from disclosing disassembly >> listings without permission of the copyright owner. > > Wouldn't that rather be a quotation, which is allowed under the Berne > convention? The Berne convention allows to allow quotations, check the exact text of your local law for the details for computer code in your jurisdiction. OTOH, If the code is legitimately released under the LGPL, you have permission to publish the disassembly listings. Beware, I've seen people attach GPL notices to code that they did not write themselves. It is rare, but it happens. It is good to have that case covered too. Peter. From mathfox at xs4all.nl Sat Oct 25 22:35:22 2008 From: mathfox at xs4all.nl (Peter Roozemaal) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:35:22 +0200 Subject: What kind of techniques can I legally use to discover if a pr oduc t really is violating some (L)GPL code ? In-Reply-To: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC5@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> References: <5C778D58339D234284CFBAD5958B976615BAC5@SMFIDF806A.main.fr.ds.corp> Message-ID: <4903830A.6040405@xs4all.nl> Diamant-Berger, Antoine wrote: > If I had previously installed an other product from the same publisher, and > the EULA's were valid under the law, would I be legally bound regarding the > new product ? That would depend on the exact wording of the EULA... And whether a judge would find the invoked clauses binding. It is best to avoid being dependent on a judge's judgement. > If I find things in a "demo" version of the "infringing" program, can my > results be used as a motivation to ask an expert to find out more in the > "complete" application ? The "demo" version is a copyrighted work in itself. License compliance issues in the demo version can be used as crowbar to achieve compliance in the "full" version. It you play the game properly, you can even force compliance for ALL products of the company. N.B. If there is a click-through agreement before you can download the demo version, it is likely binding on you. > OK, then next step is paying a lawyer ... Let's take my agenda ... Good decision! Peter. From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Sat Oct 25 22:58:23 2008 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:58:23 +0200 Subject: Netgear delaying updated ReadyNAS GPL sources Message-ID: <1224968303.3231.249.camel@henriknordstrom.net> Hi, how long delays in publishing updated GPL sources after an firmware update is acceptable? I own a Netgear ReadyNAS DUO 2150 home NAS server, and have been in contact with Netgear regarding receiving updated GPL sources for their current firmware (4.1.3 at the time, since then 4.1.4 has also been released), and also regarding some components missing from their earlier GPL archives. My contact with Netgear was on Sep 10 regarding missing GPL sources for busybox and avahi, and Sep 13 regarding GPL sources for the 4.1.3 release. Received an acknowledgement on the first message on Sep 30, where they said "the missing avahi and busybox will be updated shortly", but still no sign of making them available. I have not received any response regarging the availability of firmware 4.1.3 GPL sources. The latest GPL source archive for this product is from 22 Apr 2008 and supposedly covers the 4.01c1-p2 release which is from about the same time (the 4.01c1-p2 firmware file I have is dated 20 Mar 2008, exact release date not known). Since then there has been a large number of beta releases, followed by new production releases in September. GPL sources and their file dates on the netgear ftp server: readynas_gpl.zip 27 Aug 2007 RNR4_RND4_RND2_4.01c1-p2_WW_src.zip 22 Apr 2008 Firmware releases (production releases only): 4.00c1-p2 Dec 19, 2007 4.01c1-p1 Mar 04, 2008 4.01c1-p2 Factory release for RND2150, exact date unknown. 4.1.3 Sep 11, 2008 4.1.4 Sep 28, 2008 On a related note I perhaps should mention that the firmware on these boxes is partially locked down, with an encrypted kernel + initrd, and some proprietary kernel modules only stored within the encrypted initrd, so even if you have the complete GPL sources updating, replacing or even copying certain GPL components such as the kernel or GPL binaries from the initrd is somewhat tricky. The actual running system userspace is fully accessible however and may be modified at will (SSH access is provided). I know GPLv2 does not really enforce being able to replace binaries when there is signing enforced, but it's still annoying to find devices unneededly locked down like this. Regards Henrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081025/14ff16c8/attachment.pgp From armijn at uulug.nl Sat Oct 25 23:06:10 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:06:10 +0200 Subject: Netgear delaying updated ReadyNAS GPL sources In-Reply-To: <1224968303.3231.249.camel@henriknordstrom.net> References: <1224968303.3231.249.camel@henriknordstrom.net> Message-ID: <1224968770.2992.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> hiya, > how long delays in publishing updated GPL sources after an firmware > update is acceptable? It's not. I've immediately mailed my NETGEAR contacts and asked them to fix it ASAP. armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Sat Oct 25 23:32:22 2008 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:32:22 +0200 Subject: Netgear delaying updated ReadyNAS GPL sources In-Reply-To: <1224968770.2992.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1224968303.3231.249.camel@henriknordstrom.net> <1224968770.2992.