USDTV Subscribers Gouged For Linux USB Keys 191
Former USDTV Subscriber writes "A few weeks ago, Salt Lake City-based USDTV discontinued their service. USDTV used the Hisense DB2010 as subscriber boxes, with Linux based firmware. USDTV should have released the source and binaries as required by the GPL, in order for customers to create a USB key to convert their DB2010s to FTA HDTV boxes. Instead, they chose to hand the keys to former USDTV subcontractors. Cable Communications is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key. ProServ is selling USB keys. But 'Due to copyright laws you are only allowed to purchase one of these keys if you have proof of being a current or previous subscriber to USDTV.' USDTV customers are being charged $30 for a service and/or files that should be freely available to anyone who has a DB2010 in their possession. There is a thread on the AVS Forum detailing the whole debacle."
Re:So..... (Score:3, Informative)
Gouged? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gouged? (Score:3, Informative)
1) The code must be *somewhere* freely available. Profiting off people's ignorance of where to get it for free, is fine. For example, selling Firefox in a regular software box at Best Buy for $35 + sales tax would be within the GPL, as long as you can download it somewhere for free.
2) If you're charging for the source code you have to provide, it has to be somewhere close to distribution costs.
Re:What about other licenses? (Score:5, Informative)
The solution to that is to stop distributing anything. If you end up with a warehouse full of settop boxes you can't legally (because of copyright) distribute/sell, that's your tough luck for not doing due diligence on your business plan.
Same goes for any successors in interest to the defunct company.
Re:It's too bad USDTV went under... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it means "Standard-Definition Television", which is just the plain-old 480i you've always been getting over the air. It's just given a shiny new acronym so the local electronics store can still sell them alongside all them fancy HDTVs and such.
Not sure, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at the links provided in TFA, it's hard to find the real violation here. For example, the link to HiSense [elinux.org] quotes an email (March 2006) from the technical lead at USDTV, responding to a user request for copies of the source per the GNU GPL. He states that he would be happy to put up the files for download via a (web?) server, but they were moving offices and didn't have a box to use. Lame, but looks to be in good faith. Until they could put up a server, the technical lead listed the (unmodified?) software components covered by the GNU GPL:
There is then a mention on the site (not part of the email) that the company has since hit financial problems, possibly implying they are going out of business. In fact, USDTV did go under. Technically, a violation of the GNU GPL for not providing the source on demand, but would be hard to bring to court. Especially since USDTV is out of business now. :-P
Under the GNU GPL, a developer who modifies or distributes code under the GNU GPL is required [fsf.org] to redistribute the source code, "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution". However, a program that is separate from the GNU GPL code (for example, a program that runs on top of the Linux kernel) is not bound by the GNU GPL. So they company isn't bound by anything to release code or binaries to their subscriber box software. And in any case, $30 could be a reasonable fee for physical distribution, since they are sending a field rep to your home - if they were distributing source code to the GNU GPL components (which doesn't appear to be the case.)
Reading through the (long!) forum, the company appears to be distributing an updated kernel and their own subscriber box software updates - from a USB "key" (I assume a USB fob or somesuch.) Forum members report they haven't been able to read the USB key on a PC. I didn't go through all 19 web pages of comments, but I didn't see anyone complaining about trying to get the source code.
So after much searching, it appears the submitted article is someone complaining they aren't getting upgraded TV software for free, and using the GNU GPL as leverage in their argument. Am I missing something???
Re:Gouged? (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you didn't read the link you made, and neither did anyone else. Try actually reading the following:
[...] "You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary."
IF you distribute binaries by download, which they did not, you may charge a fee as much as the fee to download the binary.
Since the binaries were distributed physically, with the product, or physically again, when the people come to your house to do the upgrade, you may not charge more than a nominal amount to cover copying for the source code.
Nice try, though.
flaunting-the-GPL dept.? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gouged? (Score:3, Informative)
and second: "ProServ is selling USB keys." are they selling the key with the code on it, or are they selling just a USB drive that stores a key that has been created by the code. As in a compiled file? If it's just a standard USB key, then it only has a file on it that gets verified. not the code or utility to distribute keys.
