Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Abit Violating The GPL? 115

Posted by CmdrTaco from the boy-I-hope-not dept.
petard writes: "I just learned about Abit's GNU/Linux distribution, Gentus. According to this discussion, it seems that Abit has not seen fit to release source code to their modifications of various GPL'd utilities. Even worse, it appears that they've slightly modified BP6Mon (from redseb at GoUPiL) and released it binary-only and under the "Abit License"! " Allright, everyone turn off the flames and concentrate on making sure that they are in fact distributing in binary-form-only GPLd code. We need a good contact point @abit to send a polite reminder. If you can't be polite, you won't help anything.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Abit Violating The GPL? More

Abit Violating The GPL?

Comments Filter:

  • Bad Bad Abit (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well...I think far too many companies are abusing the GPL ...using it as a marketing tool, while not actually considering what it actually means. Could there be a class action law-suit in the works....??? ;)

  • Speaking of GPL disputes.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whatever happened with Quake Lives and Carmack? Did they withdraw the project?

  • They don't have to mail the source to you. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If there are source RPMs are in the ISO, then Abit has satisfied the GPL.

    They don't have to post the code to a website. They don't have to e-mail the code to anybody. They don't have to wipe your ass.

    Corporations can play by the GPL rules and not "get it" or be "community friendly". These things are not mutually exclusive.

    This gave me a bad feeling. How many authors of GPL software really understand the GPL? Not many. (How many authors have gone spouting-off about the GPL without reading it entirely?)

    You just need one person to buy the media, perhaps as part of a mobo package, and republish the code.

  • abit isn't as bad as j/k (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    According to Slashdot, "Comments are owned by the Poster." Jon Katz took our property without asking and is now going to make money from it. Jon Katz used us. He is a thief, but worse than Abit, because we trusted him. We took an outsider into our group of outsiders, and he defiled us. Jon Katz, I hope you do the right thing, and kill yourself. Using the Littleton shootings to make a quick buck is bad enough, but stealing the intellectual property of your supporters makes it just horrid. You just couldn't stand not getting all the credit for yourself, could you?

    Fellow geeks: listen to your boiling blood and follow your heart. Make illegal copies of Katz's book and post them on the internet, everywhere. After all, we own part of what is contained in that book.

    Jon Katz, I damn you. If you ever find yourself down on your luck, don't expect to get receive pity from us again. You used this community to rebuild your pathetic career, and look what you give us in return.

    You soaked up the blood of those bullet riddled corpses with the pages of that book. You stole the cries of all maligned geeks in this world. You'll make your quick buck, and you'll think you're content, but I promise you that those unresting spirits will haunt you for the rest of your days.

    Jon Katz, raper and pillager of the very souls he claims to defend.

    You are a monster.

  • Re:Good for them (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And with their BP6 dual socket 370 motherboard they have given the cheapskate Linux users the ability to overclock 2 celerons. And this is the gratitude they get from the community ? Someone is smoking cheap $3 crack.

    Anyway, the GPL only applies in the US. Taiwan, AFAIK, IANAL has NO intellectual property laws whatsoever, so in fact ABIT can do whatever they like and there is nothing (apart from sending in the marines) that the US can do about it.

    Kind of interesting that. US law only applies in the US. Is that SO hard to understand ?

    and don't even get me started on the unenforcability of the GPL/

  • Story looks pretty strait to me. I looked, and I see no source available, nor any mention of any source being available.

    Heck, there isn't even a source rpm in sight for *anything* in their distro.
  • To my knowledge, no loopholes where found, and you can freely get the source to CPhack and continue to develop and modify it to your hearts content.

    I also find it funny that your taking the defence of 'People need to make money' when their distro is quite simply RH 6.1 with a few visual changes to some of the Gnome utilities to make it look more branded.. ;-P
  • Err, to my knowledge, no one will buy their distro. They're distributing it with their motherboards..
  • Have you ever thought of going into advertising?
  • They allow people to _GET_ the source... you don't have to privide source with binaries.
    No, you don't. But you do have to provide source upon request--referring to someone else who's providing it does not count.

  • > It is the nature of the GPL to coercively steal others' work. It is not immoral to resist immorality.


    Ok, I'll bite. (I know, I shouldn't, but I'm not doing anything other than waiting for the latest n-MB download of debian packages to complete)


    It is the nature of the GPL to offer people strong incentives to free their work in the sense of the GPL, by allowing them to then combine it with other existing GPLed software.


    If you wish to have nothing to do with GPLed code, then the GPL will have nothing to do with you.


    I won't even touch the implicit rejection you make of the stance the GNU project takes that open code is more moral than closed code. That way lies unending recursive holy wars.

  • This isn't the place for screaming at JonKatz. If you want to make your petty little rants, take the matter up with him personally (his e-mail address is public, after all).

    And you know what? I think I'm going to counter-rant. If only because maybe I just might be able to convince you just how inappropriate this troll is.

    Yes, it's true that the comments are owned by the posters. But by putting them here, we've made them public (Slashdot should consider clarifying this). Rather like the BSD license, in a way; we own the comments, but anyone can see and use them so long as proper credit is maintained. Katz had the right to do what he did, both with the e-mails he recieved (as letters written to him, he does own them) and the posts. Depending on your point of view, he may have had the responsibility to do what he did, and I believe he sees it this way. And if he does make some money off of it, so what? Considering the good this book has the potential to do, he deserves a reward for it.

    Jon Katz used us. He is a thief, but worse than Abit, because we trusted him. We took an outsider into our group of outsiders, and he defiled us.

    Really? Explain what was so defiling about what he did. What, did you post something you didn't want made public? That's just stupid; never post something on a public forum that you wouldn't mind every pair of eyes on the face of the planet reading.

    You just couldn't stand not getting all the credit for yourself, could you?

    But he doesn't. He doesn't take the credit for a single one of those postings. He doesn't give names, but that's for a damn good reason (and one which is quite common practice in this type of journalism; it's called "protecting the innocent.") But he doesn't attribute the letters to himself at all.

    You soaked up the blood of those bullet riddled corpses with the pages of that book.