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1224970342.3231.251.camel@henriknordstrom.net> On l?r, 2008-10-25 at 23:06 +0200, Armijn Hemel wrote: > It's not. I've immediately mailed my NETGEAR contacts and asked them to > fix it ASAP. Thanks! Regards Henrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081025/e03b83eb/attachment.pgp From nsauzede at laposte.net Sun Oct 26 00:09:10 2008 From: nsauzede at laposte.net (Nicolas Sauzede) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:09:10 +0200 Subject: storex manufacturer and gpl violation Message-ID: <49039906.3080104@laposte.net> Hi. I have a problem of gpl violation with a french manufacturer that builds/sells network hard drives (san) and other appliances. Basically they are running a mips linux with open source programs like busybox, etc.. embedded in a flash storage. Their website does not provide any gpl program sources, like the kernel, modified applications etc.. I contacted many times asking them to provide the sources, without success. In short their answer is : it's broadcom fault, that refuses to provide kernel sources, and that, because their is an open telnet server running on the san, we can access "everything that is needed in the TELNET". Clearly, this is not a valid technical answer. It is true that there is an open telnet access (with root access) but then, (of course) no trace of source code resides on the flash filesystem. So clearly, we have a gpl violation here. What can we do ? Here is their english homepage : http://www.storex.fr/storex/accueil.asp?change_lang=EN Thanks for your support, NS. From mrintegrity at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 18:15:13 2008 From: mrintegrity at gmail.com (mr) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:15:13 +0100 Subject: storex manufacturer and gpl violation In-Reply-To: <49039906.3080104@laposte.net> References: <49039906.3080104@laposte.net> Message-ID: <5dfaf390810271015i5cf6d927wc459f77d02cf7535@mail.gmail.com> Please take a look at this compliance manual, it's great. http://www.loohuis-consulting.nl/downloads/compliance-manual.pdf Other than that, please state exactly which device it is, what solid evidence that you have that it's running linux (use the manual), does the product come with a written offer for the source code or a copy of the gpl? Many times the support people really don't understand these things but in general the company might be trying to do the right thing, only unaware that there is any wrongdoing. You probably just have to speak to the rightpeople. Alan On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Nicolas Sauzede wrote: > Hi. > > I have a problem of gpl violation with a french manufacturer that > builds/sells network hard drives (san) and other appliances. > > Basically they are running a mips linux with open source programs like > busybox, etc.. embedded in a flash storage. > > Their website does not provide any gpl program sources, like the kernel, > modified applications etc.. > > I contacted many times asking them to provide the sources, without success. > > In short their answer is : it's broadcom fault, that refuses to provide > kernel sources, and that, because their is an open telnet server > running on the san, we can access "everything that is needed in the > TELNET". > > Clearly, this is not a valid technical answer. > > It is true that there is an open telnet access (with root access) > but then, (of course) no trace of source code resides on the flash > filesystem. > > So clearly, we have a gpl violation here. > > What can we do ? > > Here is their english homepage : > > http://www.storex.fr/storex/accueil.asp?change_lang=EN > > Thanks for your support, > > NS. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081027/406c553f/attachment.htm From e0126650 at student.tuwien.ac.at Tue Oct 28 22:09:29 2008 From: e0126650 at student.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Honeder) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:09:29 +0100 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> Peter Honeder schrieb: > Vinz Focker wrote: >> Regarding rdesktop: There is another quite expensive ($11.99) iPhone >> rdp client in the App store which is only available in the US App >> store and available since beginning of August and seems to sell >> extremely well (judging from the 270+ reviews in the App Store and the >> 5-star rating !) >> I just got the strings from the binary from a NY friend. Guess what >> ... rdesktop again. >> It even has the "rdesktop" strings inside: >> .rdesktop >> .rdesktop/cache >> %s/.rdesktop/%s > > thats really bold, did anyone already contact the company? I wrote them > an email some minutes ago. > this discussion has been quite silent for some weeks now but I can provide you some more updated details which should be interesting. First of all I have successfully received a free (not even postage) copy of the full source code of the WinAdmin RDP client. At the time where I have received the copy, the developer *maybe* has fulfilled the GPL but has definately broken the NDA with Apple regarding the SDK. This brings me to my second point: Apple updated its NDA to exclude released SDK versions, which brings the developer of WinAdmin to a better position as he sends out the source code and will not have any troubles regarding Apple. My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am unable to solve, is: does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with Apple has to be established before someone can on his own successfully build and run source code on the