Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Kevin Fleming
Another option is to contact the Software Freedom Conservancy, which
represents a number of people who hold copyrights on code in the Linux
kernel and do pursue violators, primarily to get access to the source code
for everyone's benefit. You likely wouldn't be surprised to learn that they
have a large backlog of violation reports, though, and your report would
have to go into that queue.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:

> Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com):
>
> > Rick: This is enlightening and well written!
>
> Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the
> public schools, as Kelly Jones is?  Teachers are among my heroes.
>
> A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted because I was
> rushed:
>
>   A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation
>   (as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
>   the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
>   tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
> ^ of copyright violation
>   copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
>   for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
>   credited code contributor.
>
> Apologies for my sloppiness, and best wishes to Kelly Jones.
>
> --
> Cheers, "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought
> Caw."
> Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack
> Handey
> r...@linuxmafia.com
> McQ! (4x80)
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting Philippe Ombredanne (pombreda...@nexb.com):

> Rick: This is enlightening and well written!

Thank you -- but, really, how could I not help someone working for the
public schools, as Kelly Jones is?  Teachers are among my heroes.

A small correction to my text, supplying words I omitted because I was
rushed:

  A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation
  (as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
  the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
  tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
^ of copyright violation
  copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
  for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
  credited code contributor. 
 
Apologies for my sloppiness, and best wishes to Kelly Jones.

-- 
Cheers, "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
Rick Moen -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey 
r...@linuxmafia.com 
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-16 Thread Philippe Ombredanne
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Rick Moen  wrote:
 and ext> [...]
> The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to
> comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that
> were written by others, including the Linux kernel,
> [...]
> As a third party who is standing outside the commission of apparent
> torts against some copyright owners of code within the 'firmware' image,
> you have limited leverage, lacking standing for a copyright action.
> [...]
> I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope
> it proves enlightening, nonetheless.

Rick: This is enlightening and well written!

I guess other courses of action could include:

- getting advice from the FSF [1].
- in the past, discussing on gpl-violations [2] would have been an option,
  but it looks mostly dormant nowadays and its mailing lists pages are 404.
- or if one feels strongly about the topic, public shaming?


[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
[2] http://gpl-violations.org
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] License Question

2017-02-15 Thread Rick Moen
Quoting kjones (kjo...@columbus.k12.nc.us):

> I own a piece of hardware that has an embedded system that appears to
> be based in whole on a variant of linux.
> 
> The firmware became corrupted, and so I naively went to the company
> asking if I could have a copy of the firmware that shipped with the
> device. They said only if I would pay $899 annual support fee. I then
> asked them for the source code, to which they responded, it was
> proprietary and they could not release it without a maintenance
> contract. So I was able to break into the firmware and fix the issue
> manually, but now I am very concerned that this company is holding
> hardware hostage, and doing so with firmware that is open source. By
> the way the firmware has linux file structure/linux commands you name
> it.
> 
> Any suggestions-- especially as to what I could say to the company?

Dear Kelly Jones:

First of all, congratulations on breaking into the firmware and fixing
the immediate problem.  I trust that doing so makes the gear useful for you.

The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to
comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that
were written by others, including the Linux kernel, which as I'm sure
you know is under GNU General Public Licence v. 2.  The 'firmware'
image, if it is typical of embedded Linux devices, includes binary
instances of many separate works, under diverse licence terms, some open
source, some proprietary.  Of the open source works, some have open
source licences that impose on redistributors and creators of derivative
versions the obligation to grant to all recipients access to matching
source code for the work (as does the Linux kernel), others do not.  The
former category are generically called reciprocal licences; the latter
are called permissive ones.

A party such as the firmware publisher that fails that obligation 
(as to works under reciprocal licences) is by definition redistributing
the work without licence.  Therefore, the redistributor is commiting the
tort (civil wrong) against the copyright holders of that work, e.g., the
copyright holders of the Linux kernel.  They have legal standing to sue
for redress of the tort.  You would not, unless you happen to be a
credited code contributor.

As a third party who is standing outside the commission of apparent
torts against some copyright owners of code within the 'firmware' image,
you have limited leverage, lacking standing for a copyright action.  You
could say to the company that you're getting in contact with
stakeholders whose licences you believe they're violating -- and then do
so.

