Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
Quoting in full for benefit of board etc. Apologies for missing this, it seemed to get filed away in a different mailbox. SPI can certainly litigate against the misuse of the Debian trademark. Licence violations etc may be more interesting. If the project wishes (hence the CC: to leader@), we can approach Greg, the current SPI lawyer about this. Regards, Neil On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 06:41:13PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700, Gomi No Sensei wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Gomi No Sensei [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 4, 2007 8:33 AM Subject: Fwd: PhotoVu Inquiry: 48889582 - 17 Frame, Open-source To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at [3]www.photovu.com is based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. The quote is: We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! PhotoVu does *not* have to release source code of works they release in binary form to any third party *unless* they fail to accompany their digital photo frames with the corresponding code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I am quoting the requirements of section 2b) of version 2 of the GPL[1]. (I am also assuming that the code PhotoVu is using is not so fresh that it has any portions licensed GPL version 3.) The GPL also does not require the vendor to *tell* you if their product ships with corresponding source code, though if they deceive you and you are a U.S. resident, you may recourse to the consumer protection laws of your state, or the state of Colorado, where PhotoVu claims to be incorporated[2]. Given the tone of the email, I suspect they don't provide complete corresponding source code as required by section 2b of the GPL2, and since they have refused you in your capacity as any third party that source code at any price (section 2c), I find reason to pursue a potential license violation here. The best way to find out is to find a PhotoVu customer ask learn from them if they received either the complete corresponding source code on a DVD-ROM or other medium (2b) or a written offer, valid for three years for the same (2c). To follow-up on something Gunnar Wolf said: While (to the best of my knowledge) Software in the Public Interest, Inc., is not a copyright holder in any portion of Debian GNU/Linux, this is still a matter worth bringing to SPI's attention. SPI owns certain U.S. trademarks, and it is conceivable that retaining trademarked Debian logos in a derived product while not honoring the copyright licenses on the software comprising Debian GNU/Linux gives rise to a civil cause of action against PhotoVu. Accordingly, I am CCing the SPI Board of Directors. A courteous letter from SPI's counsel setting out these issues may be all that is required to achieve PhotoVu's compliance. Bradley Kuhn and Eben Moglen have frequently counseled tact and patience when pursuing apparent GPL violations. Assume ignorance or misunderstanding until and unless that assumption is unsustainable. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [2] http://www.photovu.com/bio.html In case it gets changed, I quote: PhotoVu custom manufactures each digital picture frame at their Boulder, Colorado facilities, using the finest individually made wood frames and matboards, coupled with brand new electronic components, resulting in a truly one-of-a-kind product. Customers can also order a custom tailored frame and mat to match a given décor. PhotoVu, LLC is a privately held and privately financed company registered in the state of Colorado. -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer -- Neil McGovern Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
Neil, If the project wishes (hence the CC: to leader@), we can approach Greg, the current SPI lawyer about this. I don't think we need any copyright standing to write a letter of inquiry, which is the first step anyway. That is, a letter from our attorney asking PhotoVu if they are offering copies of the source code to their customers. That may be all that's required. -- Josh Berkus Board Member Software in the Public Interest, Inc. www.spi-inc.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
It has been a month (admittedly not a long time for this kind of issue). I wrote to the company (PhotoVu) about this and received no reply. I also wrote to gpl-violations.org and got no reply. Did anyone here end up hearing about any action? -- gomi On 9/5/07, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700, Gomi No Sensei wrote: -- Forwarded message -- The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at www.photovu.com is based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. snip While (to the best of my knowledge) Software in the Public Interest, Inc., is not a copyright holder in any portion of Debian GNU/Linux, this is still a matter worth bringing to SPI's attention. SPI owns certain U.S. trademarks, and it is conceivable that retaining trademarked Debian logos in a derived product while not honoring the copyright licenses on the software comprising Debian GNU/Linux gives rise to a civil cause of action against PhotoVu. Accordingly, I am CCing the SPI Board of Directors. A courteous letter from SPI's counsel setting out these issues may be all that is required to achieve PhotoVu's compliance. Bradley Kuhn and Eben Moglen have frequently counseled tact and patience when pursuing apparent GPL violations. Assume ignorance or misunderstanding until and unless that assumption is unsustainable.
