I dont know if this has been brought up but, a company called sveasoft is
blatently violating the GPL by not releasing any code:
case in point:
' Talisman activation will be very simple. Just enter your Sveasoft account
password once and it will pop up working. This even survives a full reset.
This is a bummer but we have a group of folks that are not satisfied with our
public, no-cost firmware and want to end this project so we need to adapt in
order to survive and continue our work. I've tried to make this as simple and
unobtrusive as possible. '
Its time for the GPL authors Linux kernel, busybox and others to notify this
'company' that they are violating the GPL. You cannot revoke existing GPL
code with a different license.
If Linksys had to release the code Sveasoft must follow suit.
Shawn.
Shawn Starr wrote:
> I dont know if this has been brought up but, a company called sveasoft is
> blatently violating the GPL by not releasing any code:
>
> case in point:
>
> ' Talisman activation will be very simple. Just enter your Sveasoft account
> password once and it will pop up working. This even survives a full reset.
>
> This is a bummer but we have a group of folks that are not satisfied with our
> public, no-cost firmware and want to end this project so we need to adapt in
> order to survive and continue our work. I've tried to make this as simple and
> unobtrusive as possible. '
>
> Its time for the GPL authors Linux kernel, busybox and others to notify this
> 'company' that they are violating the GPL. You cannot revoke existing GPL
> code with a different license.
>
> If Linksys had to release the code Sveasoft must follow suit.
>
> Shawn.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hello,
I think you are wrong, just check this page :
http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3033
My 2 cents,
Rapha?l Rigo
That may have been the past, but if they dont distribute the source any more
they are in violation.
Shawn.
On November 7, 2004 14:33, Rapha?l Rigo LKML wrote:
> Shawn Starr wrote:
> > I dont know if this has been brought up but, a company called sveasoft is
> > blatently violating the GPL by not releasing any code:
> >
> > case in point:
> >
> > ' Talisman activation will be very simple. Just enter your Sveasoft
> > account password once and it will pop up working. This even survives a
> > full reset.
> >
> > This is a bummer but we have a group of folks that are not satisfied
> > with our public, no-cost firmware and want to end this project so we need
> > to adapt in order to survive and continue our work. I've tried to make
> > this as simple and unobtrusive as possible. '
> >
> > Its time for the GPL authors Linux kernel, busybox and others to notify
> > this 'company' that they are violating the GPL. You cannot revoke
> > existing GPL code with a different license.
> >
> > If Linksys had to release the code Sveasoft must follow suit.
> >
> > Shawn.
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> > in the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> Hello,
> I think you are wrong, just check this page :
> http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3033
>
> My 2 cents,
> Rapha?l Rigo
On 07.11.2004, at 20:38, Shawn Starr wrote:
> That may have been the past, but if they dont distribute the source
> any more
> they are in violation.
There was a lengthy discussion some weeks ago about exactly this.
Sveasoft has expressed that they think they're in the clear
because they're shipping the sourcecode to older versions of
their distribution and their current version is nothing more
than their old distribution plus some additional proprietary
code.
I still believe that this is both incorrect and also impolite
but we'll only know for sure if someone tries to enforce the GPL
in this case.
Servus,
Daniel
> That may have been the past, but if they dont distribute the
> source any more
> they are in violation.
>
> Shawn.
Hmm, so could I condition distribution of my modified version of the Linux
kernel on signing a contract agreeing to buy a pencil from me for $25,000 if
you ever distribute the source code?
The GPL says:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
As I read this, any penalty you impose on people for exercising their
rights under the GPL would be a "further restriction".
For those not familiar, sveasoft revokes your license to receive further
updates if you exercise your distribution rights under the GPL. I would
argue that conditioning the sale of a GPL'd work on a failure to exercise
your rights under the GPL is a "further restriction".
Any penalty of any kind that you impose on someone for exercising their
rights under the GPL acts to restrict them from exercising those rights. "If
you do X, you lose Y" is a restriction on X.
> Sveasoft has expressed that they think they're in the clear
> because they're shipping the sourcecode to older versions of
> their distribution and their current version is nothing more
> than their old distribution plus some additional proprietary
> code.
This would be perfectly okay provided the source code to the older version
is identical to the source code in the newer version for all the works based
on works that are GPL'd. So long as you can draw a line between the old code
and the new code, then this is acceptable. However, if there are changes to
GPL'd source code files, then those changes need to be given to anyone who
receives binaries from those source code files. In that case, no line can be
drawn.
DS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
| This would be perfectly okay provided the source code to the older
version
| is identical to the source code in the newer version for all the works
based
| on works that are GPL'd. So long as you can draw a line between the
old code
| and the new code, then this is acceptable. However, if there are
changes to
| GPL'd source code files, then those changes need to be given to anyone who
| receives binaries from those source code files. In that case, no line
can be
| drawn.
if that's the case, isn't it necessary to distribute the proprietary
parts separately (or vice-versa)? else those proprietary parts would
also be under the GPL.
regards,
- --
Pedro Jo?o Lopes Venda
email: [email protected]
http://maxwell.rnl.ist.utl.pt
Equipa de Administra??o de Sistemas
Rede das Novas Licenciaturas (RNL)
Instituto Superior T?cnico
http://www.rnl.ist.utl.pt
http://mega.ist.utl.pt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBj4kNeRy7HWZxjWERArx+AJsFabPTBa0edYkg16dHJv/C6bQ4TACfSXgs
rnvtaG4Glz3Rli+iLXgQ+wk=
=Upuk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 01:14, David Schwartz wrote:
> For those not familiar, sveasoft revokes your license to receive further
> updates if you exercise your distribution rights under the GPL. I would
> argue that conditioning the sale of a GPL'd work on a failure to exercise
> your rights under the GPL is a "further restriction".
