Sony Rootkit Allegedly Contains LGPL Software

Deaths Hand writes "According to this Dutch article the Sony DRM software (or rootkit, if you may prefer) contains code from the LAME MP3 encoder project, which is licensed under the LGPL. However, the source code has not also been distrbuted, hence breaching the license. Here is an english translation of the page." So apparently Sony violates your privacy to create a backdoor onto your machine using code that violates an Open Source license. This story just keeps getting stranger.

just say no

[hector_uk]

now I feel more and more justified for not buying any music until the music industry stops suing their customers.

Re:just say no

[Pieroxy]

until the music industry stops suing their customers
Yes, but this time, it's customers suing them!

Re:just say no

[the_xaqster]

I am sure there is a "In soviet Russia" joke in there somwhere!

Thank god!

[Anita Coney]

I read about this story days ago. I was hoping it wouldn't get lost. In a way this is even bigger than the root-kit story. You've got to love the irony of stealing code to create a DRM infested ripper!

Re:Thank god!

[Halo1]

They're not stealing code, they're infringing on the author's copyrights by not respecting the license under which the code is be distributed (in exactly the same way people who "share" Sony/BMG music via p2p etc infringe on Sony/BMG's and the the artists' copyrights).

Re:Thank god!

[Sepper]

(in exactly the same way people who "share" Sony/BMG music via p2p etc infringe on Sony/BMG's and the the artists' copyrights).

Not sure about the English language, but in my own we have a saying for this: "Do what I say, not what I do"

Re:Thank god!

[IAmTheDave]

Not sure about the English language, but in my own we have a saying for this: "Do what I say, not what I do"

Yup, that's right. The thing that kills me is that certain members of our government are busy drafting legislation that would make criminal penalties against copyright infringement harsher [slashdot.org], including jail time. No doubt Sony is a sponsor of this bill - or at least the RIAA/MPAA, of which Sony is a member. Yet do you think that Sony would ever be concerned about holding themselves to the same standard? Would they, as a sponsor of this proposed legislation, support the CEO, CIO, chief architect, programmer, or otherwise spending some time in jail for an LGPL or GPL copyright violation?

The double standard kills me, and in cases like this where Sony's actions are quite simply audacious, I almost start to feel physical anger. I'm tired of being treated like a criminal, and it's really about time that a company like Sony be held responsible for the huge amount of personal and other violations that they have trampled on with this one single action of releasing this software.

GPL gives rights beyond copyright law

[chihowa]

Of course you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway.

The thing that people don't seem to realize is that if the GPL doesn't hold any water (and it may not), then the whole thing just collapses back to plain old copyright law. In that case, they can't copy and sell the code at all without permission from the writer.

If I write a book and release it on the internet for everybody to download for free, you still can't copy and sell it without my permission. The fact that the code is offered for free doesn't mean that the writer has given up his rights to the work. In fact it is the GPL that gives people the right to copy and sell the work, if they follow the rules outlined in it. Breaking the GPL means you don't have permission to copy and sell the works at all. It is the GPL itself that makes it legal for people to copy and sell GPLed work. Without the GPL it's just plain ol' copyright infringement.

Re:Thank god!

[Anita Coney]

You're right, I was trying to be ironic. "Stealing" should have been in quotes to better emphasize my sorry attempt at humor.

Re:Thank god!

[heinousjay]

It's like an infinite loop of hypocrisy: My god, it's full of piracy!

Re:Thank god! - What's Next

[DikSeaCup]

Not just bunnies, but many cute furry animals die when subjected to Barbara Streisand's music.

I know it causes me significant pain ...

Well, hang on a minute

[daviddennis]

I will admit I haven't read the license, but I could have sworn that I have no obligation to distribute the source of software I write using LGPL-licensed libraries. I thought I could freely distribute software using them them for any purpose even if I was distributing binaries only of my proprietary software.

In fact, I thought that was the whole difference between the GPL and LGPL.

Did I get this wrong, or is this a non-story?

D

Re:Well, hang on a minute

[Vo0k]

You have to redistribute source of these libraries and enough hooks/API so anyone could replace them with whatever they like in your program. So either link dynamically (and include just the lib sources) or if you link statically, include source of the libraries and .o objects of your binary so they can be re-linked.

Re:Well, hang on a minute

[Vo0k]

You still can statically link as long as the user is able to replace the LGPL parts of the code. So, say, you distribute object format binaries of your proprietary code, or you release your own code on other open-source non-GPL license (like the new one from Microsoft, "you can read, you can compile, you're not allowed to edit"). Generally the gist is that the LGPL part of your code must remain Free to anyone you give/sell your software to, and the proprietary part must not stand in the way to that Freedom.