If they gave one person the code, then people would be able to generate keys from that code and copy them to USB devices at will and there would be no discussion about this issue. that's how most GPL code becomes: "free to download somewhere" in peoples minds. it's not stated in the actual GPL but it becomes that way since the people that get a copy of the code usually put it up somewhere for others to just download. Instead of buying a CD or other physical copy, that can be charged for.
It's not really the price that is at issue here, it's about the lack of the code being distributed at all.
Dangerous to use Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
I dont see it as a danger, but rather a very stern warning that you abide by the author's license terms if you use their work. If you have something trade secret-related that you cant just hand out to anyone that wants it, you can code it yourself.
Re:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:5, Informative)
Your question: "The GPL has never been tested in court, is it really legal?" is way over-hyped. It originated as FUD from the SCO case. Legally, the GPL is on really solid ground - even moreso than EULAs for commercial software. It's a copyright license. Either the user agrees to it and gets to take actions not normally allowed by copyright law in exchange for whatever terms are in the license, or they don't and are restricted by copyright law.
But... even if the GPL needed a test case, this wouldn't be it. This case would be about whether $30 was a "reasonable" fee to distribute source code, and given that USB keys are like $15 the judge would probably rule that it's close enough to the cost of media to be OK. Even if the judge ruled that $30 was too much, the penalty would probably only consist of a requirement to charge $25 in the future and refund $5 to anyone who payed $30 and asks for the refund.
Re:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the (former) employees of USDTV (full disclosure: I was) were doing what it took to get a decent alternative to cable off the ground. It seemed like a good idea: send digital video over the air on unused bandwidth, capitalize on the switch to ATSC broadcasting, and earn a little revenue with some extra offerings, like PVR, pay-per-view, and some of the most popular cable channels. It was a very limited channel selection (plus all the free HDTV channels), but there were almost no infrastructure costs.
But the company had a serious problem with "too many chiefs, not enough indians" and after the second round of VC funding, the "chiefs" couldn't drum up any more loans. So now they're shutting down. There are lots of small startups in Utah that fail. It gives Utah a bad name in VC circles.
Tim Rikers (who does bzFlag) has been in contact with the company for some time, trying to obtain GPL compliance in the form of source code that will run on the HiSense box. If any of you out there would like to sell me your HiSense box, we can probably work out a deal. They're very capable of doing something like MythTV. As far as I know, USDTV has stalled until they're closing the doors.
And now, they're making you pay $30 to prevent your box from going into "Please Activate" mode, since none of the boxes will receive activations anymore. (Technically, they won't go into "please activate" until the first power outage.) In my opinion, they were in violation of the GPL for selling a GNU/Linux-based system to some of their customers, and now that they're giving the rest of the boxes to the customers (sort of by default), they are still in violation of the GPL. There are no GPL notices anywhere in the system, unless you connect by a serial console (I can give you pinouts, and maybe a password or two) -- then you'll get the login: prompt.
I don't think a lawsuit is going to do a whole lot of good. But I think if anyone tried to acquire USDTV's IP and sue someone or a website doing hacking on the box, they'd make SCO look like a profitable venture. What is it with Utah businesses?!
Re:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dangerous to use Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think reverse engineering network protocols or file formats (which is mostly what the reverse engineering done by the "Linux hippies" is all about) can be counted as disassembling the software. Disassembling the software is just that, applying the reverse of the process of the assembler, to produce an assembly file from the binary. This is rarely, if ever, done to reverse engineer network protocols or file formats.
Re:Dangerous to use Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Or is it another case of double standards? "Do what we want, not what they want!".
GPLv3 (Score:3, Informative)
Believe it or not, GPLv3 is designed to resolve exactly this kind of issue. It's designed to be much clearer about what is and isn't allowed.
Of course, a lot of people don't like this, because they can get away with certain things that the GPLv2 allows, that it wasn't intended to. Tivo-ization is the perfect example -- the GPLv2 was never meant to allow you to see source code, but not be able to produce a modified binary that works. If, when it was being drafted, they had considered this a real threat, it would have been written the way GPLv3 is today.