I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right"
to updates from me. You are arguing about a right that never existed and
for good reason. Do you think that if Linus personally emails you a
snapshot you somehow acquire the right to demand newer updates from him
? or how about "I bought Red Hat 1.1 so you must send me 9.0". Both
strike me as a little ridiculous and certainly not GPL granted rights.
As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the GPL
code they gave you binaries for (or other variant options in the
license). They end there. I don't have to give your friend a copy, I
don't have to give you updates.
Alan
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 01:14, David Schwartz wrote:
> > For those not familiar, sveasoft revokes your license to receive further
> > updates if you exercise your distribution rights under the GPL. I would
> > argue that conditioning the sale of a GPL'd work on a failure to exercise
> > your rights under the GPL is a "further restriction".
Did you have to pay first to receive updates later? I.e. you buy the device,
and will receive future updates for free (no money)?
> I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right"
> to updates from me. You are arguing about a right that never existed and
> for good reason. Do you think that if Linus personally emails you a
> snapshot you somehow acquire the right to demand newer updates from him
> ? or how about "I bought Red Hat 1.1 so you must send me 9.0". Both
> strike me as a little ridiculous and certainly not GPL granted rights.
>
> As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the GPL
> code they gave you binaries for (or other variant options in the
> license). They end there. I don't have to give your friend a copy, I
> don't have to give you updates.
That's true: you don't have an automatic right to receive updates for free.
But revoking a (paid) license if you do something that's explicitly allowed by
the license of (part of) the supplied software sounds a bit fishy to me...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert (IANAL)
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
> On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 01:14, David Schwartz wrote:
> > For those not familiar, sveasoft revokes your license to
> > receive further
> > updates if you exercise your distribution rights under the GPL. I would
> > argue that conditioning the sale of a GPL'd work on a failure
> > to exercise
> > your rights under the GPL is a "further restriction".
> I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right"
> to updates from me.
Correct, but you do have the right to distribute the GPL'd code that you
received.
> You are arguing about a right that never existed and
> for good reason. Do you think that if Linus personally emails you a
> snapshot you somehow acquire the right to demand newer updates from him
> ? or how about "I bought Red Hat 1.1 so you must send me 9.0". Both
> strike me as a little ridiculous and certainly not GPL granted rights.
That is not what I'm arguing. I think I made my argument perfectly clear.
> As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the GPL
> code they gave you binaries for (or other variant options in the
> license). They end there. I don't have to give your friend a copy, I
> don't have to give you updates.
That's right. But if the government could penalize people for their free
speech after the fact, then they would effectively have no right to free
speech.
Can I say, "I'll ship you a copy to my privately-made derivative of the
Linux kernel, but only if you first sign a contract promising not to
distribute it".
What about, "I'll ship you a copy of my privately-made derivative of the
Linux kernel, but only if you promise in advance to pay me $25,000 if you
ever ask for the source code to it ".
The GPL says that you can impose no further restrictions upon the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by the GPL. Requiring people to agree to further
restrictions is imposing further restrictions.
If you can impose penalties upon people for exercising their rights under
the GPL, then you've imposed further restrictions. "If you do X, you can't
have Y, but otherwise you can", is a restriction on your right to do X.
DS
> if that's the case, isn't it necessary to distribute the proprietary
> parts separately (or vice-versa)? else those proprietary parts would
> also be under the GPL.
It depends what you mean by speparately. RedHat ships CDs that contain both
GPL'd and non-GPL'd packages. They're even tweaked to work together. It
comes down to whether the the thing they're shipping is a single work or a
collection of works, and to what extent you can draw the line between them.
I don't know enough about sveasoft's packaging to say.
However, one thing is clear. If they actually modify source files that
started out as GPL'd works, and then ship the executables, they are
definitely shipping a single work that is a derivative of the GPL'd work.
DS
> That's true: you don't have an automatic right to receive updates for free.
>
> But revoking a (paid) license if you do something that's explicitly allowed by
> the license of (part of) the supplied software sounds a bit fishy to me...
I don't think they make it clear *what* you are paying for. I think it
is reasonable if they claim that you are paying for the distribution,
NOT the license.
I am not trying to defend sveasoft. Personally, I dislike their method,
but I'm gathering information to try and understand who's right, who's
wrong and if sveasoft is indeed violating the GPL.
regards,
pedro venda.
--
Pedro Jo?o Lopes Venda
email: [email protected]
http://maxwell.rnl.ist.utl.pt
Equipa de Administra??o de Sistemas
Rede das Novas Licenciaturas (RNL)
Instituto Superior T?cnico
http://www.rnl.ist.utl.pt
http://mega.ist.utl.pt
> I am not trying to defend sveasoft. Personally, I dislike their method,
> but I'm gathering information to try and understand who's right, who's
> wrong and if sveasoft is indeed violating the GPL.
