Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[jmerkey]

Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .  What can anyone do about it anyway.  The FSF 
isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the money to do it.  Most of this
banter and name calling people do about it is a waste of time.  What punishment will 
anyone get for it.  A few people writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah -- 
this will really stop someone from doing it.  If you give your code away GPL, or not
you have just done just that.   Tigrian is correct in his statements.  

Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people.  The GPL is flawed 
since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
for commerical use.  This is the only way you will ever stop these people.  So instead
of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.  Then anyone 
who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you 
can actually do something about it. 

Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.  So 
anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though 
we download and use the code.  Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally 
circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place. 

:-)

Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jesse Pollard]

On Friday 01 October 2004 12:40, jmerkey@comcast.net wrote:
> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .  What can anyone do about it
> anyway.  The FSF isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the
> money to do it.  Most of this banter and name calling people do about it is
> a waste of time.  What punishment will anyone get for it.  A few people
> writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah -- this will really stop
> someone from doing it.  If you give your code away GPL, or not you have
> just done just that.   Tigrian is correct in his statements.
>
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people.  The
> GPL is flawed since it does not require people to go back to the copyright
> holders and demand a license for commerical use.  This is the only way you
> will ever stop these people.  So instead of being whinny babies about it,
> fix the GPL and add this language.  Then anyone who uses the code in a
> commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you can
> actually do something about it.
>
> Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL
> so you cannot re-release the code under another license unless the entire
> code base is re-written.  So anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we
> never accepted the license even though we download and use the code.  Guess
> what, this is legally valid to say and totally circumvents the GPL, they
> just have to leave your copyright notices in place.
>
> :-)
>
> Jeff

Anybody that has code in the kernel under GPL is CAN start a lawsuit for
compliance. But that doesn't mean they HAVE to do so.

But if they don't know it may be happening, how could they decide?

So "make a fuss". If someone DOES decide to go after them.. fine.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1486 bytes --]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:40:07 -0000, jmerkey@comcast.net said:

> Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.  So 
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though 
> we download and use the code.  Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally 
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.

Umm.. It's OK to take the GPL'ed source and make your own fork for your own
amusement.  Trying to distribute it without accepting the GPL on the parts
you're shipping copies of *is* a problem. As the COPYING file says:

  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
mail to start arriving..... 
 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

>Umm.. It's OK to take the GPL'ed source and make your own fork for your own
>amusement.  Trying to distribute it without accepting the GPL on the parts
>you're shipping copies of *is* a problem. As the COPYING file says:
>
>  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
>signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
>distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
>prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
>modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
>Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
>all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
>the Program or works based on it.
>
>So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
>with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
>the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
>mail to start arriving..... 
> 
>
>  
>
And the hate mail is the only thing that will arrive.   The GPL doesn't 
really seem
to protect anyone since the copyright holders really can't do much with 
it.  I've
got a bunch of people using GPL code I've put out there in all sorts of 
commercial
products and Can't do anything to them for failing to return changes.  
They can always
say they didn't accept the license then convert the code into their own IP .

Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
> > with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
> > the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
> > mail to start arriving..... 
> > 
> >  
> And the hate mail is the only thing that will arrive.   The GPL doesn't really
> seem
> to protect anyone since the copyright holders really can't do much with it.
> I've
> got a bunch of people using GPL code I've put out there in all sorts of
> commercial
> products and Can't do anything to them for failing to return changes.  They
> can always
> say they didn't accept the license then convert the code into their own IP .

If they didn't accept the license, they fall back to standard copyright, and
are not allowed to distribute. End of story.

According to your reasonings, copyright holders cannot do anything neither for
other examples of copyright violation. Try distributing other copyrighted work
(non-free software or non-free music or non-free movies) on your website and
see what happens. You can always say `but I didn't accept the license' :-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:46:47 MDT, "Jeff V. Merkey" said:

> And the hate mail is the only thing that will arrive.   The GPL doesn't 
> really seem
> to protect anyone since the copyright holders really can't do much with 
> it. 

That's because usually, the guilty vendor realizes that their position is
untenable, although this may require escalating to having a lawyer send
a postal version of the hate mail.  Digging back through the lkml archives
will show that with the possible exception of SCO, vendors *will* end up
Doing The Right Thing once prompted (and given a chance to get The Right
Thing through the pipeline)....

 I've
> got a bunch of people using GPL code I've put out there in all sorts of 
> commercial
> products and Can't do anything to them for failing to return changes.

There's no requirement they return changes to *you* other than politeness.
They're required to make your GPL code plus their changes available to
*their customers*, which is a different set of people.

Now, if your source isn't made available to their customers, *then* you
have an actionable situation....

> They can always
> say they didn't accept the license then convert the code into their own IP .

Nope, they *specifically* can't do that.  Which is why SCO saying the GPL
is invalid but still distributing a Linux from their website is likely to
come back and haunt them grievously in their IBM lawsuit...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Jon Masters wrote:

>>Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
>>license, and you can actually do something about it.
>>    
>>
>
>They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
>by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
>
>  
>
Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to 
lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything 
with some of these big companies and their employees
will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all 
GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to 
enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically 
stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They 
will always come back to the table like foxes from the
henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the 
chickens."

>>Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
>>re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.
>>    
>>
>
>Pretty cool stuff huh?
>  
>

Yep.

Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jon Masters]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:40:07 +0000, jmerkey@comcast.net
<jmerkey@comcast.net> wrote:

> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .

Companies shipping Embedded Linux.

Most people working on devices which run Linux are not evildoers who
are hard bent on undermining the GPL and causing us all headaches.
They have legal teams and rediculously large chains of management,
project managers, etc. etc. All these people are interested in doing
the corporate making money thing but without being sued. Even the
notion that they might be able to be sued for something will be enough
to get most corporations to sit up and at least think about working on
that situation.

> What can anyone do about it anyway.

You could take legal action yourself. You're right, most people won't
bother to do anything and nothing more than a formal compliant would
get made - but then, much of the legal action in the world today
doesn't end up in court precisely because companies would usually like
to avoid this kind of thing from happening in public.

> What punishment will anyone get for it.

The threat of not being able to distribute an infringing product is
probably enough incentive for many companies to not want to be caught
breaking the GPL. They might try to conveniently ignore the license
until someone moans about it (I'm sure many would rather just send you
source when you moan about it) but I don't actually want to risk court
action.

> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people.  The GPL is flawed
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use.

This is a good thing from my viewpoint.

> This is the only way you will ever stop these people.

No. That's your reasoning and yours alone. Nobody else here has stood
up and agreed with you on this point and I doubt you'll find too many
who will.

> So instead of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.

The GPL isn't broken. At least as far as I am concerned. Therefore it
doesn't need fixing :-).

> Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
> license, and you can actually do something about it.

They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.

> Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.

Pretty cool stuff huh?

> So anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license
> even though we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid

You can say that, but you can't then distribute the code. You're
talking out of your arse ;-)

Jon.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Michael Poole]

Jeff V. Merkey writes:

> Jon Masters wrote:
> 
> >>Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
> >>license, and you can actually do something about it.
> >>
> >
> >They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
> >by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
> >
> >
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world,
> all GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
> wiggle room for people to use.

Why don't you tell that to the netfilter core team?  If only they knew
what you did, they might give up their court case.  Except for the
minor fact that they already won.

US law addresses the conspiracy you suggest through several means.
However, *any* individual has problems seeking justice in US federal
courts unless they or their opponents have quite deep pockets.  Your
arguments are in no way specific to the GPL -- one could substitute
any other license name for "GPL" (or any tort for "copyright
infringement") and throw about the same FUD.

> Alan Cox in a previous email basically
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to
> folks. They will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me
> the chickens."

That's not what he said at all.  He said that they seem to be willing
to comply with the license, so it is a bad idea to beat them over the
head when one person (not even a copyright holder!) thinks he caught
them making a mistake.

Michael Poole

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 03:53:49PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to 
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything 
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all 
> GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to 
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
> wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically 
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They 
> will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the 
> chickens."

You should have attended Harald Welte's "Enforcing the GPL" talk at
the Linux Kongress this year.  There are plenty of worked examples
where Harald and the Netfilter kernel developers have successfully
taken commercial vendors to court and got them to either (a) release
their enhancements under the GPL, or (b) stop distributing the GPL'ed
code.  It can and has been done in the real world, with multiple
vendors, and they haven't lost a case yet.

					- Ted

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jon Masters]

jmerkey@galt.devicelogics.com wrote:

[ You snipped the original sender identification - the quote below forms 
part of a response from Theodore Ts'o. ]

>>You should have attended Harald Welte's "Enforcing the GPL" talk at
>>the Linux Kongress this year.  There are plenty of worked examples
>>where Harald and the Netfilter kernel developers have successfully
>>taken commercial vendors to court and got them to either (a) release
>>their enhancements under the GPL, or (b) stop distributing the GPL'ed
>>code.  It can and has been done in the real world, with multiple
>>vendors, and they haven't lost a case yet.
>>
>>					- Ted

> If you can obtain discovery and catch people with a "smoking gun."
> Very hard to do.

The smoking gun is very often obtained by dissassembling the device 
firmware or program binaries and/or runing string comparisons.

> Inside some of these big companies with lots
> of money, most folks won't come clean or spoilate evidence.

It's hard to spoil the evidence when all of your customers have it.

<snip more anti-Novell comments>

> The simplest way is to add a clause to the GPL requiring people
> to obtain a license from the copyright holders if code is 
> ever used in a commerical venture.  There's no wiggle room --
> they will have to sign and ackowledge they accepted the GPL
> and ackowledge their obligations from the copyright holder.   

I don't know what the world is like where you are (I admit that if 
you're in the States you probably *are* more repressed than I am in the 
UK right now) but you seem to have some extreme paranoia which seems 
more than a little unfounded. The above is completely unnecessary - it 
does nothing that using the GPL already does not do - but you seem to 
have convinced yourself that the real problem here is the GPL.

Jon.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[James Courtier-Dutton]

jmerkey@comcast.net wrote:
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people.  The GPL is flawed 
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use.  This is the only way you will ever stop these people.  So instead
> of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.  Then anyone 
> who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you 
> can actually do something about it. 
> 
> Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.  So 
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though 
> we download and use the code.  Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally 
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place. 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Jeff
> 

You are incorrect here. If someone does not accept the GPL, the code is 
then covered under normal Copyright laws, which means that they are not 
allowed to make any copies of the work without prior consent of the 
copyright owners. With some work that has taken input from many 
different copyright owners, the only really workable solution is for 
people to accept the GPL or just not use the work at all. If they then 
use the copyright work, and don't comply with the GPL, it only takes one 
copyright owner to complain, for them to be scared enough to back off.

For example, a company uses Linux in a set top box and sells 1 million 
boxes. They choose not to comply with the GPL, and a copyright owner 
complains. That copyright owner will win the case easily (There are many 
examples of it.) forcing the company to recall all 1 million units, 
resulting in the company going bankrupt.

Companys are making good money by using Linux and complying to the GPL 
license in their boxes. Amstrad is a good example of doing it the right 
way as there is currently no real evidence that they have broken the 
GPL. ( Does anyone have the url to download the source code from 
Amstrad? I can download the manual, just not the source code. )

James

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 22:53, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all 
> GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to 
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much

The German counts didn't think so.

> wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically 
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They 
> will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the 
> chickens."

If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
"its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.

Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
advantages for them to cheat.

One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say

	GPL v 2 blah bla 

	or you may choose to distribute the software without source
	code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.

This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
value for damages....

Alan

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
> would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
> "its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
> mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.

Alan, you put the finger on the right thing : motivation.

People ask what motivation has this vendor not to show his code. But the
reality is different. The vendor waits for some motivation to show it.
It costs lost of time and sometimes even documentation to open some modified
code, and for various time-to-market reasons, vendors sometimes think they
will do it later. I've already been in such a situation : I packaged something
for a customer. Yes I used Linux kernel and GPL tools, and yes I patched some
of them, but considering the time it would take to package something clean
with lots of sources when I knew for sure that the customer does not even
care, I did not do it. Just told the customer that if he wanted, he could
have everything, but when he replies "no thanks", I have no motivation
loosing my time. So from time to time, I put together new patches on my
web site to stay compliant, but there's no urge in that. And the GPL only
says that you have to provide the code or a way to get the code. So when
the customer says that he does not want it, the best way for him to get
the code when he changes his mind is to ask where I finally put it, then
for me to check that everything is up to date.

There is a second level of motivation at not opening the code from the
beginning : there still are some customers who are afraid that they
will use some code that anybody can see ! One of my customers, for
example was very reluctant to use my reverse-proxy (haproxy) because
he felt that if anybody found a flaw in the code, he could exploit it.
So I had to start the long story again from the dinosaurs ;-)

As long as vendors are honnest, and respect their customers' rights, I
don't see any problem. The problem arises when vendors explicitly refuse
to open anything. But most of the time, I suspect it's just a matter of
time and cleanness, and we should not expect too much from vendors who
already acknowledge that they are using GPL software and that they are
doing their best to publish the code ASAP.

> Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
> advantages for them to cheat.

I sometimes wonder if it does not bring cheap advertisement. For example,
Linksys is known to sell linux boxes because of the GPL war they started.
Nowadays, many people buy their boxes because they are both the cheapest
and the most complete devices a linux kernel can run on.

> One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
> for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
> on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say
> 
> 	GPL v 2 blah bla 
> 
> 	or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> 	code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
> 
> This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
> value for damages....

Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.
 
Willy

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jon Masters]

Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:

>>	or you may choose to distribute the software without source
>>	code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
>>
>>This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
>>value for damages....

> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.

Just on the off-chance of hyperinflation, I'd define that figure based 
upon some base index. I also think it's a bad idea to have that :-).

Jon.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Alan Cox]

On Sul, 2004-10-03 at 12:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> care, I did not do it. Just told the customer that if he wanted, he could
> have everything, but when he replies "no thanks", I have no motivation
> loosing my time. So from time to time, I put together new patches on my

Which meets the GPL file. Customer can also be expected to work "diff"
unless you are doing daft stuff like obfuscating existing code.

> As long as vendors are honnest, and respect their customers' rights, I
> don't see any problem. The problem arises when vendors explicitly refuse
> to open anything. But most of the time, I suspect it's just a matter of
> time and cleanness, and we should not expect too much from vendors who
> already acknowledge that they are using GPL software and that they are
> doing their best to publish the code ASAP.

On the little embedded box side there is certainly a lot of systematic
abuse, especially in asian originated products. (And I justify the
otherwise apparently racist remark with the statistics).

> > 	GPL v 2 blah bla 
> > 
> > 	or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> > 	code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
> > 
> > This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
> > value for damages....
> 
> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.

Well I was thinking the $100,000 would just be for the bits I wrote in
that one file or that one driver, ....

Alan

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Kyle Moffett]

On Oct 03, 2004, at 18:01, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2004-10-03 at 12:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal 
>> the
>> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed 
>> code
>> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.
>
> Well I was thinking the $100,000 would just be for the bits I wrote in
> that one file or that one driver, ....

Wow, that would quickly add up.  $100,000 for John Smith's 20 line 
patch,
$100,000 for Jane Hacker's 2 line patch, etc.  Ok, under said 
theoretical
conditions an infringer might owe a _lot_ of money:
	 $100,000 * 20 hackers * 200 copies sold = $400 million

Heh. At some point the court has to clamp the damages, but those kinds 
of
numbers would definitely get some attention from the legal staff of said
hypothetical company.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Bill Davidsen]

jmerkey@comcast.net wrote:
> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .  What can anyone do about it anyway.  The FSF 
> isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the money to do it.  Most of this
> banter and name calling people do about it is a waste of time.  What punishment will 
> anyone get for it.  A few people writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah -- 
> this will really stop someone from doing it.  If you give your code away GPL, or not
> you have just done just that.   Tigrian is correct in his statements.  
> 
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people.  The GPL is flawed 
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use.  This is the only way you will ever stop these people.  So instead
> of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.  Then anyone 
> who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you 
> can actually do something about it. 
> 
> Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.  So 
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though 
> we download and use the code.  Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally 
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place. 

This subject line seems to have attracted a bunch of odd legal 
misinformation, which as noted has been refuted by the courts. However, 
I do note that Microsoft is using the work Linux in their ads, and not 
putting on the trademark symbol. It is probably good for someone to look 
at that, because a trademark can be lost if it is not defended (think 
Kleenex or Asprin). The ads just have a note in tiny print saying 
something 'some of these words may be trademarks of their owners.' I 
believe if the owner notifies them they have to add the MT or (R) symbol 
and state the name of the holder.

Clearly I'm not a lawyer, but since there was a TV show about "lost 
trademarks" I'm pretty damn sure it can happen.

The GPL is alive and well at the moment, I hope the trademark is as well.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jesse Pollard]

On Friday 01 October 2004 16:53, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> >>Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required
> >> to get a license, and you can actually do something about it.
> >
> >They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
> >by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
>
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to.

And are now guilty of perjury. And when shown as such in court, will be/can
be put in jail for quite a time. Nope - won't do it. As SCO has found out.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Alan Cox wrote:

>If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
>would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
>"its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
>mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.
>
>Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
>advantages for them to cheat.
>
>One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
>for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
>on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say
>
>	GPL v 2 blah bla 
>
>	or you may choose to distribute the software without source
>	code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
>
>This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
>value for damages....
>
>Alan
>
>  
>

Alan,

The following is submitted based on your comment.

I was intrigued by your proposal for a binary license, so I
discussed it with my business associates.

We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
a single Linux version by release number.  This offer must be
accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and this snapshot will
subsequently convert the GPL license into a BSD style license
for the code.  In other words, what we are asking for is the ability
to snapshot kernel.org at 50K a pop for a license to each
2.<even number> release, then take any even number release
private.  This allows all changes to a 2.<even number>
release to be used for a particular release per license without
returning changes.  This money will be made payable to kernel.org
and must be accepted by everyone. 

If you think this is a good idea, we are prepared to actually
execute on this proposal.  This is for real, and let me know
who to make the check out to. 

Please advise.

Jeff


>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>  
>

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Chris Friesen]

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
> a single Linux version by release number.  This offer must be
> accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and this snapshot will
> subsequently convert the GPL license into a BSD style license
> for the code.

For an unlimited use license of the linux tree, $50,000 USD is ludicrously tiny.

Think of the number of man-years of work invested in the current tree.

Chris

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
> a single Linux version by release number.

That would still be useless, since it doesn't give you any
rights to the (GPL) bug fixes posted to this list on an
almost daily basis.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Rik van Riel wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>  
>
>>We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
>>license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
>>a single Linux version by release number.
>>    
>>
>
>That would still be useless, since it doesn't give you any
>rights to the (GPL) bug fixes posted to this list on an
>almost daily basis.
>
>  
>
Obviously, what would happen here is a release of 2.4 or 2.6 that is 
stable would be snapshoted
and used. And yes, you are correct, bug fixes would not be allowed 
unless they were applied
independently and without access to GPL code. However, this would allow 
OSDL and kernel.org
to become self-sustaining and would not impact the GPL process -- just 
let you guys peel
off releases and pocket some $$$ on the side. A lot of big companies 
would line up to pay you.

So, who do I write the check to?

Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Kyle Moffett wrote:

> On Oct 07, 2004, at 15:21, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>> This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and...
>
>
> This will never happen. Even if there is just _one_ GPL idealist who
> doesn't give a rat's ass about receiving money for their kernel code,
> you can't get your license. Given that, I know several people who
> wouldn't give you a license no matter how much you offered them
> for it.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett


Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who 
were more
interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$. 
That's easy.

Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Chris Friesen wrote:

> Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
>> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
>> a single Linux version by release number. This offer must be
>> accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and this snapshot will
>> subsequently convert the GPL license into a BSD style license
>> for the code.
>
>
> For an unlimited use license of the linux tree, $50,000 USD is 
> ludicrously tiny.


$50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only goes for 
$100.00 a copy.
You guys should be flattered.

Let's see, 10,000 companies x $50,000.00 a pop = $500,000,000 / year in 
license
fees. What a deal. 500,000,000 / 300 developers = 1.1 million per year 
for each of you.
Sounds like good business to me.

Companies will line up to do this, and what's great is you will still 
get new licensees every year,
so long as you keep ahead of the curve with innovation.

Jeff

>
> Think of the number of man-years of work invested in the current tree.
>
> Chris
>
>

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

>
> Are you sure you can find and pay sufficient money to the thousands 
> upon thousands
> of people who contributed code to the linux kernel? In some cases you 
> may not be
> able to contact copyright owners of critical code, in which case you 
> can't distribute
> those pieces at all. The whole point of "Open-Source" is that the 
> users are free to fix
> the bug in the program you sent them, and that they're free to change 
> it however they
> want.

If they are unavailble, I am certain some other enterprising individual 
will replicate similiar
code and get the $$$.

>
> In any case, Alan Cox's "offer" was for $100,000 per copy, not $50,000 
> for an eternal
> license. :-D


In business, counter negotiation is allowed. We will pay $50,000.00 in 
cold, hard cash to be
allowed to snapshot a single 2.<even number> release that allows GPL 
conversion to a BSD
style license. This offer is real and we are ready to write a check today.

Jeff

>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett
>
>
>
>

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Kyle Moffett]

On Oct 07, 2004, at 15:21, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and...

This will never happen.  Even if there is just _one_ GPL idealist who
doesn't give a rat's ass about receiving money for their kernel code,
you can't get your license.  Given that, I know several people who
wouldn't give you a license no matter how much you offered them
for it.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r  
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff V. Merkey]

>If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
>who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
>away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
>believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
>
>		Dave
>
>
>  
>
We would spend the time or remove the code. OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
joke). OpenServer is not Linux.

If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP 
secure email.
We will worry about who is no longer available. We need the core folks 
whose names
appear as the original author in the master header of each file to sign 
off. They will need to
certify which files are theirs and send a confirmation.

This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come 
and give money as well.
It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just 
those who
positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock 
for .com stock market
Google style IPO scams. It can happen.

Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Kyle Moffett]

On Oct 07, 2004, at 17:17, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who 
> were more
> interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$. 
> That's easy.

