Dish Network Dishes Source Code for DVR 337
An anonymous reader writes "According to Dish
Network they are accommodating 'requests for the portions of the DISH 921
DVR source code that are subject to the GNU Public License, or GPL. In compliance
with the terms of the GPL, we are making this source code available to the public
to download. Please note that the DISH 921 DVR software also includes some proprietary
elements that are not subject to the GPL. You cannot create a working DISH 921
DVR software build without the additional proprietary code. Do not replace or
add any software to the DISH 921 DVR with items compiled from these source trees.
Doing so will void all warranties and cause the unit to fail.'"
GPL != GNU Public License (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL != GNU Public License (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GPL != GNU Public License (Score:3, Informative)
So GPL can stand for "General Public License" _or_ GNU General Public License. Neither of these include the "GNU Public License".
cool (Score:2, Insightful)
On a more serious note, it's good to see some companies actually doing the right thing(aka the anti-SCO).
Re:cool (Score:3, Informative)
Are they though? I don't care to RTFA to find out, but doesn't this:
You cannot create a working DISH 921 DVR software build without the additional proprietary code.
You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
Yes.
I thought this was what the LGPL was created to allow peopl
Re:cool (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I've always wondered (and maybe there's a simple answer for this but googling it would help only me and keep it out of the discussion) - What if you ran the GPL code and your proprietary code seperately (different processes?) and just had them communicate via IPC? Sockets, pipes, shared memory... whatever. It seems like a cheap way around that rule in the GPL but I fear that it is valid...?
Re:cool (Score:2)
The GPL isn't meant to be invasive, if you write your own seperate program, it is allowed to coexist with GPL programs on the same machine. Otherwise, IE users wouldn't be allowed to access an Apache website, for instance...
Re:cool (Score:2)
That sounds like a great idea. Lets see how many IE fanboys are left when they can only talk to IIS servers.
NOTE: This post is not to be taken seriously.
Re:cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, actually Apache isn't GPL. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html [apache.org].
Re:cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Could people stop the open source religious wanking for a few minutes and work out if the code that has been released allows something usefull to be done? Its not like anything in this thread has not been said a few million times already.
OK they have checksums, big deal, look for the file with the checksums in it or find where the public key is stored. I would guess they do this because they updat
Re:cool (Score:4, Informative)
However, if they are correct that installing binaries compiled from this code release will cause their PVR to stop functioning, that sounds to me like they aren't actually in compliance. If the proprietary stuff really isn't linked, and the code they released really is the code for the free software in the system, then binaries compiled from it (assuming the same compiler and settings) would be byte for byte identical with what's already on the PVR.
So, it seems to me they're lying about one thing or the other.
Re:cool (Score:2)
Sorry, didn't mean to make a statement there, it was a question. I know the GPL has a clause that makes exemptions for operating systems. Maybe they plan to exercise that.
Re:cool (Score:2)
Same to you buddy [fsf.org]
Re:cool (Score:2)
Thats what isn't clear. How they claim you cannot build the software without the proprietary bits, without linking.
Perhaps you should RTFA before commenting
Which FA?
Odd caveat (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the normal "no user-serviceable parts inside" caveat, or does it suggest that they, in fact, haven't released all the modifications to GPLed code in their product?
Re:Odd caveat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Odd caveat (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2)
Re:Odd caveat (Score:4, Informative)
Also there is a file in the root partition that seems to be a list of files on the disk, also PGP signed. When the system boots it checks and if there is any differences between the list and the disk and if there are any it does a full reinstall.
If anyone wants to know more go here [satelliteguys.us] and here [satelliteguys.us] . These are 2 threads on SatelliteGuys [satelliteguys.us] detailing what I found out while replacing the hard drive.
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2)
From the looks of it (and not surprisingly) there is no code related to the actual DVR functionality, nor interfacing with 8VSB or QPSK demodulators.
Signed binaries? (Score:2)
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2, Informative)
The original DishPlayers *COULD* be upgraded with much larger hard drives than they originally came with. The company found out that people were doing this and updated the software so that the units would refuse to run if a hard drive larger than the original was in place.
They said that it was about compatibility issues, I suspect that it was because they wanted to fo
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2)
I am not a GPL expert, but what you are saying is likely to be incorrect. This would be a major loophole in the GPL (basically, put all your changes in a file my_changes.c, link with it and never give it).
I think you can not distribute a binary derivated from a GPL source code and which is linked (statically or dynamically) with a closed library. There may be exceptions though (or lot of GPL things would not dynamically link on proprietary UNIX).
--
Go Debian!