device itself? how does this compare to the fact the Windows users have to buy Windows before they can run GPLed applications on their PC? is this the same? how does it compare to GPL applications built for special or expensive hardware, is it not the same to buy special hardware or operating systems before beeing able to run a certain GPLed application? Best regards, Peter From twaffle at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 22:34:24 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:34:24 -0400 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810281434y54aa4f13i26342016e305361f@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Peter Honeder wrote: > My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am unable to > solve, is: > does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of applications > for the iPhone because a development agreement with Apple has to be > established before someone can on his own successfully build and run source > code on the device itself? > how does this compare to the fact the Windows users have to buy Windows > before they can run GPLed applications on their PC? is this the same? > how does it compare to GPL applications built for special or expensive > hardware, is it not the same to buy special hardware or operating systems > before beeing able to run a certain GPLed application? Now THAR'S a ball of wax. :-D I know many people defer to the 'Linux Theory' on this sort of thing. It's acknowledged that the Linux kernel is GPL, but can run anything, without the license infecting. I believe the there is a clear distinction between an operating system and an application, regardless of the interfaces used to allow it to function. But then again, when using APIs, it can get even funnier. Look at Microsoft an the older MFC libraries. Can a GPLed application really be distributed that is an MFC application? -- -- Thomas From armijn at uulug.nl Tue Oct 28 22:35:02 2008 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:35:02 +0100 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <1225229702.3045.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 22:09 +0100, Peter Honeder wrote: > My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am > unable > to solve, is: > does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of > applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with > Apple > has to be established before someone can on his own successfully > build > and run source code on the device itself? > > how does this compare to the fact the Windows users have to buy > Windows > before they can run GPLed applications on their PC? is this the same? > > how does it compare to GPL applications built for special or > expensive > hardware, is it not the same to buy special hardware or operating > systems before beeing able to run a certain GPLed application? The GPL is purely a distribution license, and developing or running a GPLed application is not covered by it. armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From joseph at heenan.me.uk Tue Oct 28 22:46:15 2008 From: joseph at heenan.me.uk (Joseph Heenan) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:46:15 +0000 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <49078827.3090903@heenan.me.uk> Peter Honeder wrote: > First of all I have successfully received a free (not even postage) copy > of the full source code of the WinAdmin RDP client. At the time where I > have received the copy, the developer *maybe* has fulfilled the GPL but > has definately broken the NDA with Apple regarding the SDK. > > This brings me to my second point: Apple updated its NDA to exclude > released SDK versions, which brings the developer of WinAdmin to a > better position as he sends out the source code and will not have any > troubles regarding Apple. > > My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am unable > to solve, is: > does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of > applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with Apple > has to be established before someone can on his own successfully build > and run source code on the device itself? To me, this seems to be within the letter (and perhaps also the spirit) of the GPLv2. It is no different to systems where the only compiler available is commercial (which use to be the case for many commercials unixes). The GPL specifically mentions that the distributor is not required tools that are ordinarily part of the OS, like compilers etc. I have a feeling the GPLv3 may have a different stance though; mainly in it's "anti-tivoization" clause, but I suspect a more detailed study would be necessary. Joseph From henrik at henriknordstrom.net Wed Oct 29 00:00:06 2008 From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik Nordstrom) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:00:06 +0100 Subject: Netgear delaying updated ReadyNAS GPL sources In-Reply-To: <1224968770.2992.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1224968303.3231.249.camel@henriknordstrom.net> <1224968770.2992.