Eric Sesterhenn | 7 Aug 23:06 2006
Picon
Picon

Vcenter Camera NC1600

hi,

we ( ccc mainz ) recently purchased a couple of network cameras via ebay.
The camera model is the vcenter NC 1600
( http://www.vcenter.co.uk/shop/proddetail.php?prod=NC1600 ) during the
firmware update i had a look inside the firmware and noticed that it
contains a linux image ( firmware of all cams can be obtained at
http://www.vcenter.net/support.html , a quick glance at the images makes it seem
pretty propable that more are in violation of the GPL ). After a quick browse of 
the firmware i found the inetd config file, and commented the pure-ftpd and telnetd
back in, which revealed a sash shell with no password .-)

A copy of /proc/kmsg is attached below. Of course we mailed the australian ebay
seller (no real reply), the resellers in the UK (vcenter.co.uk) who just replied
that they will forward this to the taiwanese main company and the main company
itself (twice) but got no reply during the last month. Since neither the CD
delivered with the cameras nor the website reference the GPL or the source code
in any way, this looks like a clear violation to me. What would be the best next
steps to make the manufacturer comply with the GPL?

Sadly the camera is currently used in an art project, but I will get my hands on
it in two month for more in depth playing. But if any more information is
interesting i might be able to retrieve it.

Thanks for any pointers,
Eric

/proc> cat kmsg
<4>Linux version 2.4.20-uc0 (root <at> Alex101-Linux) (gcc version 3.0) #980 �G 9�� 2 0 15:55:55 CST 2005
<4>Processor: Winbond W90N740 revision 1
(Continue reading)

Jeffrey Leung | 21 Aug 19:05 2006
Picon

Sveasoft's Violations

After doing some reading, I do have a strong belief that Sveasoft is violating the terms under the GPL licensce. The developers over aOpenWRT have revoked their rights to use the software, but still they are using that same GPL code to make their software. I understand that they can sell the software on a subscription basis, but clearly they can not forbid people to redistrubite it.

Darren | 21 Aug 22:32 2006
Picon

Re: Sveasoft's Violations

Jeffrey Leung wrote:
> After doing some reading, I do have a strong belief that Sveasoft is 
> violating the terms under the GPL licensce. The developers over 
> aOpenWRT have revoked their rights to use the software, but still they 
> are using that same GPL code to make their software. I understand that 
> they can sell the software on a subscription basis, but clearly they 
> can not forbid people to redistrubite it.
I'm not sure, im a newbie when it comes to the legality of the GPL, but 
I don't think they have to redistribute the binaries.  Think about 
redhat, they don't have to redistribute the binaries of there enterprise 
linux, but the source code they do, and they do that.

So unless sveasoft doesn't allow redistribution of the source code, its 
legal. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

--DmB

Matthew Flaschen | 22 Aug 00:17 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Sveasoft's Violations

Jeffrey, I'm not quite sure what you're reporting.  Some background 
about Sveasoft, aOpenWRT, the product and both companies or 
organizations business models (if any) would be helpful.  Darren is 
completely right that companies don't have to distribute GPL binaries to 
anyone under any circumstances.  The only obligation is to distribute 
source (or a written offer of source) with any binaries.

Matt Flaschen

Darren wrote:
> Jeffrey Leung wrote:
> 
>> After doing some reading, I do have a strong belief that Sveasoft is 
>> violating the terms under the GPL licensce. The developers over 
>> aOpenWRT have revoked their rights to use the software, but still they 
>> are using that same GPL code to make their software. I understand that 
>> they can sell the software on a subscription basis, but clearly they 
>> can not forbid people to redistrubite it.
> 
> I'm not sure, im a newbie when it comes to the legality of the GPL, but 
> I don't think they have to redistribute the binaries.  Think about 
> redhat, they don't have to redistribute the binaries of there enterprise 
> linux, but the source code they do, and they do that.
> 
> So unless sveasoft doesn't allow redistribution of the source code, its 
> legal. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
> 
> --DmB
> 
> 

Armijn Hemel | 22 Aug 00:37 2006
Picon

Re: Sveasoft's Violations

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:17:29PM -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Jeffrey, I'm not quite sure what you're reporting.  Some background 
> about Sveasoft, aOpenWRT, the product and both companies or 
> organizations business models (if any) would be helpful.  Darren is 
> completely right that companies don't have to distribute GPL binaries to 
> anyone under any circumstances.  The only obligation is to distribute 
> source (or a written offer of source) with any binaries.

The forums on the OpenWrt website (forum.openwrt.org) have a search option.
Searching for "Sveasoft" will yield enough interesting posts.

Also: http://lwn.net/Articles/178550/ has quite a bit of background
information.

armijn

--

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

Matthew Flaschen | 22 Aug 00:40 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Sveasoft's Violations

Okay.  That seems clear enough. Obviously, if the Sveasoft work is based 
on GPLed OpenWRT code (and it sounds like it is), they must distribute 
the whole program (or at least the OpenWRT part, if they can reasonably 
claim it is independent), under the GPL.  Section 6 states "You may not 
impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the 
rights granted herein."  Attempting to deny redistribution rights is a 
restriction.  Thus, OpenWRT is seems eligible to sue Sveasoft for 
copyright infringement.

Matt

Jeffrey Leung wrote:
> Yes, I fully understand that, but the thing is that Sveasoft is 
> disallowing their customers to redistrubite the software and the people 
> at OpenWRT found out that they were using their source code in their 
> products. OpenWRT doesn't really have a business model I presume, but 
> clearly Sevasoft has violated the terms of the GPL by disallowing their 
> customers to redistrubite the code itself.
> 
> On 8/21/06, *Matthew Flaschen* <superm40 <at> comcast.net 
> <mailto:superm40 <at> comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Jeffrey, I'm not quite sure what you're reporting.  Some background
>     about Sveasoft, aOpenWRT, the product and both companies or
>     organizations business models (if any) would be helpful.  Darren is
>     completely right that companies don't have to distribute GPL
>     binaries to
>     anyone under any circumstances.  The only obligation is to distribute
>     source (or a written offer of source) with any binaries.
> 
>     Matt Flaschen
> 
>     Darren wrote:
>      > Jeffrey Leung wrote:
>      >
>      >> After doing some reading, I do have a strong belief that
>     Sveasoft is
>      >> violating the terms under the GPL licensce. The developers over
>      >> aOpenWRT have revoked their rights to use the software, but
>     still they
>      >> are using that same GPL code to make their software. I
>     understand that
>      >> they can sell the software on a subscription basis, but clearly they
>      >> can not forbid people to redistrubite it.
>      >
>      > I'm not sure, im a newbie when it comes to the legality of the
>     GPL, but
>      > I don't think they have to redistribute the binaries.  Think about
>      > redhat, they don't have to redistribute the binaries of there
>     enterprise
>      > linux, but the source code they do, and they do that.
>      >
>      > So unless sveasoft doesn't allow redistribution of the source
>     code, its
>      > legal. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
>      >
>      > --DmB
>      >
>      >
> 
> 
> 

Matthew Flaschen | 22 Aug 00:48 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Sveasoft's Violations

Not distributing corresponding source for any binary distribution, 
including "pre-release", is a violation.  Terminating support contracts 
for redistribution is legal, though contrary to the ethics of the GPL. 
Providing written offers to subscribers but not allowing third parties 
to use them is also a violation, and it seems Sveasoft is now attempting 
that tactic.

Matt Flaschen

Armijn Hemel wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:17:29PM -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 
>>Jeffrey, I'm not quite sure what you're reporting.  Some background 
>>about Sveasoft, aOpenWRT, the product and both companies or 
>>organizations business models (if any) would be helpful.  Darren is 
>>completely right that companies don't have to distribute GPL binaries to 
>>anyone under any circumstances.  The only obligation is to distribute 
>>source (or a written offer of source) with any binaries.
> 
> 
> The forums on the OpenWrt website (forum.openwrt.org) have a search option.
> Searching for "Sveasoft" will yield enough interesting posts.
> 
> Also: http://lwn.net/Articles/178550/ has quite a bit of background
> information.
> 
> armijn
> 

David A. Desrosiers | 22 Aug 01:44 2006

Re: Sveasoft's Violations


> Not distributing corresponding source for any binary distribution, 
> including "pre-release", is a violation.

 	I think you meant "providing", not distributing. They don't 
have to "distribute" source with every binary, they just have to make 
it available when requested by anyone who can obtain the binary.

 	I've already fought this one with the lawyers on our side in a 
case against a pretty large company who took our project in full and 
called it their own (removing our names from the About box and such), 
sold it to customers who then sold it to hundreds of thousands of 
other customers. Not fun.

 	Sony used to do something very shady and similar too, where 
they would release binaries for version 1.0 of POSE without source, 
then release v1.1 in binary with 1.0 source. They claimed that they 
were "cleaning up the source" for the current version, which is why 
they were always 1 version behind. I argued that "cleaned up source" 
produced a different binary (which would also have to have its source 
available).

David A. Desrosiers
desrod <at> gnu-designs.com
http://gnu-designs.com

David A. Desrosiers | 22 Aug 01:48 2006

Re: Sveasoft's Violations


> Attempting to deny redistribution rights is a restriction.  Thus, 
> OpenWRT is seems eligible to sue Sveasoft for copyright 
> infringement.

 	Additionally, each infringement after the rights to 
redistribute under the GPL are considered a separate copyright 
infringement, subject to individual penalties on its own.

 	Has the OpenWRT project submitted an official copyright 
registration with the relevant copyright office in the country of the 
project's origin? (assuming the Unites States here).

 	Doing so, and filling out the paperwork, sending in the 
portions of the source and paying the fee makes it markedly easier to 
prosecute in a court of law, should it need to go to that level.

David A. Desrosiers
desrod <at> gnu-designs.com
http://gnu-designs.com

Matthew Flaschen | 22 Aug 01:50 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: Sveasoft's Violations

You're correct.  They have the option of distributing source or 
distributing a written offer valid for all third parties.  Sony sounds 
clearly in violation (assuming they're using external GPL code).  They 
have to at least provide a written offer (that is valid immediately) for 
the 1.1 binary code.

Matt

David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> 
>> Not distributing corresponding source for any binary distribution, 
>> including "pre-release", is a violation.
> 
> 
>     I think you meant "providing", not distributing. They don't have to 
> "distribute" source with every binary, they just have to make it 
> available when requested by anyone who can obtain the binary.
> 
>     I've already fought this one with the lawyers on our side in a case 
> against a pretty large company who took our project in full and called 
> it their own (removing our names from the About box and such), sold it 
> to customers who then sold it to hundreds of thousands of other 
> customers. Not fun.
> 
>     Sony used to do something very shady and similar too, where they 
> would release binaries for version 1.0 of POSE without source, then 
> release v1.1 in binary with 1.0 source. They claimed that they were 
> "cleaning up the source" for the current version, which is why they were 
> always 1 version behind. I argued that "cleaned up source" produced a 
> different binary (which would also have to have its source available).
> 
> 
> David A. Desrosiers
> desrod <at> gnu-designs.com
> http://gnu-designs.com
> 
> 


Gmane