To me, it's this simple. The GPL says you can impose no further
restrictions (beyond those in the GPL itself) on the exercise of the rights
contained in the GPL. Sveasoft does.
If Sveasoft is not violating the GPL, then the GPL can trivially be evaded
by anyone using a refinement of their technique. You simply make a person
agree not to ever request the source code or distribute the binary code in
exchange for agreeing to sell them the software in the first place.
DS
On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 20:53, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right"
> > to updates from me.
>
> Correct, but you do have the right to distribute the GPL'd code that you
> received.
You do with Sveasoft.
> Can I say, "I'll ship you a copy to my privately-made derivative of the
> Linux kernel, but only if you first sign a contract promising not to
> distribute it".
No but you can say "if you redistribute this I'm not interested in
working with you any more"
On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote:
> If Sveasoft is not violating the GPL, then the GPL can trivially be evaded
> by anyone using a refinement of their technique. You simply make a person
> agree not to ever request the source code or distribute the binary code in
> exchange for agreeing to sell them the software in the first place.
That would be an additional restriction since its a right the GPL
definitively gives you. The drafters of the GPL were not dumb people.
Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
> As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the
> GPL code they gave you binaries for
[snip]
> I don't have to give your friend a copy,
Actually, they do.
The 3b "source code, at cost, if you want it later" offer, if that's
the offer the vendor chooses to give, must be made to "any 3rd
party".
Easiest way for a vendor to avoid having to make source available on
request to any and all is obviously to provide a source with the
product/binaries.
> Alan
regards,
- --
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it
doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on.
-- Hepler, Systems Design 182
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFBkCor2Gv3lGSi/2oRAhWwAJ4jTiXe56YBMgbamdxBw6fZRBHwaQCfXdY0
j/tHxnfVT/p1Hh2gybhoUsU=
=rHEH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 08 November 2004 06:00 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 20:53, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right"
> > > to updates from me.
> >
> > Correct, but you do have the right to distribute the GPL'd code that you
> > received.
>
> You do with Sveasoft.
>
> > Can I say, "I'll ship you a copy to my privately-made derivative of the
> > Linux kernel, but only if you first sign a contract promising not to
> > distribute it".
>
> No but you can say "if you redistribute this I'm not interested in
> working with you any more"
>
Well, this is from their web page:
"The $20 USD subscription fee includes unlimited priority support,
full access to the Sveasoft forums, and unlimited access to new
firmware versions and upgrades."
So it looks like "if you exersize your right for the software in quesion
I terminate the contract we have entered into" as opposed to "I will not
extend your contract beyond initial term".
Isn't that an additional restriction? My rights for updates are revoked
if I distribute GPLed code.
--
Dmitry
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> So it looks like "if you exersize your right for the software in quesion
> I terminate the contract we have entered into" as opposed to "I will not
> extend your contract beyond initial term".
>
> Isn't that an additional restriction? My rights for updates are revoked
> if I distribute GPLed code.
You are not entitled to future updates under the GPL. You are only
entitled to the source code for the binaries that you received. If he
doesn't send you any binaries, you don't get the source for them.
-Dave
On Monday 08 November 2004 11:08 pm, David Rees wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > So it looks like "if you exersize your right for the software in quesion
> > I terminate the contract we have entered into" as opposed to "I will not
> > extend your contract beyond initial term".
> >
> > Isn't that an additional restriction? My rights for updates are revoked
> > if I distribute GPLed code.
>
> You are not entitled to future updates under the GPL. You are only
But suppose I have that right because of the paid subscription (I do not have
the router so I naturally I am not subscribed ;) ). If I distribute GPLed code
my contract is terminated -> distribution is restricted in this sense.
> entitled to the source code for the binaries that you received. If he
> doesn't send you any binaries, you don't get the source for them.
>
> -Dave
>
>
--
Dmitry
On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 02:32, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> "The $20 USD subscription fee includes unlimited priority support,
> full access to the Sveasoft forums, and unlimited access to new
> firmware versions and upgrades."
>
> So it looks like "if you exersize your right for the software in quesion
> I terminate the contract we have entered into" as opposed to "I will not
> extend your contract beyond initial term".
>
> Isn't that an additional restriction? My rights for updates are revoked
> if I distribute GPLed code.
Those aren't GPL granted rights. The updates/support contract is a
private contractual matter between Sveasoft and its members. They don't
stop you redistributing the GPL code you received.
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 02:32, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > "The $20 USD subscription fee includes unlimited priority support,
> > full access to the Sveasoft forums, and unlimited access to new
> > firmware versions and upgrades."
> >
> > So it looks like "if you exersize your right for the software in quesion
> > I terminate the contract we have entered into" as opposed to "I will not
> > extend your contract beyond initial term".
> >
> > Isn't that an additional restriction? My rights for updates are revoked
> > if I distribute GPLed code.
>
> Those aren't GPL granted rights. The updates/support contract is a
> private contractual matter between Sveasoft and its members. They don't
> stop you redistributing the GPL code you received.
They don't stop you, they just restrict you.
Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the GPL. It means
restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
would the restrictions be?!)
DS
David Schwartz wrote:
> They don't stop you, they just restrict you.
They restrict you from getting new updates, they don't restrict you from
distributing.
The GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein." Note the "granted herein" part. They
can put all kinds of other restrictions on anything else, as long as they don't
keep you from excercising your rights to modify and/or redistribute the code
released under the GPL.
> Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
> restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the GPL. It means
> restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
> would the restrictions be?!)
I believe you have misunderstood the GPL. They only disallow further
restrictions on the rights that the GPL grants. They don't say anything about
other contracts or obligations.
Chris
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > They don't stop you, they just restrict you.
>
> They restrict you from getting new updates, they don't restrict you from
> distributing.
Umm, they restrict you from distributing. You don't get new updates if you
distribute.
If I say to my son, "if you hang out with people I don't like, I won't let
you use the car". This is a restriction on his hanging out with who he likes
and his using the car. If I promised not to put any further restrictions on
*either* his hanging out with who he like *or* his using the car, I'd be
violating my promise by the restriction.
> The GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
> recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein." Note the "granted
> herein" part. They
> can put all kinds of other restrictions on anything else, as long
> as they don't
> keep you from excercising your rights to modify and/or
> redistribute the code
> released under the GPL.
Exactly. But by conditioning the receipt of updates on failure to
distribute, they restrict distribution. (They also restrict the distribution
of updates, of course.) Any restriction of the form "If X, then Y" restricts
both X and Y.
I can't imagine what would constitute an "additional restriction" if this
isn't one.
> > Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
> > restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the
> > GPL. It means
> > restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
> > would the restrictions be?!)
> I believe you have misunderstood the GPL. They only disallow further
> restrictions on the rights that the GPL grants. They don't say
> anything about
> other contracts or obligations.
Yes, they do. The whole point of the "additional restrictions" clause is to
*prohibit* other contracts or obligations that act to restrict your ability
to exercise the rights under the GPL.
If not to prevent other contracts or obligations that act as restrictions,
what purpose does the GPL "additional restriction" clause serve?!
DS
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:23:08 PST, David Schwartz said:
> Umm, they restrict you from distributing. You don't get new updates if you
> distribute.
A possibly important legal point is that they never actually restrict your
rights to distribute everything they've given you.
Barring a contract that *obligates* them to provide you with future binary
updates, I can't see much to hang a GPL violation on. They never stop you
from distributing your current stuff - they merely don't provide you with
*future* (and quite possibly never-actually-happening) software. 100% of what
you *do* receive from them you can redistribute.
Yes, it's sleazy, but barring a contractual obligation, probably not illegal.
(If they're not shipping *future* updates out of the kindness of their heart,
without a contract obligating it, then I'm in deep shit because I haven't shipped
the LSM I said I'd be posting, but which hasn't happened because of other problems
I had with -rc1-mm3. Think about whether you want to be in that boat... ;)
> From: Alan Cox
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 02:32, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > "The $20 USD subscription fee includes unlimited priority support,
> > full access to the Sveasoft forums, and unlimited access to new
> > firmware versions and upgrades."
> >
> > So it looks like "if you exersize your right for the
> software in quesion
> > I terminate the contract we have entered into" as opposed
> to "I will not
> > extend your contract beyond initial term".
> >
> > Isn't that an additional restriction? My rights for updates
> are revoked
> > if I distribute GPLed code.
>
> Those aren't GPL granted rights. The updates/support contract is a
> private contractual matter between Sveasoft and its members.
> They don't
> stop you redistributing the GPL code you received.
Two things:
First. As a lurker I've seen the previous sveasoft discussion, but
didn't delve into it. I've followed this thread more closely. I've
seen the arguments, and *as they stand* it seems to me that sveasoft
must be in violation. However, someone pointed out this:
http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3033
If the compliance guy thinks they're ok, then likely there's something
I'm missing. What could that be?
A quick look around their forums popped up this:
http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3868
which says in short they will only revoke subscriptions if they find
you redistributing the *non-GPL* portions of the pre-release software.
Presumably they've licenced their pre-release non-GPL bits under a "We
will revoke your licence if you redistribute this bit" licence. Which
is fair. The author of a work is free to licence it however they see
fit, irregardless if they've previously licenced earlier versions
under the GPL.
So it seems they are in compliance after all. Just that the thread is
a little misleading about what's going on, and that confused me for a
bit.
Second. Let's assume for a minute that they are revoking subscriptions
if you redistribute the GPL bits, which is your right. Alan and others
appear to be saying above that this is okay. I disagree.
The GPL protects your right to redistribute from "further
restriction". It does not specify in what manner this restriction may
take place; specifically it does not say that the "further
restriction" must be something described in the GPL. In my reading,
the further restriction could take any form whatsoever.
Ah, something just clicked. I think Alan is reading the "rights
herein" part, and then saying above that the right to support, updates
etc is not a GPL-granted right, and thus is not subject to the
protection of that clause. Fair enough, they are not. However, **that
is not the right being restricted** in this now-hypothetical scenario.
In the hypothetical, sveasoft would be penalising you for exercising
your right to redistribute the GPL code. The fact that this
penalisation is taking the form of revoking some other right between
you and they is irrelevant. They could just as easily have penalised
you by beating you with a stick.
How can a penalisation not be a "further restriction" on your right to
redistribute?