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2)
Re:Odd caveat (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's not true. If you're calling a function like that, you have linked the GPLed code to your homebrew code, and so the GPL's "viral" nature kicks in --- if you release the binaries to the world, you must release your own code under the GPL to anyone to whom you supply binaries.
The example you were looking for is something like the following:
Now you don't have to release the source to a-binary-we-dont-want-to-gpl --- this is what the GPL calls "mere aggregation", and is (probably) what has happened with the DVR stuffs.
Re:Mere aggregation (Score:2)
Suppose, for example that you had a perl compiler which would somehow parse the stuff in the backtick operator and would create a single binary from it.
Then, you would just end up with one program and the GPL would apply. For your example, I admit my argument is somewhat odd, but for a lot of other situations, for example when a C program calls some scriptin
Re:Mere aggregation (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, really? If the backtick operator doesn't qualify as a mechanism of mere aggregation, then it's hard to imagine what could qualify.
The backtick operator can execute any executable on the system, to say nothing of arbitary shell scripts and sequences of shell commands. If backticks can "infect" code, so can bash. I don't think even the most fanatical free software zealot has ever pushed for that interpretation.
It seems to me that it's all a question of interfaces. If someone designs GPL software with a well defined interface, then you're free to write non GPL software that uses that interface. If there is no interface and you're changing the files in the original software, then the GPL applies.
Kernel modules are far more intimately connected to GPL software than an arbitatry executable is to Perl. And the Linux kernel development community seems count a healthy contingent of Free Software devotees amongst its number. Yet few if any people seem to consider that proprietory kernel modules are "tainted" by their association with the kernel. Quite the reverse in fact.
Nor does the compilation issue change matters. If I can write a compiler and use it to compile code that you have copyrighted. However there is no licence in existence under which that process of compilation grants me the the copyright to your code.
Would you at least... (Score:2, Informative)
Kjella
Re:Odd caveat (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. Read your GPL carefully. If func_mine_all_mine() is part of a GPL-ed program, you'll have to release its source anytime you release the binary to that program.
Now there's some controversy about what counts as "part of a GPL-ed program." Shared libraries? Kernel modules? Driver scripts? RMS and the FSF legal team, Linus Torvalds, and others have all released opinions on this, but so far I'm not aware of any court cases that have defined these limits legally. It may be that DN's lawyers think that they have a legal case for keeping some code out.
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2)
Re:Odd caveat (Score:2)
You can link to gpl code, but as long as the gpl code isn't inside of your code you don't have to release it at all.
Sounds like reverse psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like reverse psychology (Score:2, Insightful)
If it is something private, non-GPL code is it likely to be something small but critical like some driver? or is it likely to be something resulting from 1000's of staff hours..?
Perhaps we will never know.
Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The "Vogon" strategy... the source code is available on the web site but you have to go down the stairs, look in the bottom shelf of a filing cabinet behind a locked door with a sign "beware of the leopard" on it.
2. The "Proprietary pieces" strategy... the source code is released, oh yes, but with significant pieces missing.
3. The "Under development" strategy... coming soon folks, as soon as we get it ready.
All these are quite hard to sustain.
But what really amazes me is how slow companies like Dish are to understand the benefits that the GPL brings them. They are building on top of commodity software. They have access to hundreds of skilled engineers at little or no cost. These people ask nothing better than to act as a volunteer R&D department, in exchange for appropriate credit and possibly some long term kudos.
But no... instead we get these "compliance" releases, basically useless.
The key is this: if you are selling a device and your software is GPLd, you have created a platform and you can potentially sell 10, 100 times more if you provide a decent product at a reasonable cost.
Not only does it make excellent business sense to re-release improvements to GPL'd software as cleanly and transparently as possibly, but it makes sense to release proprietary software exactly the same way.
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:2)
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:3, Insightful)
Survey says... Because it's cheaper!
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:2)
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:4, Insightful)
Embedded consumer entertainment appliances are a very, very competitive market. That's why prices are so low, and there are so many small players. All those niche's have converged to one market leaving it over-crowded and over-supplied. Nobody can be expected to give up their share of that market without at least a fight.
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The thing I've always wondered about is why all these companies aren't using *BSD for their OS. There's lots of support for embedded BSD and it makes this whole GPL problem go away.
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:3, Insightful)
You plug in the power cord and a couple others, turn it on, and use it. That's all
Now to do a pc pvr using gpl'd software you have to learn enough to put together a computer sytem, install some VERY un-user-friendly software, then configure it in ways joe user doesn't have the several weeks to learn (rember joe isn't a computer geek just learning a new linux app, he's probably never even dealt with with something outside of a gui).
