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."
Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:5, Insightful)
Tough call; I'm in favor of an attempt to enforce the GPL (and potentially get validation from a US court that it is, in fact, a legally enforceable license).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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
Re:Possibility of GPL Validation (Score:5, Insightful)
To which you respond by asking what they would think if the company had installed windows on all of these boxes without paying for a single license.
Same thing either way. You either pay with the code, or you pay with your cash. Or use BSD.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess failing startups may not be the only thing giving Utah a bad reputation in VC circles. There is also a company called SCO...
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just buy one off eBay, there are quite a few available [ebay.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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 yoursel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Using your logic, why don't Linux hippies stop reverse engineering closed software when they see the "Do not disassemble" clause?
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Using your logic, why don't Linux hippies stop reverse engineering closed software when they see the "Do not disassemble" clause?
Or is it another case of double standards? "Do what we want, not what they want!".
Because "do not disassemble" clauses are an unenforceable crock of shit. Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under. Venture capitalists are free to hire a bunch of programmers to reverse engineer all that GPL software and cr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under.
In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).
This is called "having your cake and eating it, too."
No, the first case is a matter of a company trying to end-run around already existing laws that deal with the topic, at least as it applies to your analogy.
The second case is a matter of an author expressly permitting you, with conditions, to have addition rights with their work that normal copyright would not allow.
And as for a more proper cake analogy: The first case is saying "here's a cake, and don't you pay no nevermind to what's in it, don't be doin none of them dang 'tests' on it either, we know wh
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the first case, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not disassemble it). In the second, the author has a license which restricts what you may do with a given piece of software (you may not sell it without releasing the source code).
This is called "having your cake and eating it, too."
The difference is that in the first case, further restrictions than those imposed by copyroight law are added in the license. In the second case, some of those restrictions imposed by copyright law are removed if you agree with the license.
Also, the GPL requirements on the distributor are orthogonal to the question whether the First Sale Doctrine trumps the EULA. The GPL imposes certain obligations on the distributor, while the First Sale Doctrine gives certain rights to the receiver of the good. IANAL,
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, then some contributor should threaten a copyright infringement case. But, in that case, why does the summary include the following text?
I mean, the GPL has no requirement for binary distribution...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no requirement for them to distribute a binary. Unless they distribute a binary, there is no requirement to distribute source. Even if they are required to distribute source, they are not required to distribute it at zero cost.
If they really did distribute binaries by sending technicians around with USB keys, they are obligated to provide source to those binaries at their cost of distribution. If they decide that they are going to distribute the source on Dual Layer DVD+Rs they got a bad deal on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was there, and I'm pretty sure that never happened.
You're right that the "is the GPL enforcible" question did come up occasionally before the SCO trial started, and the counterargument you give is exactly what many people responded with. I stand by my claim that the question only really showed up with any frequency after it was popularized by SCO.
More importantly, I stand by my comments on the relevance of the question. Very simple, no-one wants
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is already available [gpl-violations.org] as an arguement for proprietary vendors but I suppose they don't use it because they persue copyright violoations agressively to the point where customers move to open source solutions. [com.com]
How to Avoid the GPL Violation (Score:2)
2) Put a copy on your server (Cost: Variable and potentially expensive)
3) Provide an offer w/the GPL to provide the source code on CD for the cost it would take you to have a secretary burn a CD and mail it via FedEx/UPS, plus a small handling fee. (Charge $25 - Profit!)
Ask them nicely, sue them if they don't comply (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure this is the case. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL requires that IF you distribute code, you also have to distribute source code, and the person you give that code to can then also redistribute it under the same terms.
But, if I give you code, and you change it, and then you don't give it to anyone, guess what, you don't have to give the source code out at all.
So, in this case, who owns the receivers? If the cable company owned the receivers, and were just leasing them to the customers, I don't see that there's any infringement taking place. They're not distributing the software (it's on their hardware), so they're not obligated to distribute the source either.
Now, if they SOLD the boxes to the end consumer, then they'd be obligated to distribute the source, but is that the case here? Or did people just end up with abandoned receivers when the cable company went out of business?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 wo
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it this way, if it had been Windows CE on that box, would you expect the company to be held to that license? Yeah, that's what I figured.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a nonsense argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the above questions if I have also patched the kernel myself to include some changes. What do you think the answers to these questions are?
