From ole at tange.dk Sun Mar 1 02:58:43 2009 From: ole at tange.dk (Ole Tange) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 02:58:43 +0100 Subject: Templates for letters to vendors In-Reply-To: <49A9913C.2000303@mauve.plus.com> References: <49A9913C.2000303@mauve.plus.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Ian Stirling wrote: > Ole Tange wrote: >> >> I have a feeling we could get more volunteers to act if we gave them >> tools to do so. >> >> One thing that could help is templates for letters. I see at least 2 >> types: >> > >> Here are my draft for hardware. Please help improving it. >> >> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw > > Neglecting reading the docs :) > > A customised version of the letters, referring to the law in the country in > question may be an idea. I would expect it would hardly be necessary for two reasons: * The basic copyright is the same in all countries (You cannot copy without permission) * The vendor, that you are emailing, may be in a different country and may not understand the language in which the law is written. The intention of the letter is to give a tool to the many GPL-violation spotters, who are not the authors of the software in question. The goal of the letters should be to get the vendor to comply. I have included the hardware version and software version below. /Ole http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw To: <> Copyright department Regarding: Possible copyright infringement I have bought <> (hereafter THE DEVICE) at <> on <>. THE DEVICE seems to include <> (hereafter THE SOFTWARE). If that is not the case, I hope you will kindly let me know. To distribute THE SOFTWARE you must have obtained the right to distribute THE SOFTWARE. If you have not obtained this right, then you are infringing the copyright of the authors of THE SOFTWARE (hereafter THE AUTHORS). You may have obtained the right directly from THE AUTHORS, in which case I hope you will kindly let me know. THE SOFTWARE is licensed under the GNU General Public License (hereafter GPL). If you want to distribute software licensed under the GPL, you will have to accept the GPL. If you do not accept the GPL then the GPL does not give you the right to distribute THE SOFTWARE. The GPL requires you to: * Include a copy of the GPL (Section 4: "...give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.") * Clearly state what software is covered by the GPL * Include the complete source code to THE SOFTWARE (including script to compile THE SOFTWARE) in the version it is running on THE DEVICE (hereafter THE SOURCE CODE) or a written offer to get it valid for 3 years (a link to a website is not enough) (Section 6: Conveying Non-Source Forms.) I have be unable to find that you have included a copy of the GPL and unable to find THE SOURCE CODE or an offer to get it. It therefore looks as if you are infringing on THE AUTHORS' copyright. To understand the seriousness of this matter, you may want to familiarize yourself with the injunction that Sitecom got, stopping them from selling their device[1], and the Free Software Foundation's case against Cisco[2]. If I have your answer within 14 days, I will not contact THE AUTHORS about this possible infringement of their copyright. Regards, <> [1] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20040519-iptables-sitecom.html [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-cisco-complaint - o - http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_125hsnv86hf&invite=hff58s9 To: <> Copyright department Regarding: Possible copyright infringement I have downloaded <> (hereafter THE FILE) from your website at <> on <>. THE FILE seems to include <> (hereafter THE SOFTWARE). If that is not the case, I hope you will kindly let me know. To distribute THE SOFTWARE you must have obtained the right to distribute THE SOFTWARE. If you have not obtained this right, then you are infringing the copyright of the authors of THE SOFTWARE (hereafter THE AUTHORS). You may have obtained the right directly from THE AUTHORS, in which case I hope you will kindly let me know. THE SOFTWARE is licensed under the GNU General Public License (hereafter GPL). If you want to distribute software licensed under the GPL, you will have to accept the GPL. If you do not accept the GPL then the GPL does not give you the right to distribute THE SOFTWARE. The GPL requires you to: * Include a copy of the GPL (Section 4: "...give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.") * Clearly state what software is covered by the GPL * Include the complete source code to THE SOFTWARE (including script to compile THE SOFTWARE) in the version it is running on THE DEVICE (hereafter THE SOURCE CODE) or a written offer to get it valid for 3 years (a link to a website is not enough) (Section 6: Conveying Non-Source Forms.) I have be unable to find that you have included a copy of the GPL and unable to find THE SOURCE CODE or an offer to get it. It therefore looks as if you are infringing on THE AUTHORS' copyright. To understand the seriousness of this matter, you may want to familiarize yourself with the injunction that Sitecom got, stopping them from selling their device[1], and the Free Software Foundation's case against Cisco[2]. If I have your answer within 14 days, I will not contact THE AUTHORS about this possible infringement of their copyright. Regards, <> [1] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20040519-iptables-sitecom.html [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-cisco-complaint From ole at tange.dk Sun Mar 1 11:55:19 2009 From: ole at tange.dk (Ole Tange) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:55:19 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: EMTEC movie cube q800 manual] In-Reply-To: <1225302309.14352.15.camel@vaio> References: <49089554.2090406@attutta.com> <1225302309.14352.15.camel@vaio> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:45 PM, stefan Wuttke wrote: > 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. You may be interested that I have just sent the following. /Ole To: Dexxon It seems Dexxon is distributing devices for EMTEC. I have been unable to find a contact email address for EMTEC, so I trust you will forward this to EMTEC. Regards, Ole Tange To: EMTEC Interational Copyright/Legal department Regarding: Possible copyright infringement I have downloaded http://www.emtec-international.com/drivers/Q800/firmware_release_519_for_V6.1.1262.zip (hereafter THE FILE) from your website at http://www.emtec-international.com/en/driver.php?categorie=STMOB&gamme=DISQUES DURS&ss_gamme=Q800 on 2009-MAR-01. THE FILE seems to include: bash /bin/sh busybox /bin/busybox coreutils /usr/sbin/chroot /usr/bin/basename /usr/bin/head /usr/bin/tail /usr/bin/sort /usr/bin/dirname /usr/bin/tee /usr/bin/wc /usr/bin/id /usr/bin/tr /usr/bin/expr /usr/bin/printf /usr/bin/cut /usr/bin/du /usr/bin/yes /usr/bin/test /bin/false /bin/date /bin/ls /bin/mkdir /bin/ln /bin/chmod /bin/touch /bin/chown /bin/true /bin/cat /bin/sleep /bin/sync /bin/rm /bin/cp /bin/df /bin/stty /bin/dd /bin/uname /bin/echo /bin/rmdir /bin/mknod /bin/pwd /bin/mv eject /usr/bin/eject findutils /usr/bin/find gdb /usr/bin/gdbserver grep /bin/egrep /bin/fgrep /bin/grep hostname /bin/hostname iputils-ping /bin/ping klogd /sbin/klogd login /bin/login lzma /usr/bin/unlzma module-init-tools /sbin/rmmod /sbin/insmod /sbin/modprobe /sbin/lsmod mount /sbin/swapoff mount, loop-aes-utils /sbin/swapon /sbin/losetup /bin/umount /bin/mount net-tools /sbin/ifconfig /sbin/route /bin/netstat passwd /usr/bin/passwd procps /usr/bin/vmstat /usr/bin/free /usr/bin/top /usr/bin/uptime /bin/ps /bin/kill psmisc /usr/bin/killall samba /usr/sbin/nmbd /usr/sbin/smbd sed /bin/sed sysklogd /sbin/syslogd sysv-rc /etc/init.d/rcS sysvinit /sbin/reboot /sbin/halt /sbin/poweroff /sbin/init sysvinit-utils /bin/pidof tar /bin/tar time /usr/bin/time util-linux /sbin/mkswap /sbin/fdisk /sbin/hwclock /sbin/pivot_root /usr/bin/ipcrm /usr/bin/ipcs /bin/dmesg /bin/more wget /usr/bin/wget (hereafter THE SOFTWARE). If that is not the case, I hope you will kindly let me know. To distribute THE SOFTWARE you must have obtained the right to distribute THE SOFTWARE. If you have not obtained this right, then you are infringing the copyright of the authors of THE SOFTWARE (hereafter THE AUTHORS). You may have obtained the right directly from THE AUTHORS, in which case I hope you will kindly let me know. THE SOFTWARE is licensed under the GNU General Public License (hereafter GPL). If you want to distribute software licensed under the GPL, you will have to accept the GPL. If you do not accept the GPL then the GPL does not give you the right to distribute THE SOFTWARE. The GPL requires you to: * Include a copy of the GPL (Section 4: "...give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.") * Clearly state what software is covered by the GPL * Include the complete source code to THE SOFTWARE (including scripts to compile THE SOFTWARE) in the exact version it is distributed in THE FILE (hereafter THE SOURCE CODE) or a written offer to get it valid for 3 years (a link to a website is not enough) (Section 6: Conveying Non-Source Forms.) I have be unable to find that you have included a copy of the GPL and unable to find THE SOURCE CODE or an offer to get it. It therefore looks as if you are infringing on THE AUTHORS' copyright. If you believe you are currently infringing the copyright you should rectify this problem immediately. This is to avoid damages in a potential lawsuit: Continued willful infringement is usually punished harder than accidental first time infringement. To rectify the problem you should: * Mentions THE SOFTWARE is under GPL every time you have a copyright notice (e.g. in your manual or if your program has a Help>About menu) * Include a copy of the GPL so it is easily found when looking for the copyright notice. * Include THE SOURCE CODE on a medium if you are distributing THE SOFTWARE on a medium or in hardware. Remember to include all the scripts that are necessary to compile THE SOFTWARE in exactly the distributed version. * Include a link to THE SOURCE CODE if you are distributing THE SOFTWARE via world wide web. Remember to include all the scripts that are necessary to compile THE SOFTWARE in exactly the distributed version. To understand the seriousness of this matter, you may want to familiarize yourself with the injunction that Sitecom got, stopping them from selling their device[1], the Free Software Foundation's case against Cisco[2], or some of the other cases[3]. If I have your answer within 14 days, I will not contact THE AUTHORS about this possible infringement of their copyright. Regards, Ole Tange [1] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20040519-iptables-sitecom.html [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-cisco-complaint [3] http://gpl-violations.org