Hi All,
Without actually naming the company I here's something I would like to share -
They provide broadband adsl modem + routers for a major govt isp in India. They use linux on their device and have not provided any source code for the same.
Can they be requested/mandated to share the same ?
regards, C
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 11:35, Chetan S wrote:
Hi All,
Without actually naming the company I here's something I would like to share -
They provide broadband adsl modem + routers for a major govt isp in India. They use linux on their device and have not provided any source code for the same.
Can they be requested/mandated to share the same ?
They are mandated to make available the source to every Purchaser of the equipment. If you are the purchaser they will have to show you the source. Infact the product has to have an offer for obtaining the source and a copy of the gpl - in this case hard copy since the probably dont have space to store / display the entire licence.
-----Original Message----- From: linuxers-bounces@mm.glug-bom.org [mailto:linuxers- bounces@mm.glug-bom.org] On Behalf Of Chetan S Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:05 PM To: GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India Subject: [ILUG-BOM] mandating source code disclosure for router
Hi All,
Without actually naming the company I here's something I would like to share -
They provide broadband adsl modem + routers for a major govt isp in India. They use linux on their device and have not provided any source code for the same.
Can they be requested/mandated to share the same ?
If this is what you are asking for.. fourth link on google for "dlink source code"
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloadslist.asp?SourceType=download&OS=GPL
Thanks Dhawal,
On 8/8/07, Dhawal Doshy dhawal@netmagicsolutions.com wrote:
Can they be requested/mandated to share the same ?
If this is what you are asking for.. fourth link on google for "dlink source code"
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloadslist.asp?SourceType=download&OS=GPL
However its not D-Link am talking of.
regards, C
On 08-Aug-07, at 4:21 PM, Chetan S wrote:
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloadslist.asp?SourceType=download&OS=GPL
However its not D-Link am talking of.
why the secrecy - MTNL and starcom?
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 16:35, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 08-Aug-07, at 4:21 PM, Chetan S wrote:
http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/downloadslist.asp?SourceType=download&OS =GPL
However its not D-Link am talking of.
why the secrecy - MTNL and starcom?
So that you dont get sued for slander or whatever a false accusation is called in legalese.
On 08-Aug-07, at 4:54 PM, jtd wrote:
However its not D-Link am talking of.
why the secrecy - MTNL and starcom?
So that you dont get sued for slander or whatever a false accusation is called in legalese.
it is called defamation - and in case you are interested, even a true accusation can be defamatory. And a false accusation may not be defamatory. It is the motivation for the accusation that is important. In this case, the accusation - true or false - is made in public interest after a reasonable attempt at verification, so it is not defamatory.
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 17:08, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 08-Aug-07, at 4:54 PM, jtd wrote:
However its not D-Link am talking of.
why the secrecy - MTNL and starcom?
So that you dont get sued for slander or whatever a false accusation is called in legalese.
it is called defamation - and in case you are interested, even a true accusation can be defamatory. And a false accusation may not be defamatory. It is the motivation for the accusation that is important. In this case, the accusation - true or false - is made in public interest after a reasonable attempt at verification, so it is not defamatory.
Ok. That is very interesting. So we can disclose names if we have made "reasonable" attempts to verify the facts. in the case of gpl violations - we have verified that the binaries are gpl - will the abscence of an offer for source code on the website (or written offer like dlink) be construed as sufficient verification?
On 08-Aug-07, at 5:29 PM, jtd wrote:
in public interest after a reasonable attempt at verification, so it is not defamatory.