    Really? Books aren't that absorbent, you know. Columbine was a terrible tragedy, yes. But there is a greater tragedy going on, one of which Columbine is only a sign. This tragedy is what the book seeks to bring to light, so that even in something as horrible as Columbine, there may be some good.

    You stole the cries of all maligned geeks in this world.

    One: I hardly think every single geek in the world posted on Slashdot, and certainly they didn't all get into the book.
    Two: He did not steal them. We posted those cries to Slashdot so that they may be heard. Katz is trying to make them heard even more far and wide than is possible with Slashdot alone. Is this so terrible?

    Jon Katz, raper and pillager of the very souls he claims to defend.

    Raper and pillager? Hmmm; I wonder what would happen if I asked a group of rape victims what they thought of this situation. Or even victims of armed robbery. I get the very strong feeling that you'd be rebuffed, probably quite angrily.

    You are a monster.

    A question for you. A group of oppressed people cries out for help. Who is the monster? Is it the person who makes those cries heard, even though he may recieve some reward for it? Or the one who would keep those cries shut off from the world, locked away where only other oppressed peoples can hear it, thus ensuring that the help they so desperately need will never come?

    And if Katz is a monster, then so am I. I did a speech on this very subject last week, using several of the letters sent to Katz in the Hellmouth series (and concluding with Eric Harris' suicide note). I got an A- (highest in the class), and a very long question-and-answer session afterward. I got a reward, just as Katz will; am I so bad? I like to think I might have been able to raise awareness, even if in only one person (or perhaps more; I'll never know for certain). One person who may well teach his children to respect those who are different. One person whose children may then teach their own children to respect those who are different. And I think I touched more than one heart that day. Does a monster do this?

    No. A monster would keep the cries of the geeks shut out to all but other geeks (since, let's face it, who else reads this site? We're all geeks, and we're all damn proud of that fact). We can help each other, but together with non-geeks, we could make true progress. This "geek separatism" you seem to proclaim would make you the monster, not me, and not JonKatz.
  • I've had a BP6 for almost a year now, and while mine has been relatively stable (I don't leave it on all the time), many have not.

    So... I subscribed to linux-abit mailinglist. Seems a LOT of people have had troubles with the board (many have not as well). So, what to do? Bad board, contact Abit, right?

    If there is one constant on the list, it's that mail to Abit goes straigt to /dev/null. They really honestly don't seem to care one iota what people think. And it's a shame too. If the BP6 problems could be fixed it would be a top-notch motherboard.

    Hello, Abit? Will you EVER respond?

  • I hardly know where to start with this one.

    The GPL isn't a US law. It's a software license that applied to ABIT as soon as they distributed a copy on a CD with one of their motherboards.

    ABIT sells motherboards to distributors in other countries. Those countries can certainly control the import of ABIT products.

    This whole thing has nothing to do with the US or it's laws. Anyway, ABIT is certainly going to do the right thing here. They have made a killing selling to Linux users (among others) and they have no business reason to make money off the software. They are a hardware business.

  • Wierd, I ran into this last night... (Score:3)

    by tgd ( 2822 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @06:23AM (#1107359)
    I bought a BP6 yesterday and last night I was using the RPMs from the CD they provided to upgrade my RedHat 6.1 installation.

    First off, I think its really slick that they include a Linux distribution with their motherboards. People should be really careful about how they talk to Abit about this -- don't flame them or attack them, but be polite about pointing out the issue.

    I wanted to recompile their "extra" modules -- the stuff for monitoring system temperatures and stuff, to work with the 2.2.12 kernel that came with RH 6.1. Lack of source was annoying but I ended up just upgrading the kernel too, to the Abit version and everything works great.

    I'm not convinced that they're really violating the GPL anyway. I don't get from the GPL that I have to distribute source to a package I'm distributing in binary form if that package consists of third party source code available elsewhere and thirty party source patches, also available elsewhere.

    I didn't see anything in their distribution I couldn't get and compile from other places on the net. The only difference seemed to be that the configuration of the software, and the packaging made it convenient to install.

    Does this really violate the GPL? Does anyone know of a specific package included in the distribution that consists of patches to GPL'd software where that source and patch aren't available elsewhere?

    I think this is an overreaction...

  • Re:Source is available... (Score:3)

    by tgd ( 2822 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @06:36AM (#1107360)
    The kernel source is on the CD -- its a completely stock RedHat 6.1 distribution with new kernel sources.

    The kernel sources DO include their patches, and work fine.

    If you got the RedHat 6.1 SRPMS, and added a few (freely available) patches to them, you'd have the Abit distribution...

    So source is available for the whole thing.

  • This is probably simply due to miscommunication through abit's management. The people who write the software are going to be much more likely to understand the licensing of GPL software. By the time it gets to distribution they simply slap it on a cd and out it goes. Once the proper people are informed the situation will be remedied quickly.

    The true question is if they will release their source, or pull it alltogether.

    The problems will come when a company modifies GPL'd software and releases it under their own license but denies using GPL'd sources. This could be difficult to prove and will take legal recources.

    Hmmm, has anyone thought of what to do in this case?

    binder
  • So far everytime something like this has come up (with a company), the violator has begged off saying "We misunderstood the nature of the GPL" or something like that.

    I for one have a hard time believing this. I first encountered the GPL when I was 17 years old, with zero experience with the legalese that licenses are written in. I had no trouble understanding the rights and restrictions carried by the GPL.

    I just can't believe that any large corporation could possibly "misunderstand" the language of the GPL.

    That leaves 2 possibilities: willful violation or just not bothering to read the damned thing. I can see the braindead types of technically clueless people who run corporations doing this: "Linux? Oh yeah, it's free! We can do whatever we want with it! Those moronic geeks, we'll make millions off of them!"

    Maybe I'm just bitter...

    --

  • That doesn't sound correct. Section 2b of the GPL reads:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
    that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

    The original question was:

    What if a company uses software released under the GPL as
    part of a larger software product, and does not modify the GPL'ed stuff at all?

    Which to me clearly fits into this category and must be GPLed. This is why the LGPL exists, so that programs or libraries designed to be linked to (libraries, etcetera) can be linked to by commerical non-GPL software packages.

