Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by nll_a View Post
    If you fork my GPL'd game and distribute it among your club buddies, in my eyes you're violating my copyright and you need to make your source code public. If it's all just a matter of personal view, we won't go very far.

    There's no reason not to distribute GPL code. If you wanna keep your code closed and sell it to others then don't use GPL code as your basis.
    I agree with OneTimeShot,
    GPL allows to charge for copies of software (binary or source),
    it obligates the distributor of the binaries to also provide source code,
    the source code purchase/transfer price may not be higher than that of binary form,
    the receiver of binary copy(client 1st rank), and then source, receives the right to distribute the binaries,
    but he(client 1st rank) is not obligated to do so (for clients of nrank),

    but if he(client 1st rank) distributes the binaries (for clients of nrank), targeted or public manner, he is also obligated to supply source,
    the original distributor may not use any NDAs, restrictions etc on price and will of the binary/code receiver (client 1st rank).

    Pay attention, GPL3 disallows copyright holder (distributors) to withdraw the license to use his work.
    GPL2 does not disallow it. Linux is stupidly not GPL3, so the developers may withdraw license everywhere.

    Also, because of the protection, there is no need for any CLA/Copyright assignments for GPL3 projects. As submitter may not revoke the license, but at same time, the client nrank may not remove copyright of submitter.

    GPL3 also provides patent trolling protection (GPL2 not) and tiviozation protection(GPL2 not).

    Overall, this case shows how stupid the decision was to limit Linux with GPL2.

    Comment


    • #32
      My 2 pennies:

      Yes, it is a GPL violation, and their reasoning that you have to sign up to receive it makes that not "distributing" is laughable at best. However, I don't think anyone should legally pursue this, as AnthraX only did this to protect against their own rights being violated (and not just in theory), and there are far better uses of funds/time/energy than going after a project like AnthraX.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
        Sorry - you've picked the wrong license then. The GPL only covers the people who *receive* the binaries, if you're not one of them, you are a bystander.
        If I'm the copyright holder and someone is distributing binary forks of my code, of course I can enforce my copyright and demand GPL-compliance.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DanL View Post
          My 2 pennies:

          Yes, it is a GPL violation, and their reasoning that you have to sign up to receive it makes that not "distributing" is laughable at best. However, I don't think anyone should legally pursue this, as AnthraX only did this to protect against their own rights being violated (and not just in theory), and there are far better uses of funds/time/energy than going after a project like AnthraX.
          Up to copyright holder of Linux... Heh, they can go as high as terminate GPL license for Anthrax.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by nll_a View Post
            If I'm the copyright holder and someone is distributing binary forks of my code, of course I can enforce my copyright and demand GPL-compliance.
            With GPL2 you may withdraw license from fork.
            With GPL3 you may not, but they have also no right to remove copyright from your code.
            But in both cases, they may refuse to provide you the binaries (and hence source). But if you find anyone distributing binaries and get it from him, then you can enforce him to give you source. This is how I understand it from GPL faq.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by brosis View Post
              I agree with OneTimeShot,
              GPL allows to charge for copies of software (binary or source),
              it obligates the distributor of the binaries to also provide source code,
              the source code purchase/transfer price may not be higher than that of binary form,
              the receiver of binary copy(client 1st rank), and then source, receives the right to distribute the binaries,
              but he(client 1st rank) is not obligated to do so (for clients of nrank),

              but if he(client 1st rank) distributes the binaries (for clients of nrank), targeted or public manner, he is also obligated to supply source,
              the original distributor may not use any NDAs, restrictions etc on price and will of the binary/code receiver (client 1st rank).

              Pay attention, GPL3 disallows copyright holder (distributors) to withdraw the license to use his work.
              GPL2 does not disallow it. Linux is stupidly not GPL3, so the developers may withdraw license everywhere.

              Originally posted by brosis View Post
              With GPL2 you may withdraw license from fork.
              With GPL3 you may not, but they have also no right to remove copyright from your code.
              But in both cases, they may refuse to provide you the binaries (and hence source). But if you find anyone distributing binaries and get it from him, then you can enforce him to give you source. This is how I understand it from GPL faq.

              Ok, I think I got it. Thanks!
              Last edited by nll_a; 01-02-2014, 09:07 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by nll_a View Post
                If I'm the copyright holder and someone is distributing binary forks of my code, of course I can enforce my copyright and demand GPL-compliance.
                Hmm... I may be able to change your mind...

                I demand that you immediately send me the source code to the version of the copy of Linux you are now running, any GPL software you have ever installed, your game, any files you are currently working on that are under the GPL, and anything else that I (a random guy that you don't know on the Internet) may possibly have some copyright in. You are at least copying the software to your own machines, so it is covered by the GPL redistribution.

                ...or you may come to appreciate the "I'll only need to send you code for stuff that we have some kind of preexisting relationship" bit of the GPL. The clause is there to avoid random people bugging you for stuff - you didn't supply me with my copy of Fedora, so I dont have the right to ask you for the source code for it. Similarly you only need to keep source code for GPL files that you actually ship - not every version of everything that ever existed - just in case some troll like me comes along


                Having said that legal stuff, all my GPL code is available for download on SourceForge, and that makes it all a lot easier for everyone.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                  Hmm... I may be able to change your mind...

                  I demand that you immediately send me the source code to the version of the copy of Linux you are now running, any GPL software you have ever installed, your game, any files you are currently working on that are under the GPL, and anything else that I (a random guy that you don't know on the Internet) may possibly have some copyright in. You are at least copying the software to your own machines, so it is covered by the GPL redistribution.