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
(please, leave the copy to the list - I am often very bad at keeping up with my mail, and there will surely be other people better suited than me for following up on your thread) Gomi No Sensei dijo [Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:20:15PM -0700]: Dear Mr. Wolf - I understand that the GPL does not require them to distribute their proprietary programs that merely run on the Debian distro. However, the PhotoVu product is a closed (literally -- the case is welded shut) product containing a modified version of Debian, with telnet and ssh turned off, most of the user accounts removed, other services disabled, and PhotoVu will not release any code whatsoever, not providing even a pointer to the Debian distro (or a copy of the GPL, or anything at all). It takes considerable sleuthing to even determine that Debian is inside (though they admitted it in the email I forwarded). My understanding was the this a license violation. My demands for sources have gotten nowhere -- they simply say no. If they got a demand from the Debian organization, they might listen. To anticipate another question, yes, I have reported it to gpl-violations.org. Ok... I agree, it does seem like a real violation - But then again, the Debian organization does not exist - we are just a bunch of volunteers thrown in together. In the USA, Debian's interests are represented by Software in the Public Interest (SPI). However, as far as I know, SPI is not a litigating entity, and this will probably require one. I think gpl-violations.org is the place to go - Otherwise... Well, people, please advise :) -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700, Gomi No Sensei wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Gomi No Sensei [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 4, 2007 8:33 AM Subject: Fwd: PhotoVu Inquiry: 48889582 - 17 Frame, Open-source To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at [3]www.photovu.com is based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. The quote is: We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! PhotoVu does *not* have to release source code of works they release in binary form to any third party *unless* they fail to accompany their digital photo frames with the corresponding code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I am quoting the requirements of section 2b) of version 2 of the GPL[1]. (I am also assuming that the code PhotoVu is using is not so fresh that it has any portions licensed GPL version 3.) The GPL also does not require the vendor to *tell* you if their product ships with corresponding source code, though if they deceive you and you are a U.S. resident, you may recourse to the consumer protection laws of your state, or the state of Colorado, where PhotoVu claims to be incorporated[2]. Given the tone of the email, I suspect they don't provide complete corresponding source code as required by section 2b of the GPL2, and since they have refused you in your capacity as any third party that source code at any price (section 2c), I find reason to pursue a potential license violation here. The best way to find out is to find a PhotoVu customer ask learn from them if they received either the complete corresponding source code on a DVD-ROM or other medium (2b) or a written offer, valid for three years for the same (2c). To follow-up on something Gunnar Wolf said: While (to the best of my knowledge) Software in the Public Interest, Inc., is not a copyright holder in any portion of Debian GNU/Linux, this is still a matter worth bringing to SPI's attention. SPI owns certain U.S. trademarks, and it is conceivable that retaining trademarked Debian logos in a derived product while not honoring the copyright licenses on the software comprising Debian GNU/Linux gives rise to a civil cause of action against PhotoVu. Accordingly, I am CCing the SPI Board of Directors. A courteous letter from SPI's counsel setting out these issues may be all that is required to achieve PhotoVu's compliance. Bradley Kuhn and Eben Moglen have frequently counseled tact and patience when pursuing apparent GPL violations. Assume ignorance or misunderstanding until and unless that assumption is unsustainable. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [2] http://www.photovu.com/bio.html In case it gets changed, I quote: PhotoVu custom manufactures each digital picture frame at their Boulder, Colorado facilities, using the finest individually made wood frames and matboards, coupled with brand new electronic components, resulting in a truly one-of-a-kind product. Customers can also order a custom tailored frame and mat to match a given décor. PhotoVu, LLC is a privately held and privately financed company registered in the state of Colorado. -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
