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:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:2, Interesting)
The GPL is irrelevant to its usability for OTA (Score:4, Interesting)
Company makes a box that happens to run linux as the base OS. They should therefore redistribute any changes they make to the GPL'ed code they run. That I get.
What I don't see is how the GPL being involved in some of the software on the firmware entitles the people who bought the hardware to anything involving software that they used for the TV tuner portion of the box.
In one of the links they mention that they used the following bits of GPL'ed software:
Linux kernel version 2.4.18
glibc version 2.2.4
libpthread version 0.9
busybox version 0.60.0
GNU tar 1.13.19
gzip version 1.3
None of those, with the possible exception of the kernel would they have needed to modify to do what they were doing.
They went out of business, and they let people who were former subcontractors give away/sell the information needed to update the system so the end user can continue to use the hardware in some fashion.
I just don't see the relevance of the fact that some of the software is GPL'ed to the discussion at hand. You could argue that they need to make available a disk with the code for the GPL'ed stuff that they ran, but they are out of business, so good luck with getting them to honor that.
However, what is at stake is the ability to use their box to receive OTA signals. None of those packages deal with that. You can make a case that since they closed down they might want to try to give away their service to soften the blow, but the GPL issue is unrelated.
If I ran a computer company and sold computers preloaded with Linux that happened to come with some fancy proprietary biometric thumb scanner and I went out of business, I wouldn't spontaneously owe every one the source for some user-space application that controlled the thumbscanner.
If they modified the kernel, then sure the kernel mods are probably owed to the community. I'll bet that they aren't sufficient to perform all of the box's functions unaided however.
Without the service provided by this third party you are in possession of your very own Linux box running on funny hardware. The joke is on you. Good luck getting your money back.
Re:Not sure, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
a) Nothing requires you to provide binaries on demand. Still, any time binaries ARE provided, source for those components must be provided, and there HAS been a violation here.
b) Just because the kernel and glibc are GPL doesn't mean that there aren't any closed-source applications. HiSense could comply with the GPL and release source code for all GPL components and anyone wanting to update their system would likely still be SOL because the update is for a closed-source application that runs on the box.
Re:I'm not sure this is the case. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the same legal precedent that makes it illegal to hack your rented cable box. It's considered trespassing. If you rent a cable box, you do not have the right to open it up or modify it in any way. As the owner, they have the right to specify what can and cannot be done with their property. Therefore, they are under no legal obligation to aid and abet any action by their customers that would be in violation of their rights as the owners of the property. Indeed, by assisting you in doing so, they would be tacitly agreeing to allow the owners of their cable box to make modifications to those boxes, including those that could harm the box. As such, they cannot realistically be expected to do so.
It would be the same as a person renting a house demanding that the landlord help him remove an exterior wall. The law says that by transferring a piece of property, you transfer all rights to modify the property as the new owner sees fit. However, when renting it, you retain the right to maintain the value of that property, up to and including preventing the unauthorized modification thereof. Modifying a cable box could decrease its value to the owner (if the person doing the upgrade screws something up), and thus, they are well within their rights to not allow you to do so.
Re:I'm not sure this is the case. (Score:3, Interesting)
You make a very tricky argument, here, about exactly what defines "distribution". I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're just drawing a distinction between distribution on machines being loaned/leased to the end user, versus distribution on machines where the end user actually buys the hardware. It seems to me, on face, that both are literally examples of "distribution". But the GPL (and a court, obviously) may support your distinction--the literal meaning might not be the whole story. The text of the GPLv2 (which I just reviewed on the FSF site) doesn't go into detail on this point.
However, I do believe that you are wrong, specifically because of the nature of how copyright law applies to the acts in question. I'm not sure if my position rests entirely on the literal definition of distribution, though. Let me see if I can construct an argument around this, and you can tell me whether it holds any water.
1) Consider the hardware boxes to be just another piece of media. Sure, they're functional in their own right, but the have internal flash or memory that carries GPL-governed binary code. In this sense, it seems like the sames rules should apply that govern other forms of media carrying GPL code, such as Linux-based live CDs.
2) Hypothetically, I could create a binary-only live CD (most of them are, anyway) and hand out copies of it to people. However, let's pretend that I stipulate to everybody receiving a CD that they don't actually own the CDs. I'm not giving them away, I'm just loaning or leasing those physical CDs. Maybe we write out a contract--you accept the CD as a loaner from me, but you're required to return it if I ask or at some designated future time.
3) It would seem that the contents of the hypothetical loaner CDs are clearly still covered by the GPL, in full effect. Although I could demand the physical CD-ROM back from a user, I couldn't also try to forbid them from making a copy and saving it, or giving it away to other people. In fact, even if we wrote out a special contract to that effect, it would violate the GPL to impose such conditions on them, which would in turn terminate MY rights to re-distribute GPL code in the first place. I couldn't prevent my users from exercising their GPL-given rights without losing my own license over that code.
4) The requirement that I pass on the right to copy and re-distribute GPL software is only one of the tenets of the license. Another tenet is that I must provide source code, upon request, when I distribute binaries. So in addition to #3, above, I would also be forced to provide the source code for my binary live CD when any of my users asked for it. And furthermore, I would be required to do so at a reasonable cost. If I refuse, or if I try to impose conditions on my users, I lose my own original right to give them the copies in the first place.
5) Given that the hardware boxes the cable company is handing to its end-users contain binaries of GPL code, it would therefore seem that the users maintain their rights under the GPL to demand the source code from the cable company at a reasonable cost. Unless the cable company meets this requirement, they have no right to distribute the GPL code along with their hardware.
So... Does that add up? I mean, I would contrast this against the case where the cable company installs edge routers in local neighborhoods that run Linux--those routers being sited in company offices and passing customer traffic as opposed to being given to customers to operate in their own homes. In that case, it would seem as if they were NOT distributing the software, since they maintain direct control over it, and therefore the customers w
Re:I'm not sure this is the case. (Score:3, Interesting)
You're making up a 'fact'. (Score:3, Interesting)
But no distribution (giving a copy to another party) has taken place. Only *COPYING* has taken place.
And it is obvious that the GPL *MUST* allow copying without distribution. If it doesn't, we're all violating the GPL any time we copy the program from one computer to another without also copying the source.
(It would seem that at least the GPL statement If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. permits copying without distribution - as if you start with a program and source code, whatever access allowed you to copy the executable would also necessarily allow you to copy the source code.)
So, while you're correct that the act of copying means the receiver maker either has accepted a license OR is infringing the copyright, the GPL permits the copying.
So yes, they've accepted the GPL, but no, copying the program didn't violate it.
Re:I'm not sure this is the case. (Score:3, Interesting)
You kind of touched on the problem with your argument, but then went past it.
The receiver is a self-contained unit that runs it's own software. The live CD does not run anything. In order to use the software on the live CD, you have to put it in some other device. And when you do that, you copy the software.
So, if I 'lease' to you a CD with software on it, and then you run the software on the CD, one of two things is true:
- My lease to you of my property with the copyrighted software on it either allows you to copy that software, or it does not. If it does, then I have infringed the copyright as I have no license which allows me to allow you to copy the software onto whatever machine you're going to ultimately run it on.
- My lease to you of my property does not allow you to actually copy the software, ergo, you commit the infringement if you copy it to your machine to run.
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?
I'd say no to both cases, and under the same reasoning, would not expect that distributing the source to GPLd software running on leased hardware is required.
You bring up a good point with the Java applets though - I would argue that in that case, making the source code available is required.
Re:You're making up a 'fact'. (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, copying the software onto their own hardware isn't distribution. It's copying. The receiver is a self-contained unit owned in its entirety by one party. Copying software onto your own hardware must be permitted, and giving other people access to the hardware, even if for a fee, does obligate you to give them source code, anymore than you visiting my website obligates me to give you a copy of the source to Apache.
Re:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:1, Interesting)
i was too snarky above, elaboration is in order. there are some things you said that make me wonder:
Most of the (former) employees of USDTV (full disclosure: I was)
i doubt, see below
and after the second round of VC funding, the "chiefs" couldn't drum up any more loans. So now they're shutting down.
this sounds too inaccurate to have been written by someone who worked for the company, but, I dunno, maybe you were just being brief and it came out wrong, so far I still believed you
Tim Rikers (who does bzFlag) has been in contact with the company for some time
i still believed you here too, but it's odd for a former employee that you know this fact but seem unclear on so much else
They're very capable of doing something like MythTV.
clearly you don't know much about the product
The only for-sure GPL violation was the Linux kernel, although I'm fairly certain they have GNU bash in the firmware as well.
again it is suspicious how unfamiliar you are with the product, as other people who never even worked for the company seem to know more than you (yes, theres other GPL software, no, the settop doesnt run bash)
From what I could tell, Jim was under the assumption that he would be relocating closer to USDTV HQ when he responded to Tim Rikers.
hopelessly incorrect, you obviously know neither the people nor places nor circumstances, of course none of this prevents you from getting modded up...
But within a week, he discovered he wasn't working for USDTV any more.
again... i doubt you worked there, or even heard of any of the people involved, your surmise is wrong in all particulars and also in general - namely, Tim's request didnt arrive anywhere close to the bankruptcy event. moreover the "move" mentioned in the story was over a distance of a couple city blocks, something you MIGHT know if you ever worked at the company, either way you are not competent to comment on it and more importantly you happen to be wrong
Tim continued to contact USDTV
probably incorrect, but maybe Tim knows otherwise, I have no trouble imagining someone mishandled his emails especially after the first bankruptcy. either way, I doubt you know anything about it
I am surprised Tim hasn't updated the wiki page with his later attempts to discuss the matter with USDTV
i would love to hear Tim's story, it would be amusing to see how long it took for his inquiries to reach anyone who had a clue, you on the other hand appear to know nothing about it... tim i'm sure knows pretty well what the timeline was and i doubt it will line up with what you are saying
posing as an "involved party" for the purposes of achieving fame and karma is immature, you are unfamiliar with the product, the events, the timing, the people. there are a few opinions you express that i don't particularly care either way on, I havent worked there in a while and I have plenty opinions (positive and negative), though i am forced to conclude your opinions are based on pretend fantasy, not experience. there are people posting here who did NOT work for the company and they seem to know things you do not, would you care to amend your statement that you actually worked there, or can you explain how you actually know less than some people who did not?
Re:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are distributing a patch that isn't GPL and they are only adding it to the existing code soley as the IT staff of the owner of the box, they could claim the use doesn't have to make sure it is compatible because they are not distributing it.
Nah, I think that would kick in the dirivited works clause of the GPL. I think your right, good call.
Unless the patch is just a script that changes some settings though an interface built into it. Then I'm not sure if it would be automaticly covered or not. Still, good call.