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1225234806.15622.83.camel@henriknordstrom.net> On l?r, 2008-10-25 at 23:06 +0200, Armijn Hemel wrote: > hiya, > > > how long delays in publishing updated GPL sources after an firmware > > update is acceptable? > > It's not. I've immediately mailed my NETGEAR contacts and asked them to > fix it ASAP. Turns out they actually had prepared the GPL source archive at the time of firmware release (actually some days before based on the file timstamps), but for some reason it's not yet published by Netgear. A post turned up today where they "leaked" the needed information out from a an restricted part of the community forum, detailing where the GPL sources for the current firmware can be found: http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=22468#p123471 which links to http://www.readynas.com/download/GPL/RNR4_RND4_RND2_4.1.4_WW_src.zip which is the missing GPL source archive. This archive do also include the previously missing buzybox and avahi sources. I have no information as to why this file has not yet been published by Netgear at their normal location.. http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/open_src.asp Regards Henrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081029/c2a91a9d/attachment.pgp From hub at figuiere.net Wed Oct 29 00:45:52 2008 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:45:52 -0400 Subject: rdesktop and MochaSoft In-Reply-To: <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> References: <20080922132224.13963294816@smtp.zitechnet.dk> <1caff7430809220749s18a5aebdk23ca5e1249a20673@mail.gmail.com> <5dfaf390809221017k62067ce2tee89c1e5ad2e2bb0@mail.gmail.com> <48D7F24F.3080405@heenan.me.uk> <4b126e1e0809221413n68fea27axb7f64504ed7a989c@mail.gmail.com> <48D81343.8080901@student.tuwien.ac.at> <49077F89.3020008@student.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <1225237552.14567.129.camel@quagmire> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 22:09 +0100, Peter Honeder wrote: > My question now (refering to the *maybe* from above), which I am > unable > to solve, is: > does the GPL in the case of rdesktop forbid the development of > applications for the iPhone because a development agreement with > Apple > has to be established before someone can on his own successfully > build > and run source code on the device itself? It does not forbid the development, but clearly if the platform agreements does not allow you to redistribute code for said platform, then you you'd be violating the GPL if you were distributing GPL based software for said platform. Brought differently, the NDA for the platform does not trump the GPL requirements (nor does any other requirements whatever they are). If the NDA prevents you from full-filling to the obligations of the GPL, then don't distribute GPL licensed software. Off course there is always the case we the orignal distributor of the code is the sole copryight holder, but then all this discussion would be moot. IANAL. Hub From nsauzede at laposte.net Wed Oct 29 00:47:06 2008 From: nsauzede at laposte.net (Nicolas Sauzede) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:47:06 +0100 Subject: storex manufacturer and gpl violation In-Reply-To: <5dfaf390810271015i5cf6d927wc459f77d02cf7535@mail.gmail.com> References: <49039906.3080104@laposte.net> <5dfaf390810271015i5cf6d927wc459f77d02cf7535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4907A47A.4090301@laposte.net> mr a ?crit : > Please take a look at this compliance manual, it's great. > > http://www.loohuis-consulting.nl/downloads/compliance-manual.pdf > > Other than that, please state exactly which device it is, what solid > evidence that you have that it's running linux (use the manual), does > the product come with a written offer for the source code or a copy of > the gpl? > > Many times the support people really don't understand these things but > in general the company might be trying to do the right thing, only > unaware that there is any wrongdoing. You probably just have to speak > to the rightpeople. > > Alan Thanks for your reply. Indeed, here are the technical details : The device is the NAS351, which is a networked hard drive, running a mips linux. There is a telnet server which is open (no password), with root access, so I can give some more technical info : # cat /proc/cpuinfo system type : Broadcom BCM947XX processor : 0 cpu model : BCM3302 V0.6 BogoMIPS : 263.78 wait instruction : no microsecond timers : yes tlb_entries : 32 extra interrupt vector : no hardware watchpoint : no VCED exceptions : not available VCEI exceptions : not available # cat /proc/version Linux version 2.4.20 (root at xdev1.vimtron) (gcc version 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications) #1 Wed Apr 11 13:41:14 CST 2007 # cat /proc/filesystems nodev rootfs nodev bdev nodev proc nodev sockfs nodev tmpfs nodev pipefs cramfs nodev ramfs vfat iso9660 nodev devfs nodev nfs ntfs nodev autofs reiserfs nodev devpts nodev usbdevfs nodev usbfs # cat /etc/buildinfo.txt Microcode STOREX Version: 2.2.2 Source Tag: code 2.2.2 + GUI at 1519 Date du Microcode: Wed Apr 11 13:45:14 CST 2007 The shell is busybox, and if we look at the binary on a separate machine, here are the results : nico at yak:~/nas351$ file busybox busybox: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, MIPS, MIPS-I version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.3.99, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped nico at yak:~/nas351$ strings busybox|grep BusyBox ... BusyBox v1.00-pre2 (2007.03.02-09:58+0000) multi-call binary ... So the device is definitely using busybox, which is written under the GPLv2 license (http://www.busybox.net/license.html) The system serves local partitions through nfs, samba to the network. Samba is written under the GPLv3 license (http://us3.samba.org/samba/) I contacted their french hotline, and explained carefully, step by step, that they are indeed using free software, and hence should comply some (simple) rules. The only response