    How far this goes is totally beyond me. If MS Office were to suddenly start calling ispell, I don't think it would apply. As for a hard technical definition of why it wouldn't... I don't know.

    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [gnu.org]

    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html [gnu.org]

  • it's that there are (apparently) no IP laws in Taiwan.

    And the evidence that makes this apparent is?

    This Business Law in Taiwan [wongtsai.com] page says

    Taiwan protects intellectual property and trademark rights under its Copyright Law, Patent Law and Enforcement Rules, and Trademark Law.

    and this page on "Steps to Selling in Taiwan" [216.22.226.41] (which appears to be on a US Air Force site - go figure) says:

    Until very recently, Taiwan had been plagued with copyright and patent pirating and counterfeiting. Items such as watches, shoes, electronics, clothing, music, books, and computer software were unabashedly copied, the products often indistinguishable from the originals. Faced with the loss of huge profits because of these practices, foreign companies and their governments complained and called for changes to remedy this situation.

    Taiwan has revised and toughened its laws related to intellectual property rights, including laws on patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Pirating still exists, but the extent of such practices has been greatly reduced. To protect your product from pirating, you should register your patents, copyrights, and trademarks in Taiwan.

    ...

    A major revamping of Taiwan's copyright law in 1985 provided protection for authors of almost any type of original work. In 1993, Taiwan's legislature passed The American Institute in Taiwan - Coordination Council for North American Affairs (AIT-CCNAA) Bilateral Copyright Agreement, which granted even more protection to U.S. copyright holders. To register a copyright, submit an application to the copyright committee of the Ministry of the Interior. It may take three to six months before the copyright is approved.

    and here's something that I infer is a translation of the copyright law itself [taie.com.tw].

  • Don't forget that this disused lavatory is in a basement where the lights (and the stairs) have gone out.

    Isn't that where everyone keeps their important documents?

  • You guys take the cake... (Score:4)

    by chrish ( 4714 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:30AM (#1107366) Homepage

    You guys really take the cake. Here's an entire distribution full of modified GPL software, and you take a "let's be friendly" approach. Be accidentally includes some GPL'd debugging code, which wasn't even usable by applications, and the whole OSS community freaks out.

    Abit is a huge company, that presumably has the resources (legal, QA, whatever) to check into this sort of thing. Be is a small company that's struggling to survive in a Microsoft-dominated world (you know, just like Linux was until a year or two ago). Did you mean to suggest that small companies are to be reamed at every opportunity, while large companies are to be given the benefit of the doubt?

  • Re:Good for them (Score:3)

    by Ares ( 5306 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:50AM (#1107367) Homepage
    Although US law does not apply in Taiwan, the distribution may well be in violation of the GPL, and if so, US copyright law applies the moment it arrives on US ground. Put another way, if I were to go to one of the East Asian Piracy markets (Malaysia comes to mind, though Taiwan may be even more of a haven), and purchase several thousand dollars worth of software on CDs for pennies (or less) on the dollar, its fine to possess there. As soon as I get back home, they immediately become illegal to possess.

    The source of the distribution is irrelevant if it is being distributed in the US where, coincidentally, US law does apply, and anyone who owns code on that distribution has every right to go after their American affiliate (if such a beast exists) or their American distributors for criminal and civil penalties under US copyright code.

  • Remember Gentus Linux os ALPHA software... This was posted over at HardOCP Thanks Kyle, Infact 99% of the source code of Gentus Linux is included in the directory "/REDHAT/RPMS/" of the CD tile. If you install Gentus with the "everything" option or select "kernel source" with custom option, the code will be on your hard drive. The source code is also availble in "/usr/scr/linux/kernel/". The only part that is not released yet it the ABIT PerMon Toolset code. We are discussing now when and how to release it. Thanks, Jeremy ABIT
  • All Gentus is a modified RedHat 6.1 distro!

    This was posted over at HardOCP

    To Kyle from ABIT:

    Infact 99% of the source code of Gentus Linux is included in the directory "/REDHAT/RPMS/" of the CD tile. If you install Gentus with the "everything" option or select "kernel source" with custom option, the code will be on your hard drive. The source code is also availble in "/usr/scr/linux/kernel/". The only part that is not released yet it the ABIT PerMon Toolset code. We are discussing now when and how to release it.

    Thanks,
    Jeremy
    ABIT

    Vertigo1

  • The Gentus distribution is basically RedHat with a few tweaks and utils thrown in. So if you have, or can get RedHat-6.1 you have the gentus source code. The other utils are also available....
    From the Gentus Linux homepage tech support FAQs:

    http://www.gentus.com/faq_a06.html

    They do not have available for download a separate iso image for a source CD. That is because ALL the source is available elsewhere. I don't think this violates GPL. While they do not specifically supply all of the source for everything on their distro... they DO tell you where you can get it for next to nothing. All the tweaks they do to commonly available source is in /usr/src/linux/.

  • No. (Score:2)

    by Booker ( 6173 )
    The ISO is mounted here - ftp://ftp.kando.hu/pub/CDROM-Images-mounted/gentus /gentus.iso/

    The filesystem tree is a standard Red Hat CD, and RedHat/RPMs has only the binary RPMs. No Source.

    ---

  • Looks like it's being discussed already (Score:3)

    by Booker ( 6173 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:54AM (#1107372) Homepage
    There are some message boards on the site, and one of the threads is about GPL issues. Someone from Abit has replied, and said:

    (http://www.gentus.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000214.ht ml)

    ==============

    hi,
    I am in no way representative of Abit on this subject of Gentus. However, your concern has being understood, and thanks for voicing your opinion.

    I will try my best to pass on the message to the management.

    regards,

    Tim


    ---

  • Confusing the issue (Score:3)

    by Booker ( 6173 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @08:52AM (#1107373) Homepage
    1) /RedHat/RPMS contains only the binary installation RPMs. There may be one RPM named "kernel-source" but that's it.

    2) Saying "oh, company B has the source, go get it from them" hardly seems like fulfilling the terms of the GPL. It's certainly against the spirit, if not the letter, of the license. Why is it Red Hat's responsibility to provide source for the Abit distro?

    3) They have actually modified many of the packages, so pointing to Red Hat for source information is just plain wrong. The source for these packages is certainly not there.