Longer lasting = added value (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most businesses still underestimate the added value it gives to customers, if products can be extended/upgraded in 'unintended' ways. I suppose the thinking may be something li
Re:Longer lasting = added value (Score:2)
Re:Longer lasting = added value (Score:3, Insightful)
Releasing sources for non-profit stuff is not a problem but releasing sources which represent your only value-added competitive asset in a highly volatile market is fundamentally suicidal. The commercial market place is a hostile, cannibalistic
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:2)
The GPL does not bring benefits to all companies.
"Not only does it make excellent business sense to re-release improvements to GPL'd software as cleanly and transparently as possibly, but it makes sense to release proprietary software exactly the same way."
It does not make good business sense when a cheaper competitor takes your work and sells a product at lower cost, in what is a market w
Re:Dragged kicking and screaming into the light... (Score:3, Insightful)
The two issues can be separated, more or less easily. A secure application can run on top of an open platform, and vice-versa. It requires a clean API, documentation and run time binding (rather than build-time binding). All perfectly feasible. This is why, for instance, I can run Linux on proprietary hardware, something we all take for granted, but which is fundamenta
They call this compliance? (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole point of the GPL is that users can make modify the code. If the deriviative code they have released cannot be loaded without rendering the unit unusable, then they have clearly violated the spirit of the GPL. Maybe they've found some kind of loophole, I don't know.
If the device will not work without linking in proprietary code, well, then they gots themselves a problem. But it's their problem, not the GPL's. Either the proprietary code goes, or the GPL code goes.
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
That being said, the part about voiding the warranty is hardly unreasonable. The unit is designed to run software that DISH Network distributes with it and not other software. Since GPL software is distributed without any warranty, and loading the "third party" software voids the original warranty, you would not have any warranty on the unit. I use the term third party software in a loose sense because it could be the same software but s
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
OR at least thats how I understood the GPL to work.
You should be able to discover from the code they're released what the case is but please don't tar them until you or someone else has done the research and had it ratified.
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
And in this case, you can modify the code. It just doesn't do anything without their proprietary codebase.
Simple hypothetical scenario - They wrote a totally closed program that transfers data from a hardware device (in this case, some form of PVR card) to a file.
They then made almost trivial modifications to GPL'd software to let it use those files, effectively giving them a "real" PVR suite for just the R&D cost of a single, nne
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
You are wrong. The whole point about the GPL is to "keep the software free (free as in open, available, to the community)": this "guarantee of the GPL" refers to the software only, _not_ the product that the software may form part of.
It's entirely fair for a manufacturer to state that the
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:3, Insightful)
They only get to disclaim the warranty as far as the third party product caused the fault. Say you compile a new firmware, image it, and then your DVR won't boot any more. Chances are, your firmware's responsible and no warranty for you if you can't reflash it. O
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
"They only get to disclaim the warranty as far as the third party product caused the fault."
It's not that straight forward, so I'm not sure that you're correct.
"On the other hand, if your custom firmware is working peachily and the power supply fails then they still have to replace the power supply, because your firmware wasn't responsible."
What if the new firmware used the platform in a different way so as to cause excessive power drain beyond the original design?
I'm not sure how these problems are han
Re:They call this compliance? (Score:2)
The whole point of the GPL is that users can make modify the code.
This is true.
If the deriviative code they have released cannot be loaded without rendering the unit unusable, then they have clearly violated the spirit of the GPL. Maybe they've found some kind of loophole, I don't know.
This is not true. The GPL's No Warranty section explicitly states:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECE
Re:Proprietary BIOS (Score:2)
Nice to see (Score:4, Interesting)
Second time I told them not to turn it back on and I was cancelling service. I turned around and got DTV that day and canelled any EFT from dish.
Long story short, 6 months later I got a collection letter for $400. Turns out they turned the service back on and charged me for 2 months of service I didn't use plus the receiver I sent back to them. The collections still there with a note saying that it's invalid. After numerous conversations, they still swear that I owe them 2 months of service and a receiver even though I've sent them records of the receiver sent back to them via UPS and the start date of my DTV service.
I've spoken with 9 different Dish customers that have had similar cases but kept service. I also had a friend that took a job with them. They even lied to him about working around his school. He ended up having to quit because they wouldn't schedule him around his classes.
Anyone paying Dish for service deserves the screwing they're getting.
Re:Nice to see (Helpful, but way off topic) (Score:5, Interesting)
In that case . . . (Score:2)
*If* you can show that you returned it, properly (by credit reporting agency standards) disputed it, and that it's still showing, you should be talking to an attorney who handles credit report problems.