Code vs metadata

[Vo0k]

IANAL, but I think this is no-case. The code isn't included as executable, but as metadata usable in identifying LAME. Same as antivirus vendors shouldn't be kept liable for installing millions of viruses and copyrighted code from multiple spyware programs, just because the antivirus contains sniplets of the original code used in identifying the threats. They don't link the code against the program, but include pieces of it as non-executable data for the database. It's fair use. Same as you'd sue Google for copyright infringement because they include a sniplet of text from your website in their search results, or a thumbnail of your copyrighted image in image search.

Re:Code vs metadata

[muzzy]

Wrong, it isn't used for identifying anything. The GO.EXE only contains the strings and data but it isn't used there. I wasn't able to find any code in the executable that uses the data (for any purposes), and I looked pretty hard. It's been statically linked but unused. HOWEVER, there are more binaries on the CD compressed in XCP.DAT, which get installed to the system along with the DRM crap. At least one of these binaries contain LAME code for certain. The GO.EXE might not be enough for a case, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's real infringement in at least one other executable.

Re:Code vs metadata

[courtarro]

At least one of these binaries contain LAME code for certain.

Are you arguing that the included code is being used in a way that violates Fair Use, or that simply including the code for comparison (as the grandparent argues) is not fair use? I can't imagine why Sony would need to "use" several MP3 encoders (this comment [slashdot.org] links to a list of them) to actually encode music. Thus, I would assume that Sony is including bits of code from these programs in order to prevent them from running. Is that a violation of the LGPL?

Re:Code vs metadata

[arkanes]

It is a techncial copyright violation (and there is no fair use right that covers it) to distribute LAME code in object format, no matter how it is used, or even if it is not used at all. Just like it would be copyright infringment for me to ship my app with a tarball of the Windows source code in it.

To my knowledge, there is no fair use right that covers distribution in any form except for first sale, which doesn't apply here and only arguably applies to digital distribution at all.

Re:Code vs metadata

[Bogtha]

You are way off. "Fair use" isn't a specific law, it is a set of factors that must be considered in a copyright infringement case. Read up on it. [stanford.edu] You can't definitively say "there's no fair use law covering this" because fair use is non-specific. It's a huge grey area.

Re:Code vs metadata

[croddy]

It doesn't matter that they're using LAME code to detect and disable LAME. It matters that they are distributing LAME code without offering the source code.

Under the LGPL, they must offer us the source code. This protects our ability to rebuild the DRM rootkit for different versions of the LAME library -- so that it can detect newer LAME libraries, or our personal modified copies of the LAME library, and disable those as well.

Takedown noticy against Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should send a takedown notice to the Sony corporation.

Re:Takedown noticy against Sony

[saskboy]

This is +5 Ironic or Insightful.

Why hasn't anyone issued a takedown notice to Sony, so they have to pull these viral CDs from the stores and issue a recall?

It serves them right!

[AndroidCat]

If they'd gone Open Source from the start with their rootkit, the community could have contributed bug fixes and improvements. Even their competitors could have gotten involved, resulting in a truely powerful bug-free rootkit for use by everyone.

Glee

[johnos]

Its beautiful. I've always thought that the corporate war on their customers over intellectual property would turn when someone went too far. All of a sudden the main stream media would wake up and finally get it. Well, now its happened. The media is all over the story and Sony, bless their hollow little heads, just keep digging. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was shocked but not suprised at the news Sony or Level 4 have broken the LGPL. They are staggering around like a pummled prizefighter, bleeding on everything. There's going to be more blood before this is over. Besides the $billion or so it will cost Sony to clean up the mess, others will have some 'splainin to do. Like the anti-virus companies, like Microsoft, like the other music companies.

Re:Glee

[Omnifarious]

I haven't bought a CD in years. It's put a big damper on my listening to new music, but it's just not worth it to support that industry. I've heard that Ani DiFranco's label is completely independent though, so I might go buy her stuff.

Re:Glee

[Lisandro]

It is. It's called Righteous Babe records [righteousbabe.com].

Re:Glee

[cortana]

The RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] says she is clean! Unfortunatly it's a POST form so no direct link to the results.

Sneaky Sony

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I knew something was up when I saw that Aibo perched at my keyboard when I woke up this morning.

Next thing you know, they'll be after our precious bodily fluids.

More info

[muzzy]

The GO.EXE doesn't appear to contain LAME code even though it has been linked against it, however at least ECDPlayerControl.ocx on the CD (packed in XCP.DAT, installed along DRM) does contain code from LAME. It also uses Id3lib and mpglib, without attribution or any licenses shipped along. I spotted bladeenc dll there as well.

Check the bottom of my research page for info, http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/ [hack.fi]
There's not much there at the moment but I'll be adding information as soon as everything can be properly confirmed and evidence gathered.

What's next?

[Pig Hogger]

The more it goes, the worse it seems. What's next?

- Sony rootkit eats kittens?
- Sony rootkit throws momma from the train?
- Sony rootkit spawns Darth Vader?
- Sony rootkit deflates tires of soccer moms?
- Sony rootkit steals cookies from girl scouts?
- Sony rootkit cheats at final exams?
- Sony rootkit pours hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants?

Re:What's next?

[10101001 10101001]

- Sony rootkit infringes cookies from girl scouts?

There, fixed that for you.

It even has some GPL compnonets

[leuk_he]

looking at the licence of lame: [sourceforge.net]

*** IMPORTANT NOTE ***

The decoding functions provided in LAME use the mpglib decoding engine which
is under the GPL. They may not be used by any program not released under the
GPL unless you obtain such permission from the MPG123 project (www.mpg123.de).

So it is not only LPGL, but also the more strict GPL. This is of coarse all meaningless if nobody from the mpg123 project steps out and tells sony to go with the license.

outdated info, it's LGPL nowadays

[muzzy]

That's outdated. mpglib was relicensed under LGPL some years ago already, check www.mpg123.de

tell the developers about the money

[r00t]

Thanks in part to lobbying efforts by Sony, each CD-ROM carries a penalty of around $75000.

Suppose the case settles for 10% and the lawyers take 90%. That leaves $750 per CD-ROM for the mpg123 developers. Now think about how many CD-ROMs have been produced.

Oh, what I'd give to have Sony infringe my open source project! The mpg123 developers are some lucky bastards for sure. I need to learn how to write Windows multimedia software instead of just Linux system software.

Let EFF know what you think

[chihowa]

This seems like a pretty good GPL test case. The irony of copyright infringement being used to develop a copyright protecting program would likely go over will with the court!

Plus patents...

[Bazman]

"So apparently Sony violates your privacy to create a backdoor onto your machine using code that violates an Open Source license..."

... from a project that may be[1] in violation of patent law! Woohoo!

Baz

[1] in some lawyers opinion.... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAME [wikipedia.org] for info.

Not stranger entirely consistent

[Crashmarik]

The fact that sony has chosen to violate a license agreement is entirely consistent with the motion picture and music industry standard operating procedures. The only rights they acknowledge are their own. For someone else to assert their rights, would be considered meerly cheeky. Look at the Buchwald case, record industry and movie industry accounting practices.

In short if you look at this from the perspective that these people feel that they own YOUR right to enjoy entertainment, it all becomes very consistent.

Sony needs to protect its image...

[digitaldc]

...not its CDs. They have done more to damage their image and profits with this story than they would have saved by installing its spyware.
I also feel sorry for the poor chap who buys Ricky Martin, Neil Diamond or Celine Dion CDs, I really do.
Sony should have some kind of disclaimer about installing its bad software, maybe a 'Spyware Advisory' sticker? It is only fair.

Re:Sony needs to protect its image...

[ettlz]

I also feel sorry for the poor chap who buys Ricky Martin, Neil Diamond or Celine Dion CDs, I really do.

Yes, but what about the DRM issue on these CDs?

Re:Sony needs to protect its image...

[mpe]

...not its CDs. They have done more to damage their image and profits with this story than they would have saved by installing its spyware.

Probably also increased the amount of their material being pirated. Since those wanting to listen to those artists are likely to prefer a "clean" copy.

Sabotage from within?

[jeffs72]

I could see the developer who had this project fall in his lap say "this is fucking stupid, lets teach them a lesson on integrating spyware with their cds" and violating this license (which will give them a black eye) and then write it in such a way that people can easily use it as a virus/trojan vector.

The more I think about it, it really smells of dissention from within.

Either that or it looks to me like this is a mix of business people not understanding their market, customers, or technology and sloppy code work. I mean, what asshat would grab some open source code and not adhere to the license? It is either a tremendous faux pas on Sony's part, or there was some intentional act here to make this as reprehensible as possible.

Sort of like watching the music industry test the waters on this sort of thing and finding them extremely chilly.

Re:Sabotage from within?