    ---

  • Perhaps lessons were learned (Score:5)

    by Booker ( 6173 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:37AM (#1107374) Homepage
    Well, that's a rather cynical point of view... I'd like to think that /. readers and editors learned a thing or two from the Be/Perens experience, and are handling this differently.

    Just because Abit is huge doesn't mean that you shouldn't take the time to gather facts, and compose a thoughtful response.

    ---
  • I think they meant that ABIT ships some sort of hardware driver that is a modification of the kernel source but only provides that part as a binary. So the "stock" kernel source is there, but ABIT's modifications are binary-only.
  • But think about who makes the decisions at ABIT. To almost everyone in our society, the word "free" means nothing but gratis; and the people at ABIT who made the decisions are almost certainly business or marketing types who are even less likely to understand another meaning of the word "free." This is the result of the "Call now and receive a FREE GIFT!!!!!!" kind of marketing. The word free no longer has any association with civil liberty. I sometimes think even "liberal software" would be less problematic than "free software."

  • The linux community has been accused of overreaction in the past, and I for one am glad to see OSS supporters giving people the benefit of the doubt while the truth is sorted out. Be was also given the benefit of the doubt, and the situation is being resolved. If it turns out Abit really isn't making the source code available, then you'll see the violent onslaught.


    People are chilling out. it's a good thing

  • Re:You guys take the cake... (Score:4)

    by eval ( 8638 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @06:11AM (#1107378) Homepage
    I agree. I think we should make a lot of noise about this, even before we've gotten all the nitty-gritty details.

    I try to be a level-headed person, and don't encourage rampant flaming. However, the Linux community's greatest asset in cases like this is the ability to generate noise and "buzz". Right now, we should be spreading the word that Abit seems to be violating the GPL. Tomorrow, it should that they *are* violating the GPL. And next week, the boycott should start, and we should be in stark-raving-Stallman-ESR mode. Not flaming, but sticking to our ideological guns and using our *significant* weight in the technical community to rein in Abit, and to prevent this from becoming a common occurrence. We need to make it known that if a company violates the GPL, we're going to notice and get mad about it. Otherwise, they'll never learn, and we'll keep going through this time after time, and eventually, they might win.

    We don't have the usual tools that Big Companies[tm] do to keep each other semi-honest (lawyers, contracts, hit-men). We need to use what we do have, our brains and mouths.
  • That's important, then if you don't like their statement, you can do what you want, is up to you...
    It would be great if someone sets an Open Letter for them (if this gets confirmed) and then millons sign it...
    (Personally, I think that the Open Source Community looks bad when a company, that's interested somehow in Linux and Open Source Software in general, gets tons of flame mail and trolling...I preffer Open Letters)
  • If it's true, it doesn't surprise me. We will see many things like this happen in the future. Some people in the "corporate" world just want to take adventage in other's people work. Who knows how many commercial projects are now using parts of GPL'd code?
    Like rats, for every single rat you see, there's ten more hiding.

  • Perfect Timing! (Score:3)

    by marvinx ( 9011 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:33AM (#1107381) Homepage
    Wow... this is great timing... I've just purchased an Abit BP6 board. I've been wondering if I should use the Gentus distrobution. It has optimized UDMA 66 IDE drivers, but by using it I get locked in to using that exact distro. Because no one has found the source, I can't upgrade my kernel. Apparently, Mandrake has built in support for the BP6's IDE controller. Also, the 2.3.99 kernel has support for it, too. There are patches for the 2.2.x kernels available @ http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hedr ick/ to get the UDMA/66 IDE controller to work.

    I really hope Abit releases the sources. It would be great to actually pick my distrobution /and/ use their optimized drivers.
  • well, put it this way. You let one thing slip and everyone thinks they can run over you again. Abit wants to get away with keeping some drivers for their boards in house, but it won't happen. Personally i'm pretty pissed at the whole incident and will probably never buy an Abit board ever again no matter if they do release the source at a later date.
  • nope, I checked it out just for you. The sources to some of the programs are not there. They are not anywhere.
  • Nope. They don't have to include the source with their distribution at all. The non-commercial clause only 3c.

    3b says they satisfy the requirement if they...

    Accompany [the software distribution] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of [the GPL] on a medium customarily used for software interchange....

    So, if they didn't include an offer to supply the source, Abit broke the GPL. But, if they make the offer in the future, and attempt to make the offer to those who purchased it before, then I'd say that all would be well.
  • You guys really take the cake. Here's an entire distribution full of modified GPL software, and you take a "let's be friendly" approach. Be accidentally includes some GPL'd debugging code, which wasn't even usable by applications, and the whole OSS community freaks out.

    As is obvious from your contact info, you are pretty into BeOS. Great, so am I. Well, with the "Be GPL Fiasco", I noticed something. /. posted a story with _no_ inflammatory language in the blurb, a link to a story that basically said: "Be screwed up, I already called them on it. Be did The Right Thing (r), but I just thought I would take this opportunity to remind everyone to keep a look out for those companies that aren't as fast to respond and willing to go the extra mile. I came away from reading Peren's note impressed both with how he handled it and how Be handled it. It seemed fairly professional on both ends. Then I go back to /. to look at the comments. /. had some rabid stallmanites who saw "GPL violation" and went off the deep end, but by and large they were replied to by people who actually read the page by Perens and straightened out. Then I went to BeNews. What was the story over there? Slashdot posts story condemming BE!!!! Kill all slashdotters!!! /. sUx0r3!!!!! wtf?
    Anyways, I just thought I would point out that both times, the /. editors did nothing but suggest the "let's be friendly" approach, and I am willing to bet that you will see the same response to this story that you did the other one: 1/2 rabid "kill kill kill" posts, and 1/2 "hey, let's at least talk to them first." posts, the first moderated (mostly) troll, and the second moderated (mostly) insightful. But to blame the editors for any of this just shows a lack of understanding of how /. works. Anyway, I'll get off my soap box now :-)
  • They can distribute whatever they want, so long as:
    - They allow people to _GET_ the source... you don't have to privide source with binaries.
    - That they don't modify the license.