Ok. That is very interesting. So we can disclose names if we have made "reasonable" attempts to verify the facts. in the case of gpl violations - we have verified that the binaries are gpl - will the abscence of an offer for source code on the website (or written offer like dlink) be construed as sufficient verification?
yes - the mention of license should be on deadtrees/cd in the box. If not there you have reasonable cause. Link on website is not enough. As for dlink, the judgement was about 6 months back, so prior to that dlink wont have it in the box, but they have been forgiven. All new dlink products i have seen have the license in/on the box. Skype had a link to the source of the handset they were selling on their website, but the court held that that was not enough to comply with the gpl. The beauty of the RTI Act is that any indian citizen can invoke it. Just download the form from the internet, fill it in and post to the appropriate officer. The appropriate officer is also described on the website.
On 08-Aug-07, at 7:20 PM, Rony wrote:
However its not D-Link am talking of.
If you are not the purchaser, you may not be able to get the SC. The big ISP which buys it in bulk has to request for it.
you request the person who supplied you - he has to give you the SC and it is no excuse for him to say that the original vendor didnt give him the source.
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 19:29, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 08-Aug-07, at 7:20 PM, Rony wrote:
However its not D-Link am talking of.
If you are not the purchaser, you may not be able to get the SC. The big ISP which buys it in bulk has to request for it.
you request the person who supplied you - he has to give you the SC and it is no excuse for him to say that the original vendor didnt give him the source.
In the usa (and probably "as such" in India) he can patent some piece of drivel and pump it into the modem. then tieup with bsnl not to sue BSNL customers buying the modem. So if you bought a bsnl modem, demanded and recieved the code, then re-cross-compiled (or dd the rom binary) and pumped the code into your own design modem / 386box / whatever he can sue you.
M$ Novell deal does something similiar with the added M$ innovation of claiming 200 odd undisclosed patents. So the gplv3, which irons out the corner-cases-now-mainstream of distribution thru services/ lease/ third party paten truce/ embeded/ and such other subterfuges.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 09 August 2007 14:10, jtd wrote:
[snip] In the usa (and probably "as such" in India) he can patent some piece of drivel and pump it into the modem. then tieup with bsnl not to sue BSNL customers buying the modem. So if you bought a bsnl modem, demanded and recieved the code, then re-cross-compiled (or dd the rom binary) and pumped the code into your own design modem / 386box / whatever he can sue you.
I very much doubt if a court would uphold an action against you by a provider if you compile and use a piece of code that the provider himself supplied you with. If they did, I'm getting busy patenting algorithm foo, embedding it into a piece of GPLv2 code and allowing everyone to download and use that code. 2 months later I'll sue them all for patent violation, make lots of money, unsubscribe from all mailing lists and go and live a life of luxury beyond my wildest dreams in the Himalayas.
M$ Novell deal does something similiar with the added M$ innovation of claiming 200 odd undisclosed patents. So the gplv3, which irons out the corner-cases-now-mainstream of distribution thru services/ lease/ third party paten truce/ embeded/ and such other subterfuges.
Regards,
- -- Raju "I know how to spell y-o-u" Mathur - -- Raj Mathur raju@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ Freedom in Technology & Software || September 2007 || http://freed.in/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F It is the mind that moves
On Thursday 09 August 2007 14:43, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Thursday 09 August 2007 14:10, jtd wrote:
[snip] In the usa (and probably "as such" in India) he can patent some piece of drivel and pump it into the modem. then tieup with bsnl not to sue BSNL customers buying the modem. So if you bought a bsnl modem, demanded and recieved the code, then re-cross-compiled (or dd the rom binary) and pumped the code into your own design modem / 386box / whatever he can sue you.
I very much doubt if a court would uphold an action against you by a provider if you compile and use a piece of code that the provider himself supplied you with.
End users are patent licenced by the patent holder - not bsnl - for use and modification for self, not for down stream distribution. Bsnl does not sue, the patent holder sues - not you the enduser - but anyone else you happen to distribute to.