My reading of the GPL tells me that "further restriction" means
**any** restriction whatsoever, whensoever, howsoever. If there is a
sentence of the form
if (exercise(GPL-protected-right))
penalise(method);
that is a further restriction. What "method" is, how it operates, when
it comes into force is irrelevant.
That's my understanding. Am I correct? Or not?
..Stu
On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 20:23, David Schwartz wrote:
> Yes, they do. The whole point of the "additional restrictions" clause is to
> *prohibit* other contracts or obligations that act to restrict your ability
> to exercise the rights under the GPL.
Correct. But you can exercise your rights under the GPL in this case.
Alan
On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 19:30, David Schwartz wrote:
> Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
> restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the GPL. It means
> restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
> would the restrictions be?!)
It talks about additional restrictions imposed on your GPL granted
rights. It seems very simple to me. Future upgrade services are a
seperate contractual matter. Your whole position is positively
ridiculous. Very large amounts of GPL code is released where you don't
get updates, ever, whatever you do. Yet you don't object to those.
On Nov 09, 2004, at 18:22, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 19:30, David Schwartz wrote:
>> Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
>> restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the GPL. It
>> means
>> restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where
>> else
>> would the restrictions be?!)
>
> It talks about additional restrictions imposed on your GPL granted
> rights. It seems very simple to me. Future upgrade services are a
> seperate contractual matter. Your whole position is positively
> ridiculous. Very large amounts of GPL code is released where you don't
> get updates, ever, whatever you do. Yet you don't object to those.
In this case however, you buy the right to future updates for $20.
This is
a contract between you and SveaSoft that essentially says:
> If you pay SveaSoft $20, you will receive all updates for the next
> year.
> If you chose to exercise your GPL right to redistribute, however, you
> will lose the subscription you paid $20 for."
The penalty for exercising your GPL distribution right is losing your
$20 subscription. I believe that such a penalty is a restriction on you
exercising your GPL rights. Such a restriction, when added upon the
GPL license through which SveaSoft can distribute Linux, violates
Section 6 of the GPL:
> [...]
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein.
> [...]
Therefore, I propose that under Section 4 of the GPL, SveaSoft has
lost its license to distribute the Linux kernel.
> You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
> License.
All of this is just the opinion of a concerned hacker, not a lawyer so
it may be completely bogus. I _do_ believe, however, that SveaSoft's
actions violate the spirit of the GPL, especially given actions like
this:
http://www.neuromancer.ca/wrt54g/ - Scroll down to the bottom,
the part with the email to Yahoo by SveaSoft.
Apparently SveaSoft isn't happy with restricting users by having
them sign away their GPL rights, it is attempting to use FUD to
prevent users from distributing SveaSoft binaries or sources.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 20:23, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Yes, they do. The whole point of the "additional
> > restrictions" clause is to
> > *prohibit* other contracts or obligations that act to restrict
> > your ability
> > to exercise the rights under the GPL.
> Correct. But you can exercise your rights under the GPL in this case.
Subject to those additional restrictions. You can exercise your rights, but
then there is a penalty. (Which means it wasn't a right in the first place.)
DS
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 19:30, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
> > restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the
> > GPL. It means
> > restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
> > would the restrictions be?!)
> It talks about additional restrictions imposed on your GPL granted
> rights.
Precisely. And it says there cannot be any.
> It seems very simple to me. Future upgrade services are a
> seperate contractual matter.
They are not separate since they are conditioned upon your failure to
exercise your GPL rights.
> Your whole position is positively
> ridiculous. Very large amounts of GPL code is released where you don't
> get updates, ever, whatever you do. Yet you don't object to those.
I don't object to those because there is no additional restriction on the
exercise of your GPL rights. Conduct which is discretionary can become
objectionable if the reason is objectionable.
I am saying that you cannot condition a decision to give someone code that
is covered by the GPL on their promise not to exercise their rights under
the GPL. You cannot impose a penalty upon someone for exercising their
rights under the GPL. All these things are additional restrictions.
Please explain to me what you think the GPL prohibition against "additional
restrictions" means if not to prohibit the distribution of GPL works
conditioned on promises not to exercise your rights under the GPL (and
penalties for exercising them).
DS
Kyle Moffett writes:
> In this case however, you buy the right to future updates for $20.
> This is
> a contract between you and SveaSoft that essentially says:
> > If you pay SveaSoft $20, you will receive all updates for the next
> > year.
> > If you chose to exercise your GPL right to redistribute, however, you
> > will lose the subscription you paid $20 for."
>
> The penalty for exercising your GPL distribution right is losing your
> $20 subscription. I believe that such a penalty is a restriction on you
> exercising your GPL rights.
It is no such thing.
Restriction \Re*stric"tion\, n. [F. restriction, L. restrictio.]
1. The act of restricting, or state of being restricted;
confinement within limits or bounds.
You can fully exercise your rights under the GPL; they are not
restricted. However, you cannot expect future support from Sveasoft.
Only your contract entitles you to that support, and if you do
something to terminate your contract, it is outside the GPL's scope.
This is unpleasant for a lot of people. It is probably suboptimal for
the free software community. Life can be hard like that. Any
competent lawyer could have a copyright infringement claim dismissed
if the claim were based on your theory of the GPL.