Are you sure you can find and pay sufficient money to the thousands 
upon thousands
of people who contributed code to the linux kernel?  In some cases you 
may not be
able to contact copyright owners of critical code, in which case you 
can't distribute
those pieces at all.  The whole point of "Open-Source" is that the 
users are free to fix
the bug in the program you sent them, and that they're free to change 
it however they
want.

In any case, Alan Cox's "offer" was for $100,000 per copy, not $50,000 
for an eternal
license.  :-D

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r  
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:17:25PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

 > Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who 
 > were more
 > interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$. 
 > That's easy.

If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.

		Dave

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Chris Friesen]

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> $50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only goes for 
> $100.00 a copy.

Um..you said BSD license.  That gives you unlimited use to redistribute in 
proprietary products.  A similar Windows license would *not* be $100.

As an example, the windows media DRM license is $400,000 anually.

Chris

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

 > >If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
 > >who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
 > >away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
 > >believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
 >
 > We would spend the time or remove the code.

'we' ?

 > OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
 > According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
 > joke). OpenServer is not Linux.

nor did I claim it to be. I claimed that respecting the wishes of everyone
who didn't want a part of your 'vision' would mean you'd end with something
on a par feature-wise with some inferior UNIX.

 > If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
 > a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP 
 > secure email.

It's not a "Linus and Alan" thing, the copyrights on a bulk of the code
in the tree lies with other people.

 > This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come 
 > and give money as well.
 > It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just 
 > those who
 > positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock 
 > for .com stock market
 > Google style IPO scams. It can happen.

You seem to be under the deluded illusion that all kernel hackers
do what they do for the money[1].

Please, either cut down the dosage, or increase it.

		Dave


[1] Whereas everyone knows, its all about the fast cars and chicks.

RE: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Hua Zhong]

> $50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only 
> goes for $100.00 a copy.

Sure, I think Linux community could sell you a copy with
*Windows* licenses and EULA. You get the binary of the kernel
and use it on one computer only. For multiple accounts pay more. 
Of course, you get no source code or the ability to modify it. :)

> You guys should be flattered.
> 
> Let's see, 10,000 companies x $50,000.00 a pop = $500,000,000 
> / year in license fees. What a deal. 500,000,000 / 300 developers 
> = 1.1 million per year for each of you.
> Sounds like good business to me.
> 
> Companies will line up to do this, and what's great is you will still 
> get new licensees every year,
> so long as you keep ahead of the curve with innovation.

Not good for Linux. Although I am not a conspiracy thoery person,
this "proposal" could be sponsored by M$ to bribe the whole community..

Hua

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[viro]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
> a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP 
> secure email.

I don't know what exactly you will recieve from Linus and Alan, but here's
a reply from me (and I do have code in quite a few places in the tree):

	Sod Off.

If you need it in writing and notarized, that could be arranged.  Is that
enough to close the discussion?

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jesper Juhl]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> 
> > If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
> > who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
> > away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
> > believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
> > 
> > 		Dave
> > 
> > 
> >  
> We would spend the time or remove the code. OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
> According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
> joke). OpenServer is not Linux.
> 
> If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
> a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP secure
> email.

I can't speak for anyone except myself, and I'm not in any way a big time 
kernel person, but personally I would prefer that what little code I've 
contributed stays GPL. It was GPL code I contributed to, I expect it to 
stay that way.


> We will worry about who is no longer available. We need the core folks whose
> names
> appear as the original author in the master header of each file to sign off.
> They will need to
> certify which files are theirs and send a confirmation.
> 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say you need more than just the core people. Even 
the core people don't own the copyright to contributions made by 
small-time contributers like myself. You could argue that very small 
contributions don't qualify for copyright protection and you'd probably be 
right, but where do you draw that line?


> This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come and give
> money as well.
> It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just those who
> positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock for
> .com stock market
> Google style IPO scams. It can happen.
> 
There are other rewards than money.


--
Jesper Juhl

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jeff Garzik]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:41:08PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> You seem to be under the deluded illusion that all kernel hackers
> do what they do for the money[1].
> 
> Please, either cut down the dosage, or increase it.
> 
> 		Dave
> 
> 
> [1] Whereas everyone knows, its all about the fast cars and chicks.

I dunno about you, but I'm in it for the beer.

	Jeff

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jon Masters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesper Juhl wrote:

Jeff>> This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can
Jeff>> come and give money as well. It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded
Jeff>> for your hard work, and not just those who positioned themselves
Jeff>> to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock for .com stock
Jeff>> market Google style IPO scams. It can happen.

| There are other rewards than money.

Al summed it up quite well earlier. Jeff probably wants to get the
lining on his tinfoil hat thickened to avoid the brain lazers getting in
any further. Check those bushes for Novell snipers too - you never know
when they'll pop out and come to get you, like everyone else everywhere.

50,000USD is a patheticly small amount to pay for the kernel, there's
nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and people already make
big bucks from Linux. Several of those aren't just dot-coms that went
tits up later either - and most of them emply core kernel hackers.

Cheers,

Jon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBZeZdeTyyexZHHxERAurwAKCdDbtVPMJjE5QNSod7hzc9iJfE9wCgoyaI
JKq2XMwszlT1KOUbq0XuZV0=
=AAMH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Erik Andersen]

On Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and
> this snapshot will subsequently convert the GPL license into
> a BSD style license for the code.

I'm suppose you have a plan to ask Leonard Zubkoff and
doubtless others to relicense their work?

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Erik Andersen]

On Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> We need the core folks whose names appear as the original
> author in the master header of each file to sign off.

You can plan on removing ide-cd.c and cdrom.c from your
little venture.  :-)

> It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work,

Been there, done that.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jon Masters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

jmerkey@galt.devicelogics.com wrote:

[ Would you please quite removing the attribution from mailing list
posts? I know you don't care to keep it in the kernel, but at least let
people know who said what in this completely pointless thread... ]

Jesper>>| There are other rewards than money.

jcm>> Al summed it up quite well earlier. Jeff probably wants to get the
jcm>> lining on his tinfoil hat thickened to avoid the brain lazers
getting in
jcm>> any further. Check those bushes for Novell snipers too - you never
know
jcm>> when they'll pop out and come to get you, like everyone else
everywhere.

*Strong medication*. Very strong. Now with added eucalyptus! It'll make
removing all that code easier. Ya know, you don't like cdrom support in
your kernel (and claim it corrupts memory on your SuSE box...that's
cute) but I've never much like memory management or CPU support in my
kernel. I say you rip out everything under kernel/ and mm/ just in case.
After all, Novell operatives might have secretly corrupted it, eh? ;-).

|>50,000USD is a patheticly small amount to pay for the kernel, there's
|>nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and people already make
|>big bucks from Linux. Several of those aren't just dot-coms that went
|>tits up later either - and most of them emply core kernel hackers.

I meant that too. Just think about it - with the number of contributors
in the kernel you'll have to offer a lot of money before even a few of
them start to hear cash register sounds in their head. I expect it is
graphable, but I've never actually that eye-rolling-dollar-sign thing
that happens in the various cartoons. By the time it's diluted down, is
the guy entitled to 0.05 cents really going to be suddenly convinced
that all this time he was secretly after money but didn't realize it?

| Not for a license to a single snapshot of a single 2.6.X or 2.4.X
| version.

I'd argue that the kernel is entirely priceless. It's better than that,
more advanced, now extra-caffeinated with added pro-V complex!

| I agree this isn't about money.

...oh but you think this pointless endeavour of yours will actually get
you somewhere other than in even more killfiles. I really shouldn't feed
the troll but it's oh so hard to resist. I mean, you seem like a fun
crazy sort of guy. So far I've seen:

~    *). Intense bitterness at Novell.
~    *). Signs of paranoid delusion.
~    *). A fundamental missunderstanding of the GPL.
~    *). Various other random craziness.

Tell me, Mr Jeff, of various mail domains (does that make you feel
bigger and better than the rest of us?) are you funded by Microsoft to
suggest this stuff or do you truly believe it? Really? Truly? I mean,
I'd much rather hear you're being paid to say this shite.

| It's about control and using the GPL to control what happens.

...by undermininging it and opening the floor to bribary. What would
those damn Novell snipers say about that?

| The offer is for real.

I doubt that greatly. Actually no, I don't. I believe there are crazy
people in the US with lots of money who'll think this is a good idea.

Jon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBZj6KeTyyexZHHxERAgvmAJ9EtVnTzJt80T2UHxcsZL4Xkk5I9QCgioFh
I1JFwYGT6amSyFOEvcEtW2M=
=lUW8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@drdos.com> writes:

>> For an unlimited use license of the linux tree, $50,000 USD is 
>> ludicrously tiny.


>$50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only goes for 
>$100.00 a copy.
>You guys should be flattered.

>Let's see, 10,000 companies x $50,000.00 a pop = $500,000,000 / year in 
>license

Bullshit. Because this "price" would be payed only once. 9999 would
license the BSD licensed kernel for $ 25.000 from you.

Jeff, you have done better trolling in the past. This one is really
ludicrous.

	Regards
		Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
   Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development

"Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re-
 fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's
 position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied -
 is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it
 deserves to be on this list of the top five problems."
                       -- Michelle Levesque, "Fundamental Issues with
                                    Open Source Software Development"

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 20:40 -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and
> > this snapshot will subsequently convert the GPL license into
> > a BSD style license for the code.
> 
> I'm suppose you have a plan to ask Leonard Zubkoff and
> doubtless others to relicense their work?

Obviously yes. And they seem to have a list of the ten of thousands of
Copyright/authors' rights ("Urheberrecht" as in Austria, Germany and
probably some other countries) with information to which parts of the
kernel they actually (may) have rights on.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 20:40 -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
>> I'm suppose you have a plan to ask Leonard Zubkoff and
>> doubtless others to relicense their work?

On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:50:51AM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Obviously yes. And they seem to have a list of the ten of thousands of
> Copyright/authors' rights ("Urheberrecht" as in Austria, Germany and
> probably some other countries) with information to which parts of the
> kernel they actually (may) have rights on.

The dead do not relicense code.


-- wli

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Alan Cox]

On Iau, 2004-10-07 at 23:02, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> In any case, Alan Cox's "offer" was for $100,000 per copy, not $50,000 
> for an eternal
> license.  :-D

And for a specific piece of code not the entire system. It was
speculation on ways to assist the legal system in identifying
crystalised (ie cash value) damages for violations

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@drdos.com> wrote:

> In business, counter negotiation is allowed. We will pay $50,000.00 in
> cold, hard cash to be allowed to snapshot a single 2.<even number>
> release that allows GPL conversion to a BSD style license. This offer
> is real and we are ready to write a check today.

all the politics aside, the Linux 2.6 kernel, if developed from scratch
as commercial software, takes at least this much effort under the
default COCOMO model:

 Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)                = 4,287,449
 Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 1,302.68 (15,632.20) (Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
 Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)                         = 8.17 (98.10)
  (Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
 Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule)  = 159.35
 Total Estimated Cost to Develop                           = $ 175,974,824
  (average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).
 SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the FSF GPL.
 Please credit this data as "generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'."

and you want an unlimited license for $0.05m? What is this, the latest
variant of the Nigerian/419 scam?