    I'd be willing to guess that the executables they changed still has the GPL in them. ./prog --license;

    As for their license being attached. I'm willing to make a guess that its for their programs and not the GPL'd programs. Besides, I have never heard of anyone knowingly violate the GPL. Its usually some clueby lawyer thinking he's doing his job.
  • Have you asked them for the source?
  • Here is one way to install say, RedHat 6.2 on an UDMA 66 controller. Just one note before I start, from what I understand the drivers are hardly Abit's I think they just patched the RedHat 6.1 kernel with the patch you mentioned and called it their own.

    First, unhook hdd from the UDMA controller and plug it into the corrisponding IDE controller (ie, if it's the primary master on the UDMA controller it should be the same on the IDE controller).

    Second, install whatever distro you chose.

    Third, get a clean kernel source (since the ones distributed with most distros never patch cleanly) and grab the patch you mentioned. Build and install this kernel. You should probably put it on a floppy as lilo might not entirely like this procedure.

    Now you put your hdd back on the UDMA controller and reboot. The UDMA controller now becomes /dev/hd[a-d] so to linux nothing should have changed.

    If you have any problems my email is spam@drexel.edu.

  • Sorry about the troll rating, I was moderating, and it jumped in by itself.

    I'm e-mailing rob.

    I'm also posting in the hope that it will just blow my moderation away.
  • GPL may or may not be applicable in Taiwan; I have no idea.

    However, if they expect to maintain any level of respect in this community, they shouldn't abuse and insult us in this manner.

    Their intentions do seem to be to help this (greater Linux) community with their modifications, but their approach is a kind of anti-Robin Hood. They are a rich company stealing from the "poor" (aka non-profit) GPL coding community. Hopefully it is just a temporary breakdown in communications, after all, they are a Taiwanese company therefore not primarily English-literate.

    (PS. I'm an ASUS user (P2L97-DS), so it's a technical non-issue for me.)
  • The problems will come when a company modifies GPL'd software and releases it under their own license but denies using GPL'd sources. This could be difficult to prove and will take legal recources.

    Granted, it may be difficult to find that out, but if you found enough signs of a copyright breach it shouldn't be too hard.
    Just drag them to court, show the judge your evidence and get him to order the offending company to open up their source to the court. Then the judge could consult an expert under NDA, who would find out the truth.
  • I really doubt people are just going to stop buying from one of the biggest motherboard makers in the world just because they didn't release some source code. I know it won't stop ME. I don't even want the source code.
  • Quite a few folks here seem to think that if the source is available somewhere, a redistributer of (unmodified) GPL'd binaries doesn't need to supply or make available the source themselves.

    This just isn't so. Read section 3, it's very explicit about that. Only non-commercial redistributers (ie, if I burn a copy of a RedHat CD for a friend) of unmodified binaries are allowed to make the offer of source from a third party -- and then only if that redistributer received such a written offer in the first place.

    If the CD I'm copying also came with a CD full of source, and no written offer that the source was on some ftp site (regardless of whether the source really is there or not), then I have to burn a copy of that source CD for my friend too (no written offer, no third-party responsibility).

    In effect, the GPL only allows source distribution, with the option of including a precompiled binary as a convenience. (I know, that's not the wording, but that's the effect.)
  • Hmmm... the community will not purchase Abit's products if they violate the GPL.

    This isn't about boycotting or anything like that. The GPL is designed to prevent slavery and enforce freedom. Abit is enslaving unsuspecting members of the community by not distributing the source for their modifications. This is serious! Someone could unwittingly purchase an Abit board with the included pseudo-distro, and end up locked into Abit's proprietary and subjugating modifications, with all choices stripped from them.
  • Perhaps getting the story straight before posting it might be the correct approach.
  • FascDot agreeing with Taco?? Can this be?

    Yes. It doesn't matter how big the alleged perp is not how bad the alleged crime. The first step is ALWAYS "determine the facts". In this case, we need to determine:

    Is the software Abit is distributing GPL'd (vs, say LGPL'd)?
    Has that software been modified?
    Is it being distributed publicly?
    What does Abit say to the above and about the situation in general?

    Some of these questions probably already have answers. That's not the point. The point is: Did we ask them BEFORE starting an email "campaign"?
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • Holy shit, that lasagna bit was funny :)
  • ... at least according to this FAQ [gentus.com]. It appears that it is an ISO-only distribution, and that source code is available in /REDHAT/RPMS/. Whether it's the complete source to everything (doubtful), or just to the kernel, or just to the things they have modified, I don't know. Has anyone actually pulled down an ISO and burned a CD?

    ---
  • Just the GPL'd stuff. However, were they were to modify program X, and program X was GPL'd, they must release their modifications under the GPL, (and hence, provide sources).
  • I don't see how vendors could make a dime. The only people who have legal recourse against Abit are the copyright holders of the software whose license has been violated. I.e. the authors of hdparm or whatever other utilities. Unless RedHat holds the copyright on the utility (I don't think they do), I don't see a lawsuit from them.
  • Not to mention that a judge would probably slap both parties with huge fines for contempt of court.
  • It is unclear to me yet if these RPMs are Abit-derived, or based on other people's patches, but without source its impossible to tell.


    And thus you can't possibly do anything except rant like a lunatic. Until you can prove that they are in violation of the GPL any kind of claims along those lines are just defamation. Any kind of demand for source code can be met with a stony silence.
  • It's common to distribute code via the web and pointing at the "official" download location. Unless there distro is totally devoid of URLS pointing to download sites they aren't in violation.

    ----

    What's more is that it looks like the one of two things is true (and has been true for years):

    1 - the FSF is in violation of the GPL by distributing on CD-ROM GPL-ed software at substantially more than the physical cost of duplicating, or
    2 - they are saying that the human time cost can be charged in which case the whole clause for a fee based on the physical duplication cost is irrelevant. One could charge $1,000,000 for a copy of a program and just charge it as the human cost in duplication.
  • On what grounds do you believe the GPL only applies in the U.S.?

    The point isn't that the GPL only applies in the US, it's that there are (apparently) no IP laws in Taiwan. The GPL isn't a law, it's a license that lays out the terms you are allowed to distribute software under. All of it's enforcability comes from copyright law. In the absence of copyright law then the license is moot.