was : "everything is in the TELNET" So I sent a couple more message, explaining why I wanted to have access to the source code (and why I deserve this right) : provide me with the sources of all free software they are shipping in the product (at least the kernel + patches, plus all the applications, plus ideally the toolchain they used to build them) But they kept on replying the same kind of answers, adding that they were not supposed to do so, and pointed me to broadcom who manufactures the cpu and provides them with the software development kit. By investigating further the content of the binaries I found : (from host) nico at yak:~/nas351$ nico at yak:~/nas351$ file smbd smbd: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, MIPS, MIPS-I version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.3.99, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped nico at yak:~/nas351$ strings smbd ... Build environment: xdev1.vimtron Built by: %s@%s root Built on: %s Wed Apr 11 13:33:36 CST 2007 Built using: %s mipsel-linux-gcc /mnt/hdb1/Source/Broadcom/VND007/PACT/Jan302007/src/apps/samba/source Build host: %s Linux xdev1.vimtron 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 #1 Sun May 21 15:01:01 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux ... And also : (on the target) # more /www/English/sample1.asp ... So it appears that broadcom did a lot of the content of the flash filesystem, and Storex only customized the user interface and such.. (who knows) What can we do in this case ? Do you think that, as they are selling a product which contains free software from a manufacturer such Broadcom, then they are supposed to provide the source code themselves or should we only ask broadcom to do so ? Source code offer : Apart from a Tux logo on the package (for linux compatibility) I've not seen any evidence of the GPL reference and/or source code offer in the manuals and/or website (I will double check to be sure) Anyway, even if they did include some source code offer on some document (in the box or on the web), they refused to provide me with it via the hotline, although they told me first that they would ask the technical people to see if any such source was available for the customer. Thanks for your support. From hub at figuiere.net Wed Oct 29 04:02:59 2008 From: hub at figuiere.net (Hubert Figuiere) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:02:59 -0400 Subject: storex manufacturer and gpl violation In-Reply-To: <4907A47A.4090301@laposte.net> References: <49039906.3080104@laposte.net> <5dfaf390810271015i5cf6d927wc459f77d02cf7535@mail.gmail.com> <4907A47A.4090301@laposte.net> Message-ID: <1225249379.14567.145.camel@quagmire> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 00:47 +0100, Nicolas Sauzede wrote: > What can we do in this case ? > Do you think that, as they are selling a product which contains free > software from a manufacturer such Broadcom, then they are supposed to > provide the source code themselves or should we only ask broadcom to > do so ? You ask to whom distributed you the "code", ie, in that case, Storex. Whether Broadcom is involved or not is not your issue. Whether Broadcom didn't provide Storex with the source code is NOT an excuse for Storex to not fulfil the requirement of the GPL. Since there is BusyBox and Samba, contact the respective projects. Hub From nsauzede at laposte.net Wed Oct 29 17:12:16 2008 From: nsauzede at laposte.net (Nicolas Sauzede) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:12:16 +0100 Subject: storex manufacturer and gpl violation In-Reply-To: <1225249379.14567.145.camel@quagmire> References: <49039906.3080104@laposte.net> <5dfaf390810271015i5cf6d927wc459f77d02cf7535@mail.gmail.com> <4907A47A.4090301@laposte.net> <1225249379.14567.145.camel@quagmire> Message-ID: <49088B60.9050901@laposte.net> Hubert Figuiere a ?crit : > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 00:47 +0100, Nicolas Sauzede wrote: > >> What can we do in this case ? >> Do you think that, as they are selling a product which contains free >> software from a manufacturer such Broadcom, then they are supposed to >> provide the source code themselves or should we only ask broadcom to >> do so ? >> > > You ask to whom distributed you the "code", ie, in that case, Storex. > Whether Broadcom is involved or not is not your issue. Whether Broadcom > didn't provide Storex with the source code is NOT an excuse for Storex > to not fulfil the requirement of the GPL. > > Since there is BusyBox and Samba, contact the respective projects. > > Hub > > > Ok; and concerning linux ? linux is protected by the GPL, isn't it ? Aren't they supposed to provide me with the source code of the binary MIPS kernel that is running on their product ? From ice at attutta.com Wed Oct 29 16:24:36 2008 From: ice at attutta.com (ice) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:24:36 +0100 Subject: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual Message-ID: <49088034.2060503@attutta.com> I've uploaded it here: http://files.tiscali.it/pal.vi/My%20Files/emtec/ if the website asks for login use: username: [leave the username blank] password: any From ice at attutta.com Wed Oct 29 15:48:02 2008 From: ice at attutta.com (ice) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:48:02 +0100 Subject: Emtec Movie Cubes References: 1224534481.16160.25.camel@vaio Message-ID: <490877A2.8010407@attutta.com> I just bought an Emtec Movie Cube Q800 considering the printed documentation and the dvd sold with the device, there is no mention of linux