Unfortunately, these cases often prove frustrating for well-explained
reasons.  Exampleco may be under a reciprocal licence obligation to
Coder A, but physically unable to comply because Exampleco subcontracted
the software work to WeCodeCheap and never got source code from them,
and WeCodeCheap isn't responding now when asked for it.  And/or
Exampleco may find it easier and cheaper to stall when requested for 
matching source code in the knowledge that this product is 2 months away
from being end-of-lifed and replaced with a replacement model.  Model
lifetime in embedded Linux devices tends on average to be short and
product churn rapid.  Once the currently offending product has been
EOLed, Exampleco can say 'We've dealt with the alleged copyright
violation by withdrawing model XYZ from the market', and know that even
parties with standing to sue probably won't bother because there's now
little to be gained.

I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope
it proves enlightening, nonetheless.

-- 
Cheers,  299792458 meters per second.  Not
Rick Moenjust a good idea.  It's the law.
r...@linuxmafia.com
McQ! (4x80
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] License question

2015-05-03 Thread Stefan Kuhn

Hi Nuno,
I found similar things discussed on the list, so I thought it might be 
worth asking, sorry if that was a misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you, I don't know which company you 
are talking about. This is a question related to an open source project. 
I know Himmelkron though, in case you ever come there, visit the former 
monastery. The cloister is nice, if you examine the angels playing music 
on the high points of the arches closely, you will notice that some of 
the play the bagpipe - providing proof that this instrument now 
considered so Scottish was once popular all over Europe.

Cheers,
Stefan

On 05/03/2015 09:51 PM, Nuno Brito wrote:

Hi Stefan,
I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that
mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they
are accepted by the OSI.
 From that perspective, you likely won't get many replies because the
case is generic.
Being generic, I looked for more information and imagine that you're the
person behind a certain company in Himmelkron.
For that kind of information you usually need to consult a lawyer and/or
consult an expert on this field.
With kind regards,
Nuno Brito
03.05.2015, 22:21, Stefan Kuhn stef...@web.de:


Apologies for the html mail, here is plain text.

Hi all,
apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where
I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want.
I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer
conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there
is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless
or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are
not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my
database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be
enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected
etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using
the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software
incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well.
The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this
or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not
just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it.
I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be
enforced via a licence.
Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my
thinking is flawed.
Thanks,
Stefan
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


--
http://triplecheck.net
phone:  +49 615 146 03187


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss



___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] License question

2015-05-03 Thread Nuno Brito
Hi Stefan, I think the reason why you're not getting replies is because that mailing list is mostly intended to propose new license terms before they are accepted by the OSI. From that perspective, you likely won't get many replies because the case is generic. Being generic, I looked for more information and imagine that you're the person behind a certain company in Himmelkron. For that kind of information you usually need to consult a lawyer and/or consult an expert on this field. With kind regards,Nuno Brito 03.05.2015, 22:21, "Stefan Kuhn" stef...@web.de:Apologies for the html mail, here is plain text.Hi all,apologies if this is not the right list to ask. I have a situation where I am not sure if there is an open source licence which does what I want. I have a database which serves as the base for algorithms infer conclusions from it. Some of these algorithms are well known, but there is still innovation in the area. Without the data though it is pointless or impossible to write algorithms. Larger collections of such data are not common and cannot easily be built. I would like to publish my database under an open source licence and I would want to things to be enforced: a) derived versions of the database (extended, error corrected etc.) must be under the same licence again (this could be done by using the Open Data Commons Open Database License, I think) and b) software incorporating the database must be under an open source licence as well. The second bit is the tricky one, I think. Is there a solution to this or is the whole idea rubbish? I want to make sure that people do not just take my database, put a well known algorithm round it and sell it. I think this is a reasonable idea, but I am unsure if it could be enforced via a licence.Do you have any ideas about this? Please tell me if you believe my thinking is flawed.Thanks,Stefan___License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss@opensource.orghttp://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss  -- http://triplecheck.netphone:  +49 615 146 03187 ___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss