"DR-DOS released DR-DOS 8.1 in the beginning of this month. But instead of an upgrade of the previous DR-DOS 8.0, it's something completely different. The kernel is a badly patched copy of the Enhanced DR-DOS kernel old version 7.01.06 without any credit to its author Udo Kuhnt. The other programs and drivers included are old versions of some popular open source, freeware and shareware products without licenses, documentation or even credit to their authors. This means that DR-DOS 8.1 is just a bunch of old tools plus a compilation of others' works, obviously sold without permission and in violation of their license terms."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
They're violating the license. In regard to IP violations it's always the IP holders who suffers. They suffer an IP violation.
The copyright holders can sue DR-DOS Inc. for violating the IP, and (through the court) force DR-DOS to cease distribution, since the license is being violated.
Member since:2005-07-02
I don't think you understand the GPL very well. The GPL allows redistribution of code but the license must be redistributed as well, which the article indicates wasn't done (crediting authors, on the other hand, is NOT required).
If the redistributor does not follow the letter of the license, then he does not have the permission to redistribute it at all. It is illegal to redistribute a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner, therefore the copyright owners are well in their right to sue the redistributor (after they sent a Cease and Desist letter, presumably).
Oh, and David Wallace is a hack. I've read some of his more colorful attacks on the GPL and there's a reason he has never made them in court - he just knows he would lose.
Member since:2005-07-04
The copyright holders involved can't sue anybody. The GPL's sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to "all third parties":
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are "offerors" and not "third parties" therefore,
the "offerors" suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue.
Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years. You can't sue someone over another party's alleged injury --- only the person "injured" (in this case "third party") has standing to sue.
BZZZT...Wrong!
If a piece of software is covered by the GPL, and only the GPL, there are only two things allowing you to use, modify and redistribute the software. Fair Use, which doesn't allow DR-DOS Inc. to redistribute the software at all, and the GPL. If DR-DOS violates the GPL, their rights under the GPL terminate as per section 4 of the license.
This means that since the license has terminated, DR-DOS has no right or license to redistribute the software, and is thus in violation of the copyright. Straight up copyright violation. This is precisely one of IBM's counterclaims against SCO.
It doesn't matter whether I give software away for free or sell it, if you violate the license and it terminates, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you continue redistributing the software.
Please point to a relevant section of the law that says otherwise, and not to Daniel Wallace's comments, considering he is being chewed up and spit out in pieces by Red Hat's, Novell's and IBM's lawyers.
Member since:Daniel Wallace is not as funny as Darl McBride (claimed GPL is unconstitional), or Steve Ballmer (claimed GPL is a cancer), but he's still funny in his own way.
For legal advice, though, I'd recommend asking people who have actually studied and practised law, rather than blindly trusting stuff posted by some random dude, whose only claim to fame is to have sued the FSF for price fixing (WTF!?) according to the Wikipedia page devoted to Daniel Wallace.
He may be wrong. 
... just a thought,
dalibor topic
Member since:2005-10-02
Trolling again.
Look at the posts. We are not in doubt about the content of the GPL.
Some non-GPL persons are however spreading FUD (perhaps unintentionally) and the rest of us are correcting them.
And you, you prove again to be the biggest zealot on OSNews.
Just look at this statement: I laugh all the way to my XP box, right before I fire up CS:S or Quake 4.
It's pure trolling.
Member since:2005-07-08
Quote: "The copyright holders involved can't sue anybody. The GPL's sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to "all third parties":"
Wrong. You must also include the license verbatim. I suggest you read the GNU GPL license again. Do not pass go, do learn to read. Do learn to grok the GPL. Do not collect $200. Do get a good kick up the ass for trolling.
Quote: "All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are "offerors" and not "third parties" therefore,
the "offerors" suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue."
This made me laugh. You are wrong. They are third parties. Don't try and practice law, you'll fail abysmally. Hang on, please do! But only represent SCO and Daniel Wallace please!
Quote: "Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years"
Daniel Wallace is a tosser and a wanker extraordinaire. I couldn't give two shakes of my bollocks as to what that idiot thinks. Oh, and Daniel's welcome to sue me for slander, he doesn't have a case. But I could use a good laugh.
Get a life. Oh, and I'll use my rights to mod your post down, since it is not only trolling, but factually incorrect.
Dave
Member since:
The copyright holders involved can't sue anybody. The GPL's sec 2(b) only requires distribution of source code to "all third parties":
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
All copyright holders that contribute code under the GPL are "offerors" and not "third parties" therefore,
the "offerors" suffer no injury and hence have no standing to sue.
Daniel Wallace has told everyone about this fact for years. You can't sue someone over another party's alleged injury --- only the person "injured" (in this case "third party") has standing to sue.