Michael Poole
On Nov 09, 2004, at 21:01, Michael Poole wrote:
>> The penalty for exercising your GPL distribution right is losing your
>> $20 subscription. I believe that such a penalty is a restriction on
>> you
>> exercising your GPL rights.
>
> It is no such thing.
>
> Restriction \Re*stric"tion\, n. [F. restriction, L. restrictio.]
> 1. The act of restricting, or state of being restricted;
> confinement within limits or bounds.
The only "true" restrictions, by your definition, are the laws of
physics. A
"law" passed by Congress is simply a piece of paper that the citizens of
the US agree to follow (transitively, because we agree with Congress
because we agree with the Constitution). Various other "laws" specify
what punishments we may or may not receive if we do not follow those
laws. My example is no less a restriction than those others, except
that
it has a lesser punishment associated with it.
Also from dictionary.com:
> Main Entry: re?stric?tion
> Function: noun
> 1: something that restricts: as
> a: a regulation that restricts or restrains
> b: a limitation on the use or enjoyment of property or a facility
I would call "If you distribute you lose your $20 subscription" a
"limitation", and it most certainly restricts my ability to use the
kernel to
the fullest extent that the GPL provides.
> You can fully exercise your rights under the GPL; they are not
> restricted. However, you cannot expect future support from Sveasoft.
But if I paid $20 for one year of said support?
> Only your contract entitles you to that support, and if you do
> something to terminate your contract, it is outside the GPL's scope.
What _is_ inside the GPL's scope is that no contract may require me
to abstain from my GPL rights. If I use my full GPL rights, then they
are telling me that I break the contract and lose my $20 support.
> This is unpleasant for a lot of people. It is probably suboptimal for
> the free software community. Life can be hard like that. Any
> competent lawyer could have a copyright infringement claim dismissed
> if the claim were based on your theory of the GPL.
As I said, IANAL, but I do feel strongly about this issue (though I've
never paid for their software). In any case, I think this point will be
moot if SveaSoft continues with their announced plan to require an
activation key. That would _definitely_ be against the GPL.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Kyle Moffett writes:
> > You can fully exercise your rights under the GPL; they are not
> > restricted. However, you cannot expect future support from Sveasoft.
> But if I paid $20 for one year of said support?
The contract might have a termination clause triggered if you do a
handstand or file a patent lawsuit against Sveasoft. By your
argument, that would make the contract breach the GPL, since you could
not use the GPLed software while doing those things -- which is
ridiculous on its face.
> > Only your contract entitles you to that support, and if you do
> > something to terminate your contract, it is outside the GPL's scope.
> What _is_ inside the GPL's scope is that no contract may require me
> to abstain from my GPL rights. If I use my full GPL rights, then they
> are telling me that I break the contract and lose my $20 support.
That depends greatly on the wording of the contract.
Interestingly, the only description I can find on Sveasoft's web page
says this:
Sveasoft firmware and support is available for a yearly $20 USD
subscription fee. A subscription includes unlimited access to
firmware upgrades and unlimited access to priority support.
If Sveasoft terminates someone's "unlimited" access before the year
expires, Sveasoft may be in breach of contract, since there are no
disclaimers about termination -- but that still does not translate to
copyright infringement.
> > This is unpleasant for a lot of people. It is probably suboptimal for
> > the free software community. Life can be hard like that. Any
> > competent lawyer could have a copyright infringement claim dismissed
> > if the claim were based on your theory of the GPL.
> As I said, IANAL, but I do feel strongly about this issue (though I've
> never paid for their software). In any case, I think this point will be
> moot if SveaSoft continues with their announced plan to require an
> activation key. That would _definitely_ be against the GPL.
I suspect that an activation key would violate the GPL, but that is a
different question than the support contract.
Michael Poole
On Tuesday 09 November 2004 11:14 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
> Kyle Moffett writes:
>
> > > You can fully exercise your rights under the GPL; they are not
> > > restricted. However, you cannot expect future support from Sveasoft.
> > But if I paid $20 for one year of said support?
>
> The contract might have a termination clause triggered if you do a
> handstand or file a patent lawsuit against Sveasoft. By your
> argument, that would make the contract breach the GPL, since you could
> not use the GPLed software while doing those things -- which is
> ridiculous on its face.
>
> > > Only your contract entitles you to that support, and if you do
> > > something to terminate your contract, it is outside the GPL's scope.
> > What _is_ inside the GPL's scope is that no contract may require me
> > to abstain from my GPL rights. If I use my full GPL rights, then they
> > are telling me that I break the contract and lose my $20 support.
>
> That depends greatly on the wording of the contract.
>
> Interestingly, the only description I can find on Sveasoft's web page
> says this:
>
> Sveasoft firmware and support is available for a yearly $20 USD
> subscription fee. A subscription includes unlimited access to
> firmware upgrades and unlimited access to priority support.
>
http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3868
> Post subject: I am a Sveasoft subscriber, can I redistribute?
> ...
> The policy for pre-release firmware is different. You may choose to
> redistribute only those portions of pre-release firmware specifically
> covered by the GPL license. Those portions of the distribution that are
> separate additions developed by Sveasoft as part of a pre-release
> distribution may not be re-distributed. Redistribution of pre-release
> firmware that includes Sveasoft's non-GPL code will result in the
> termination of your subscription.
