On 15.8.2015 г. 11:21, John Devereux wrote:
> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> writes:
>
>> On 15.8.2015 &#1075;. 03:04, Nobody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:06:52 +0100, John Devereux wrote:
>>>
>>>>> None of it, SFAIK. It's not between you and them, it's between you and
>>>>> the Linux kernel community. They're not party to that relationship.
>>>>
>>>> I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to
>>>> provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any
>>>> GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.
>>>
>>> The GPL requires that. However, in the event of non-compliance, no-one
>>> other than the copyright holder has the legal standing to do anything
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> Distributing GPL'd works without complying with the terms of the GPL
>>> amounts to distributing copyrighted works without permission (the
>>> permissions provided by the GPL are conditional upon complying with its
>>> terms). Legally, that's a harm against the copyright holder, and no-one
>>> else.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for explaining that. I have never been really interested in GPL
>> etc., but like the rest of the world I had also been fooled into
>> believing it was about open source software. Now I know it is just
>> a... nothing. Well, it is a good PR effort of course - there are hordes
>> of programmers having spent much of their lifetime on GCC because they
>> fell for the piece of cheese in the trap believing they were part of
>> some community which was about sharing etc. bullshit.
>
> Bitter much?
>
> It is a clever legal mechanism to give freedom to end-users, and has
> been very successful. How many users of DPS are there? How many of linux
> (hint:billions).
>

Not bitter at all, just frustrated by a few attempts to get information
which some of the billions of users suggested should
be available because "it was linux" - and it was not.
I imagine it is hard to accept one has spent decades on being part
of a group of billions only to discover the group has been one of
misguided people. They all think (dream, rather) they are in control
of what they are doing when in reality they are not - even only from
a software point of view.

OTOH, I am in control with my DPS - which I have never tried to
make popular or public, have been busy making products on top of it
in order to survive - not as a part of a group of "billions".
And no, I am under no illusion of being "completely in control",
I do not own a silicon factory yet - but I am in complete control
when it comes to software, how may linux users do you know who are
that.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> writes:

> On 15.8.2015 &#1075;. 03:04, Nobody wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:06:52 +0100, John Devereux wrote:
>>
>>>> None of it, SFAIK. It's not between you and them, it's between you and
>>>> the Linux kernel community. They're not party to that relationship.
>>>
>>> I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to
>>> provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any
>>> GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.
>>
>> The GPL requires that. However, in the event of non-compliance, no-one
>> other than the copyright holder has the legal standing to do anything
>> about it.
>>
>> Distributing GPL'd works without complying with the terms of the GPL
>> amounts to distributing copyrighted works without permission (the
>> permissions provided by the GPL are conditional upon complying with its
>> terms). Legally, that's a harm against the copyright holder, and no-one
>> else.
>>
>
> Thanks for explaining that. I have never been really interested in GPL
> etc., but like the rest of the world I had also been fooled into
> believing it was about open source software. Now I know it is just
> a... nothing. Well, it is a good PR effort of course - there are hordes
> of programmers having spent much of their lifetime on GCC because they
> fell for the piece of cheese in the trap believing they were part of
> some community which was about sharing etc. bullshit.

Bitter much?

It is a clever legal mechanism to give freedom to end-users, and has
been very successful. How many users of DPS are there? How many of linux
(hint:billions).

-- 

John Devereux

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 8/14/15 11:06 AM, John Devereux wrote:
>>>
>>> None of it, SFAIK. It's not between you and them, it's between you and
>>> the Linux kernel community. They're not party to that relationship.
>>
>> I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to
>> provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any
>> GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.
>>
>> AFAIK the linux maintainers do not bother to enforce this but some
>> projects are much more aggressive, see e.g. the busybox lawsuits that
>> have forced many router manufacturers to publish their code.
>>
>>
>
> The GPL imposes a obligation on the manufacturer, but as I understand
> it, the user doesn't have legal standing, as the license terms are
> between the manufacturer and the owner of the copyright of the
> software, as it is that copyright that creates the ability to enforce
> the license.

True, but it a user request that "triggers" the copyright violation
AIUI. The purpose of the GPL was to give freedom to the users of
software. The have an "obligation" to the user *if they want to avoid
copyright violation*.