	Ingo

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 October 2004 03:15, Jon Masters wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>jmerkey@galt.devicelogics.com wrote:
>
>[ Would you please quite removing the attribution from mailing list
>posts? I know you don't care to keep it in the kernel, but at least
> let people know who said what in this completely pointless
> thread... ]
>
>Jesper>>| There are other rewards than money.
>
>jcm>> Al summed it up quite well earlier. Jeff probably wants to get
> the jcm>> lining on his tinfoil hat thickened to avoid the brain
> lazers getting in
>jcm>> any further. Check those bushes for Novell snipers too - you
> never know
>jcm>> when they'll pop out and come to get you, like everyone else
>everywhere.
>
>*Strong medication*. Very strong. Now with added eucalyptus! It'll
> make removing all that code easier. Ya know, you don't like cdrom
> support in your kernel (and claim it corrupts memory on your SuSE
> box...that's cute) but I've never much like memory management or
> CPU support in my kernel. I say you rip out everything under
> kernel/ and mm/ just in case. After all, Novell operatives might
> have secretly corrupted it, eh? ;-).
>
>|>50,000USD is a patheticly small amount to pay for the kernel,
>|> there's nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and
>|> people already make big bucks from Linux. Several of those aren't
>|> just dot-coms that went tits up later either - and most of them
>|> emply core kernel hackers.
>
>I meant that too. Just think about it - with the number of
> contributors in the kernel you'll have to offer a lot of money
> before even a few of them start to hear cash register sounds in
> their head. I expect it is graphable, but I've never actually that
> eye-rolling-dollar-sign thing that happens in the various cartoons.
> By the time it's diluted down, is the guy entitled to 0.05 cents
> really going to be suddenly convinced that all this time he was
> secretly after money but didn't realize it?
>
>| Not for a license to a single snapshot of a single 2.6.X or 2.4.X
>| version.
>
>I'd argue that the kernel is entirely priceless. It's better than
> that, more advanced, now extra-caffeinated with added pro-V
> complex!
>
>| I agree this isn't about money.
>
>...oh but you think this pointless endeavour of yours will actually
> get you somewhere other than in even more killfiles. I really
> shouldn't feed the troll but it's oh so hard to resist. I mean, you
> seem like a fun crazy sort of guy. So far I've seen:
>
>~    *). Intense bitterness at Novell.
>~    *). Signs of paranoid delusion.
>~    *). A fundamental missunderstanding of the GPL.
>~    *). Various other random craziness.
>
>Tell me, Mr Jeff, of various mail domains (does that make you feel
>bigger and better than the rest of us?) are you funded by Microsoft
> to suggest this stuff or do you truly believe it? Really? Truly? I
> mean, I'd much rather hear you're being paid to say this shite.
>
>| It's about control and using the GPL to control what happens.
>
>...by undermininging it and opening the floor to bribary. What would
>those damn Novell snipers say about that?
>
>| The offer is for real.
>
>I doubt that greatly. Actually no, I don't. I believe there are
> crazy people in the US with lots of money who'll think this is a
> good idea.
>
>Jon.

Yeah there are Jon, and his initials are probably BG.  I've been 
following this thread, first in amazement, followed by disbelief, 
since it started yesterday, and the only thing my 6th sense is 
telling me is that this is an attempt to undermine the GPL by someone 
like M$ so that they can take it to court and successfully render it 
moot.

At one point he's talking about $50,000 for a snapshot, then next he's 
saying $50,000 per copyright holder, and how that would end up being 
millions.  A new story with almost every message, and coming from 
several addresses, at one point from drdos.com, so I went over to see 
if he was actually listed there but couldn't find a reference. Ditto 
for the *panogas address.  And I haven't looked at comcast as that is 
an ISP with several million addresses IIRC.

This old (70, and more user than coder now) fart associate member of 
the FSF is more and more convinced he's a troll, out only to 
contaminate the GPL and a few million to do that is just chicken feed 
to his backers.  And make no mistake, the sucessfull contamination of 
the GPL could be worth many billions of dollars to M$ et all.  Thats 
the most obvious 'SWAG' candidate as the real source of all this 
largess.

My $0.02: Deal with the likes of him at the peril of the GPL.

Here's another question that needs answered too, why the hell isn't 
Linus in the To: or Cc: list?  (He is now!) After all, his approval 
would be the first thing you would need, isn't it Jeff?  Again, one 
more clue that this looks like the fox, trying to sneak in under the 
henhouse radar.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 October 2004 08:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Friday 08 October 2004 03:15, Jon Masters wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>jmerkey@galt.devicelogics.com wrote:

Interesting too, that address just changed its name to Duncan, it 
bounced like a yo-yo.  One more clue that this is the fox, trying to 
sneak into the penguinhouse for a killing.  I just took him out of 
the Cc: list...

I repeat:
>My $0.02: Deal with the likes of him at the peril of the GPL.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Bruce Ferrell]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 08 October 2004 03:15, Jon Masters wrote:
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>jmerkey@galt.devicelogics.com wrote:
>>
>>[ Would you please quite removing the attribution from mailing list
>>posts? I know you don't care to keep it in the kernel, but at least
>>let people know who said what in this completely pointless
>>thread... ]
>>
>>Jesper>>| There are other rewards than money.
>>
>>jcm>> Al summed it up quite well earlier. Jeff probably wants to get
>>the jcm>> lining on his tinfoil hat thickened to avoid the brain
>>lazers getting in
>>jcm>> any further. Check those bushes for Novell snipers too - you
>>never know
>>jcm>> when they'll pop out and come to get you, like everyone else
>>everywhere.
>>
>>*Strong medication*. Very strong. Now with added eucalyptus! It'll
>>make removing all that code easier. Ya know, you don't like cdrom
>>support in your kernel (and claim it corrupts memory on your SuSE
>>box...that's cute) but I've never much like memory management or
>>CPU support in my kernel. I say you rip out everything under
>>kernel/ and mm/ just in case. After all, Novell operatives might
>>have secretly corrupted it, eh? ;-).
>>
>>|>50,000USD is a patheticly small amount to pay for the kernel,
>>|> there's nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and
>>|> people already make big bucks from Linux. Several of those aren't
>>|> just dot-coms that went tits up later either - and most of them
>>|> emply core kernel hackers.
>>
>>I meant that too. Just think about it - with the number of
>>contributors in the kernel you'll have to offer a lot of money
>>before even a few of them start to hear cash register sounds in
>>their head. I expect it is graphable, but I've never actually that
>>eye-rolling-dollar-sign thing that happens in the various cartoons.
>>By the time it's diluted down, is the guy entitled to 0.05 cents
>>really going to be suddenly convinced that all this time he was
>>secretly after money but didn't realize it?
>>
>>| Not for a license to a single snapshot of a single 2.6.X or 2.4.X
>>| version.
>>
>>I'd argue that the kernel is entirely priceless. It's better than
>>that, more advanced, now extra-caffeinated with added pro-V
>>complex!
>>
>>| I agree this isn't about money.
>>
>>...oh but you think this pointless endeavour of yours will actually
>>get you somewhere other than in even more killfiles. I really
>>shouldn't feed the troll but it's oh so hard to resist. I mean, you
>>seem like a fun crazy sort of guy. So far I've seen:
>>
>>~    *). Intense bitterness at Novell.
>>~    *). Signs of paranoid delusion.
>>~    *). A fundamental missunderstanding of the GPL.
>>~    *). Various other random craziness.
>>
>>Tell me, Mr Jeff, of various mail domains (does that make you feel
>>bigger and better than the rest of us?) are you funded by Microsoft
>>to suggest this stuff or do you truly believe it? Really? Truly? I
>>mean, I'd much rather hear you're being paid to say this shite.
>>
>>| It's about control and using the GPL to control what happens.
>>
>>...by undermininging it and opening the floor to bribary. What would
>>those damn Novell snipers say about that?
>>
>>| The offer is for real.
>>
>>I doubt that greatly. Actually no, I don't. I believe there are
>>crazy people in the US with lots of money who'll think this is a
>>good idea.
>>
>>Jon.
> 
> 
> Yeah there are Jon, and his initials are probably BG.  I've been 
> following this thread, first in amazement, followed by disbelief, 
> since it started yesterday, and the only thing my 6th sense is 
> telling me is that this is an attempt to undermine the GPL by someone 
> like M$ so that they can take it to court and successfully render it 
> moot.
> 
> At one point he's talking about $50,000 for a snapshot, then next he's 
> saying $50,000 per copyright holder, and how that would end up being 
> millions.  A new story with almost every message, and coming from 
> several addresses, at one point from drdos.com, so I went over to see 
> if he was actually listed there but couldn't find a reference. Ditto 
> for the *panogas address.  And I haven't looked at comcast as that is 
> an ISP with several million addresses IIRC.
> 
> This old (70, and more user than coder now) fart associate member of 
> the FSF is more and more convinced he's a troll, out only to 
> contaminate the GPL and a few million to do that is just chicken feed 
> to his backers.  And make no mistake, the sucessfull contamination of 
> the GPL could be worth many billions of dollars to M$ et all.  Thats 
> the most obvious 'SWAG' candidate as the real source of all this 
> largess.
> 
> My $0.02: Deal with the likes of him at the peril of the GPL.
> 
> Here's another question that needs answered too, why the hell isn't 
> Linus in the To: or Cc: list?  (He is now!) After all, his approval 
> would be the first thing you would need, isn't it Jeff?  Again, one 
> more clue that this looks like the fox, trying to sneak in under the 
> henhouse radar.
> 

A bit of a historical note is in order.  Jeff used to work for Novell... 
And had more than a small dispute with them over some linux code he did 
that allowed linux to, as I recall, do things with netware 4.x.  Novell 
took exception as at the time the only other code that did it was closed 
source distributed through Caldera.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 October 2004 09:48, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Yeah there are Jon, and his initials are probably BG.  I've been
>> following this thread, first in amazement, followed by disbelief,
>> since it started yesterday, and the only thing my 6th sense is
>> telling me is that this is an attempt to undermine the GPL by
>> someone like M$ so that they can take it to court and successfully
>> render it moot.
>>
>> At one point he's talking about $50,000 for a snapshot, then next
>> he's saying $50,000 per copyright holder, and how that would end
>> up being millions.  A new story with almost every message, and
>> coming from several addresses, at one point from drdos.com, so I
>> went over to see if he was actually listed there but couldn't find
>> a reference. Ditto for the *panogas address.  And I haven't looked
>> at comcast as that is an ISP with several million addresses IIRC.
>>
>> This old (70, and more user than coder now) fart associate member
>> of the FSF is more and more convinced he's a troll, out only to
>> contaminate the GPL and a few million to do that is just chicken
>> feed to his backers.  And make no mistake, the sucessfull
>> contamination of the GPL could be worth many billions of dollars
>> to M$ et all.  Thats the most obvious 'SWAG' candidate as the real
>> source of all this largess.
>>
>> My $0.02: Deal with the likes of him at the peril of the GPL.
>>
>> Here's another question that needs answered too, why the hell
>> isn't Linus in the To: or Cc: list?  (He is now!) After all, his
>> approval would be the first thing you would need, isn't it Jeff? 
>> Again, one more clue that this looks like the fox, trying to sneak
>> in under the henhouse radar.
>
>A bit of a historical note is in order.  Jeff used to work for
> Novell... And had more than a small dispute with them over some
> linux code he did that allowed linux to, as I recall, do things
> with netware 4.x.  Novell took exception as at the time the only
> other code that did it was closed source distributed through
> Caldera.