>
So it looks like they are in clear, unless those separate additions are
derived from GPLed software.
--
Dmitry
> > > You can fully exercise your rights under the GPL; they are not
> > > restricted. However, you cannot expect future support from Sveasoft.
> > But if I paid $20 for one year of said support?
> The contract might have a termination clause triggered if you do a
> handstand or file a patent lawsuit against Sveasoft. By your
> argument, that would make the contract breach the GPL, since you could
> not use the GPLed software while doing those things -- which is
> ridiculous on its face.
No, because they don't restrict your exercise of your rights under the GPL.
None of these things are predicated upon your exercise of your GPL rights,
so they don't restrict them.
If not for the GPL's further restriction clause, SveaSoft could condition
their contracts with termination clauses based upon any set of rules they
want. However, due to the GPL's further restriction clause, they cannot
penalize people for exercising their rights under the GPL. This is the
specific intent of that clause in the GPL. It's intended to prevent people's
GPL rights from being encumbered by outside licenses and contracts.
> I suspect that an activation key would violate the GPL, but that is a
> different question than the support contract.
Nope. The GPL is perfectly clear that you can modify GPL'd code to do
whatever you want. If you want to add code to require an activation key,
that is your right. If you want to distribute the resulting code, that is
your right too, assuming you comply with the GPL's other clauses. That check
on this is supposed to be that others could remove the activation key and
distribute the modified binaries and source.
SveaSoft is trying a new trick now. They're essentially claiming that their
firmware is an aggregation of both GPL'd and proprietary works, and
therefore you can't distribute it unless you can separate the works somehow.
I think they are exploiting areas of the GPL that are slightly gray.
Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on what a "further restriction" is
or what a "mere aggregation" is.
Anyway, this has long stopped being interesting to LKML folks.
DS
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 20:23, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Yes, they do. The whole point of the "additional restrictions" clause is to
> > *prohibit* other contracts or obligations that act to restrict your ability
> > to exercise the rights under the GPL.
>
> Correct. But you can exercise your rights under the GPL in this case.
Let's slightly modify the parameters...
What if someone would offer you binaries (under the GPL) if you sign a contract
that you will have to pay 100000 EUR (or 100000000 EUR, or ...) if you exercise
your rights under the GPL?
According to your reasoning, this is allowed, since you can still exercise your
rights under the GPL. But in practice this would mean that someone found out
how to take GPL software, and not give back...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 15:24 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the GPL
> code they gave you binaries for (or other variant options in the
> license). They end there. I don't have to give your friend a copy, I
> don't have to give you updates.
Er, not quite. Unless they accompany the binary with the complete
machine-readable source code, they're obliged to make the source
available to any third party, not just to the recipient of the binaries.
I assume from the "you ask for it and we don't want to talk to you any
more" that they are not actually including the source with the binaries.
So you just get your friend to ask for the source, and they must give it
to him without stopping _your_ updates.
--
dwmw2
On Mer, 2004-11-10 at 09:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Let's slightly modify the parameters...
You've not "slightly modified them" you've changed the entire discussion
>
> What if someone would offer you binaries (under the GPL) if you sign a contract
> that you will have to pay 100000 EUR (or 100000000 EUR, or ...) if you exercise
> your rights under the GPL?
This is unrelated. The GPL grants you the rights not to have to pay a
fee in order to exercise the rights under the GPL if you have the
binaries. (Or more accurately 'at cost' in some situations).
Consider the difference between these three statements and it might make
it clearer
1. "You must pay $1000 to distribute the source"
2. "I will pay you $1000 if you do not distribute the source"
3. "If you distribute the source then I won't supply you updates"
#1 places conditions on a GPL provided contract right which the GPL
prohibits
#3 is a discussion about matters entirely outside the GPL (and lawyers
who have looked at such things see no problem with it)
#2 Is interesting - its I think the borderline you intended to find, and
I'm not sure anyone could call it either way without being a qualified
lawyer.
Alan
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:14:43 GMT, Alan Cox said:
> 3. "If you distribute the source then I won't supply you updates"
Intellectually interesting, but somewhat moot, as at least one person has
quoted Sveasoft's *actual* requirement as:
"If you distribute the *non-GPL* pieces of our pre-release, then we won't
supply you updates".
which is *totally* another kettle of fish (and they're totally in their rights to
do so, *as long as the non-GPL parts are really non-GPL*). I've leave others to
argue about the commingling of GPL and non-GPL and whether their drivers are
NVidia-ish (where the closed parts are quite arguably *not* derivative works,
and there's a GPL'ed shim), and therefore more-or-less tolerated, or if their
"non-GPL" code is actually derivative of some GPL kernel code (and thus a big
no-no)....
From: Alan Cox
> 1. "You must pay $1000 to distribute the source"
> 2. "I will pay you $1000 if you do not distribute the source"
> 3. "If you distribute the source then I won't supply you updates"
To restate #1 in equivalent words:
1. "If you distribute the source, you must pay $1000."
How is that different from
1. "If you distribute the source, you lose a contractual right you
have paid for."
? Both are of the form:
if (exercise(GPL-protected-right))
penalise(method);
> #1 places conditions on a GPL provided contract right which the GPL
> prohibits
Since my 1.s are equivalent to yours, thus #1 applys equally to mine,
one of which is the hypothetical (see my previous post) situation
under discussion of sveasoft revoking support contracts.