> The big issue is that just because the code is listed with a GPL
> license, the user has no proof that the copyright holder hasn't
> entered into some other licensing terms with the manufacture allowing
> them use under different terms. (This is why serious GPL-like open
> source projects will require contributes to sign legal papers
> assigning copyright)

Of course the user can *ask* the copyright holder.

-- 

John Devereux

On 15.8.2015 г. 03:04, Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:06:52 +0100, John Devereux wrote:
>
>>> None of it, SFAIK. It's not between you and them, it's between you and
>>> the Linux kernel community. They're not party to that relationship.
>>
>> I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to
>> provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any
>> GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.
>
> The GPL requires that. However, in the event of non-compliance, no-one
> other than the copyright holder has the legal standing to do anything
> about it.
>
> Distributing GPL'd works without complying with the terms of the GPL
> amounts to distributing copyrighted works without permission (the
> permissions provided by the GPL are conditional upon complying with its
> terms). Legally, that's a harm against the copyright holder, and no-one
> else.
>

Thanks for explaining that. I have never been really interested in GPL
etc., but like the rest of the world I had also been fooled into
believing it was about open source software. Now I know it is just
a... nothing. Well, it is a good PR effort of course - there are hordes
of programmers having spent much of their lifetime on GCC because they
fell for the piece of cheese in the trap believing they were part of
some community which was about sharing etc. bullshit.

Dimiter

On 8/14/15 11:06 AM, John Devereux wrote:
>>
>> None of it, SFAIK. It's not between you and them, it's between you and
>> the Linux kernel community. They're not party to that relationship.
>
> I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to
> provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any
> GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.
>
> AFAIK the linux maintainers do not bother to enforce this but some
> projects are much more aggressive, see e.g. the busybox lawsuits that
> have forced many router manufacturers to publish their code.
>
>

The GPL imposes a obligation on the manufacturer, but as I understand 
it, the user doesn't have legal standing, as the license terms are 
between the manufacturer and the owner of the copyright of the software, 
as it is that copyright that creates the ability to enforce the license.

The big issue is that just because the code is listed with a GPL 
license, the user has no proof that the copyright holder hasn't entered 
into some other licensing terms with the manufacture allowing them use 
under different terms. (This is why serious GPL-like open source 
projects will require contributes to sign legal papers assigning copyright)

Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes:

> rickman wrote:
>> When a product is shipped which uses Linux internally, are the various
>> drivers required to control the hardware part of the Kernel as far as
>> GPL goes?
>>
>
> This post is not legal advice and is only intended as a guide
> and may be radically in error. Caveat reador.
>
> Here is what Linus has to say on the subject:
>
> http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html
>
> You may be able to minimize the kernel loadable modules
> to have no proprietary information and use a middle layer
> for that, which is in user space.
>
> For example, Total Phase makes a USB CAN interface - the Komodo -
> that uses a binary-only .so for the interface - the only drivers
> needed are the stock USB drivers.
>
> Chances are you can do the same - you can leverage existing SPI and
> I2C drivers, USB, what have you. There are others; drives for Linux
> are numerous.
>
> Chances are you can do same unless you have some bizarre
> hardware interface. And in that case, simply implement it with some
> other "operating system" first, then port to Linux.
>
>> I'm wondering how much of the product has to be opened up and provided
>> to a user on request?
>>
>
> None of it, SFAIK. It's not between you and them, it's between you and
> the Linux kernel community. They're not party to that relationship.

I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to
provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any
GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.

AFAIK the linux maintainers do not bother to enforce this but some
projects are much more aggressive, see e.g. the busybox lawsuits that
have forced many router manufacturers to publish their code.


-- 

John Devereux

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:15:42 -0400, rickman wrote:

> When a product is shipped which uses Linux internally, are the various
> drivers required to control the hardware part of the Kernel as far as GPL
> goes?

It depends upon whether they constitute a derivative work of the kernel.
That's a question for the lawyers (and if push comes to shove, the
courts). If something isn't a derivative work, then it doesn't matter what
the GPL has to say.

However: when it comes to loadable modules, the kernel has a mechanism
whereby certain symbols are only visible to modules which contain a
copyright notice stating that they are licensed under the GPL.

Essentially, symbols forming part of the "public" API are available to all
modules, while "internal" symbols are only available to GPL modules. The
intent is to declare that modules using the public API are "clients" of
the kernel while those using internal symbols are derivative works.

Whether that has any legal significance, I don't know. Also, for an
embedded device, there's nothing preventing the developer from simply
removing that check so that non-GPL modules can access internal symbols.
It's mainly targeted at PC hardware, where a vendor is going to want a
driver to work with a "stock" kernel.

On 2015-08-05, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> On 05.8.2015 &#1075;. 18:39, rickman wrote:
>>
>> That "secrecy" is what I'm trying to understand.  If it is under the GPL
>> there are *no* secrets.  The data sheet for the part may be secret, but
>> not the driver unless they somehow make it a separate executable which
>> is what I am asking about.
>>

The problem is that knowledge gained from reading the driver source is
fragile. It tells you _what_ is done, but it doesn't tell you _why_ it's
done in that way and the multiple conceptual relationships between the
various registers and data structures are probably not even fully clear.

That means that if you change something slightly, things might break
and you may have a hard time finding out why.

>
> I get what you are after, I have spent some time chasing wifi
> documentation.

I agree the wifi situation is _really_ bad but it's not the only
example.

For just one example of a simple commodity device, ever tried getting
_full_ datasheets for the PL2303 devices ?

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

On 8/5/2015 11:17 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>> On 8/5/2015 8:56 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about products that have Linux in them, not hardware for
>>>> engineering.  The actual example is the many sat navs running Linux or
>>>> in my case the Internet TV box which I found contains a GPL notice
>>>> after
>>>> I dug around in the menus.  I think the other guy I was talking to was
>>>> suggesting they made a special version of Linux and kept parts "secret"
>>>> to prevent cloning or something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I dunno then. These are what they are. Settop boxes are leased items;
>>> the satnav is what it is.
>>
>> Yes, I believe that most things "are what they are".
>>
>
> So are you talking about a cable box, or an Internet TV adapter like
>   a ROKU or what ?

The conversation was about GPS sat nav units, but I was thinking about 
my own Sony clone of the ROKU box.  It has both an EULA and a GPL 
notice.  The GPL notice is buried deep in the menu structure and the 
EULA comes up when you try to access any of the online channels.


> For those things, hacking* them is not likely interesting. I presume you
> can reflash them  with binaries from the vendor.
>
> *people do, but not for maintenance reasons.

I'm actually going to return my Sony unit I believe.  I don't have a 
problem in general with EULAs unless they use the "I" word, indemnify. 
I just have a bug up my ass about the idea that a multi-billion dollar 
company expects me to reimburse them for "any losses" they incur 
"related" to my use of the box.

I'm more worried about the fact that it won't work on my wi-fi.

I recently got rid of a Garmin unit because of this very reason.


>>> These things are adapters for A Service, and are not products in and of
>>> themselves.
>>
>> Ok, but I don't see how that is relevant.
>
> It's relevant if your demark is the HDMI or Ethernet interface.

I still don't follow.


>>>> So I am free to distribute the GPL source without the authors having a
>>>> grievance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That, I am completely unsure of. There's a formal-trust issue in that
>>> case. What is your provenance for the thing being delivered?
>>
>> Not sure what you are asking.  Are you asking if I bought the product or
>> if I am selling it or what?  I believe according to the GPL it is
>> irrelevant.
>>
>
> So how does somebody who gets a copy of the GPL-ed code from you know
> it's the same? You'd need MDA signatures and such.

????  I don't understand the question.  What does "same" mean?  What is 
the same as what?

-- 

Rick

Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:15:42 -0400, rickman wrote:
>
>> When a product is shipped which uses Linux internally, are the various
>> drivers required to control the hardware part of the Kernel as far as
>> GPL goes?
>>
>> I'm wondering how much of the product has to be opened up and provided
>> to a user on request?
>
> Most books on using Linux for embedded development cover this sort of
> licensing issue.  There are scads of proprietary drivers for proprietary
> hardware in the desktop Linux world, so presumably if you want to develop
> a system you can make everything except for the core Linux part of it
> closed.
>


Then again:

http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html

This means actual kernel loadable modules. If you use SPI or USB, then 
your "drivers" can be a library and not need to be GPL at all.

-- 
Les Cargill