They love these.
There probably won't even be a consultation fee . .
hawk, esq.
Re:Nice to see (Score:2)
Person A has a terrible experience with ComCast so moves to Time-Warner. Person B has a terrible experience with Time-Warner and so moves to ComCast. What neither person realizes is that the odds of having a terrible experience is about the same on both services... they just had bad luck on one, and good luck on the second. But no company has 100% excellent customer service all the time.
What really bugs me is that these people, not realizing this, then go online a
Doing so will void all warranties (Score:3, Funny)
Violating the GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an obvious violation of the spirit of the GPL. From the Preamble:
Re:Violating the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Violating the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
There may be a GPL violation here, actually. They say:
There are two ways to interpret this statement; I think they are honest and mean the first, but someone (not me) might want to verify that:
Re:Violating the GPL (Score:2)
Totally within the bounds of GPL.
Kernel .config file (Score:2)
Also, the GNU_Source_Code.zip includes fLinux.tar.gz and games.tar.gz, so if you get the zip file the other two are redundant.
Happy Fun Ball (Score:4, Funny)
Do not stare at DISH 921 DVR, do not taunt DISH 921 DVR, if DISH 921 DVR begins to smoke, seek shelter and cover head.
DISH 721 DVR source code (Score:3, Informative)
i.e. non-compliant (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't sound like GPL-compliance to me. From the GPL [gnu.org]:
Recompilation stops system from working? (Score:2, Insightful)
Without that key clause, access to the source code under GPL is worthless.
Re:i.e. non-compliant (Score:3, Interesting)
What does this have to do with anything? You are free to make modifications to the code all you want... That does NOT mean they have to give you free license to propritary software that is necessary in addition to it, and it sure as hell doesn't mean they have to make their hardware work with anything you might want to run on it.
They are meeting their GPL obligations 100%.
Re:i.e. non-compliant (Score:3, Interesting)
They said that compiling the supplied source and replacing that portion of the code in the machine causes it to fail.
One of those two statements is false. Either they lied that it won't work, or you are wrong *and* they lied about complying with the GPL.
You are certainly correct that they do not need to give you any source to non-GPL files. You simply leave any non-GPL files in place.
-
violates intent of the GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost the whole point of the GPL is that you can do exactly this: you should be able to change the behavior of GPL'ed software components and replace the existing versions of it.
I suspect future versions of the GPL are going to try to limit these kinds of abuses: if you distribute systems containing GPL-derived binaries, you must ensure that people can reasonably replace your GPL'ed software components with components they recompiled. You should not be permitted to use either cryptographic means, warranties, patents, or proprietary development tools to prevent that.
Re:violates intent of the GPL (Score:2)
But they are giving you exactly this ability; they are simply advising you against doing it in practice, because they won't offer you any support if you muck things up. The GPL says you have a right to hack this code, not that you have a right for technical support while doing that.
Re:violates intent of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying "replacing any shipping code with your own will void your warranty" would OK. But that's not what they are saying.
They are saying "Do not replace or add any software to the DISH 921 DVR with items compiled from these source trees. Doing so will [...] cause the unit to fail." No "might" or "may", but "will", implying that there is s
Wouldn't have this problem if... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't have this problem if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't have this problem if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Go for it. If you don't want the deal we're offering, go someplace else. I hardly see why it's a big deal if someone can't get a free ride on the exact terms they want. If you want a BSD license, use a BSD system, or any other system with similar licensing.
not even the [...] proprietary embedded OS vendors treat their customers like rotting pond scum.
They get paid. Start failing to live up to your agreement with these vendors--stop p
Something fishy (Score:2)
I've always wondered how they are able to make this work, legally. Seems to me that you can't compile a working Linux installation out of what they have provided. They have made modifications to the Linux kernel itself. They have presumably made changes to call unreleased code from within Linux. Ity seems to me that that unreleased code is bound to the GPL. The LGPL allows non-LGPL code to be called form LGPL code, but the full GPL doesn'
Re:Something fishy (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the F___ do you need to run FireFox, Thunderbird, play MP3s and install screen savers on your god damned DVR!?!?
I swear, this is why companies are hesitant to use Linux in stuff, because there's people who demand to know any trade secret stuff for FREE because they feel they NEED it to do shit the device was never designed for. I love Linux as much
Don't suppose... (Score:2)
Okay question..... (Score:2)
Since it is a codec they are using do they need to release source for LAME (+modifications) in addition to source for their entire application?
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at nVidias drivers. There's nothing but a stub in the kernel. The rest is in userspace and closed. Everyone seems ok with that. And any user-space program running on top of Linux can be non-free/closed.
