Harald Welte | 2 Jul 16:25 2005

Re: Violator wiki?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 02:29:38PM -0500, Sam Hart wrote:

> Also, maybe a "true" wiki isn't what would be needed. What about
> something like Drupal (which has various wiki-like modules)? Or even an
> issue tracker (like RT or Trac) where people could submit issues that
> other people could then take ownership of to investigate or just discard
> as irrelevant?

Mh, sounds intersting.  We could actually use bugzilla for that.  Don't
we all think that shipping GPL licensed software with no source code
[offer] and/or license text is a bug? ;)

Realistically speaking, RT might be better (since reports are more
likely to come in via email).  I've only used but never installed RT so
far, but I'll try to dig into it as soon as I find some time.

Cheers,

--

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge <at> gnumonks.org>          	        http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Marc Le Roy | 2 Jul 00:36 2005
Picon

Strange interpretation of the GPL ?

Hello,

I just read this on the web site of a distributor of VHDL source code :
http://www.hitechglobal.com/ipcores/leon3.htm

Introduction
The LEON3 is a synthesizable VHDL model of a 32-bit processor compliant with
the SPARC V8 architecture. The model is highly configurable, and
particularly suitable for system-on-a-chip (SOC) designs. The full source
code is available under the GNU GPL license, allowing free and unlimited use
for research and education. LEON3 is also available under a low-cost
commercial license, allowing it to be used in any commercial application to
a fraction of the cost of comparable IP cores.

I find this interpretation of the GPL very strange. Is it possible to have a
GPL source code free only for research or education ?

Marc

Ruediger Helge Wolf | 1 Jul 12:37 2005
Picon
Picon

Invair doesn't provide sourcecode


Hi...

I'm in trouble with invair (http://www.invair.de et al.). This company
offers a Handheld and a Smartphone based on Linux, but they don't give
me the sources - although they show the GPL while you install the
sync-software on Windows (!).

In January 2005 I wrote them the first time, asking for the sources. A
relaunch of the software would be the reason for the missing ability
to download the sources, they responded.

--snip--
> .. die Sofware wird zur Zeit einem Relaunch unterzogen. Wenn dieser
> abgeschlossen ist,
> wird die Software auch wieder zum Download verfügbar sein.
--snap--

Last week I wrote them again. The answer was quite rude, telling me
it's not my business to decide when the software is ready.

--snip--
> Sehr geehrter Herr Wolf,
>
> Unsere Pflichten wie auch unsere Rechte sind uns durchaus bekannt.
>
> INVAIR hat während dem Verkauf des ersten Gerätes den Sourcecode zum
> kostenlosen Download veröffentlicht.
>
> Für das neue Gerät findet ein Relaunch statt und es liegt in unserer
(Continue reading)

Harald Welte | 2 Jul 16:39 2005

Re: Violator wiki?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:44:50AM +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> I can't see how it would be any different from false claims being made
> on the 'official' mailing list which is also archived and accessible
> from the site, and could also be a PR disaster for any company.  And I
> don't think that German law holds forum owners liable for user posts,
> especially when quick action is taken to correct or remove them.

yes, and to be honest I don't feel very well having the archive of the
list public[ly available].  I've thought quite a lot about it, but chose
to have it open at least at the beginning, and also while the web page
still has no more detailed

> When I first heard about wikis I was very dubious that they could
> avoid being constantly vandalised. Seeing the quality and usefulness
> of wikipedia and gentoo-wiki has shown that they can in fact work very

It can.  I know other [small] wikis where vandalism [to be more precise:
spam] is more of an issue.  And I definitely neither have the time nor
the interest in daily checking/cleanup/removal/correction of that kind
of stuff.

> Enforce mandatory registration, quickly fix 'broken' pages, remove bad
> users, and require that everything be written in a NPOV style (eg. no
> blanket statements like 'XXX is a GPL violator', more like 'It was
> claimed on 1/6/2005 that company XXX is currently violating the GPL').

Who will do that kind of work?  As you will notice from my mailinglist
posts, I'm working 'bursty' (i.e. I start working on some issue and
generally don't let myself be interrupted for quite some time.  The
'scheduling intervals' are quite high, so the latency to remove content
(Continue reading)

Harald Welte | 2 Jul 16:45 2005

Re: Violator wiki?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:10:10AM -0300, Eduardo Pereira Habkost wrote:
> Maybe putting a big red warning on the top of the wiki page saying that
> the content is responsibility of the people who wrote it on the page,
> with a link to the change history of the page, where this information can
> be checked. But IANAL, so I don't know if that would be legally "safe".

I'll talk to my legal counsel about the precautions on that side.

> I don't know if it would work, however it would be nice if we manage to
> have a not-so-restricted wiki.

I would be willing to having one, based on the following conditions:

1) somebody (ideally at least two people) take over maintaining the
   wiki, i.e. taking care of vandalism.