From west at fsfeurope.org Mon Mar 2 01:07:44 2009 From: west at fsfeurope.org (Graeme West) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:07:44 +0100 Subject: Templates for letters to vendors In-Reply-To: References: <49A9913C.2000303@mauve.plus.com> Message-ID: <200903020107.51325.west@fsfeurope.org> Dear Ole, Ian and all, On Sunday 01 March 2009 02:58:43 Ole Tange wrote: > >> Here are my draft for hardware. Please help improving it. > >> > >> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw ... > The intention of the letter is to give a tool to the many > GPL-violation spotters, who are not the authors of the software in > question. The goal of the letters should be to get the vendor to > comply. While I think the general idea of giving people the tools to contact vendors about incompliant behaviour is a good thing - and I applaud your efforts - I have to say that some sections of the suggested letter exhibit a tone, and contain content, which is not very helpful. Because of this, in its present form, it will have the effect of hindering rather than helping the achievement of license compliance. This is for two reasons. 1. It looks (and some of it reads) like a cease-and-desist or other legal demand, and for this reason may have unintended consequences for both you and the vendor. 2. It contains threatening language in some sections. Let me explain. 1. In most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, only copyright holders may send a cease and desist, and they should only do so in consultation with a qualified lawyer. This looks like a cease and desist, and so we shouldn't be encouraging people to use it as a template. This passage: >If I have your answer within 14 days, I will not contact THE AUTHORS >about this possible infringement of their copyright. ...is a problem. It's a threat. If you send a letter like this, the vendor will send it straight to their legal counsel, and you'll find yourself negotiating with a lawyer rather than helping the company understand compliance. It's also pretty meaningless. If they get back to you within fourteen days with a letter from their legal counsel, as a non-copyright holder, your options are very limited. You can't enforce other people's rights. >This is to avoid damages in a >potential lawsuit: Continued willful infringement is usually punished >harder than accidental first time infringement. This sounds like a statement of law ('wilful infringement'), which: ? a) may not apply, given jurisdictional differences ? b) the reporter is probably not qualified to make ? c) is not constructive in explaining how to achieve compliance. Again, tone is important. 2. >To understand the seriousness of this matter, you may want to >familiarize yourself with the injunction that Sitecom got, stopping >them from selling their device[1], the Free Software Foundation's >case against Cisco[2], or some of the other cases[3]. This section is entirely unnecessary and it also continues the aggressive tone which will only result in the vendor becoming defensive. > > A customised version of the letters, referring to the law in the country > > in question may be an idea. Again, you should not make any statement that sounds like interpretation of law. I would suggest you take a look at this document: FTF: Reporting and fixing license violations http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/reporting-fixing-violations.en.html The important thing to take from that document is that it recommends that you convey the facts to the vendor as you see them, and why you believe a violation may exist. You can only - and should only - ask for a response, not threaten consequences. The FTF reporting violations guide does not, for very good reason, suggest explaining copyright law to vendors or suggest that they might end up served with a lawsuit like Cisco. Many compliance issues are caused by misunderstandings and honest mis-interpretations of the licenses. Even when this is not the case and deliberate infringement has occurred, threats will get you precisely nowhere. I would suggest that whole second half of the document should be deleted. In fact, the first paragraph: >I have bought <> (hereafter THE DEVICE) at <> on ><>. THE DEVICE seems to include <> >(hereafter THE SOFTWARE). If that is not the case, I hope you will >kindly let me know. contain most the information a reporter should be conveying to a vendor. In other words, the letter should say: "I bought product X from vendor Y. Product X appears to contain a copy of Project Y. Project Y is available from [site] and is distributed under [license], which requires [basic outline of potentially breached requirement]. This requirement does not appear to have been fulfilled in the case of Product X. I would be grateful if you could clarify whether Product X is in compliance with Project Y's license terms. In the event that this is not the case, I would welcome steps toward resolution of this matter. Regards, John Doe" Because the only purpose of this type of communication is to communicate the facts of the case as you see them, it might be that a template is unnecessary. If in doubt regarding a specific case, please contact us at FSFE's Freedom Task Force: ftf at fsfeurope.org Also, before reporting anything to a vendor, you should probably also contact the project concerned to see if they are already aware of the potential violation. Regards, Graeme West -- Graeme West Intern, Z?rich office Freedom Task Force Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) ? (http://fsfeurope.org) Join the Fellowship of FSFE! ? (http://fsfe.org/join) Your donation powers our work! ? (http://fsfeurope.org/donate) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 315 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090302/3f70b2e8/attachment.pgp From the_Arioch at nm.ru Fri Mar 6 02:44:26 2009 From: the_Arioch at nm.ru (Arioch) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:44:26 +0300 Subject: Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute In-Reply-To: <20081231115820.GB2453@debut.europalab.com> References: <20081229164259.GA16298@debut.europalab.com> <495A9882.7040904@gatech.edu> <20081231115820.GB2453@debut.europalab.com> Message-ID: ? ?????? ?? Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:58:20 +0300, Stephan ???????: > I'm smarter now and will be careful to always base future software > on at least one GPL library to force GPL conveyance. As far as i understand, that does not give you what you want. Even if youd try fraud like developing critical libs in free time as a lone rider, them publishing uner GPl, then downloading from work in work hours as a worker. It is rather a blocker stone. Follow me and try to catch the flaw (btw, i think GPL2 ann GPL3 may be a bit different in what situation belongs to each cass): 1) you use the Lib, copyight on which belongs to Bob and he gave it to You under GPL 2) as an employee, You right the program Pro to the Company 3) You heavily modify the Lib and then use it in the Pro. 3.1) By modifying the Lib, You created the "derivative work", and the Pro would be treated as such 3.2) Would you use the Lib unchanged, GPL would have no any effect on the Pro, since the package Pro+Lib would not go as single atom, but tather than "mere aggregation" and only the Lib must go onward under GPL 4) You quit the company 5) You, now as a by-stander, request the sources ...on what grouns? a) Did you received the copy of the Pro as a by-stander from the company ? - no. Since the Company did not distributed/conveyed anything to You, it is in no way bound by GPL wrt You. It did not gave You the Pro as binary, it has no reason to give You it as sources. b) However, would the company ever want to distribute/convey the Pro to someone Pete (it migh be You even, or anyone else), then the Companny would be bound by GPL wrt Pete. And the Pete would have the right to request sources and request them covered by GPL. b.1) The company might agree on that, to protect it's right to distribute the Program. Happy bells ringing. At that time Pete has full GPL program and in turn might decide (or might not - it's his choice) to distribute the Program to You under GPl. b.2) The company might deny source request. Only at this moment GPL comes into game. Only at this momen it becomes active. The facts of distribution+source denial tgether (and only together) makes a GPL violation, the company looses all grants to the Lib and the Pro becomes a pirated soft. The company has no more rights to distribute it to nowhere. b.2.1) In theory, the Company also lost any ights to use it in within. In practive, by simply downloading new copy of Lib and recompilig the Pro they again re-obtains all the GPL rights. c) But if the Company had no intention to distribute it to anyone and is happy enough just to use it close within, or just delete it, then it (in effect) is not bound by GPL. -- ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ???????? Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From ole at tange.dk Sun Mar 8 07:29:48 2009 From: ole at tange.dk (Ole Tange) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 07:29:48 +0100 Subject: Templates for letters to vendors In-Reply-To: <200903020107.51325.west@fsfeurope.org> References: <49A9913C.2000303@mauve.plus.com> <200903020107.51325.west@fsfeurope.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Graeme West wrote: > Dear Ole, Ian and all, > > On Sunday 01 March 2009 02:58:43 Ole Tange wrote: >> >> Here are my draft for hardware. Please help improving it. >> >> >> >> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw > > ... > While I think the general idea of giving people the tools to contact vendors > about incompliant behaviour is a good thing - and I applaud your efforts - I > have to say that some sections of the suggested letter exhibit a tone, and > contain content, which is not very helpful. Because of this, in its present > form, it will have the effect of hindering rather than helping the achievement > of license compliance. > > This is for two reasons. > 1. It looks (and some of it reads) like a cease-and-desist or other legal > demand, and for this reason may have unintended consequences for both you and > the vendor. > 2. It contains threatening language in some sections. > > > Let me explain. > > 1. > In most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, only copyright holders may send a > cease and desist, and they should only do so in consultation with a qualified > lawyer. This looks like a cease and desist, and so we shouldn't be > encouraging people to use it as a template. > > This passage: >>If I have your answer within 14 days, I will not contact THE AUTHORS >>about this possible infringement of their copyright. > ...is a problem. It's a threat. If you send a letter like this, the vendor > will send it straight to their legal counsel, and