If they did, I'm getting busy patenting algorithm foo, embedding it into a piece of GPLv2 code and allowing everyone to download and use that code. 2 months later I'll sue them all for patent violation, make lots of money,
U cant sue if you own the patented code and distribute - that case is sortof covered in gplv2 - but perversely you can sue Rony if u gave the code to me and i gave it to Rony. When u distribute to me u also automatically give permission to me to use a patent but not to redistribute. So when i disitribute to Rony u can sue Rony. To make it a nice milking scheme u allow me to redistribute. So now i sell to Rony and u dont sue Rony. But if Rony gives DJ you can sue DJ. Since DJ cant ask me code. Rony can and i have to give the source to him.Rony can do everything he wishes with it except redistribute. although the gpl2 allows him to redsitribute to DJ, your patent is a sword on DJ's head.
unsubscribe from all mailing lists and go and live a life of luxury beyond my wildest dreams in the Himalayas.
you could do that without a lot of money just join up a monastery in bhutan ;-) (btw one karateka from India who used to train the usa marines did just that)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
jtd wrote:
you could do that without a lot of money just join up a monastery in bhutan ;-) (btw one karateka from India who used to train the usa marines did just that)
At this point it would be interesting to know if the OP got the desired quantum of information that would have enabled to take some action which was being intended in the first place
- --
You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
Hi All,
On 8/9/07, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay sankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
jtd wrote:
you could do that without a lot of money just join up a monastery in bhutan ;-) (btw one karateka from India who used to train the usa marines did just that)
At this point it would be interesting to know if the OP got the desired quantum of information that would have enabled to take some action which was being intended in the first place
Enough would be an understatement. Anyways thanks for all the discussion. I'll go with silence as I do not have the resources ( time etc ) to pursue it any further.
I'll just add, KG was right.
regards C
On 09-Aug-07, at 5:45 PM, Chetan S wrote:
I'll just add, KG was right.
ahh, you just became A2 in the defamation prosecution ;-) I enjoy carpentry anyway - I hope you do
On 8/8/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 19:20 +0530, Rony wrote:
If you are not the purchaser, you may not be able to get the SC. The big ISP which buys it in bulk has to request for it.
No. If the code is GPLed anyone can demand it. Customer or otherwise.
No, you cannot simply get it for free _just_ because the software is GPL'ed. The seller may ask money for it if he wishes. GPL'ed software must be mukt, not necessarily muft.
On 8/9/07, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 19:20 +0530, Rony wrote:
If you are not the purchaser, you may not be able to get the SC. The big ISP which buys it in bulk has to request for it.
No. If the code is GPLed anyone can demand it. Customer or otherwise.
No, you cannot simply get it for free _just_ because the software is GPL'ed. The seller may ask money for it if he wishes. GPL'ed software must be mukt, not necessarily muft.
it seems I am missing some thing in the thread. Did anyone did not provide the source code for a GPLd program?
Nagarjuna
On 09-Aug-07, at 8:22 AM, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
it seems I am missing some thing in the thread. Did anyone did not provide the source code for a GPLd program?
MTNL does not provide either license information or source code for the linux in the starcom modems it supplies
On Thursday 09 August 2007 07:37, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 8/8/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 19:20 +0530, Rony wrote:
If you are not the purchaser, you may not be able to get the SC. The big ISP which buys it in bulk has to request for it.
No. If the code is GPLed anyone can demand it. Customer or otherwise.
Only a customer can demand. so if i gave Rony and rony gave u a modem, u cant ask me for the source u can ask rony and he'll ask me.
No, you cannot simply get it for free _just_ because the software is GPL'ed. The seller may ask money for it if he wishes. GPL'ed software must be mukt, not necessarily muft.
The money he can ask is restricted to the cost of providing the media (cd / bandwidth + server storage costs). He cannot factor in extraneous costs (employees costs for maintaining cvs trees ) or profits for distributing the code. He can ask whatever he pleases for the initial binary and / or source. Having distributed the binary he is compelled by the gpl to offer and provide source at costs.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 13:51 +0530, jtd wrote:
No. If the code is GPLed anyone can demand it. Customer or otherwise.