                  ...or you may come to appreciate the "I'll only need to send you code for stuff that we have some kind of preexisting relationship" bit of the GPL. The clause is there to avoid random people bugging you for stuff - you didn't supply me with my copy of Fedora, so I dont have the right to ask you for the source code for it. Similarly you only need to keep source code for GPL files that you actually ship - not every version of everything that ever existed - just in case some troll like me comes along


                  Having said that legal stuff, all my GPL code is available for download on SourceForge, and that makes it all a lot easier for everyone.
                  Yeah, there are lots of tough situations that would be really hard to evaluate, but I'm not sure this is one of them. I'm not distributing, I'm just receiving. If I image my hard drive and give it to someone, then I guess you could ask me -- I'm not altering any source code, so I'm not even sure of this, but I'd deffinitely at least be able to point you to where to get the sources. I'm thinking you should ask Canonical instead of me.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by nll_a View Post
                    I'm thinking you should ask Canonical instead of me.
                    If I was a reasonable person, I would. If I were a lawyer, technically you'd be on the hook as the person giving a copy to me, and Canonical would be entirely right to say "nothing to do me, mate"

                    Am I a particularly sick person for actually finding this legal stuff fun?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                      If I was a reasonable person, I would. If I were a lawyer, technically you'd be on the hook as the person giving a copy to me, and Canonical would be entirely right to say "nothing to do me, mate"

                      Am I a particularly sick person for actually finding this legal stuff fun?
                      Sorry to break it to you, but yes you are!!! LOL

                      Good thing we have people like you guys who like and understand all this stuff. I don't get most of it. Anyway, thanks everyone for your patience with my legal ignorance. Cheers!
                      Last edited by nll_a; 01-02-2014, 10:21 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It should be worth mentioning that a similar case occurred when the original Quake 1 source was released. A developer had rewritten the game's netcode in an attempt to stop cheaters among a few other changes. He had placed it on his site where users would need to agree to a set of terms to waive their rights to the GPL before they got the binary.

                        John Carmack, the game's primary developer, wasn't happy to hear this, claiming it was a GPL violation and he would have been willing to pay for a lawyer from the FSF if need be. After hearing this, the developer stopped this practice.
                        Last edited by monraaf; 01-02-2014, 10:27 AM. Reason: typo

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Are they publicly distributing it? If not then there really isn't a violation.

                          If you are part of an organisation that internally uses GPL'd software and you are only using it internally in your organistation then you have no obligation to give anyone outside anything if it wasn't intended for distribution.

                          Imagine your organisation uses a modified database which is released under the GPL, your organisation does NOT have to make those changes public unless it is distributed publicly.

                          Similarly, if someone gets _unauthorised_ access to your servers and manages to get a copy of your binaries, then they are NOT entitled to the source code as it was never intended for distribution.

                          They are using _their_ modified kernel in _their_ organisation and have not obligation to make it public.

                          I have my _private_ GPL licensed software and my own modifications of GPL'd software and you aren't entiled to shit unless I actually "distribute" it to you.

                          Did you receive a binary copy legaly from them? If not you aren't entitled to anything.
                          https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Here's another example:

                            Say you are a company and have private modifications to GPL'd software and you need to test those but your company does not have a testing department. What to do? You hire a company as a sub-contractor to do the testing for you, and they are NOT entitled to the source code. Now similarly, if you did not pay the sub-contractors you also would not have to give them the source. It's the contract that matters. Who's to tell them that they did not have legal contracts once they are inside the organisation?

                            An organisation is a vague definition and you only have to give the source if you "distribute" it, the GPL writes nothing about private distribution in an organisation either. Besides, distribution in the legal sense is public distribution which is not happening here.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                              I don't think so - it is pretty clear. If you are supplying binaries to someone you also need to supply source code to them even within a private organisation, and you can't prevent redistribution of that source code *for copyright reasons*. Normally within a company you'll not redistribute the source code because you'll get fired, and that outcome isn't in violation of the GPL.

                              If the developers say that they have not supplied the binaries to you, then by definition they cannot be breaking copyright (and hence the GPL).
                              haven't you read: they ARE distributing the binaries via their OWN website!
                              The question is where people are getting these copyright binaries from
                              as i said, from their website. also see this inteview with mr goodman where he claims that this form of distribution is not violating the gpl.
                              http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&...58187178,d.Yms

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                                Are they publicly distributing it? If not then there really isn't a violation.

                                If you are part of an organisation that internally uses GPL'd software and you are only using it internally in your organistation then you have no obligation to give anyone outside anything if it wasn't intended for distribution.

                                Imagine your organisation uses a modified database which is released under the GPL, your organisation does NOT have to make those changes public unless it is distributed publicly.

                                Similarly, if someone gets _unauthorised_ access to your servers and manages to get a copy of your binaries, then they are NOT entitled to the source code as it was never intended for distribution.

                                They are using _their_ modified kernel in _their_ organisation and have not obligation to make it public.

                                I have my _private_ GPL licensed software and my own modifications of GPL'd software and you aren't entiled to shit unless I actually "distribute" it to you.

                                Did you receive a binary copy legaly from them? If not you aren't entitled to anything.
                                https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
                                So you distribute it to a person part of your private organization and they are entitled to redistribute it based on GPL. "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License." So that guy propagates the work to someone who wants the source. The propagator requests to source from the private organization since they are entitled to it to comply with the propagatee who wants the source. The private organization would have to give the source to the propagator? Would me giving a binary to a Test Support guy count as a distribution? Could I work for Samsung and become a tester for Galaxy S 6 and then request the source?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X