Re: (Score:2)
The latter case moreso than the first because I have it in writing that you distributed the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 cod
Re: (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 c
Re: (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
Re: (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/le
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 -- t
Re:GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
GPLv2 guarantees you the right to produce a modified binary that works on some system.
GPLv3, with the TIVO-ization clauses, guarantees you the right to produce a modifed binary that works on the original system.
The difference between those is huge! TIVO complies with GPLv2 (you could build your own TIVO box and install your modified source on it). USDTV seemed to comply with neither of these.
And this new GPLv3 doesn't clear up the GP's points about what is "distribution" (the 2nd GPLv3 draft only adds confusion, defining "distribution" as "conveying" without defining "conveying") - so that definition will still have to evolve via case law in the courts. Sorry FSF, y'all got too focused on fixing TIVO-ization and didn't actually clear up the ambiguities...
Re: (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 so
Re: (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 breakin
Re: (Score:2)
Except that such restrictions are quite useless. Since the customers would get the right to redistribute (per the GPL), any customer could put up the source on his webpage for all the non-customers in the world to get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be very useful to the customer, as they would not have the right to copy the software off of the hard drive and into their system to run it.
Giving someone a hard drive to run software in THEIR computer is not the same as giving someone a computer that runs software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't accurate. I'm not a lawyer, but I have actually read the GPL and payed attention to legal discussions related to the GPL.
First, only the copyright holder can sue for copyright infringement. Unless that's you, you have no standing for a copyright infringement claim. There are some other marginal ins you might have, but they don't really apply to this case.
Second, they aren't obviously violating the GPL. The GPL says they need to offer source code to anyone with binaries for the cost of distribut
I disagree on a couple points here... (Score:2)
I don't think $30 for a USB key with the source code counts as 'a medium customarily used for software distribution'. You can't just pick an arbitrary means of distributing the source, otherwise someone could claim they've satisfied the GPL by offering the source code on platinum CDs in platinum-CD reader drives for $10,000,000, because that's what it costs to make one.
So..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about other licenses? (Score:2)
What if they had licensed lots of other code and disobeyed the GPL by merging from them both? They couldn't release the code and they couldn't not release the code either. I suppose that the other license (the restrictive one) would win out. They could be sued for breaking the GPL but the result of the lawsuit couldn't be opening the code so what would you get from a defunct company?
You can't be forced to open source your code. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only for-sure GPL violation was the Linux kernel, although I'm fairly certain they have GNU bash in the firmware as well. The programs which are not open source -- well, they won't have to release source for those. But they must release the code for the kernel and any includ
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.
Ask the MAFIAA (Score:2)
As the MAFIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only given away for free under the conditions of the GPL. The copyright owner might have been willing to give a non-GPL license in return of some money, thus usage of the code in violation of the GPL may have given the author as much damage as the developer would have charged for a commercial license.
But even if the copyright owner would not have been willing (or able, if he used third-party GPL code himself) to do that, it doesn't mean the
Re: (Score:2)
Statutory damages of $750 to $100,000 per infringement, that's how.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you value damages on something you give away for free ?
The FSF recommends that the primary request is for opening the code, not for monetary damages, just because proving monetary damages can be difficult to prove on an application you distribute for free. Thus, the primary options for the defendant is to open up the code or refrain from distribution.
It's nice when companies respect and honor the GPL, but if they don't, it's not like the average 12 year old Debian hacker is going to have resources and desire to sue.
That's why organizations like gpl-violations.org [gpl-violations.org] exist.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not legal. If the GPLed components cannot function correctly (with the same functionality) without the non-GPLed components, the entire piece of software must be released under the GPL. That's pretty clear from the licensing terms.