I see, so there is a personal axe to grind here also.  I wasn't aware 
of that.  That places this a lot closer to the trolling scenario (and 
a waste of time and bandwidth) than a fox in the henhouse then.  And 
the troll certainly cannot write a check of sufficient magnitude to 
be interesting.  All in all, an enlightening thread now, thank you to 
those that were there to record history. :-)

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@drdos.com> wrote:
> 
> > In business, counter negotiation is allowed. We will pay $50,000.00 in
> > cold, hard cash to be allowed to snapshot a single 2.<even number>
> > release that allows GPL conversion to a BSD style license. This offer
> > is real and we are ready to write a check today.
> 
> all the politics aside, the Linux 2.6 kernel, if developed from scratch
> as commercial software, takes at least this much effort under the
> default COCOMO model:
> 
>  Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)                = 4,287,449
>  Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 1,302.68 (15,632.20) (Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
>  Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)                         = 8.17 (98.10)
>   (Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
>  Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule)  = 159.35
>  Total Estimated Cost to Develop                           = $ 175,974,824
>   (average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).
>  SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the FSF GPL.
>  Please credit this data as "generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'."
> 
> and you want an unlimited license for $0.05m? What is this, the latest
> variant of the Nigerian/419 scam?

The biggest problem I have with counting `code size' (yes, we use sloccount at
work), is that given more time and resources than needed to implement the
required functionality, code size usually shrinks due to clean ups. So it costs
_more_ money to decrease the #loc. Software is just like protocols design:

| In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing
| left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
|                                 -- RFC1925: The Twelve Networking Truths

Of course this is less true for the Linux kernel than for proprietary
commercial software, since we don't care about deadlines and take our time to
clean up bad code ;-)

So please don't settle for less than $500000000 :-) ... and I actually prefer
500000000 EUR :-) Which is actually pretty close to $500000 for each of the
10000 monkeys...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Ingo Molnar]

* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > all the politics aside, the Linux 2.6 kernel, if developed from scratch
> > as commercial software, takes at least this much effort under the
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> > default COCOMO model:

> >  Total Estimated Cost to Develop                           = $ 175,974,824

> The biggest problem I have with counting `code size' (yes, we use
> sloccount at work), is that given more time and resources than needed
> to implement the required functionality, code size usually shrinks due
> to clean ups. So it costs _more_ money to decrease the #loc. Software
> is just like protocols design:

nowhere do i mean to imply that this figure represents the true value of
Linux, or that it even comes close. It is just a minimum lower bound i
cited.

I believe the true market value of Linux (the kernel alone) is probably
in the billions of dollars range and that there's one rather big and
agressive company on this planet that would be happy to pay even more
just to make it go away. (But for many of us Linux is like freedom (or
fresh air), with no particular dollar amount attached to it.)

	Ingo

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[James Courtier-Dutton]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> I believe the true market value of Linux (the kernel alone) is probably
> in the billions of dollars range and that there's one rather big and
> agressive company on this planet that would be happy to pay even more
> just to make it go away. (But for many of us Linux is like freedom (or
> fresh air), with no particular dollar amount attached to it.)
> 
> 	Ingo

To me, the true value of Linux is that there is no company that can take 
over Linux and End of Life it as a product.
For that reason, Linux is the most risk free discision anyone can make.
1) The product will never "End of Life".
2) You don't have to "Request for feature" and wait for the supplier to 
implement it in their own leasurely time. You can add it yourself or get 
someone to add if for you in timescales you set.
3) Bugs are fixed faster, as there is a larger amount of developers than 
any other product.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Brian Litzinger]

> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:17:25PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>  > Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who 
>  > were more
>  > interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$. 
>  > That's easy.

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
> who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
> away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
> believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.

INAL, but some many years ago I was involved in intellectual property
rights goings on.

At least in New York and California the owner of intellectual
property has to defend his property.  Otherwise it becomes
abandoned. (just like real property)

So similar to the license change for Mozilla, one simply announces
their intent suitably loud enough, waits a while, and then it
yours.

Basically, Jeff pays $50,000 for right X.  Those who don't
want to participate have 1 year to announce their desire not
to participate and identify the code contribution that will
not be part of the license deal.

After a year everyone knows where they stand, and the untold
millions of contributors who did not stand up to be counted
are irrelavent.

(well not entirely irrelavent, they could after the year is up
file a claim, but they'd probably lose individually.  On the other
hand, Jeff isn't going to get an injunction against them all
and litigating and winning a million IP cases is likely to be
quite a money loser, at least in the US)

As to international goings on I have no idea.

-- 
Brian Litzinger

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Alan Cox]

On Sul, 2004-10-10 at 07:35, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> At least in New York and California the owner of intellectual
> property has to defend his property.  Otherwise it becomes
> abandoned. (just like real property)

This sort of thing thankfully only applies to Americans for copyright,
foreigners have more rights in the USA here than US citizens do because
of international treaties.

You do lose certain abilities if you know about a violation for a long
time especially in trademark, to an extent in patent and very little in
copyright (you'd find it hard to argue you needed an injunction as
opposed to just damages if you let someone do infringe for two years).

Courts in europe at least also take a dim view of ambushing people (in
other words sitting on an infringement for a few years to rack up the
value).

Alan

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Jon Masters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alan Cox wrote:
| On Sul, 2004-10-10 at 07:35, Brian Litzinger wrote:
|
|>At least in New York and California the owner of intellectual
|>property has to defend his property.  Otherwise it becomes
|>abandoned. (just like real property)

| This sort of thing thankfully only applies to Americans for copyright,
| foreigners have more rights in the USA here than US citizens do because
| of international treaties.

Well that's pretty typical.

| Courts in europe at least also take a dim view of ambushing people (in
| other words sitting on an infringement for a few years to rack up the
| value).

What about those who cannot comment on the code, for example people who
have since died or dropped off the face of the Earth? Out of curiousity,
if anyone knows what view is held in that situation, I'd love to know.

This is of course purely academic. The day someone actually convinces
enough kernel developers to relicense under such terms is the day hell
freezes over and Darl personally calls each developer to apologise for
being an ass for the last few years.

Cheers,

Jon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBabcEeTyyexZHHxERAlwUAJ4s0UjLidZfFgmqOYWCI02cfThj4wCcDYVk
sI9wA1TOwgSDEf4ex9VJLDg=
=Issb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Tonnerre]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

Salut,

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:26:12PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> What about those who cannot  comment on the code, for example people
> who have  since died or  dropped off the  face of the Earth?  Out of
> curiousity, if anyone knows what view is held in that situation, I'd
> love to know.

Their code  is protected  under the right  of property for  exactly 70
years from the  moment they died.  That is, you  can't relicense it in
our case. The old licenses stay valid, as they agreed on them.

			    Tonnerre

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Jonathan McDowell]

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:43:10PM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:48:52PM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:59:44PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
> > > so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
> > > ftp for all.
> > No one seems to have done this, and the offer Amstrad makes requires the
> > sending off of £25 to them to cover admin and distribution costs rather
> > than allowing a download of it. I did this a few days ago so will
> > hopefully hear from them in the next week or so.
> I've now received this.

Which turns out not to actually be what they're using; what I have
source for is "2.4.18_mvl30-E3" whereas my E3 has
"2.4.18_mvl30-ams-delta". Also there's no sign of a dfdblk/MFS-DFD
driver in the provided source, but the dmesg output of the E3 clearly
shows such a driver initialising before any filesystem is mounted,
ruling out the possiblity of it being a module.

I contacted Amstrad about this over a week ago, but to date haven't had
a response.

J.

-- 
9 out of 10 men who tried Camels prefer women.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Jonathan McDowell]

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:48:52PM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:59:44PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
> > so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
> > ftp for all.
> No one seems to have done this, and the offer Amstrad makes requires the
> sending off of £25 to them to cover admin and distribution costs rather
> than allowing a download of it. I did this a few days ago so will
> hopefully hear from them in the next week or so.

I've now received this and it's linked from:

http://www.earth.li/~noodles/hardware-e3.html

Interesting (to me at least) points:

* Camera source included and seems to present as a standard v4l device.
* The keyboard driver is a module (not included) - there's a stub
  present presumably so basic init works.
* The Pegasus USB networking module is compiled in; I've confirmed it
  initialises such a device, but see no network traffic (CONFIG_IP_PNP
  and friends are enabled in the .config provided, but I guess this may
  be from a debug tree?)
* There's Belkin USB serial device support in the .config as well, but I
  can't see any output when I hook up such a device.

I've setup a list at:

http://www.earth.li/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/e3-hacking

for anyone who wants to discuss the hardware/software of the device.

What I'd really like to see is a dump of the flash from the device, in
the hope that the startup scripts might do something with the ethernet.
However I don't have the appropriate kit to be able to do this.
Alternatively it looks like there's a serial console on ttyS0 (UART1 on
the OMAP?), but I can't see any obvious pads where that's brought out
to.

(Oh, and as a semi related aside; if anyone has GPL contacts in Linksys
I'd be most interested to know about them - I'm completely failing to
get hold of kernel source for the WMA11B, which runs 2.4.17-rmk3-cot1.)

J.

-- 
"I can see an opening for the four lusers of the Apocalypse... 'I
didn't change anything', 'My e-mail doesn't work', 'I can't print' and
'Is the network broken?'." -- Paul Mc Auley, asr

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Jonathan McDowell]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:59:44PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 17:24, Jon Masters wrote:
> > I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
> > these issues then.
> Everything I've seen from Amstrad on the subject has ben friendly,
> helpful and clear. I've dealt with a few cases of vendors clearly
> trying to break the rules, but Amstrad is not one of them. They answer
> email, they give clear and honest answers, and the code is out there.
> 
> If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
> so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
> ftp for all.

No one seems to have done this, and the offer Amstrad makes requires the
sending off of £25 to them to cover admin and distribution costs rather
than allowing a download of it. I did this a few days ago so will
hopefully hear from them in the next week or so.

J.

-- 
  "f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb  |  .''`.  Debian GNU/Linux Developer
    n cmptr prgrmmng." -- Simon    | : :' :  Happy to accept PGP signed
        Cozens, ox.os.linux        | `. `'   or encrypted mail - RSA +
                                   |   `-    DSA keys on the keyservers.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Tigran Aivazian]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> *After that* you get a `welcome email' containing the written offer.
> Sorry, but I have the binaries once I walk out the shop.  Where's my
> written offer?  What do I do if I bought one and got it shipped to
> France and so it won't `phone home'?

Greetings Ralph,

I think that the "research" you have been doing was a clear waste of time
of people at Amstrad who were, as it turns out, not even breaking any 
laws.

Alan Cox has cleared up everything, and so your best option, I think, is
to kindly apologize to Amstrad for wasting their time and not continue
with your irritating "what if this" and "what if that"s, unless you are a 
lawyer and therefore delight in the waste of time of this sort (or even 
paid to do that).