Only a customer can demand. so if i gave Rony and rony gave u a modem, u cant ask me for the source u can ask rony and he'll ask me.
Oh...so if the customer gets the source, hes free to put it up on a mirror and have the entire world download it?
On 8/13/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
Oh...so if the customer gets the source, hes free to put it up on a mirror and have the entire world download it?
If it is GPL'ed, yes -- provided he doesn't remove copyright notices in the sources and doesn't violate any trademarks.
On 13-Aug-07, at 8:33 PM, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
Only a customer can demand. so if i gave Rony and rony gave u a modem, u cant ask me for the source u can ask rony and he'll ask me.
Oh...so if the customer gets the source, hes free to put it up on a mirror and have the entire world download it?
yes
On Monday 13 August 2007 20:33, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 13:51 +0530, jtd wrote:
No. If the code is GPLed anyone can demand it. Customer or otherwise.
Only a customer can demand. so if i gave Rony and rony gave u a modem, u cant ask me for the source u can ask rony and he'll ask me.
Oh...so if the customer gets the source, hes free to put it up on a mirror and have the entire world download it?
yes. But in a "microvel" situation rony cant offer patent protection - he does not own the patents. I do. And i have given permission only to rony for use not distribution. If i sue rony i am entering a grey area and will have substantial difficulty in gaining a favourable verdict on account of that pesky gplv2. But if i sue anyone of rony's recipients i am a clear weanner. Wonderful innovation. Now i can sit back and not create sphagetti code or jump to the middle of opcodes all i do is patent isnot, garbage bin icons and other trash and sue the idiots who use suse-novell.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 07:37 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
No, you cannot simply get it for free _just_ because the software is GPL'ed. The seller may ask money for it if he wishes. GPL'ed software must be mukt, not necessarily muft.
I didnt imply that people can get it for free. I was trying to say that people are free to demand it. The writer may / may not charge for it though.
Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 19:20 +0530, Rony wrote:
If you are not the purchaser, you may not be able to get the SC. The big ISP which buys it in bulk has to request for it.
No. If the code is GPLed anyone can demand it. Customer or otherwise.
Yesterday I went through the entire GPL v3 and its FAQs. There in one of the examples I read, if a company gets software created from someone and he provides it under GPL, the employees who are users cannot demand any SC for the software they use on their systems, even if they take the software home and install it on their systems. The GPL provides the right of freedom to the company but it does not force it to pass it on to the users. Similarly though people use voting machines, the SC for the GPLed code inside is not accessible to the public.
The grey area is about treating devices on lease/rent as distribution or simply company use. Anyway, I have written a mail about the same to GNU and hope to receive a reply from them.
Hi Chetan,
Quoting Chetan S cshring@gmail.com:
Hi All,
Without actually naming the company I here's something I would like to share -
They provide broadband adsl modem + routers for a major govt isp in India. They use linux on their device and have not provided any source code for the same.
Can they be requested/mandated to share the same ?
regards, C
If we have enough evidences of the list of softwares used inside the router and that they are GPLed, then FSF can take up the company on task.
I believe IPTables author has succeeded in filing similar cases in the Europe and US.
In past Mumbai LUG had taken a company operating Aryabhatta Linux, on task.
Thanks & Regards, Mitul Limbani, Founder & CEO, Enterux Solutions, The Enterprise Linux Company (TM), www.enterux.com
On 08-Aug-07, at 11:35 AM, Chetan S wrote:
Without actually naming the company I here's something I would like to share -
They provide broadband adsl modem + routers for a major govt isp in India. They use linux on their device and have not provided any source code for the same.
Can they be requested/mandated to share the same ?
file a petition under the right to information act for the reason why the isp is buying and distributing these thingies in violation of the GPL (i can guess that is MTNL)
-
Chetan S -
Dhawal Doshy -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Mitul Limbani -
Nagarjuna G. -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay -
Siddhesh Poyarekar