Gouged? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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:Gouged? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's incorrect. Firefox is tri-licensed -- LGPL, GPL, and MPL. You get to pick which one you want.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL does not say "a nominal amount". It says "the cost of distribution". There's a difference. "A nominal amount" is vague. "The cost of distribution" is very well defined. If the cost of that USB key plus the cost for somebody to copy the data to it plus the cost of shipping comes out to $30 or whatever, then that's well within the bounds of even a strict interpretation of the GPL. However, it is also within the rights of anyone who pays for that $30 key to make it available to anyone else at no
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, this isn't clear to me from reading the FAQ. The GPL states that they must provide equivalent access [gnu.org] to the source that they
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely false. The GPL source code obligation can be met by providing an offer to deliver source code on physical media, and the distributor is allowed to charge reasonable distribution costs.
Sure. A USB key costs $15 and shipping costs $6. If you challenge them, they'll claim that a USB key costs "over $20". In the end, the point's really not wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Can you quote us the line of the GPL which specifies that?
(No, you can't, because it doesn't exist.)
Besides, even if they gave you the code for free, it doesn't mean that they aren't running some non-GPLed code to lock down the box. Thus having the GPLed code wouldn't negate their ability to charge you to unlock the system.
Re: (Score:2)
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this Li
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. It is perfectly legitimate for someone to distribute source by mail order only, as long as the price is reasonable as you mentioned. You could make a modified version of firefox, say iceweasel, and sell it at for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they better bloody well have done b), which means the offer can be used by anyone and is transferrable (and for that matter, duplicatable).
Not absolutely anyone, but anyone who have received binaries from you, even indirectly. From the GPL FAQ:
What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your op
Ho ho ho (Score:2)
Don't editors check out the links before stories get posted? Oh, wait, this is slashdot, of course they don't.
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.
Here's what you missed: (Score:2)
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.
Not changes.
They must redistribute THE FULL SOURCE, even if it's NOT changed, of whatever they're loading.
For (essentially) free.
Otherwise they have no right to do the copying involved
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
The USB dongle appears to be being offered as a sop to a disaffected public to enable OTA, not to address source redistribution concerns.
The
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: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.
flaunting-the-GPL dept.? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:flaunting-the-GPL dept.? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, if you've got it, flout it.
correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean sure, if the firmware is GPL'd then according to the GPL we have to have access to it. But, if a key is required (as in a crypto type key) then that would NOT exactly be covered under the GPL. Thus NO violation.
Stop right there (Score:3, Insightful)
First question that comes to mind:
How many subscribers would be able to flash the firmware without bricking their box even if they had the source code and binaries?
[it happens, sometimes, even to the geek who is sure he knows what he is doing]
Second question:
Where in the contract does it say that these set top boxes are user-serviceable? If they are not, then the code becomes of intellectual interest only.
Third question:
What makes paying for a USB key differet from paying for a CableCard to access and unlock subscription content and services?
Re: (Score:2)
If by some mishap you have bricked your box, connect the appropriate Flash programmer to the JTAG port on the mainboard, and reprogram the flash. Repeat as necessary until the machine boots again.
I think it's necessary to have the source code so you could test an install of MythTV, for
Re: (Score:2)
You have got to be kidding.
I have a Phillips head screwdriver in the kitchen. Will that be any help?
I think it's necessary to have the source code so you could test an install of MythTV.
I think Microsoft may be on to something here, pushing the OEM system install in the home PC market.
Re: (Score:2)
Are youy trying to imply that this would make source distribution for the GPL:ed components unnecessary?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll hazard a guess here and say that the GPL'd components of the USDTV firmware are the least interesting to the hacker and the most useless now---nothing more than the standard libraries he's seen and used a hundred times before.
If you are going to fight the good fight, make your battles count. The company has gone belly-up, and the code, more likely than not, is going to disappear into the void no ma
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And since the operating code on the system is protected under the GPL, then they should be able to get the source. The company made money off software that they did not themselves create in whole. They took the communities efforts and are now charging the public to use that code. This is why the violation of GPL software is a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seemsd like a waste to me, but a lot of people do it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, they don't have to turn over the dongle-code.
They can turn over the box firmware so users can recompile it not to check for the dongle.
Additionally, depending on what this dongle contains, they may have no right to disallow copying them and giving out copies for free (or even for-profit in direct competition with the current sellers).
I'll agree that something doesn't sound right here, but it doesn't involve
Re: (Score:2)
Damn hippy moderators.