    But the main point the originator of this subthread missed is that a company doing business in a country is bound by that country's laws throught the process of that business.
  • If you can't identify changes then how do you know they are changed? Maybe it's just repackaged or recompiled with different options? Adding a corporate logo wouldn't be considered a change by a court. In fact if it's a trademarked logo you don't have a right to use it anyway so it's irrelevant if they don't want to provide a nice little include file with the bitmap in it.

    Merely not distributing a clearly documented source package is not indicative of a whole slew secret GPL violations.
  • Huh? The fact that source isn't released *IS* the violation of the GPL.

    Only if it's code that has been modified. I can take gcc compile it, distribute the binaries and not give anybody any source code. Unless you can prove I modified it it is not a violation of the GPL. I am not required to provide a download site for every GPl-ed piece of software I distributed if the source is available elsewhere.
  • Hmmm... the community will not purchase Abit's products if they violate the GPL. Simply put - Abit needs to release the code or noone will buy there stuff. Also this may be an excellent time to do a court test of the GPL - contact Abit - get them to agree to release their code but hold off until the issue has gone to court. Have them put up only a token defense and get a precendent for the GPL set.

    Abit - release your source - Many of the community, me included will NOT buy your products if you do not release your source code.
  • This deserves a (Score: 8, Funny) or something like that, because you happened to pick what I consider the funniest single sentance out of the first HHGTTG book. Actually, the funniest single sentance of the whole series. I'm not sure what it is about a disused lavatory and a leopard, but it makes me rofl every single time. It must be the sheer randomness of each part, especialy the leopard... I don't know, but Douglas Adams is a genius.

  • Re:If True. (Score:3)

    by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:43AM (#1107409)
    Some people in the "corporate" world just want to take adventage in other's people work.
    While I feel this is a perfectly true statement, I also fear there is another thing to consider. A misunderstanding. Confusion born of ignorance and not "getting it".

    The whole Open Source concept (ie: freedom, not beer) escapes a great deal of people. They seem to waffle at the philisophical, as well as technical, aspects of Open Source. What they focus on instead is software that you can buy cheaply OR download for free. Corporate business types are especially prone to this. The end result? Open Source software is labled as "freeware".

    Freeware? Beer! Grab.

    Freeware has a whole different "feel" to it - from the old "get what you pay for" mentality to the free lunch crowd. The GPL must cause a great deal of confusion for these folks when they're eventually forced to look over it again.

    On a semi-related side note... some of those in the industry do not help matters. SUN, for example, seems to enjoy labeling anything GPL as "freeware". You'd think they know better. In fact, I suspect they do.

  • 1 - the FSF is in violation of the GPL by distributing on CD-ROM GPL-ed software at substantially more than the physical cost of duplicating...

    No no no no no. There is absolutely nothing in the GPL that prevents you from charging for software. (Section 1 of Terms and Conditions [gnu.org]: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy".) You just can't charge those people who buy the software for the source, at least beyond cost of duplication. (Section 3b: "to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".)

  • Only if it's code that has been modified.
    That's just not true. Excuse the long quote, but it's the best way to answer the question:
    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
    Considering all the hype about the GPL on /., you'd think people would at least read it [gnu.org].
  • That's the only piece of software ABIT *did* include in their distribution that came with the source. Even if they had neglected that, however, a stock kernel would have worked fine.
  • I (versus) personally started that discussion.
    But at first I made sure they violated GPL.

    Yes, I have checked all the Gentus CD to make sure Abit didn't include the source to Gentus and modified BP6Mon to 'Abit' license.

    I personally checked all the modified RPMs and found them really modified.

    I sent them email and they didn't respond.
    I asked staff at Gentus discussion page and they didn't respond.

    Then I started a thread with that provoking title about violating GPL.

  • I know Abit's behavior seems clueless at best, and arrogant at worst, but really, we (the open-source community) have no direct claim on Abit. We may not like it if they violate the GPL, and_polite_ protests may get the desired efffect, but the fundamental rights that are being violated are those of the author(s): redseb and perhaps Ben Jarvis, from whom he has "'emprunté' une grande partie du code" ('borrowed' a large part of the code).

    When someone violates the GPL, as Abit is alleged to have done, what they are doing is distributing copyrighted software without a license (the GPL does not apply, since they are not complying with its terms). The appropriate response is for one or more of the authors to contact the offender and discuss licensing terms.

    The author(s) may insist that the GPL be complied with, but they are fully within their rights to grant special terms to their own code, if they think it justified. Of course, all the authors would have to agree to new terms. [This may be possible in this case, since there is only one author (or a small number of them), but would be essentially impossible for something like the Linux kernel.]
  • Huh? The fact that source isn't released *IS* the violation of the GPL.

    Also, the licenses are there in plain sight, and changing the GPL license on a piece of software to Abit without the permission of the copyright holders is completely illegal.
    --
    No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
  • That is because you were likely smarter at 17 than the average upper management type.

  • The filing cabinet is located at the nearest Galactic public records office, near Alpha-Centuri.
  • Yes, they freaked out. However, it was not Bruce Peren's or the slashdot author's fault. They said clearly in the article Be was doing anything terribly wrong and Bruce was even letting them go head and distrubate the code. He simply wanted to show what problems mixing closed source and open source could create. I don't see why everyone was in complete freak out mode about it. Heh. If people only read the articles that they post about I think the world would be a much, much happier place.
  • "Also this may be an excellent time to do a court test of the GPL - contact Abit - get them to agree to release their code but hold off until the issue has gone to court. Have them put up only a token defense and get a precendent for the GPL set."

    Well if Abit puts up only a token defence this would easily be appealed and overturned by any future case, so no precendent would be set.

    If the GPL is to be tested it should be against a properally done defense, because if it stands against that, then it should stand against future arguments.

  • I Wonder How many flames they do get... (Score:3)

    by dalamar ( 80456 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:31AM (#1107420)

    We all know that some really foolish people are going to take it upon themselves to flame abit. It always amazes me how people who don't have any right to flame do. I believe that maintainers (Or significant contributers) to a software project should be the people with the right and need to contact the offenders. Not some guy who happened to read a news article. I guess it's just mankinds want to cause change.

  • Re:You guys take the cake... (Score:4)

    by scumdamn ( 82357 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:46AM (#1107421)
    Your overgeneralization is more than unfair. It's offensive.
    I read Slashdot every day and I've never flamed a company for GPL violations. It's not my code out there, and these companies aren't violating my license. Remember that everywhere you go 99% of everybody are idiots. Especially on the internet. Here's a little something to think about:
    1. Bruce Perens' code was misused last time
    2. He spoke to someone at Be, didn't sue, signed a writ of understanding and didn't cause them any financial harm.
    3. The news about Abit just came out (AFAIK)
    4. Be was not reamed. In fact, there was a big reaction to the fact that Bruce was being unfair to Be and jumping the gun. He seemed to take that criticism well.

  • If you got the RedHat 6.1 SRPMS, and added a few (freely available) patches to them, you'd have the Abit distribution...

    Not necessarily. There are more RPMs changed than just the kernel. There's no way as yet of knowing what the other changes actually are, Im afraid.


    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • I'm not convinced that they're really violating the GPL anyway. I don't get from the GPL that I have to distribute source to a package I'm distributing in binary form if that package consists of third party source code available elsewhere and thirty party source patches, also available elsewhere.

    At the very least, if they're distributing binaries derived from GPL'd code, they must provide the modified source. It is unclear to me yet if these RPMs are Abit-derived, or based on other people's patches, but without source its impossible to tell.

    Additionally, it seems that at least one RPM has had the copyright altered from the GPL to Abit-owned. That's also not permitted


    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • Re:Rather than cautioning the flamers... (Score:3)

    by WhyteRabbyt ( 85754 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @06:07AM (#1107424) Homepage

    The story is straight, although possibly a bit premature, since there appears to be a possibility that someone cluefull at Gentus has realised the situation (see the last message on the discussion board page).

    Ive already emailed Gentus, a few days ago. Their stance appears to be that supply their modified kernel as a source RPM, they are conforming to the GPL. The way is appears to me from the email Ive had is that someone is confusing supplying the kernel source with the distribution source.

    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • Re:Source is available... (Score:3)

    by WhyteRabbyt ( 85754 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @06:39AM (#1107425) Homepage

    Has anyone actually pulled down an ISO and burned a CD?

    Yup. It appears to be a bog-standard RedHat 6.1 (Cartman) distro, with certain RPMS replaced by Abit's own versions. In subdirectory /RedHat/RPMS (Yup, unlike LinuxOne, they haven't even sed'd RedHat with Abit in the copyright or anywhere) the following RPMS are Abit-specific

    I810X-1.0-3abit.i386.rpm
    X11R6-contrib-3.3.6-1abit.i386.rpm
    gmc-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
    gnome-core-1.0.54-2abit.i386.rpm
    gnome-core-devel-1.0.54-2abit.i386.rpm
    hdparm-3.5-1abit.i386.rpm
    indexhtml-6.1-2abit.noarch.rpm
    initscripts-4.70-1abit.i386.rpm
    kdesupport-1.1.2-3abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i586.rpm
    kernel-2.2.13-13abit.i686.rpm
    kernel-BOOT-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-doc-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-headers-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-ibcs-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-pcmcia-cs-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i586.rpm
    kernel-smp-2.2.13-13abit.i686.rpm
    kernel-source-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    kernel-utils-2.2.13-13abit.i386.rpm
    lilo-0.22-7abit.i386.rpm
    linux_logo-3.01-1abit.i386.rpm
    mc-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
    mcserv-4.5.42-6abit.i386.rpm
    redhat-logos-1.1.0-1abit.noarch.rpm
    rhl-gsg-6.1en-2abit.noarch.rpm
    rhl-ig-6.1en-1abit.noarch.rpm

    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • I'm already talking to Gentus 'bout this (Score:5)

    by WhyteRabbyt ( 85754 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @06:01AM (#1107426) Homepage

    As someone who's already raised the issue with Abit, it seems there's a bigmisunderstanding on Abit's part. NB: I have comments posted already on the Gentus discussion page mentioned

    Ive already formally requested information on obtaining the source code from the two discussion forum moderators, as well as directly through Abit. Both the forum moderators appear to be of the opinion of the fact that since the Gentus ISO includes the Linux kernel source code, they conform to the GPL. I have not had a reply from Abit themselves.

    I havent had a chance to check exactly what's in the kernel source RPM they mention, but from the sound of it, its the Hedricks IDE patches pre-applied to a stock kernel.

    I was going to clarify further with Gentus, and re-explain the GPL to them before submitting this story to Slashdot, but it looks as though the story is out before Ive had a chance to get more info from Gentus

    It would be nice if folk waited a bit longer and behaved rationally in the meantime, so that we can get a sensible answer, without the shit-slinging.

    I'm still pursuing it the 'proper way', so can folks be nice, and just make tens of thousands of polite, formal requests for the source, instead of harassing them. Im sure it'll work better in the long term


    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • Proposed Open Letter (Score:5)

    by WhyteRabbyt ( 85754 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @07:11AM (#1107427) Homepage
    The following might do as a starting point for an open Letter to Gentus.

    Try sending it to johntsai@www.gentus.com and yakumo@www.gentus.com
    snip from here -->

    Dear Gentus,

    I am writing to you to formally request information on obtaining the source code to the Gentus Linux distribution.

    Since the entire distribution, including the kernel, utilities and other software, is derived from work released under the GPL, I believe I am entitled to request the availability of the source code for all the supplied software, not just the kernel. There appear to be several RPM's included in the Gentus distribution which are Abit-modified versions of previously GPL'd code. I am particularly interested in the source code for these modifications.

    It also concerns me that at least one RPM appears to have been derived from a GPL'd product, but has had its license changed to an Abit-specific copyright. As you should be aware, changing the license of code derived from the GPL actually breached the GPL. I would thus also request you to clarify the situation with regard to AbitPermon and its derivation from BP6Mon.