Dear Mr. Robinson - Thank you for your reply. Per a previous email from Mr. Wolf, I am copying my reply to this list. First, thank you. Also, I am aware that no vendor needs to release proprietary software that runs on Debian or any GPL'd code, nor do they have to provide copies of unmodified releases. As you note, this does not seem to be the case here. As regards the other points/questions: 1) I do own a PhotoVu PV1965, so I can speak as a customer; 2) I have a copy of their documentation, etc, and have looked at the most recent copies on their website -- they do not include in any documentation, on their website, or anywhere else a copy of the GPL, or any notice that it is included. While my understanding that passing along the text of the GPL was required, I certainly will bow to more complete or correct knowledge. However, they do not provide any software distribution at all with their product -- no CD, DVD, etc, and none is available on their website. Further, their software update process is done via SSL, so there is no way to even capture a copy of that; 3) I have asked them for a copy of the software, for the root password to gain access to the device (the one I own) to see what was on it, or for any information whatsoever about their software load, and they have provided none, other than one sales droid saying it's customized Debian, and not available; 4) While their most recent release was in July, I suspect you are correct that they do not use GPL V3 licensed code, though this may change; 5) I have alerted gpl-violations.org, but have not received a reply; 6) I am happy to provide real-world contact details to anyone who needs them. I don't have an axe to grind here, and PhotoVu's extreme measures to physically protect their box (it is welded closed!) are likely to prevent any useful work on this system, but I thought someone ought to know. Thank you in advance for anything you choose to do. Gomi On 9/5/07, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700, Gomi No Sensei wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Gomi No Sensei [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 4, 2007 8:33 AM Subject: Fwd: PhotoVu Inquiry: 48889582 - 17 Frame, Open-source To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at [3]www.photovu.com is based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. The quote is: We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! PhotoVu does *not* have to release source code of works they release in binary form to any third party *unless* they fail to accompany their digital photo frames with the corresponding code on a medium customarily used for software interchange. I am quoting the requirements of section 2b) of version 2 of the GPL[1]. (I am also assuming that the code PhotoVu is using is not so fresh that it has any portions licensed GPL version 3.) The GPL also does not require the vendor to *tell* you if their product ships with corresponding source code, though if they deceive you and you are a U.S. resident, you may recourse to the consumer protection laws of your state, or the state of Colorado, where PhotoVu claims to be incorporated[2]. Given the tone of the email, I suspect they don't provide complete corresponding source code as required by section 2b of the GPL2, and since they have refused you in your capacity as any third party that source code at any price (section 2c), I find reason to pursue a potential license violation here. The best way to find out is to find a PhotoVu customer ask learn from them if they received either the complete corresponding source code on a DVD-ROM or other medium (2b) or a written offer, valid for three years for the same (2c). To follow-up on something Gunnar Wolf said: While (to the best of my knowledge) Software in the Public Interest, Inc., is not a copyright holder in any portion of Debian GNU/Linux, this is still a matter worth bringing to SPI's attention. SPI owns certain U.S. trademarks, and it is conceivable that retaining trademarked Debian logos in a derived product while not honoring the copyright licenses on the software comprising Debian GNU/Linux gives rise to a civil cause of action against PhotoVu. Accordingly, I am CCing the SPI Board of Directors. A courteous letter from SPI's counsel setting out these issues may be all that is required to achieve PhotoVu's compliance. Bradley Kuhn and Eben Moglen have frequently counseled tact and patience when pursuing apparent GPL
Debian GNU/Linux license violation
-- Forwarded message -- From: Gomi No Sensei [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 4, 2007 8:33 AM Subject: Fwd: PhotoVu Inquiry: 48889582 - 17 Frame, Open-source To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at www.photovu.comis based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. The quote is: We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! -- Forwarded message -- From: PhotoVu Sales [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 4, 2007 7:04 AM Subject: Re: PhotoVu Inquiry: 48889582 - 17 Frame, Open-source To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Sean: Please see answers below. Thanks for your interest in PhotoVu. *PhotoVu Sales *[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (303) 444-5566 Boulder, CO www.photovu.com *out of the shoebox onto the wall* Sales @ PhotoVu wrote: Below is your PhotoVu Inquiry Confirmation email. Please ensure that your SPAM filter ALLOWS emails from PhotoVu.com. Inquiry Number: 48889582 Contact Information --- Sean McManus -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 360-665-2502 WA US Subject --- Sales - 17 Frame, Open-source Question I am a consultant, and have a client who has asked me to evaluate and acquire a solution for an internal signage application. The opportunity is initially for 20-25 frames. I have seen your frames in use before, but had a few questions. off-topic section removed 2) I am aware that your platform is Linux on a VIA embedded system. The client's application would likely require some minor customization to the frame -- possibly filtering of an RSS feed or special scanning treatment of a network folder (the application is not yet implemented). Despite searching your site, I have not found any detailed information about the Linux implementation or about accessibility to the internals. Please advise on this. We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. It's just that we can barely keep our head above water supporting our current base of users (which our non-technical consumers) (that's why we finally have started to generate a knowledge base). Opening our product up to hackers would present a support nightmare, not to mention the product liability of somebody electrocuting themselves. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! Supporting RSS feeds from several different service providers with ever changing feed specs has not been trivial nor do we expect it to be in the future. We are working on a MAJOR software upgrade to be released this Fall, which will support digital signage, as it's a market that is growing for us and finally seems to be heating up. For q 20-25, we would be willing to make the necessary modifications for you if it's something we thought we could leverage, while we are working on this software piece. We have a lot of customers using our frames in digital signage. I hope you will still consider being one of them. We are a small company and think you find us easy to work with and most likely be able to make your modifications quickly for you. Regards, PhotoVu Sales PhotoVu Response Policies - We take each request very seriously and try to respond within one business day. Many times, you will get a response within hours. Thank you for your interest in PhotoVu! If you have any questions about this inquiry or would like to talk with a PhotoVu representative, please contact us using the following: Web: http://www.photovu.com Phone: +1.303.444.5566 Fax: +1.303.374.2737
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
Gomi No Sensei dijo [Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700]: The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at www.photovu.comis based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. The quote is: We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! Hi, Please explain a bit further on this: What are the product's modifications on Debian that you require them to distribute? Thing is, although this people's argument (i.e. the system being open to hackers and all) is quite flawed, Debian is a _distribution_, it is not -as a whole- made available on a Copyleft license. If you spot they have modified the Linux kernel, the GNU tools, the compiler, etc., then you can demand them sources for their modifications - But you can freely mix Debian and completely propietary code. And you will not be forced to disclose your propietary sources - But modifications made to copylefted (note that _not_ every Free Software license is copyleft) software should be released as well. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian GNU/Linux license violation
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 04.09.2007, 13:13 -0500 schrieb Gunnar Wolf: Gomi No Sensei dijo [Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700]: The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at www.photovu.comis based on a modified Debian, but the company will not disclose the source. The quote is: We will never have an open platform as we do not have the resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom software on top. The last reason is why we weld our units shut and the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up! Please explain a bit further on this: What are the product's modifications on Debian that you require them to distribute? Thing is, although this people's argument (i.e. the system being open to hackers and all) is quite flawed, Debian is a _distribution_, it is not -as a whole- made available on a Copyleft license. If you spot they have modified the Linux kernel, the GNU tools, the compiler, etc., then you can demand them sources for their modifications - But you can freely mix Debian and completely propietary code. And you will not be forced to disclose your propietary sources - But modifications made to copylefted (note that _not_ every Free Software license is copyleft) software should be released as well. You might want to bring this issue to http://gpl-violations.org/ they have a reputation of getting people to publish their sources. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