Just because they are required to share all code that is being linked to, doesn't mean it is complete or in reality useful. That being said, I don't know anything about what this specific code is missing.
Kjella
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. There's a quite vocal minority that is really choked that that's happening.
Even Linus is pretty sketchy about the closed-source binary drivers. http://kerneltrap.org/node/1758 [kerneltrap.org]
But linux isn't really GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
hawk, esq.
Re:GPL is viral no? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't think that you could mix proprietry and gpl code? How are they releasing parts of a source code tree - I thought it was all or nothing if you include GPL in your source?
Well kinda... What you do is write an abstraction layer, kinda of a hook into your proprietry software. You'll need to release the abstraction layer (The functions and routines that call GPL routines and use the variables from the GPL modules) but not the proprietry stuff.That is perfectly legal (not neccaryly ethical) and many companies do it.
It would look something like this (assume code sprinkled in different source files
Re:GPL is viral no? (Score:2)
Vendor has custom hardware, that (say) has flash on it.
Decides to use Linux as the OS... The flash is preloaded with an updater and linux.
Of *course* the vendor puts the source for Linux on her site -- why not?
What is kept proprietary are the tools needed to generate and sign the flash load.
Now, you COULD try to reprogram the flash, by "cracking" the Linux installation, and reprogramming the hardware. But, if it breaks -- you own both pieces.
Ratboy
Different executables, you mean. (Score:2)
What you're describing is LGPL-compatible: with the LGPL you only have to release code to a library and modifications to that library. With the GPL, you have to release modifications to the entire derived work.
Now, you might be able to convince a court that sufficiently abstractly
Re:GPL is viral no? (Score:2)
Re:GPL is viral no? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a very interesting way of describing the situation. I like it. It provides a very high-level point of view that I had not been forced to think about before.
Keep in mind that there's a serious flaw in the AC's argument. Specifically, he said "The point is, that sooner or later, if enough 'starter cool shit' is out there, it would be virtually impossibly to write code that wasn't infected with the GPL". The last bit, that it would become impossible to write non-GPL code, is stated as though self-
Not viral, but derivative work = GPL (Score:2)
However if you regard it as an appliance, where the only program the user can run is non-free, maybe then you can regard the whole appliance as
Re:GPL is viral no? (Score:2)
More actually: (Score:2)
So it is more like ~95Mb of source. That crud has reached nirvana even!
But, it is not a violation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you give people a free hammer to use any way they wish, you cannot be justified when they make a building that you are not allowed to enter. GPL gives people the freedom to use it as the people see fit as long as they do not try keep the source code to themselves. Apple has not.
What you are really mad about is that you want anything the GPL code to which it is linked to be free as well. If this is what your idea of GPL means, then I can understand why Gates calls GPL viral. Your idea is viral and Apple's proprietary code is not yours to have. KDE's team was naive to expect they would get a free lunch in return for handing out free lunches. The GPL's purpose is to keep the code free, not its use.
Re:But, it is not a violation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction: KDE's users were naïve to expect that they would get a free lunch in return for KDE developers handing out free lunches.
The KDE developers understood the license, and its ramifications, when they chose to release their code under it. They have acknowledged that Apple is playing fair, and is completely within their rights. However, Apple has not gone as far above and beyond the requirements of the LGPL as some Konqueror users expected, and THOSE people are upset. The developers are a bit disappointed, but they're not upset at Apple.
Open Source FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Apple approach... (Score:2, Insightful)
While you're fuming... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Apple is under no requirement to release individual patches, nor any big patch at all. Only the complete source.
b) Apple is under no obligation to give anything at all to the KHTML team (only to those who got their browser as part of a Mac).
c) The source files as they stand are obviously the "perferred form" of editing the source code internally in Apple. The GPL does not cover any other form of material, such as structural documents, documentation, bug database or any other material required to understand the source. If anything, it is an oversight of the GPL, not Apple.
In short, you are asking for kindness above and beyond their obligations. They have forked the project, and I don't see why they should have to maintain someone else's code tree. Are the *BSDs required to make compatible patches, because they came from the same source? No. I assume Apple has released everything they are required to under the GPL, and so your allegations of closing the source like a BSD license is groundless, as are your allegations of a GPL violation. If I had mod points I would mod you as -1, Troll, UID not withstanding.
Kjella
I don't think you read the Apple case (Score:2, Offtopic)
From what I know of Safari and Konq from a user point of view they ought to be porting Safari to other platforms more than they ought to be trying to pick and choose each patch.
This Dish thing - it depends on details of how linked they are. Details I certainly don't know at this time.