[PeteDotNu]

"It is either a tremendous faux pas on Sony's part, or there was some intentional act here to make this as reprehensible as possible."

IF the allegations are true, then I expect that Sony have actually been doing this kind of thing for years and getting away with it. Only NOW are people taking a closer look at Sony's code to see exactly how deep this seam of faeces runs.

Re:Sabotage from within?

[Saint Aardvark]

I mean, what asshat would grab some open source code and not adhere to the license?

The sort of asshat who would write this thing in the first place?

Re:Sabotage from within?

[SpecBear]

I mean, what asshat would grab some open source code and not adhere to the license?

The same asshat who writes software that violates the property and privacy rights of paying customers.

The perfect comment

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bash.org/?577451 [bash.org]

Ironic?

[Rakishi]

First of all it seems that there is more than just LAME in there: http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/ [hack.fi]

Second of all, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a DRM program designed to protect someone's copyrighted information is itself infringing on someone's copyright? I guess if Sony wants to fight those evil copyright violators they should start by putting themselves in jail.

I don't get it

[chrisgeleven]

Why would Sony include LAME (or parts of it) in with this rootkit? LAME is just a mp3 encoder.

Unless Sony wanted high quality mp3's made from the CD (which I seriously doubt for some strange reason), I don't get why they would put it in there.

It isn't like LAME has any DRM itself. Far from that.

Anyone have any ideas?

Re:I don't get it

[jrcamp]

I read an article a week or so back saying that the rootkit would insert spots of noise into MP3's when you tried to burn them to degrade the quality. Perhaps this is where LAME could be used? Anybody know the article I'm talking about and can link it?

Re:I don't get it

[Walkiry]

>Anyone have any ideas?

Well, according to some people who have had to exorcise the demon from their windows PC, what happened after installing the rootkit is that MP3 files ripped from other CDs came back worse to wear, with noise, loss of quality and whatnot.

If that is true, you can probably connect the dots easily and see what Sony was after :-)

In Case Anybody's Losing Track

[trentrez]

FYI. BoingBoing have compiled a comprehensive timeline of events surrounding this: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/14/sony_anticust omer_te.html [boingboing.net]

What does the rootkit do when it detects LAME?

[dmoen]

1. It seems that Sony has not actually included any executable code from LAME, only some data, which is likely used as a signature, to determine if you have LAME installed and are using it to rip MP3s. This is likely fair use, not wholesale copyright violation, as far as LAME and the LGPL are concerned.

So the interesting question is: what does the rootkit do when it detects LAME on your hard drive? Does it disable or corrupt LAME? Does it phone home? Does it automatically initiate an RIAA lawsuit?

*This* is what I think the next Sony class-action lawsuit should be about. I doubt there is enough grounds to get them on an LGPL copyright infringement suit.

2. Muzzy points out that the Sony uninstaller installs a "safe for scripting" Active-X control with remotely exploitable entry points for rebooting your machine and possibly for installing arbitrary code on your machine. More fuel for the tasty class action suits that are starting up.

3. Sony has done so many evil things with the rootkit fiasco (and we haven't discovered them all yet); the outrage is spreading, and it may lead to a major backlash against the whole industry practice of distributing corrupted CDs in the name of DRM. Here's hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

Doug Moen.

Re:What does the rootkit do when it detects LAME?

[Nynaeve]

This google cache link [72.14.203.104] seems to imply that LAME code was indeed used. The presence of an internal data structure contained within LAME source code was present in the executable go.exe. I'm willing to bet there is enough evidence to get a copyright suit started. It would be so ironic.

Not Sony

[MaestroSartori]

Disclaimer: I'm a Sony employee, and I strongly disapprove of the rootkit DRM stuff in a completely unofficial not-representative-of-the-company way ;)

But it's worth mentioning at this point that Sony didn't develop the software in question here - the XCP [xcp-aurora.com] software was developed by First4Internet [first4internet.com].

Not being a lawyer, or particularly knowledgable about (L)GPL terms, who could be held liable when a piece of software is developed by one party, but distributed by another? Is ignorance a defence, for instance if Sony said "We didn't know it had unlicensed code!", how would that affect things?

Re:Not Sony

[jrcamp]

"But I didn't know my Internet connection was being used by my son to download Sony BMG artists' songs!"

"I'm sorry sir but you're the owner. You owe $500,000 in damages."

They don't allow the "but I didn't know" explanation. Why should they be allowed to use it? I say try to nail them. They've done far worse to others.

