Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Sep 2006 17:58 UTC, submitted by Ben Jao Ming
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The gpl-violations.org project prevails in court litigation against D-Link regarding D-Link's alleged inappropriate and copyright infringing use of parts of the Linux Operating System Kernel. D-Link distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage device which uses a Linux-based Operating System. However, this distribution was incompliant with the GNU General Public License which covers the Linux Kernel and many other software programs used in the product."
Thread beginning with comment 165428
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Seems like great news.
by kwag on Mon 25th Sep 2006 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seems like great news."
kwag
Member since:
2006-08-31

"So, uh, how is this a loss for the GPL if companies that violates it and ignore it are no longer using prodcuts licensed under it?"

One less GPL based product being used on the market.

"Since these companies didn't contribute back how is this a loss?"

The users of the product are the ones at loss, who will now have to pay more for the newer products due to licensing, unless the manufacturers choose some other open source non-GPL'ed license.

It's really funny, when Joe Doe goes out to CompUSA and buys a router, then finds out that it's Linux based and the sources are nowhere, and Joe runs out to gplviolations.org to announce a violation, and in the end the router manufacturer admits the error, removes the code and releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.

Way to go Joe! LOL

But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right? ;)

Maybe embedded developers and companies should have a read here before planning their products (We did ;) ): http://www.wasabisystems.com/gpl/

Reply Parent Score: 0

davegetrag Member since:
2006-03-31

The GPL still does not lose anything when someone choses another license. The GPL is a license no more and no less and it has no greedy company behind it trying to make money from it.

I would simply buy the router made by the other guys that IS based on linux and cheaper. Heck, I usually do not go out router shopping everyday anyway, it ain't like I pick one up each week to go with my gallon of milk.

So a company would charge me more for a mistake on their part? Well yea they would but that is regardless of what it is based on. Considering they already have non-linux products they should not need a linux based product and if they are going with a linux based product then they should know why they are going that way.

BTW - You do know that the DLINK issue isn't really about the requirements of the GPL. They weren't debating the GPL or anything. They just flat claimed that it was not legally binding and have NOW been told they were wrong. I didn't even see IP enter the discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Seems like great news.
by hal2k1 on Mon 25th Sep 2006 23:32 in reply to "RE[6]: Seems like great news."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//It's really funny, when Joe Doe goes out to CompUSA and buys a router, then finds out that it's Linux based and the sources are nowhere, and Joe runs out to gplviolations.org to announce a violation, and in the end the router manufacturer admits the error, removes the code and releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.

Way to go Joe! LOL

But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right? ;) //

Joe was indeed right.

The company sells many times more of the original Linux-based product than they do of the higher-priced closed product.

The company scratches its head, and thinks "why did we go to the expense of a re-design when we made heaps more money out of the open product in the first place?".

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"...releases a new version of the router with a higher price tag due to the new research and time needed for changes.
Way to go Joe! LOL
But of course, Joe was right, because thats the law. Right? ;) "

So what you're saying is that we should let corporations get away with anything as long as it leads to cheaper products. Wow, sweatshops never looked better.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Seems like great news.
by hal2k1 on Tue 26th Sep 2006 05:31 in reply to "RE[7]: Seems like great news."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//So what you're saying is that we should let corporations get away with anything as long as it leads to cheaper products. Wow, sweatshops never looked better.//

Say what?

Linux is produced by a co-operative effort. People all over the world devote many hours in productive and mutually beneficial co-operation to produce it. It is a collaboration.

Co-operation means that they want to do this.

Look it up for yourself:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Co-operation&gwp=13

http://www.answers.com/topic/collaboration-1
(meaning 1 applies, not meaning 2).

Collaboration: Shared objectives; Sense of urgency and commitment; Dynamic process; Sense of belonging; Open communication; Mutual trust and respect; Complementary, diverse skills and knowledge; Intellectual agility

Companies can (and do) use Linux in their products, to the benefit of both the company and the users of the companies products, provided only that the source code is kept open (that is the one and only requirement) so that the co-operation and the mutual benefit can continue and expand.

How the hell did you arrive at "sweatshops" from all that?

A "sweatshop" arises out of heavy competition, forced labour and commercial exploitation.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=sweatshop&gwp=13

Youv'e got all your definitions thoroughly twisted and back-to-front.

Edited 2006-09-26 05:31

Reply Parent Score: 1