Having said that, I also saved your first email in the "useful" folder --- 
as a classical example of what to expect from someone with little clue but 
much "zeal" for the enforcement of GPL putting his nose in every hole he 
can find :)

Kind regards
Tigran

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Jon Masters]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:59:44 +0100, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 17:24, Jon Masters wrote:
> > I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
> > these issues then.
> 
> Everything I've seen from Amstrad on the subject has ben friendly,
> helpful and clear. I've dealt with a few cases of vendors clearly
> trying to break the rules, but Amstrad is not one of them. They answer
> email, they give clear and honest answers, and the code is out there.

I don't think they're evil either. Hassling vendors can do more harm
than good, let's not do that.

> If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
> so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
> ftp for all.

I'll be talking to Monta about doing a review of the E3. I'll look in
to getting hold of the source at that point.

Jon.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Jon Masters]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:59:41 +0100, Ralph Corderoy
<ralph@inputplus.co.uk> wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up
> > from Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for
> > three years to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units
> > start up with.

The E3 uses Montavista Linux and as far as I am aware they made little
or no changes to that for the product. Most of the perceived problem
here is, I think, just misunderstanding.

It also seems you're overly keen for Amstrad to be in the wrong here,
but the reality is that Alan Sugar (or his son/relative in charge of
various PR activities) is not going to have these answers readily
available for you. Someone will know and provide you with the
information that you are after - but it's worth treating the lack of
informtation as a small oversight.

While the E3 is quoted as not using any other "Open Source" software,
it does use Monta's Linux. I would suggest that you contact the folks
at Montavista's UK offices in Bracknell and ask them about obtaining a
link to the source.mvista.com and similar websites where you can
obtain a copy of the sources used in their distribution. They are
friendly people.

> And the written offer is in the welcome email *now* but probably wasn't
> until I hassled them.

They probably overlooked it. Yes that's not great - but I wouldn't get
too worked up over it. The reality is that you asked for a copy of the
source and eventually it seems that you will get what you want. It
would be nice if this process were entirely seemless but it's
certainly a lot better than many examples I've seen elsewhere.

> It also doesn't meet 3(b) so they're not complying.

Technically I think you might be correct there - but I'd give them the
benefit of the doubt and assume they just need to read the license
over and make a change to some packaging.

I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
these issues then.

Cheers,

Jon.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[James Courtier-Dutton]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 15:52, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> 
>>You did an awesome work. I will save this message as an example
>>just in case I will need to do something similar.
>>
>>Unfortunately I have no E3. Hope someone who has will contact you.
> 
> 
> Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up from
> Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for three years
> to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units start up with.
> 
> Alan
> 

And the URL is?

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 16:59, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> And the written offer is in the welcome email *now* but probably wasn't
> until I hassled them. 

Well fine, you can't magically fix mistakes in documentation. You'd also
I think find the law took the same view. 

> *After that* you get a `welcome email' containing the written offer.
> Sorry, but I have the binaries once I walk out the shop.  Where's my
> written offer?  What do I do if I bought one and got it shipped to
> France and so it won't `phone home'?

You know I regularly hear people talking about the "spirit of the
license", but that goes in both directions. From discussions my own
impression is that in this case they may or may not have forgotten to
put it in the manual but they've done their best to be compliant and
they have no desire not to be compliant.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 17:24, Jon Masters wrote:
> I'm planning to do a review of the E3 so I'll be sure to look in to
> these issues then.

Everything I've seen from Amstrad on the subject has ben friendly,
helpful and clear. I've dealt with a few cases of vendors clearly
trying to break the rules, but Amstrad is not one of them. They answer
email, they give clear and honest answers, and the code is out there.

If anyone has a copy of the emailer source btw (or gets one for review
so has a download option ;)) then it would be nice to stick it up for
ftp for all.

Alan

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Alan,

Alan Cox wrote:
> Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up
> from Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for
> three years to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units
> start up with.

dwmw2 is reporting off-list that the URL is "for the [MontaVista] devkit
they started from".

And the written offer is in the welcome email *now* but probably wasn't
until I hassled them.  It also doesn't meet 3(b) so they're not
complying.  The way the E3 works is that it won't do anything after
power on until you plug it into your phone line.  Then it dials Amstrad
(Amsurf), asks you questions, e.g. name, and registers this along with
your phone number, serial number, and preferred email address with
Amstrad.

*After that* you get a `welcome email' containing the written offer.
Sorry, but I have the binaries once I walk out the shop.  Where's my
written offer?  What do I do if I bought one and got it shipped to
France and so it won't `phone home'?

Cheers,


Ralph.

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 16:44, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
[snip]

> All my correspondence is attached but the most interesting is message 9
> where I spell out the license requirements to Brian Eaton, 10 where he
> yesterday asked for my address, and 11 where he re-stated they've don't
> have to discuss it with me.  I think they're failing to comply with
> section 3.  There's other minor things too in the manual that I've
> highlighted.  They're right in saying they've no obligation to discuss
> their compliance with me.  I'm hoping that by posting here a copyright
> holder will query their apparent lack of compliance and Amstrad will be
> happy to converse with them.
> 
> To re-iterate, there's no source code or written offer in the box.  They
> say they'll provide a URL to an E3 owner on proof of ownership but
> that's insufficient.  The situation is made more complex by the E3
> downloading software updates, including seemingly the kernel, so they'll
> be multiple versions to provide source for over time.

You did an awesome work. I will save this message as an example
just in case I will need to do something similar.

Unfortunately I have no E3. Hope someone who has will contact you.
--
vda

Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 15:52, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> You did an awesome work. I will save this message as an example
> just in case I will need to do something similar.
> 
> Unfortunately I have no E3. Hope someone who has will contact you.

Actually by the time this made the kernel list an answer turned up from
Amstrad - the URL for the GPL source, and an offer valid for three years
to supply it at cost is in the welcome email their units start up with.

Alan

Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone.

[Ralph Corderoy]

[Note, suspect this didn't appear earlier because of vger disliking
mention of De*tschland!]

Hi,

I've been talking with UK company Amstrad PLC regarding their
obligations under the GNU GPL for the Linux they ship on their new E3
videophone in the UK.

    http://www.amstrad.com/default.shtml
    http://www.amstrad.com/e3_intro.html

It's based on a TI OMAP ARM SoC and runs MontaVista Linux.

    http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6619549199.html
    http://www.amstrad.com/news_linux.html
    http://www.mvista.com/news/2004/amstrad.html

They're shipping the E3 in a box for sale off the shelf in places like
Dixons, Currys, etc.  I believe they haven't complied with section 3 of
the GNU GPL.  There's no source shipped in the box, i.e. 3(a).  There's
no written notice either, 3(b), in the thick manual, or the other sheets
of paper in the box, printed on the box, or on stickers on the E3.  I
inspected the contents of a box, serial number available if required, at
my local store with the agreement of a staff member who opened all the
wrappings.  The manual had "Issue No. 9 (D1/H4)" printed at the bottom
right corner of page 1, as does the online PDF of the manual available
for download.

    ftp://ftp.amstrad.co.uk/e3_userguide_web_v1.zip   9,614,278 bytes

I am not an E3 owner, nor have I been passed the GPL'd binaries with or
without a written offer under 3(c).

Initially I tried discussing their compliance with
support@amserve.ltd.uk but they were only willing to discuss source
access details on presentation of proof of purchase, e.g. serial number,
registered phone number, etc., and weren't willing to discuss if they
were complying with the GPL.

So I next emailed Sir Alan Sugar, Amstrad Chairman, and got a reply from
Brian Eaton, E-Business Director.  He initially, like Support, seemed
confident they were complying but I got the impression he hadn't
actually read my argument so I tried once more to point out how what
they were doing wasn't complying.  This time I got a reply saying

    "Your comments are noted. We will get back to you shortly. In the
    meantime can you let me have your postal address please so that I
    can send you something?"

This, coupled with activity to my Amstrad Linux page from several
browsers at an IP address similar to Amstrad's public ones around the
time Brian's reply was sent, makes me think I should make the issue
public before anything that would prevent me doing that may happen.

All my correspondence is attached but the most interesting is message 9
where I spell out the license requirements to Brian Eaton, 10 where he
yesterday asked for my address, and 11 where he re-stated they've don't
have to discuss it with me.  I think they're failing to comply with
section 3.  There's other minor things too in the manual that I've
highlighted.  They're right in saying they've no obligation to discuss
their compliance with me.  I'm hoping that by posting here a copyright
holder will query their apparent lack of compliance and Amstrad will be
happy to converse with them.

To re-iterate, there's no source code or written offer in the box.  They
say they'll provide a URL to an E3 owner on proof of ownership but
that's insufficient.  The situation is made more complex by the E3
downloading software updates, including seemingly the kernel, so they'll
be multiple versions to provide source for over time.

Cheers,


Ralph.


------- Forwarded Messages

Return-Path: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Delivery-Date: Thu Sep 23 23:57:40 2004
Return-Path: <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Received: from blake.inputplus.co.uk (ralph@localhost)
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8NMvdI03159;
	Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:57:40 +0100
Message-Id: <200409232257.i8NMvdI03159@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
To: support@amserve.ltd.uk
Subject: Source for E3's MontaVista Linux.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:57:39 +0100
From: Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>


Hi,

I see from the joint MontaVista/Amstrad press release that MontaVista
Linux has been chosen for the E3's operating system.  I've had a hunt
around the amstrad.co.uk web site and haven't been able to find a
download of the source for the binaries shipped on the E3 that are
covered by the GNU General Public License.

Could you please let me know how to obtain them.

Many thanks,


Ralph.

------- Message 2

Return-Path: support@amserve.ltd.uk
Delivery-Date: Fri Sep 24 14:13:40 2004
Return-Path: <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8ODDeu07998
	for <ralph@localhost>; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:13:40 +0100
Delivered-To: inputplu-inputplus:co:uk-ralph@inputplus.co.uk
X-Envelope-To: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Received: from inputplus.co.uk [66.39.34.92]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for ralph@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:13:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 42269 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 13:07:22 -0000
Received: from mail.amstrad.co.uk (HELO mrs.amstrad.co.uk) (193.133.25.43)
  by ruis.pair.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 13:07:22 -0000
Received: from mailserver2.amstrad.co.uk ([192.9.200.8]) by mrs.amstrad.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
	 Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:07:21 +0100
Received: by MAILSERVER2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <SST6CYKP>; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:07:21 +0100
Message-ID: <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD5039BD5D3@MAILSERVER2>
From: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
To: "'Ralph Corderoy'" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Source for E3's MontaVista Linux.
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:07:19 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2004 13:07:21.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D7965F0:01C4A237]
X-Spam-Filtered: 52d0813afd638bc4ffa68db06ca49a29
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 

Thank you for your email.

Please provide the serial number from your E3 unit (located on the underside
of the unit or by pressing SETUP and option 1) so that we can provide these
details.

Regards

Amserve Support

- -----Original Message-----

[Snip duplicate of message 1.]

------- Message 3

Return-Path: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Delivery-Date: Sat Sep 25 10:20:53 2004
Return-Path: <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Received: from blake.inputplus.co.uk (ralph@localhost)
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8P9Krn05212;
	Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:20:53 +0100
Message-Id: <200409250920.i8P9Krn05212@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
To: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Subject: Re: Source for E3's MontaVista Linux. 
In-Reply-To: Message from Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk> 
   of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:07:19 BST." <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD5039BD5D3@MAILSERVER2> 
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:20:53 +0100
From: Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>


Dear Support,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

> > I see from the joint MontaVista/Amstrad press release that
> > MontaVista Linux has been chosen for the E3's operating system.
> > I've had a hunt around the amstrad.co.uk web site and haven't been
> > able to find a download of the source for the binaries shipped on
> > the E3 that are covered by the GNU General Public License.
> > 
> > Could you please let me know how to obtain them.
>
> Please provide the serial number from your E3 unit (located on the
> underside of the unit or by pressing SETUP and option 1) so that we
> can provide these details.

I can't do that as I don't have an E3.  I was assuming that out of the
three choices, a, b, or c, from section 3 of the GNU GPL, Amstrad had
chosen b.

    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC3

    You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
    of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
    following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
        Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
        interchange; or,

Let me know if a has been chosen and I'll contact an E3 owner who'll
already have the source and may be willing to distribute it to me.

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
        medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

I assumed Amstrad chose b and I am turning up as `any third party'
requesting a copy of the source code.  

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the
        offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative
        is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) 

c doesn't seem a possible choice for Amstrad.

a is a useful one because it means that parties cannot request source
from Amstrad as Amstrad ensured source travelled with all binaries.  It
becomes more awkward if the device may update its GPL'd software after
shipping to the customer though.

To save overhead, b can be largely satisfied by making the various
versions of source available on the Internet for download as they are
distributed in binary form.  Most people wanting the source would prefer
this method although as I understand it Internet access alone isn't
sufficient to satisfy section 3 and a physical medium, obtainable by
mail-order, must also be available even if no one ever uses it.

As ever with these things, I am not a lawyer so if you think my
interpretation is wrong I'd like to know.  Otherwise, could you please
let me know which one of 3a, 3b, and 3c Amstrad have chosen so I can
continue in trying to obtain the GPL'd source.

Thanks,


Ralph.

------- Message 4

Return-Path: support@amserve.ltd.uk
Delivery-Date: Mon Sep 27 11:39:07 2004
Return-Path: <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8RAd7A05038
	for <ralph@localhost>; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:39:07 +0100
Delivered-To: inputplu-inputplus:co:uk-ralph@inputplus.co.uk
X-Envelope-To: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Received: from inputplus.co.uk [66.39.34.92]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for ralph@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:39:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 36748 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2004 10:26:30 -0000
Received: from mail.amstrad.co.uk (HELO mrs.amstrad.co.uk) (193.133.25.43)
  by ruis.pair.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2004 10:26:30 -0000
Received: from mailserver2.amstrad.co.uk ([192.9.200.8]) by mrs.amstrad.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
	 Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:26:27 +0100
Received: by MAILSERVER2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <SST6DJTP>; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:26:27 +0100
Message-ID: <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD5039BD60F@MAILSERVER2>
From: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
To: "'ralph@inputplus.co.uk'" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Subject: FW: Source for E3's MontaVista Linux. 
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:26:21 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2004 10:26:27.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[725E9E40:01C4A47C]
X-Spam-Filtered: 52d0813afd638bc4ffa68db06ca49a29
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 


Amserve will require the following information in order to divulge any
further informatiom
 
Date of Purchase
 
Retailer
 
Serial Number of E Mailer unit
 
E Mail address.
 
Telephone number
 
Regards  Amserve


- -----Original Message-----

[Snip duplicate of message 3.]

------- Message 5

Return-Path: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Delivery-Date: Mon Sep 27 13:08:08 2004
Return-Path: <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Received: from blake.inputplus.co.uk (ralph@localhost)
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8RC88D06215;
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:08:08 +0100
Message-Id: <200409271208.i8RC88D06215@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
To: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Subject: Re: FW: Source for E3's MontaVista Linux. 
In-Reply-To: Message from Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk> 
   of "Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:26:21 BST." <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD5039BD60F@MAILSERVER2> 
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:08:08 +0100
From: Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>


Dear Support,

> > > Please provide the serial number from your E3 unit (located on the
> > > underside of the unit or by pressing SETUP and option 1) so that
> > > we can provide these details.
> > 
> > I can't do that as I don't have an E3.  I was assuming that out of
> > the three choices, a, b, or c, from section 3 of the GNU GPL,
> > Amstrad had chosen b.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > As ever with these things, I am not a lawyer so if you think my
> > interpretation is wrong I'd like to know.  Otherwise, could you
> > please let me know which one of 3a, 3b, and 3c Amstrad have chosen
> > so I can continue in trying to obtain the GPL'd source.
>
> Amserve will require the following information in order to divulge any
> further informatiom
>  
> Date of Purchase, Retailer, Serial Number of E Mailer unit, E Mail
> address, Telephone number.

Could you answer a simpler question?  If I buy an E3 at Dixons and open
it will I find the GPL'd source code in the box, or will I find a
written offer to provide it?  It must be one of these two otherwise
Amstrad are in violation of the GNU GPL version 2, as explained in my
previous email, that covers some of the binaries shipped in the E3 and
as such their rights under the GPL are terminated, see section 4.

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
    except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
    otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
    void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
    License.  However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
    you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
    long as such parties remain in full compliance.

In other words, Amstrad would be infringing copyright by selling E3s
which is a serious and easily avoidable situation.

This almost certainly isn't the case, but issuing a standard `please
supply your serial number' to all enquiries is inadequate if section 3b
of the GPL has been followed.

If that's the only procedure that has been presented to Amserve Support
perhaps my simpler question above can be passed internally to an area
that deals with licensing and copyright.  

Thanks,


Ralph.

------- Message 6

Return-Path: support@amserve.ltd.uk
Delivery-Date: Mon Sep 27 14:16:59 2004
Return-Path: <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8RDGwA09799
	for <ralph@localhost>; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:16:58 +0100
Delivered-To: inputplu-inputplus:co:uk-ralph@inputplus.co.uk
X-Envelope-To: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Received: from inputplus.co.uk [66.39.34.92]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for ralph@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:16:58 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 91407 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2004 13:08:11 -0000
Received: from mail.amstrad.co.uk (HELO mrs.amstrad.co.uk) (193.133.25.43)
  by ruis.pair.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2004 13:08:11 -0000
Received: from mailserver2.amstrad.co.uk ([192.9.200.8]) by mrs.amstrad.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
	 Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:08:10 +0100
Received: by MAILSERVER2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <SST6DKP0>; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:08:10 +0100
Message-ID: <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD5039BD615@MAILSERVER2>
From: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
To: "'Ralph Corderoy'" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Subject: RE: FW: Source for E3's MontaVista Linux. 
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:08:08 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2004 13:08:10.0774 (UTC) FILETIME=[09F9F360:01C4A493]
X-Spam-Filtered: 52d0813afd638bc4ffa68db06ca49a29
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 

Thank you for your email.

We are happy to explain how we comply with the GPL to our customers. To
date, it appears that this is not so in your case. Should you purchase an E3
personal communication centre and wish to continue this correspondence,
please provide us with the unit serial number, registered email address and
purchase details we have previously requested. Following which, we will
forward the necessary information.

Regards

Amserve Support 

- -----Original Message-----

[Snip duplicate of message 5.]

------- Message 7

Return-Path: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Delivery-Date: Mon Sep 27 23:33:22 2004
Return-Path: <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Received: from blake.inputplus.co.uk (ralph@localhost)
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8RMXLd04471;
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:33:21 +0100
Message-Id: <200409272233.i8RMXLd04471@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
To: Sir Alan Sugar <asugar@amstrad.com>
Subject: Possible GNU GPL License Violation by Amstrad E3.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----- =_aaaaaaaaaa0"
Content-ID: <4142.1096322842.0@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:33:21 +0100
From: Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>

- ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4142.1096322842.1@blake.inputplus.co.uk>

Dear Sir Alan,

Since last Thursday I've been conversing by email with
support@amserve.ltd.uk regarding the meeting the license conditions of
some parts of the software that ships with Amstrad's E3.  In particular,
the Linux kernel used on the E3, as announced in a joint
Amstrad/MontaVista press release, is covered by the GNU General Public
License, GPL, version 2.

    http://www.amstrad.com/news_linux.html

Perhaps understandably, given their role in supporting owners of an E3,
Support are reluctant to discuss the license compliance further unless I
can provide a serial number, etc., which, given I've not purchased an
E3, I don't have.  Consequently, I'm writing to you in the hope of
straightening out any license infringement, or correcting my
understanding.  Let me make clear, I'm delighted Amstrad have used Linux
on the E3 and wish nothing more than to see Linux's license complied
with allowing me to obtain the GPL'd source code under the terms of the
license -- I have no wish to damage Amstrad's reputation in any way.
I'm hoping you can forward my concerns onto the relevant party inside
Amstrad.

The GNU GPL version 2 aims to ensure that recipients of a GPL'd program
in object code or executable form, e.g. E3 purchaser, can obtain the
exact same source code that created the binary files.  The whole license
is available at

    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

I think the core issue is that Amstrad received the Linux kernel
licensed under the GPL and must therefore follow its conditions in their
distribution of Linux, as stored in the E3.

I believe section 3 of the GPL is the relevant part.  It starts

    3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
    of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
    following:

and the E3 contains a work based on Linux in executable form.

The three choices allowed are

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
        Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
        interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
        medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the
        offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative
        is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Complying with (a) would mean the source code is in the box, probably on
a CD, alongside the E3.

(b) would mean there's a written offer in the E3's box to give *any
third party*, not just an E3 purchaser, i.e. me, the source code at
cost.

I don't believe (c) is available to Amstrad since the E3 is a commercial
distribution and I doubt Amstrad received Linux in non-source form from
MontaVista.

Visiting my local Dixons today, and with the help of an assistant who
let me go through a new E3 box, I have the serial number if that's of
help, I found no source code (a), and no written offer (b).  Just a
"This product contains software that is subject to licence terms."
inside the manual's front cover.  Thus I believe Amstrad are violating
the terms of Linux's license in not doing one of 3(a), 3(b), or 3(c).

This is the most apparent violation but I am not a lawyer and I've no
doubt that Amstrad had lawyers and assistance from MontaVista in looking
over the GPL before shipping the E3.  If I'm wrong I'd like to know
Amstrad's interpretation of the license and how they comply and they may
wish to publicise their compliance in order that others don't follow me
in asking.

Otherwise, if Amstrad are violating the GPL then, under section 4, their
rights to distribute the program are terminated, i.e. distributing the
E3 is copyright infringement.

    4.  You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
    except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
    otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
    void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
    License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from
    you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
    long as such parties remain in full compliance.

I have further minor issues with GPL compliance but section 3 is the
main one.  Others include

    The manual stating "Software (C) Amstrad plc.  1999-2004.  All
    rights reserved.";  clearly some of the software's copyright doesn't
    reside with Amstrad but with Linux's copyright holders.

    Page 155 states

        "You must not copy, de-compile, modify, change, sell, lend,
        sub-license or by other means interfere with or exploit the
        software of the e-m@iler.  Nor must you change the
        factory-installed software in the e-m@iler, except where such
        change is an upgrade or modification version released by
        Amserve."

    but section 3 allows me to copy and distribute the GPL'd binaries I
    received in the E3 as long as I comply with 3(c), i.e. don't charge
    for distribution and accompany it with the written offer I (didn't)
    receive with the E3.  Attempting to restrict my right to do this
    violates GPL section 6.

        6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on
        the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license
        from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the
        Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not
        impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
        the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing
        compliance by third parties to this License.

I suspect these arise from taking the Emailer Plus manual and altering
it for the E3 without considering GPL compliance.

One further tricky point to consider is section 3 clarifies

    The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
    making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
    code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
    associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
    control compilation and installation of the executable.

This means that each time Amstrad alter and distribute the GPL'd
software on the E3, e.g. an improvement to Linux to support wireless LAN
downloaded to the E3 overnight, they must make available the matching
source code, build, and installation scripts.

I'd like to know if Amstrad agree that they're violating the GPL and
what they intend to change to try and follow the spirit of the GPL
despite having already shipped E3s.  As I'm not a copyright holder of
any part of the Linux kernel I obviously have no right to condone any
changes.  I'm merely trying to obtain the source code and see the
license complied with for the good of all Linux licensees, including
Amstrad.

Below are my recent emails with Support.

Thanks,


Ralph Corderoy.


- ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----- =_aaaaaaaaaa1"
Content-ID: <4142.1096322842.2@blake.inputplus.co.uk>

- ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa1
Content-Type: message/rfc822

[Snip duplicate of message 1-6.]

- ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa1--

- ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0--

------- Message 8

Return-Path: brian.eaton@amstrad.com
Delivery-Date: Tue Sep 28 11:13:00 2004
Return-Path: <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8SACxh12987
	for <ralph@localhost>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:13:00 +0100
Delivered-To: inputplu-inputplus:co:uk-ralph@inputplus.co.uk
X-Envelope-To: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Received: from inputplus.co.uk [66.39.34.92]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for ralph@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:13:00 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 98079 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2004 09:50:33 -0000
Received: from mail.amstrad.co.uk (HELO mrs.amstrad.co.uk) (193.133.25.43)
  by ruis.pair.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2004 09:50:33 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Received: from mailserver2.amstrad.co.uk ([192.9.200.8]) by mrs.amstrad.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:50:32 +0100
Received: by MAILSERVER2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <SST6DRVG>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:50:32 +0100
Message-ID: <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD50329D2EF@MAILSERVER2>
From: Brian Eaton <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
To: "'ralph@inputplus.co.uk'" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
CC: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Subject: RE: Possible GNU GPL License Violation by Amstrad E3.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:50:22 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2004 09:50:32.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[9831FF80:01C4A540]
X-Spam-Filtered: 52d0813afd638bc4ffa68db06ca49a29
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=4.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,BAYES_01
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by blake.inputplus.co.uk id i8SACxh12987

Dear Mr Corderoy

I refer to the email of 27 Sept that you sent to Sir Alan Sugar. Sir Alan
has asked me to respond.

Please note the following:

We have an obligation to our customers (the recipients of the object code)
to make the source code of the kernel (not the whole of our code) available
to them. You, with respect, are not a customer. Our customer services -
after asking for proof of purchase and registration - will point customers
to a web address where the kernel can be found.

Our position is that
1) You are not one of our customers. We only have obligations to our
customers (the recipients). We do have an obligation to the copyright owners
of Linux, but with respect you are not one of them either.
2) We have told everyone clearly that we are working with MontaVista and
using their Linux.

Yours sincerely

Brian Eaton
E-Business Director
Amstrad Plc 




This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Amstrad Plc or its subsidiaries.

For further information on Amstrad Plc please visit our website: www.amstrad.com

Amstrad Plc.
Brentwood House
169 Kings Road
Brentwood
Essex CM14 4EF
Registered in England : No. 955321



------- Message 9

Return-Path: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Delivery-Date: Tue Sep 28 16:06:37 2004
Return-Path: <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Received: from blake.inputplus.co.uk (ralph@localhost)
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8SF6bG17264;
	Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:06:37 +0100
Message-Id: <200409281506.i8SF6bG17264@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
To: Brian Eaton <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
cc: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Subject: Re: Possible GNU GPL License Violation by Amstrad E3. 
In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Eaton <brian.eaton@amstrad.com> 
   of "Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:50:22 BST." <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD50329D2EF@MAILSERVER2> 
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:06:37 +0100
From: Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>


Dear Mr. Eaton,

> I refer to the email of 27 Sept that you sent to Sir Alan Sugar. Sir
> Alan has asked me to respond.

Thank you.

> Please note the following:
> 
> We have an obligation to our customers (the recipients of the object
> code) to make the source code of the kernel (not the whole of our
> code) available to them.

You have an obligation under the GNU GPL to supply your customers, who
are the E3 purchasers and initial recipients of the GPL'd object code,
with either the source code alongside the E3 (3a), or a written offer to
any third party to supply the source code (3b).  From inspection of the
E3's box's contents I believe you're doing neither and hence are in
violation of the GPL.

There is no disagreement that not all of the software on the E3 is
licensed under the GPL.

> You, with respect, are not a customer. Our customer services - after
> asking for proof of purchase and registration - will point customers
> to a web address where the kernel can be found.

No, I'm not a customer.  I'm just someone who's contributing my own free
time to try and help Amstrad comply with the license without it all
snowballing into a situation like the Welte v. Sitecom De*tschland GmbH
case in the Munchen District Court where an injunction on Sitecom was
upheld.

You seem to feel that supplying E3 owners, on proof of purchase, with a
web address where the source can be found meets your obligations under
the GPL.  It doesn't.  You seem to be going for 3(b) of the GPL where
source is made available separately from the object code.  But an
important part of the GPL is that recipients of GPL'd code know it is
GPL'd and what their rights are.  Hence 3(b)'s `written offer' which
informs the E3 owner of their rights and which owners of the E3 can pass
on when copying the E3's GPL'd object code to anyone they wish under
3(c).

Someone who receives the E3's GPL'd binaries along with Amstrad's
written offer, either by purchasing an E3, or by being passed both by
someone who already has them, can take up Amstrad's offer of supplying
the source code *to any third party* despite not owning an E3 or having
its serial number.

Anyone who has the GPL'd source code from Amstrad can, under section 1
of the GPL, make it available, e.g. on the Internet, to all and sundry.
Given this, Amstrad's attempt to seemingly keep it to E3 owners only, or
track distribution by serial number, seems mis-guided.

> Our position is that 1) You are not one of our customers. We only have
> obligations to our customers (the recipients). We do have an
> obligation to the copyright owners of Linux, but with respect you are
> not one of them either.

Despite not being a customer, or a copyright holder, I believe that
Amstrad are failing to comply with the GPL.  If Amstrad continue to fail
to answer the specific points I've made I will take the matter to the
Linux kernel copyright holders by posting the issue on the public Linux
Kernel Mailing List, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.

> 2) We have told everyone clearly that we are working with MontaVista
> and using their Linux.

I am surprised MontaVista have not advised Amstrad more precisely over
their obligations.  You may wish to consult them again.

Thanks,


Ralph Corderoy.

------- Message 10

Return-Path: brian.eaton@amstrad.com
Delivery-Date: Tue Sep 28 17:13:43 2004
Return-Path: <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8SGDgh19211
	for <ralph@localhost>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:13:43 +0100
Delivered-To: inputplu-inputplus:co:uk-ralph@inputplus.co.uk
X-Envelope-To: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Received: from inputplus.co.uk [66.39.34.92]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for ralph@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:13:43 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 31142 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2004 16:10:10 -0000
Received: from mail.amstrad.co.uk (HELO mrs.amstrad.co.uk) (193.133.25.43)
  by ruis.pair.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2004 16:10:10 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Received: from mailserver2.amstrad.co.uk ([192.9.200.8]) by mrs.amstrad.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:10:09 +0100
Received: by MAILSERVER2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <SST6DT0L>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:10:09 +0100
Message-ID: <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD50329D2F6@MAILSERVER2>
From: Brian Eaton <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
To: "'Ralph Corderoy'" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Possible GNU GPL License Violation by Amstrad E3. 
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:10:08 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2004 16:10:09.0971 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0BCF030:01C4A575]
X-Spam-Filtered: 52d0813afd638bc4ffa68db06ca49a29
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by blake.inputplus.co.uk id i8SGDgh19211

Dear Mr Corderoy
Your comments are noted. We will get back to you shortly. In the meantime
can you let me have your postal address please so that I can send you
something?
Yours sincerely
Brian Eaton
E-Business Director
Amstrad Plc 


- -----Original Message-----

[Snip duplicate of message 9.]


This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Amstrad Plc or its subsidiaries.

For further information on Amstrad Plc please visit our website: www.amstrad.com

Amstrad Plc.
Brentwood House
169 Kings Road
Brentwood
Essex CM14 4EF
Registered in England : No. 955321



------- Message 11

Return-Path: brian.eaton@amstrad.com
Delivery-Date: Wed Sep 29 12:48:50 2004
Return-Path: <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by blake.inputplus.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8TBmmW09654
	for <ralph@localhost>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:48:50 +0100
Delivered-To: inputplu-inputplus:co:uk-ralph@inputplus.co.uk
X-Envelope-To: ralph@inputplus.co.uk
Received: from inputplus.co.uk [66.39.34.92]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for ralph@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:48:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: (qmail 18673 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2004 11:46:24 -0000
Received: from mail.amstrad.co.uk (HELO mrs.amstrad.co.uk) (193.133.25.43)
  by ruis.pair.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2004 11:46:24 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Received: from mailserver2.amstrad.co.uk ([192.9.200.8]) by mrs.amstrad.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:46:22 +0100
Received: by MAILSERVER2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <SST6DZBZ>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:46:23 +0100
Message-ID: <EC49BB70F1DDD6118C620002B3512AD50329D301@MAILSERVER2>
From: Brian Eaton <brian.eaton@amstrad.com>
To: "'Ralph Corderoy'" <ralph@inputplus.co.uk>
CC: Amserve Support <support@amserve.ltd.uk>
Subject: RE: Possible GNU GPL License Violation by Amstrad E3. 
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:46:22 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2004 11:46:22.0618 (UTC) FILETIME=[F15047A0:01C4A619]
X-Spam-Filtered: 52d0813afd638bc4ffa68db06ca49a29
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=4.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,NO_OBLIGATION,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by blake.inputplus.co.uk id i8TBmmW09654

Dear Mr Corderoy

Any customer who buys one of our videophones will see that our
obligations under the GPL are met and clearly explained to them. If you
were to become a customer it would be clear to you. In the meantime we have
no
obligation to explain to non-customers our policy.

Brian Eaton
E-Business Director
Amstrad Plc 


- -----Original Message-----

[Snip duplicate of message 9.]


This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. This message is attributed to the sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Amstrad Plc or its subsidiaries.

For further information on Amstrad Plc please visit our website: www.amstrad.com

Amstrad Plc.
Brentwood House
169 Kings Road
Brentwood
Essex CM14 4EF
Registered in England : No. 955321



------- End of Forwarded Messages