2) the wiki will not be used for case-documentation (so please don't
   make per-vendor / per-device / per-version / per-case) pages.

but then, what kind of content would there be in the wiki?  Could you
give examples?

--

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge <at> gnumonks.org>          	        http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Armijn Hemel | 2 Jul 16:53 2005
Picon

Re: Strange interpretation of the GPL ?

hi,

> I just read this on the web site of a distributor of VHDL source code :
> http://www.hitechglobal.com/ipcores/leon3.htm

Actually, the people who make the design for this chip are:

http://www.gaisler.com/

You could contact them and ask...

armijn

--

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  armijn <at> uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

zunix ling | 2 Jul 17:20 2005
Picon

Re: Strange interpretation of the GPL ?

Marc Le Roy wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I just read this on the web site of a distributor of VHDL source code :
>http://www.hitechglobal.com/ipcores/leon3.htm
>
>Introduction
>The LEON3 is a synthesizable VHDL model of a 32-bit processor compliant with
>the SPARC V8 architecture. The model is highly configurable, and
>particularly suitable for system-on-a-chip (SOC) designs. The full source
>code is available under the GNU GPL license, allowing free and unlimited use
>for research and education. LEON3 is also available under a low-cost
>commercial license, allowing it to be used in any commercial application to
>a fraction of the cost of comparable IP cores.
>
>I find this interpretation of the GPL very strange. Is it possible to have a
>GPL source code free only for research or education ?
>
>  
>
That is a impossible situation since the original GPL should be 
unmodified press from source users and/or end user. There is no 
restriction terms in GPL, then, there shouldn't exist any restriction of 
use to particular class of user and purpose. Discrimintaion of use is 
not the sort the free software reason of born.

Cheers,

zunix
(Continue reading)

Harald Welte | 2 Jul 17:25 2005

Re: Devicescape

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 07:47:04PM +0200, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> Hello Harald,

Hi!

I'm cc'ing the list, hope you don't mind.

> If You remember, I wrote a mail to the list about an Atheros based access  
> point running Linux  
> (http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-March/000032.html).

yes, I do remember.

> I've tracked down the company behind the AR5312 port, it's Devicescape  
> (formerly known as Instant802). I've found, that the Dlink DWL-2210AP
> is  based on the same reference design, too.

Great, so you mean that the DWL-2210AP also contains linux +
netfilter/iptables?  Do you have any proof for that?  Do you have a
firmware image for me?

> My question is the following: shouldn't Devicescape provide some kind of  
> public download for the GPL sources (like MontaVista does with their eval  
> kit)? 

If devicescape goes for gpl '3a' and always only ships object code
together with source code, then they have no obligation to give the
source to anybody else.

> If not, do You have an idea, how we can get them? Wneweb states that  
(Continue reading)

Harald Welte | 2 Jul 17:28 2005

Re: Devicescape

btw: did you read http://www.devicescape.com/products/ at the very
bottom?

"Devicescape Software is an active member of the open source community.
We recognize that mature open source has higher quality and fewer
defects than proprietary software*, and leverage well-supported open
source technologies, such as the Linux kernel, the GNU toolchain, and a
variety of other open source packages and technologies. Devicescape also
recognizes that the open source model is a two-way street. Our engineers
are prolific contributors to various open source WLAN projects."

So based on that, I would try to contact them and point out that there
are products based on their linux-based software, and that those vendors
are GPL incompliant and claim that they've signed an agreement that
prevents them from being GPL compliant.

You can also tell them that you're already in contact with the
gpl-violations.org project, who again will contact D-Link soon ;)

Maybe it helps,

--

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge <at> gpl-violations.org>       http://gpl-violations.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Imre Kaloz | 2 Jul 23:08 2005
Picon

Re: Devicescape

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:25:07 +0200, Harald Welte  
<laforge <at> gpl-violations.org> wrote:

> I'm cc'ing the list, hope you don't mind.
Sure, I just wasn't sure, if I'm right or not.

> Great, so you mean that the DWL-2210AP also contains linux +
> netfilter/iptables?  Do you have any proof for that?  Do you have a
> firmware image for me?
No, but Devicescape states it's based on their software. Also, if You  
check their "emulator", You will
see clear signs for it, eg. [1] is a good example.

> If you have proof of the DWL-2210AP case, I'll contact the DLink legal
> guys, since we've had contact on other devices in the past.
Only the above ones. BTW I've contacted with some other re-sellers, too,  
here is the answer
 from X-serves:

! From: 	"Vimala Unny" <vimala_u <at> xserves.com>
!
! Dear Imre Kaloz,
!
! We thank you for your mail on the GPL license. We would like to bring to  
your notice that Xserve India is the Service,
! Marketing and Sales arm of Wistron Group companies of which Wistron  
NeWeb is a part of. As such we only represent
! Wistron NeWeb for CR8-2.
! However we shall address your message to Wistron NeWeb and ensure  
compliance of GPL license.
(Continue reading)


Gmane