Re:Not Sony

[Alsee]

Our copyright law has literally been written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry (and then out idiot congressmen pass it generally exactly as drafted). Thus copyright law is evil as hell if it is actually enforced.

In particular copyright infringment is "strict liability". You have an afirmative duty not to infringe copyright, and if you do infringe copyright then you are guilty no matter how accidental or innocent it may have been. Assuming thier rootkit does indeed contain infringing code, Sony is legally liable no matter where they got it and even if they had no idea it was in there.

However there is a clause in copyright law that if the defendant proves in court that he is an "innocent infringer" then the jude may reduce the monetary damages.

Also Sony might be able to sue the rootkit authors to recoup any damages they had to pay for copyright infringment. But that would be a completely independant legal issue and an entirely different court case.

And quite signifigantly, the complaining GPL copyright holder can likely get a court order for all of the infringing CDs to be DESTROYED.

-

Re:Not Sony

[WhiteWolf666]

No, its not cut and dry like that.

In court, damages would be determined based upon the length of time when you were told you were in violation, and when you decided to correct this behavior.

If you were warned that you were in violation, today, and correct the violation in a week, or stop distributing the code in a month (as soon as reasonably possible) damages would be 'negligible'.

If you were warned that you were in violation, then ignored it indefinitely, until the matter was brought up in court, that would be considered willfully infringing. There would be damages, but of a limited amount, and an injunction against you for this kind of behavior.

If you were warned that you were in violation, then you denied it, then you tried to disprove it, then you counter-sued, then you ignored it, attempted to settle, caused settlement negotiations to break down, filed to have the hearing moved to a different jurisdiction, etc etc, the court could be persuaded to lean towards the '$100,000 per CD copyright fine'.

The court is given a fair amount of leeway in deciding this kind of thing. Behave badly, and unless you have a crack legal team, you'll get slapped. Judges, regardless of whether they are right wing or left wing have a _very_ serious sense of fairness. Fuck with some one in a willful way, and play with them in court to prolong your profiteering, and a judge _will_ come down on you hard.

Hilariously, this seemed to work too well for Microsoft. They got the judge so damn pissed off that had to reverse his decision. In my opinion, however, you'll never see this happen again. No judge will make the kind of comments that were made in that case.

It's getting pulled anyhow

[confusion]

Not that it lessens their tresspass, but Sony is apparently pulling the "infected" CDs:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity /2005-11-14-sony-cds_x.htm [usatoday.com]

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

Re:It's getting pulled anyhow

[Slashcrap]

Not that it lessens their tresspass, but Sony is apparently pulling the "infected" CDs:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity [usatoday.com] /2005-11-14-sony-cds_x.htm [usatoday.com]

Are they also pulling all of the infected PCs in for free repairs?

No? Then let's not help these wankers by helping to spread their desperate PR pieces.

How many of you have PS3's on preorder now?

[C. Mattix]

So is the Slashdot crowd going to complain and moan about Sony being a servant of the devil, and then happily go to Best Buy and get ther shiny new PS3?

But LAME author doesn't want to take action

[oddmake]

Here's the link to comments of LAME developer tt [slashdot.jp] at Slashdot Japan.

When Interware violation incident occurs,I feel like as if my own son/doughter were raped by them.But I soon realized I can't have enough power to change the situation.I prefer coding,listening music,cooking to legal action. [slashdot.jp]

Similar comment was written on Journal entry. [slashdot.jp]
tt also comments on tables,as more hint for searching copyleft infringement seeking;t16_5l[]@table.c & enwindow[]@newmdct.c [slashdot.jp]

I think we know what to do

[Trailer Trash]

The people who own copyrights in lame need to go after Sony for $160K/cd that has been shipped. Perhaps they can set up a call center where Sony can call in to "settle".

Yes, I'm serious. It's time to turn this shit back around on these bastards.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

[swelke]

Isn't the minimum way to comply with the GPL's (and I assume also the LGPL's) source code distribution terms to make the source code available upon request? (IE you don't necessarily have to distribute source to those users who don't want it.) So has anybody tried requesting? It's worth a shot. I don't think we've ever had open source DRM crap before.

Too many license lawyers

[Arandir]

I used to always think a license meant what it says, not what the hordes of Slashdot children wishes it did. Please people, GO READ THE FRIGGING LGPL!

The LGPL does not require you to distribute the source code, it only requires you to give the source code to a user who asks for it. Including the source code with the software is only one of several means to accomplish this. Has any legal user of the software asked Sony for the source code? Anyone? I thought not...

It's not that I think Sony is innocent. Hardly! But that's no excuse for hundreds of Slashdot posters to be whining about licnese terms that don't even exist.

Re:Uuuuuh

[Anonymous Coward]

they linked it statically (apparently the rootkit consists of a single exe), so no.

Re:Uuuuuh

[YA_Python_dev]

Doesn't the LGPL permit this?

No. You can link LGPLed software with proprietary software, but you must still distribute the sources of at least the free software (free as in RMS).

"operating system on which the executable runs"

[tepples]

<sarcasm>Thus explaining why every single open source project includes the full GCC source tree with it?</sarcasm>

The GNU General Public License [gnu.org] and the GNU Lesser General Public License [gnu.org] have an operating system exemption. The exact wording of the exemption in both licenses is as follows:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

True, the corner cases of this exemption have not been tested in a court of law, especially in conjunction with the "mere aggregation" exemption.

Re:"operating system on which the executable runs"

[maxwell demon]

Moreover, the gcc runtime libraries (the only part of gcc which ends up in gcc compiled code, and therefore could affect the licensing) all have special exceptions to the GPL, so that they don't cause the programs they are linked to to be covered by the GPL.

Re:Uuuuuh

[wlan0]

According to the EFF.

This software is licensed under the so called Lesser Gnu Public License (LGPL). According to this license Sony must comply with a couple of demands. Amongst others, they have to indicate in a copyright notice that they make use of the software. The company must also deliver the source code to the open-source libraries or otherwise make these available. And finally, they must deliver or otherwise make available the in between form between source code and executable code, the so called objectfiles, with which others can make comparable software.

Notification?

[Grendel Drago]

This is all so ridiculous. It's not like Sony even asks the user if they want this crap installed. Where would they even put the copyright notice? Of all the underhanded nonsense...

Re:Notification?

[Professor_UNIX]

This is all so ridiculous. It's not like Sony even asks the user if they want this crap installed. Where would they even put the copyright notice? Of all the underhanded nonsense...

This is the problem with the viral nature of the GPL and even the LGPL licenses and is why you should really consider using BSD licensed software in your DRM rootkits in the future. Screw the FSF!

Re:Notification?

[einhverfr]

This is the problem with the viral nature of the GPL and even the LGPL licenses and is why you should really consider using BSD licensed software in your DRM rootkits in the future. Screw the FSF!

There is a psychology term called "projection" which is very important here. In this case and in the case you can sum it up as the rule that those who complain loudest about copyright violations are likely to be violating other peoples' copyrights.

Re:Notification?

[thre5her]

Great, then rewrite all those awesome GPL libraries you link to and release the code under BSD. Better yet, just release it into the public domain, with *no* strings attached. Nobody's holding a gun to your head, and frankly, nobody cares what you do with *your* code. However, if you use *my* GPL'd code in your BSD-licensed program, you had better GPL your project, otherwise someone may take credit for *my* work; leaving you with one pissed-off developer hounding your ass.

Re:Notification?

[coolgeek]

GPL source is not a gift.

Re:Uuuuuh

[coolgeek]

Two hours research on various Windows Developer mailing lists will reveal all the answers needed to homebrew your own rootkit, if you have a little bit of savvy. My point is that concealing Windows' numerous design flaws in the hopes of obscuring the many ways to exploit them is not security. Besides, if you think Windows rootkit source isn't already being traded on IRC by many, you are truly naive.

Even the methodology used by the sysinternals dude, of analyzing the kernel call vector to find the rootkit (by locating addresses pointing outside of the kernel) is nowhere near bulletproof. We're coming up on the 5th inning of the apocalypse of Windows. Soon a Mac will look cheap when you compare it to the time consuming weekly reformat/reinstall cycles that lie just beyond the horizon.

Yeah but...

[Spy der Mann]

let's not forget that the rootkit would have to distribute the source code with it!

Hmmm I wonder...

$sys$rootkit.cpp
$sys$rootkit.h
$sys$drm.cpp
$sys$drm.h
$sys$lgpl.txt
...hmmmm Nah.

Nope.

[Dr. Manhattan]

If you statically link in LGPL code (i.e. part of the binary), then the whole thing must be LGPL. If you dynamically link to the LGPL code (e.g. shared library, DLL) then you don't have to open up the code that links to it (this is the primary difference between the GPL and the LGPL) but if you distribute the LGPL library with your binaries, you must offer the code for the LGPL portion, too.

That being said, from what I've read it appears that the Sony DRM code may be looking for LAME on the system (to block it from working on their 'protected' stuff) but doesn't appear to actually contain LAME code.

Almost.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you statically link in LGPL code (i.e. part of the binary), then the whole thing must be LGPL.

Not necessarily. The only requirement is that the end-user can recreate the end result by modifying the LGPL part. This can also be met by distibuting statically linked binaries and all .o files (also the closed ones). AFAIK, Loki did this for statically linked, closed-source, SDL-based games.

no excuse

[r00t]

Sony may claim to be looking for LAME. If so, they are using copyrighted samples to do it.

Since Sony already argues against fair use of samples, one need only supply the court
with Sony's own arguments against fair use.

Re:Wrong. Because the best-kept secret about LGPL.

[Dr. Manhattan]

When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.

Note the words "may be". Copyright law is funny. Using things that are necessary to interoperate (e.g. simple definitions of constants and function prototypes) is not a problem from a copyright perspective (c.f. "scenes a faire"). If there's only one way to express an idea (e.g. "errno.h", which maps POSIX

Re:Nope.

[Lemmy Caution]

Wow, that's some of the most tortured reasoning I've ever seen.

The gap between Sony's actions and those required by the LGPL are so huge, and the differences are essential. On one hand, we have a copyright restriction which generally acts like a Kantian categorical imperative: it demands that you act in such a way that perpetuates the very conditions by which you were able to obtain it in the first place. It is enforced by trust first and foremost.

In Sony's case, we have restrictions on how many times you c

Re:Nope.

[Theatetus]

I don't see why this is so confusing to people.

You can charge whatever you want for a GPL'd program. You can charge a million dollars if you want to. You don't have to offer your GPL'd program for free download. You just have to offer the source to anyone who gets your binary, and not restrict their rights to alter or redistribute. That's it.

Re:Uuuuuh

[DataPath]

Small clarification - you're not freed from the requirement to make the code for the lgpl portion available. You don't have to make the source code for the program that links against the LGPL code available.

No, Sony would have been ok if they had installed a README with their rootkit explaining that their digital rights management solution contained code distributed under the LGPL license, and direct users of the software to a website containing the source code.

Re:Uuuuuh

[ppz003]

$sys$README ?

WRONG

[samjam]

"to a website" WRONG WRONG WRONG.

If Sony don't provide the source they must make THE source available to all third parties for at least 3 years.
This is an obligation they must fulfil.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Distribut eWithSourceOnInternet [gnu.org]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSource AndBinaryOnDifferentSites [gnu.org]
Merely pointing to "a website" or "the website we got it from" is not enough.
You have to make-sure-it-stays-there. And thats not enough.
You also have to let people request it by mail charging only a minimal fee.

You have to track your releases and make sure you keep the source of each release seperately so you can give people the source to the version they had.

Too many people consider only casually the obligation that the GPL puts on them. GPL is not an easy way out.

It's easy to receive GPL software because the burden is on the distributor, but you must understand and fulfil the burden when you are the distributor.
With most commercial software you pay some money before you receive it but you still have to follow the license guidelines.

Is it too often for me to say again that too many people distibute binary packages to open source software and distribute the source they compile to make the binary package but do not distribute the source to making the binary package; i.e. the .spec file, or the dev-src equivalant.

Sam

Re:This story gets better and better

[Manhigh]

Next thing you know they'll buy SCO.

... or maybe yes

[muzzy]

That only concerns GO.EXE, and while the analysis is correct for that executable, I checked for LAME references against every binary in the compressed XCP.DAT file after I managed to unpack it (thanks to freedom-to-tinker.com guys for providing description of the format). Turns out, there's more binaries including references to LAME, and this time there's actually code that uses the data as well. And not just LAME, there's also Id3lib included in one dll, and bladeenc and mpglib distributed along with the DRM. All of this is LGPL, it's code, and it's being used.

Re:... or maybe not

[DrSkwid]

I'll try that one when the RIAA call

Oh sure I have 10G of unlicensed mp3s, but I've never listened to them.

LAME is in there, just not in GO.EXE

[muzzy]

Regarding GO.EXE, it's a cockup. I've posted a few other posts here explaining the real situation. LAME along with some other LGPL code is being used in other binaries on the DRM, I couldn't initially find them since they're compressed in XCP.DAT on the cd but they get installed on the system.

Re:This counts as a violation *why*?

[TrekkieGod]

I was confused and under that impression too, so I read the LGPL license. It doesn't require you to submit the source code, but it does require the machine readable object code to be released so that people can link it with the library themselves. It also requires that the fact the library is being used be clearly stated, and the LGPL license text included with the distribution.

Re:So... How about them statutory damages...

[Yartrebo]

IANAL, but judging from the RIAA's press releases when they sue grannies and kids, it's per copy and per work. So let's do the math. 20CD * 1 million copies each * $150,000/copy = $3 trillion dollars. That's if there's only 1 work on each copy. If they also infringed on several other projects, then you would have to multiply the damages accordingly.

Re:So... How about them statutory damages...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So let's do the math. 20CD * 1 million copies each * $150,000/copy = $3 trillion dollars.

What incredible irony it would be if the LAME group ended up owning Sony Corp.
Yeah, I know, not a chance in hell, but one can dream...

Re:So... How about them statutory damages...

[Hatta]

Any of you LAME developers reading? Please PLEASE! don't settle!

Just once, I'd like to see a major corporation wiped off the face of the earth because it violated the law. It would send a nice message to the other megacorporations. If you're going to use the law as a weapon against us, we can use it right back.

So please, talk to the EFF. I'll donate whatever I can to the legal fund.

Re:So... How about them statutory damages...

[Alsee]

Ummm, does anyone know how many programmers (also know as copyright holders) have code in LAME?

Because each copyright holder can sue independantly.

Oh, and in case anyone forgot the RIAA sued a college student for $97.8 Billion. [slashdot.org] SO they have absolutely no right to bitch about how supid-huge copyright infringments can get to be. Their own lawyers participated in drafting the law the stupid-ass damages.

-

Re:LGPL

[DVega]

LGPL requires access to the source code. The only difference with GPL is that LGPL allows linking with non-free (non-?GPL) components.

Re:LGPL

[angel'o'sphere]

First off all, neither the GPL nor the LGPL require you to DISTRIBUTE the source code. They both require you to grant access to the source code.

The LGPL does not require you to give anyone access to the non-free parts you linked with it. Only if you modify the library itself you are required to give access to the sources of said library, not to the source of the program you link with that library.

So I don't see why Sony is violating the LGPL here. As you can download the LGPLed library from sourceforge, its

Re:LGPL

[angel'o'sphere]

forget it, my last comment I mean ...

I see that modern versions of LGPL want that the source of the library is included with the distributed binary.

Another reason not to use LGPL code ... why should *I* distribute code that can be downloaded from sourceforge? Or other GNU distributing sites for that matter.

angel'o'sphere

Re:LGPL

[cow-orker]

I believe you should shut up, stop relying on hearsay and read the license. Section 4 most clearly states:

You may copy and distribute the Library [...] in object code or executable form [...] provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code

Re:Blame Sony?

[Lisandro]

If anything, the rootkit makers are responsable of the LGPL violation (if that's proved). Saying Sony is off the hook because they licensed the rootkit from a third party is like saying Smith & Wesson is the responsable if i pick a gun and shoot someone.

    If they choose XCP knowing how it works (and what it would do), they're guilty. If they choose it unknowingly, they're incompetent. They're responsable either way.

Two key issues become clearer

[Blitzenn]

I am seeing two issues here that are becoming clearer in the Open Source arena. One is that when there is a violation, there is not currently anyone willing to spend the huge dollars needed to litigate the issue. With Comercialware, there has always been someone with fairly deep pockets to pay an attorney to pursue the violators in court. Who is that going to be in the Open Source community? Who is making money on this stuf so that they can pay the expense of litigation when necessary? Is the 'free' trajectory shooting itself in the foot that way?

Another interesting point I see is that someone, sooner or later is going to challenge the legality of Open Source under the 'free' standard and litigate that it is tantamount to price fixing, i.e. antitrust. How long before someone challenges that the contractual language that forces someone to provide code at no cost is the same as being forced to sell it at an inflated price. The price is still fixed, whether at zero or at some other number.

These are a couple of major challenges that await open source. I hope someone gets their ducks in a row before these things come to fruition. Open Source has driven the industry in a very good direction. I would hate to see it fall because it can't support itself, financially, when and where it is needed. Justice is NOT free, in fact the costs are enormous to obtain justice. Somehow that has to be worked into the Open SOurce equation in a way that works for us all or the likes of Sony are going to kill it off.

Re:LAME encoder

[sd4l]

Isn't the LAME encoder an MP3 encoder that still needs to be licensed from Thompson?

In short, No!

Longer version: According to Dave Arland, a U.S. spokesman for Thomson Multimedia - 'its policy has always been to allow free use of the company's MP3 patents in "freely distributable software"'

Newsforge Article [newsforge.com]