or gpl unfortunatelly my provider ftp free space has a limit to 4mb for single file, and the manual is 19MB if you can suggest me some free service, I'll post it the cd also contains the windows and macOS drivers. All the directory is just 4MB, so I can zip and upload it too best regards hope it helps From mrintegrity at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 17:13:24 2008 From: mrintegrity at gmail.com (mr) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:13:24 +0100 Subject: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual In-Reply-To: <49088034.2060503@attutta.com> References: <49088034.2060503@attutta.com> Message-ID: <5dfaf390810290913o5bce4868u8e6c8f556073368d@mail.gmail.com> Just a thought, but the manual is probably copyright of the Emtec company and should not be distributed without permission. Please don't post such things to this list. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM, ice wrote: > I've uploaded it here: > http://files.tiscali.it/pal.vi/My%20Files/emtec/ > if the website asks for login use: > username: > [leave the username blank] > password: any > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081029/ec6f37e5/attachment.htm From ice at attutta.com Wed Oct 29 17:39:18 2008 From: ice at attutta.com (ice) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:39:18 +0100 Subject: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual In-Reply-To: <5dfaf390810290913o5bce4868u8e6c8f556073368d@mail.gmail.com> References: <49088034.2060503@attutta.com> <5dfaf390810290913o5bce4868u8e6c8f556073368d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490891B6.9090908@attutta.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081029/496c8f0f/attachment.htm From ice at attutta.com Wed Oct 29 17:54:44 2008 From: ice at attutta.com (ice) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:54:44 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual] Message-ID: <49089554.2090406@attutta.com> Knowing if the gpl license is properly mentioned somewhere in the documentation is needed to decide whether or not start a gpl violation issue the file is posted in a protected web page (user/password is needed) and this mailing list requires registration so They cannot tell the file is now public mr ha scritto: > Just a thought, but the manual is probably copyright of the Emtec > company and should not be distributed without permission. Please don't > post such things to this list. > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM, ice > wrote: > > I've uploaded it here: > http://files.tiscali.it/pal.vi/My%20Files/emtec/ > if the website asks for login use: > username: > [leave the username blank] > password: any > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date: 29/10/2008 7.45 > > From stefan_wuttke at arcor.de Wed Oct 29 18:45:08 2008 From: stefan_wuttke at arcor.de (stefan Wuttke) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:45:08 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual] In-Reply-To: <49089554.2090406@attutta.com> References: <49089554.2090406@attutta.com> Message-ID: <1225302309.14352.15.camel@vaio> Hi, is anyone interested to have a look inside the firmware from Emtec Q800, it looks like there is the same included as in the other devices. download the firmwarwe http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q800/firmware_release_337_for_V6.2.1262.zip extract the files. dd skip=2118153 bs=1 if=install.flash.img of=install.flash.img.sqhf unsquashfs -d install.flash.img.sqhf Stefan Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 17:54 +0100 schrieb ice: > Knowing if the gpl license is properly mentioned somewhere in the > documentation is needed to decide whether or not start a gpl violation issue > the file is posted in a protected web page (user/password is needed) > and this mailing list requires registration > so They cannot tell the file is now public > > mr ha scritto: > > Just a thought, but the manual is probably copyright of the Emtec > > company and should not be distributed without permission. Please don't > > post such things to this list. > > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM, ice > > wrote: > > > > I've uploaded it here: > > http://files.tiscali.it/pal.vi/My%20Files/emtec/ > > if the website asks for login use: > > username: > > [leave the username blank] > > password: any > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date: 29/10/2008 7.45 > > > > > From codewarrior at cuseeme.de Thu Oct 30 09:36:18 2008 From: codewarrior at cuseeme.de (cuseeme) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:36:18 +0100 Subject: Logitech acquired SightSpeed - possible GPL violation ? References: Message-ID: dear eperts, regarding to an article that i read in the news yesterday I would like to know, if an former GNU project is done with significant use of opensource resources > CU30-L couldn't have been written without the work done by the GNU Project. > While CU30-L used lots of tools developed by GNU, it relies heavily on the > Linux kernel for several of its interfaces. -- how much new code must have been wrapped around the "original " code to avoid a GPL violation ? Someone told me about 20 % ? --- > Update! - In 2002, the members of the CU30 project formed a company called SightSpeed for > commercialization of the technology. ---- > Remember to keep in mind that this method is patented. The two US patents that cover this are > 5,973,626 and 5,740,278. ---- if a project insist on such a lot of GNU code , how can it be violate any ? http://www.cs.cornell.edu/boom/2001sp/rosenberg/ thanks for any enlightening -- "Imagination is more important than Knowledge". Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment blog : http://www.let.de http://twitter.com/macbroadcast -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20081030/8204b005/attachment.htm From twaffle at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 12:56:26 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:56:26 -0400 Subject: Logitech acquired SightSpeed - possible GPL violation ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810300456i62d576bfjc1985ec0eddaf882@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:36 AM, cuseeme wrote: > dear eperts, > > regarding to an article that i read in the news yesterday > > > I would like to know, if an former GNU project is done with significant use > of opensource resources Your question makes absolutely no sense at all. 'is done'? Do you mean you'd like to know if the CU30 project was written under Linux using gcc and many other open source tools? >> CU30-L couldn't have been written without the work done by the GNU >> Project. >> While CU30-L used lots of tools developed by GNU, it relies heavily on >> the >> Linux kernel for several of its interfaces. > how much new code must have been wrapped around the "original " code to > avoid a GPL violation ? > Someone told me about 20 % ? .... Your quote is totally out of context. You're inferring they are wrapping something. There is nothing being wrapped here. They are using a GPLed OS, compiling and debugging with GCC, and utilizing other open open source applications and utilities. Within this environment, they are then writing a proprietary application. >> Update! - In 2002, the members of the CU30 project formed a company >> called SightSpeed for >> commercialization of the technology. >> Remember to keep in mind that this method is patented. The two US patents >> that cover this are >> 5,973,626 and 5,740,278. > if a project insist on such a lot of GNU code , how can it be violate any > ? > http://www.cs.cornell.edu/boom/2001sp/rosenberg/ > thanks for any enlightening The GPL v2 had issues with patents. v3 resolved these issues. In my opinion, patents are 'playing dirty' if implemented using GPL software. However, this is not a point. There isn't any GPL software embedded in the software. There IS an LGPL library being linked in, and they are conforming to the license in that regard. Considering your email address infers you are possibly a competitor, I would HIGHLY recommend that you do a little more research before posting a message like this on a public GPL list. -- -- Thomas From c.schoeller at i5invest.com Thu Oct 30 13:13:56 2008 From: c.schoeller at i5invest.com (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?da_sch=F6lla?=) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:13:56 +0100 Subject: tevion multimedia network hdd500gb/chiligreen mr1/emtec movie cubes Message-ID: <4909A504.7090803@i5invest.com> hi, two weeks ago i bought a "tevion multimedia network hdd 500gb" at "hofer "a discount chain in austria. "tevion" is a trademark of "gericom ag" and the network hdd is the same as the box sold by "chilligreen" as "media recorder" and its basically the same (other case) as the "emtec moviecube r100". and there are some other clones too. as a matter of facts one can access it by telnet and there one gets "BusyBox v1.1.3 (2008.03.14-01:17+0000) Built-in shell (ash)" i also checked the documentation (the printed and the pdf version on the cd) there is no hint for gpl software. i also mailed to the support asking for advice both because the installed firmware did not provide all the functions explained by the documentation and where one can get the source code of the firmware. the first issue was addressed in their answer by providing a link to a sw update. the license issue is still unanswered. "aldi" the german branch of the retai chain already violated the gpl by selling a notbook from "medion" with a preinstalled mini linux (http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050430-medion-aldi-notebook.html) lg christoph ps: i also checked the online version of the chiligreen doku for the "MR1" there is also no hint of gpl. From ice at attutta.com Thu Oct 30 15:59:21 2008 From: ice at attutta.com (ice) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:59:21 +0100 Subject: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual In-Reply-To: <4909B94C.4080907@attutta.com> References: <49088034.2060503@attutta.com> <5dfaf390810290913o5bce4868u8e6c8f556073368d@mail.gmail.com> <490891B6.9090908@attutta.com> <1225300628.14352.14.camel@vaio> <4909B94C.4080907@attutta.com> Message-ID: <4909CBC9.9080908@attutta.com> @ stefan Wuttke do you think it would be possible to modify the extracted filesystem and somehow manually install/copy it back on the Q800, getting rid of this awfull squashfs? ice ha scritto: > do you think it would be possible to modify the extracted firmware and > somehow manually install/copy it back on the Q800, getting rid of this > awfull squashfs? > > stefan Wuttke ha scritto: >> Hi, >> >> is anyone interested to have a look inside the firmware from Emtec Q800, >> it looks like there is the same included as in the other devices. >> >> >> download the firmwarwe >> http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q800/firmware_release_337_for_V6.2.1262.zip >> >> extract the files. >> >> dd skip=2118153 bs=1 if=install.flash.img of=install.flash.img.sqhf >> >> unsquashfs -d install.flash.img.sqhf >> >> Stefan >> >> Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 17:39 +0100 schrieb ice: >> >>> Knowing if the gpl license is properly mentioned somewhere in the >>> documentation is needed to decide whether or not start a gpl violation >>> issue >>> the file is posted in a protected web page (user/password is needed) >>> and this mailing list requires registration >>> so They cannot tell the file is now public >>> >>> mr ha scritto: >>> >>>> Just a thought, but the manual is probably copyright of the Emtec >>>> company and should not be distributed without permission. Please >>>> don't post such things to this list. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM, ice wrote: >>>> I've uploaded it here: >>>> http://files.tiscali.it/pal.vi/My%20Files/emtec/ >>>> if the website asks for login use: >>>> username: >>>> [leave the username blank] >>>> password: any >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date: 29/10/2008 7.45 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date: 29/10/2008 7.45 >>>> >>>> From codewarrior at cuseeme.de Fri Oct 31 15:48:53 2008 From: codewarrior at cuseeme.de (cuseeme) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:48:53 +0100 Subject: Logitech acquired SightSpeed - possible GPL violation ? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80810300456i62d576bfjc1985ec0eddaf882@mail.gmail.com> References: <30dfe2a80810300456i62d576bfjc1985ec0eddaf882@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 30.10.2008 um 12:56 schrieb Thomas Charron: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:36 AM, cuseeme > wrote: >> dear eperts, >> >> regarding to an article that i read in the news yesterday >> > > >> >> I would like to know, if an former GNU project is done with >> significant use >> of opensource resources > > Your question makes absolutely no sense at all. hi Thomas, thanks for your reply > Do you mean you'd like to know if the CU30 project was written > under Linux > using gcc and many other open source tools? i talked about a simple mechanisms whitch are providet from such opensource tools , yes >>> While CU30-L used lots of tools developed by GNU, it relies >>> heavily on >>> the Linux kernel for several of its interfaces. for example: Grab -> Calc Difference Frame -> Rate Control -> Quantize -> Huffman code -> network > Considering your email address infers you are possibly a competitor, > I would HIGHLY recommend that you do a little more research before > posting a message like this on a public GPL list. well lets say, i would not pay 30 billion for this peace of cake, thats for sure;) But "competitor" is not the right word , lets say "cultivator" i am collecting resources and build something new and open out of it. ;) regards Marc -- openCU http://cuseeme.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cuseeme/reflector/ QuickCam Third-Party linux Drivers http://www.crynwr.com/qcpc/ From twaffle at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 16:55:02 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:55:02 -0400 Subject: Logitech acquired SightSpeed - possible GPL violation ? In-Reply-To: References: <30dfe2a80810300456i62d576bfjc1985ec0eddaf882@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810310855r5c02b962x5e03c67570008b3c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:48 AM, cuseeme wrote: > Am 30.10.2008 um 12:56 schrieb Thomas Charron: >> Do you mean you'd like to know if the CU30 project was written under >> Linux >> using gcc and many other open source tools? > i talked about a simple mechanisms whitch are providet from such opensource > tools , yes Well, the tools they have utilized are pretty much available with any standard distribution of Linux, and having libffmpeg installed. >>>> While CU30-L used lots of tools developed by GNU, it relies heavily on >>>> the Linux kernel for several of its interfaces. > for example: > Grab -> Calc Difference Frame -> Rate Control -> Quantize -> Huffman code -> > network Probrably not. Huffman encoding is a generally available algorithm, so I'm assuming sections of that are not implemented using GPL code. However, it may be exposing configurations which are used by libffmpeg. >> Considering your email address infers you are possibly a competitor, >> I would HIGHLY recommend that you do a little more research before >> posting a message like this on a public GPL list. > well lets say, i would not pay 30 billion for this peace of cake, thats for > sure;) > But "competitor" is not the right word , lets say "cultivator" > i am collecting resources and build something new and open out of it. ;) Well, based on what they are distributing, I'd say the only thing you can cull out of it would be ffmpeg, which is available anyway. -- -- Thomas From twaffle at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 17:07:56 2008 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: Logitech acquired SightSpeed - possible GPL violation ? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80810310855r5c02b962x5e03c67570008b3c@mail.gmail.com> References: <30dfe2a80810300456i62d576bfjc1985ec0eddaf882@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80810310855r5c02b962x5e03c67570008b3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80810310907n43eb3235mfcbeb629ad78a929@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Charron wrote: > Well, based on what they are distributing, I'd say the only thing > you can cull out of it would be ffmpeg, which is available anyway. I stand corrected, one of their products is also using libsdl. -- -- Thomas