you'll find yourself > negotiating with a lawyer rather than helping the company understand > compliance. If you read http://www.gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html you will see, that gpl-violations.org tried using email and faxes, and that these in almost all cases were ignored. Personally I would prefer dealing with the legal department than with the first line support; primarily because the legal department usually has the power to raise the issue with management - where as first line support may not even understand the issue and refuse me getting through to second line support. Also I would much rather teach compliance to the legal department than first line support. > It's also pretty meaningless. If they get back to you within fourteen days > with a letter from their legal counsel, as a non-copyright holder, your > options are very limited. You can't enforce other people's rights. The idea is to let them know that ignoring the request will not make it go away, but will instead escalate it. But I do see you have a valid point. No need to confuse the matter more than necessary. >>This is to avoid damages in a >>potential lawsuit: Continued willful infringement is usually punished >>harder than accidental first time infringement. > This sounds like a statement of law ('wilful infringement'), which: > ? a) may not apply, given jurisdictional differences > ? b) the reporter is probably not qualified to make > ? c) is not constructive in explaining how to achieve compliance. Again, tone > is important. I have re-toned the letter. Help making the tone even better. > In other words, the letter should say: > > "I bought product X from vendor Y. Product X appears to contain a copy of > Project Y. Project Y is available from [site] and is distributed under > [license], which requires [basic outline of potentially breached requirement]. > This requirement does not appear to have been fulfilled in the case of Product > X. > > I would be grateful if you could clarify whether Product X is in compliance > with Project Y's license terms. In the event that this is not the case, I > would welcome steps toward resolution of this matter. > > Regards, > John Doe" Can you let us know what your next step will be, when you get either no reply or a canned reply from first line support (who barely knows where to download the drivers for the company's product - and knows absolutely nothing about copyright)? > Because the only purpose of this type of communication is to communicate the > facts of the case as you see them, it might be that a template is unnecessary. I believe you are wrong here. I do not think people who do not regularly report GPL violations would do so without being somewhat pissed off. I believe there is a real risk that these people will rather send a flame-mail than send a polite request. Therefore it may be productive to give these people a template that avoids the flame mail. To me the goal is to make a template that makes it easier for the non-compliant companies to become compliant, but the burden should be put on the companies - neither on the reporter nor on the GPL'ed projects in question. > Also, before reporting anything to a vendor, you should probably also contact > the project concerned to see if they are already aware of the potential > violation. This would put burden on the GPL'ed project. To me that would be counter productive. One of the reasons is that the company may be almost compliant. One of the reasons could be that the source code is available, but just very hard to find. I do not see any reason to burden the copyright holder before it is clear, that the company is non-compliant and has no intention of doing anything about it. /Ole http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_125hsnv86hf&invite=hff58s9 http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df65rjng_124czmbptgp&invite=g2tnvfw From arnt at c2i.net Mon Mar 9 04:57:09 2009 From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:57:09 +0100 Subject: Templates for letters to vendors In-Reply-To: References: <49A9913C.2000303@mauve.plus.com> <200903020107.51325.west@fsfeurope.org> Message-ID: <20090309045709.368da732@a45.fmb.no> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 07:29:48 +0100, Ole wrote in message : > I believe you are wrong here. I do not think people who do not > regularly report GPL violations would do so without being somewhat > pissed off. I believe there is a real risk that these people will > rather send a flame-mail than send a polite request. Therefore it may > be productive to give these people a template that avoids the flame > mail. ..we should consider maintaining a flame template, to make sure our flames remain useful _to_us_, in litigation. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. From ninuxpdb at gmail.com Tue Mar 24 14:07:35 2009 From: ninuxpdb at gmail.com (paolo del bene) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:07:35 +0100 Subject: Templates for letters to vendors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7dc12d290903240607q3216fa07p7585d9b4173b4d30@mail.gmail.com> i invite to read http://translate.google.it/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagazine.liquida.it%2F2009%2F03%2F18%2Fmicrosoft-accusa-tomtom-di-violazione-di-brevetti%2F&sl=it&tl=en&hl=it&ie=UTF-8 Happy Hacking Paolo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090324/74accca1/attachment.htm