    Thank you

    -- to here

    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • Come on guys! This is supposed to be a parody. Cut me some slack and laugh. My true view is that if they haven't released the source, I hope it is just on oversight. Otherwise the powers that be in the OpenSource comnuity should *gently* remind them either come up with their source code or scrap the project.
  • I understand the parody works better with the proper score, but don't destroy my Karma. I was just trying to make people laugh.
  • 1/2 rabid "kill kill kill" posts, and 1/2 "hey, let's at least talk to them first." posts

    I think perhaps we need a new category for this sort of thing, something that will help diffuse these otherwise ugly occurrences.

    I'd like to humbly propose we accept the suggestion made by suck.com [suck.com], and use From the Jihad, Jihad dept. for news of GPL violations. They even have a cute little topic icon [suck.com] for us to use. Seriously, taken in such light it would be hard to justify some of the over-the-top responses that news like this seems to get.

    Just a suggestion :)

  • Idea: force the GPL lawsuit? (Score:3)

    by frankie ( 91710 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @12:12PM (#1107431) Journal
    otherwise there will be a lawsuit that will be THE famous GPL lawsuit, oh yeah.

    People keep speculating about this bold event, when the GPL will finally be tested in court. Which makes me think -- why wait?

    I realize there are some potentially criminal issues here about collusion, and abuse of the legal system. But... it might be a really GOOD thing if some small company would violate the GPL in a deep and egregious fashion. The FSF and /. would politely ask them to stop, and they would refuse. So it goes to court, and the FSF fields a strong legal team. Unfortunately the small company can't afford a really hotshot lawyer. They do "their best" to defend a case, but in the end they lose.

    Result: the GPL is affirmed to have legal standing in a US court decision, setting a precedent that holds weight for all future cases.

    Thoughts?

  • If the way ABIT translates their motherboard manuals into english is any indication of how they code, they are probably doing us a favor. Sometimes not sharing IS better.
  • The motherboards are what people are going to not buy, methinks.

  • I personally read the GPL as soon as I started seriously advocating it for anything. It cleared up a lot of things I was confused about from reading summaries. One of the only really clear pieces of legal writing I've ever read.


    -RickHunter

  • If you want to know the character of a man, find out what his cat thinks of him.

    So how do you find out the character of a corporation? What its CEO's cat thinks of it? ;-)


    -RickHunter
  • Do you always base your ideas on software on what other people think of it?

    If you do, I (and a lot of my friends) don't like SuSe. Will you be reformatting your harddrive now?

    I have not used Gentus, in fact, I didn't even know it existed until know. But I think it is a great gesture to include a GNU/Linux distribution with hardware. Even if it's "crap".

    It will probably bring the existance of GNU/Linux (or GNU/Linux outside of Redhat) and Open Source in general, to the attention of many people. I'd say this is a good thing.

  • Well... (Score:5)

    by Erik Fish ( 106896 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:23AM (#1107437) Journal

    Perhaps the source has been made available in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet located in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".

  • It depends greatly on how the various parts of the larger product fit together.

    One could call a Linux distro one large software product. In that case, it is quite possible to add programs to the distro which do not need to be covered by the GPL. On the other hand, adding a new terminal driver to Emacs would need to be GPLed.

    Note carefully the clause about independent and separate works in section 2. This is where you can quickly get yourself in trouble, as using a library means your work is not independent of that library.

    So, a separately-invokable program linked only against LGPL (or other non-GPL) code would be a separate work, and would not need to be GPLed.

    I'm sure there's been discussion on binary-only Linux kernel modules, and I don't see how they can be considered separate works.

  • Yes, ABIT gave us a lovely motherboard and we should thank them for it but you are obviously spewing flamebait for another America!=World debate.
    On what grounds do you believe the GPL only applies in the U.S.? Do you believe any company can release any GPL software they like (modified or not) by any means they choose so long as they are not American?
    Anyway I think it's debatable that U.S. law applies in the U.S. and for an argument I supply one young Cuban boy and one manufacturer of bloatware containing a OS and a browser.
  • Yes, paradox is correct, the code has to be out there, somewhere and it is time for Molder and Skully to start searching for it. Maybe what they will find will amaze them or amuse them but it for sure will prove the point paradox tried to make.

    On the other hand, who exactly will be suing Abit?
    How is it done properly and who the plaintiffs are, who pays the money, etc?

    Now that VA Linux and RH share value has gone down alot, will they support this cause? Or are there other ways?

    anyone?

  • Re:Perfect Timing! (Score:3)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday April 27, 2000 @05:44AM (#1107443) Homepage Journal
    Ok, Listen, we have to fight. Take that ABit BP6 board and put make a voodoo doll of it, I mean a voodoo MotherBoard. You have to visualize the enemy (ABit board of directors). You must use long sharp needles. First one goes into the existing ISA slot. This will kill their rudimental toes and the appendix. Use the next needle to scratch the bus, this will paralize their legs. Third needle goes into PCI slot, at this point they should be experiencing burning sensation between their legs. With the next needle go through the BIOS that will stop them from not only violating the GPL and programming Gnu/Linux but also will force them to put their forks into their eyes and their spoons into their noses.

    Of-course to perform the ritual you must read and learn by heart the entire black man pages for Caldera and Solaris, also it would be nice to take lessons from such experienced magic performers as /. moderators.
  • I reacently picked up a coppy of MaximumLinux magazine that included two distro disks. I was suprised to read the licence agrement in the back of the mgazine. It forbid the copying of the disks or any portion of them. In other words it forbids the redistrobution of the GPLed software on the disks, and if I change any of the GPLed source code I cannot distribute the changes. Smells like a violation to me.
  • Only if it's code that has been modified. I can take gcc compile it, distribute the binaries and not give anybody any source code. Unless you can prove I modified it it is not a violation of the GPL. I am not required to provide a download site for every GPl-ed piece of software I distributed if the source is available elsewhere.

    Well, you're partially right. If you actually read the GPL (v2 or higher), it says that if you commercially redistribute GPLed software, even unmodified, you cannot rely on a third party to distribute the source code; you must host it yourself. If you're just redistributing to a friend, or even giving away your own custom distribution for free, nobody requires that you offer the source.

  • It seems that an observing employee has already responded to the string, stating he'd get management on it. And one of the original coders has already threatened to sue. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close