Which, I believe, does require that GPL-derived web apps be distributed with their source code in full -- meaning if you visit such a website, there should be a download link somewhere.
Re:Dangerous to use Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, no. (obligatory IANAL clause)
Doctrine of First Sale [wikipedia.org] (or at least the important part in this issue):
This would include taking it apart to see how it works.
On the other hand, taking the whole piece of software, or a significant piece of it, and selling it as if it were your own is a copyright infringement the same as copying a page from a book and saying it is your own work, thus where the GPL comes in. GPL gives limited allowance to 'infringe' on the copyright, as long as you follow few rules, without contacting the original authors.
Re:I'm not sure this is the case. (Score:3, Informative)
This may be a misunderstanding. My point was that the GPL forbids you from making a lease agreement in the fashion you describe. IF the act of handing over the CD qualifies as distribution, you're breaking the GPL if you refuse to provide source to the end user, contract or no. Remember, the when you accept the terms of the GPL (by copying or re-distributing the licensed work), you're making a promise UPSTREAM, to the guy who owns the copyright on the software. You can't void that promise by making a second agreement, a lease or what have you, with someone downstream to whom you're passing a copy of the software.
We have to determine first whether there is distribution going on. If an act qualifies as distribution, then the copier has obligations to recipient of the distributed code under the terms of the GPL. That said, I think you have a neat argument here:
The difference with the receivers over the live CD is that unlike the live CD, where the program must be copied off the CD to run on your computer (even if it's only copied into memory for the purposes of running the program), the program in the receiver only runs on the receiver, which is still my property.
Let's put this another way. Let's say I create a business where I lease computers. Let's further say that I lease computers with Linux installed. You pay me $100 and I loan you a computer for a month. Am I obligated to give you the source code?
What if instead of giving you the computer, I have an internet cafe, and I instead charge you $20 to use my computer for an hour. Am I obligated to give you the source code then?
Your claim is an interesting one: the definition of distribution is tied to the nature of the act of copying--as long as ownership of the media is retained by the entity that made the copy, they aren't really distributing copies.
But WHY should this be the case? As I pointed out earlier, the literal definition of distribution is to turn copies over to the control of other people, regardless of who owns the media. I doubt NetFlix claim that since they still own all the DVDs they're mailing to people that they're not "distributing" anything. This may not be legally accurate, but you don't provide any reason for why your definition of distribution is better than the literal one.
I would suggest that the spirit of the GPL also comes into play, here: in order to get some benefit (i.e., using GPL software as a basis for your company), you should have to give something in return (i.e., provide the same opportunities to others). With leasing, you are actually creating a copy in order to install the software on each of the machines you lease out to your customers, and you are actually turning it over to them. Why should you be allowed to reap the benefits of copying/redistribution, which you would otherwise be forbidden from doing, without any price?
And I don't know how legally valid this is, but version 3 of the GPL actually replaces the term "distribute" with words such as "propagate" and "convey". According to Eben Moglen, who wrote both versions 2 and 3, this change is intended to answer the type of question that we're debating here. In fact, most of the changes from version 2 to version 3 are intended to shore up potential loopholes in wording and practices that might allow an unethical person or company to cheat. That doesn't mean they ARE loopholes--nobody's admitting that the GPL version 2 doesn't include your leasing company, or even your internet cafe, in the definition of distribution. It's just that they're trying to make it MORE explicit in the future. Check out the
Re:You're making up a 'fact'. (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit, go read the license (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [gnu.org]). It's not that long. It covers copying, distribution and modification.
Without a license, you do not have the right to copy a work copyrighted by someone else. The GPL is the only thing that gives you the right to copy, modify or distribute Linux. Therefore, you need to abide by its terms, even if you only copy it.
Saying that means you must also always copy the source is idiotic, since that's not what the license says. But since this is commercial copying and/or distribution of a binary, they must choose to adhere to either 3a or 3b - accompany with the source, or a written offer to give any third party the source for a fee no bigger than the cost of physically distributing it.
Since that's for any commercial copying, and to any third party, it doesn't matter at all whether it's leased or bought.