So I've reached a logical inconsistency in your argument. One of two
things must be true: a) you are wrong, or b) my assertion that my 1.s
are equivalent to yours are wrong.
I'm willing to believe I've made a mistake. Please show me where.
Note that your 3. is not equivalent to the hypothetical situation
under discussion because "I won't supply you updates" is not
equivalent to sveasoft's action of "We revoke your support/updates
contract".
..Stu
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 18:14 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> 2. "I will pay you $1000 if you do not distribute the source"
>
> #2 Is interesting - its I think the borderline you intended to find, and
> I'm not sure anyone could call it either way without being a qualified
> lawyer.
>
> Alan
Alan, actually here in the States #2 is pretty easy to call. BTW, IANAL,
just have had to take law classes for various classes. The law here
clearly states that a contract is two parties exchanging things of
value.
Some text book examples of contracts include one parties
"consideration" (thing of value) may be refraining from exercising a
right/privilege they have.
Of course, anyone who is willing to give up rights indefinitely for a
small some of money or a small benefit is a fool, but hey.
Now of course, if they say "hey, I have this awesome change to this GPL
program, I will share it with you but only if you agree to not
distribute it is bogus. That violates the GPL on their part and revokes
their license.
Trever
--
"Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we possess
ourselves." -- Gandalf the White [J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Two Towers", Bk
3, Ch. XI]
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 November 2004 11:14 pm, Michael Poole wrote:
> http://www.sveasoft.com/modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3868
>
>
>>Post subject: I am a Sveasoft subscriber, can I redistribute?
>>...
>>The policy for pre-release firmware is different. You may choose to
>>redistribute only those portions of pre-release firmware specifically
>>covered by the GPL license. Those portions of the distribution that are
>>separate additions developed by Sveasoft as part of a pre-release
>>distribution may not be re-distributed. Redistribution of pre-release
>>firmware that includes Sveasoft's non-GPL code will result in the
>>termination of your subscription.
>>
>
>
> So it looks like they are in clear, unless those separate additions are
> derived from GPLed software.
>
That web page seems pretty clear... some parts of the prerelease are
non-GPL, you can distribute the GPL code as usual. Unless there is aome
claim that the non-GPL parts are derived from GPL original source or
contain GPL code, why shouldn't they restrict the distribution of their
own code?
--
-bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
On Nov 10, 2004, at 16:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> That web page seems pretty clear... some parts of the prerelease are
> non-GPL, you can distribute the GPL code as usual. Unless there is
> some claim that the non-GPL parts are derived from GPL original
> source or contain GPL code, why shouldn't they restrict the
> distribution
> of their own code?
The make it difficult if not effectively impossible to separate the two,
claiming that therefore they are not under the restrictions of the GPL.
However, the GPL _clearly_ states that if it is distributed as a single
work, then all parts _must_ be distributable under the terms of the
GPL. I believe that a single binary firmware image is a single "work"
according to the definition provided in the GPL, and therefore by
distributing their code as a part of it, they have implicitly applied
the
GPL to said work (assuming it was not GPLed already for other
reasons).
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Mer, 2004-11-10 at 23:09, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> GPL. I believe that a single binary firmware image is a single "work"
> according to the definition provided in the GPL, and therefore by
> distributing their code as a part of it, they have implicitly applied
The firmware image is a file system so I'd suspect its "mere
aggregation" just like say a CD of GPL and BSD software, or your root
file system...
On Wednesday 10 November 2004 06:09 pm, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2004, at 16:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > That web page seems pretty clear... some parts of the prerelease are
> > non-GPL, you can distribute the GPL code as usual. Unless there is
> > some claim that the non-GPL parts are derived from GPL original
> > source or contain GPL code, why shouldn't they restrict the
> > distribution
> > of their own code?
>
> The make it difficult if not effectively impossible to separate the two,
> claiming that therefore they are not under the restrictions of the GPL.
> However, the GPL _clearly_ states that if it is distributed as a single
> work, then all parts _must_ be distributable under the terms of the
> GPL. I believe that a single binary firmware image is a single "work"
> according to the definition provided in the GPL, and therefore by
> distributing their code as a part of it, they have implicitly applied
> the
> GPL to said work (assuming it was not GPLed already for other
> reasons).
>
No, no, no. Firmware image here is the same as a CD that you receive from
a distribution and is mere an aggregation.
--
Dmitry
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 22:14 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2004-11-10 at 23:09, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > GPL. I believe that a single binary firmware image is a single "work"
> > according to the definition provided in the GPL, and therefore by
> > distributing their code as a part of it, they have implicitly applied
>
> The firmware image is a file system so I'd suspect its "mere
> aggregation" just like say a CD of GPL and BSD software, or your root
> file system...
That's possibly true of any userspace applications they've added.
However, if you were arguing that the presence of the GPL'd kernel and
the non-GPL'd modules was OK because it's "mere aggregation", that would
be a different and far less supportable position -- since the beast
cannot even come close to serving its purpose or being at all useful if
you take away either the kernel, or the modules in question.
Distributing a work which depends on both the kernel and those network
driver modules is a clear violation of the GPL. But that's something
that Cisco themselves are doing.
--
dwmw2