3 ms·

More GPL enforcement work again.. and a very surreal but important case

45 points by Sandman 16y ago

teilo 16y ago
I understand how these things go, and the need for non-disclosure, but I would love to know who is suing who here. I put Tomato on every router I install, because when I do that, those routers NEVER require a restart. I would love to know what hardware NOT to buy. Please, somebody tell me it's not Buffalo Wireless.
angusgr 16y ago
I've been watching Harald Welte's tweets about attending a court hearing over this: Today I learned in court that removing a module using 'rmmod' has nothing to do with the #linux #kernel ;) lol. [1] but AFAIK noone yet knows the specifics... [1] http://twitter.com/laf0rge http://twitter.com/laf0rge
- flatulent1 16y ago
  Even some well known companies occasionally try to walk all over the GPL. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20014828-260.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20014828-260.html
losethos 16y ago
The original ATA reg defintions and command specs for LoseThos came from Linux. No code, just information. I had floppy stuff from linux. Removed. No GPL code left. A lot of people are in big trouble if using anything you learned from GPL code is wrong. No way to purge that. I got propper specs for ATA protocol and fixed-up my ATA code, but no getting around the fact first implementation was learned from Linux. What about all the people who learn how to program from GPL code!! That's everybody! None can program for a real company! No wireless, just God. God says... thirsts firm sore seal brim furious knit idle suspected tired pernicious killed pleasanter slothful thought Thee keeping Guide threatenest augmented This shalt upper slept Many whoso demanded bond Fame Hebrew emptinesses unexpectedly Texts convenient loosen yieldeth breaking thirsteth licence corrigible toment created duller unpleasantly worsted questions
tbrownaw 16y ago
So what makes this "important" rather than "stupid"? Has it reached a court that can set precedent, or does someone just need validation, or do they somehow actually conceivably have a case, or ...?
- kd0amg 16y ago
  I think the importance comes from the GPL's requirement that the device manufacturer allow the described modifications.
- Estragon 16y ago
  Yes, you can sue God in the US, if you're so inclined. I didn't notice anything in the OP to suggest that this case has any merit whatsoever.
TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
Let me get this straight: Company A is suing company B because B modified GPLed binaries on A's hardware. Yet you hide them. Last I checked, court actions like suing are public, yet hindered by an easy court search. And frankly, why does this matter? If it was an important case, we'd be hearing it on CNet, slashdot, digg, reddit, MSN... You name it. Just seems like a rather stuffy case of boring, but expensive, corporate law.
- jon_dahl 16y ago
  If it was an important case, we'd be hearing it on CNet, slashdot, digg, reddit, MSN... Hmm, I don't think that's true at all. Since when has the tech press taken an interest in open source legalities?
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    Are you kidding? These things are on slashdot and reddit and even Cnet all the time!
- aw3c2 16y ago
  I heard that he was an "expert something consultant" or something like that for the case and must not publicise details. Otherwise he would lose that position/job/whatever.

45 points by Sandman 16y ago

teilo 16y ago

I understand how these things go, and the need for non-disclosure, but I would love to know who is suing who here. I put Tomato on every router I install, because when I do that, those routers NEVER require a restart. I would love to know what hardware NOT to buy. Please, somebody tell me it's not Buffalo Wireless.

angusgr 16y ago

I've been watching Harald Welte's tweets about attending a court hearing over this: Today I learned in court that removing a module using 'rmmod' has nothing to do with the #linux #kernel ;) lol. [1] but AFAIK noone yet knows the specifics... [1] http://twitter.com/laf0rge http://twitter.com/laf0rge

flatulent1 16y ago
Even some well known companies occasionally try to walk all over the GPL. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20014828-260.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20014828-260.html

losethos 16y ago

The original ATA reg defintions and command specs for LoseThos came from Linux. No code, just information. I had floppy stuff from linux. Removed. No GPL code left. A lot of people are in big trouble if using anything you learned from GPL code is wrong. No way to purge that. I got propper specs for ATA protocol and fixed-up my ATA code, but no getting around the fact first implementation was learned from Linux. What about all the people who learn how to program from GPL code!! That's everybody! None can program for a real company! No wireless, just God. God says... thirsts firm sore seal brim furious knit idle suspected tired pernicious killed pleasanter slothful thought Thee keeping Guide threatenest augmented This shalt upper slept Many whoso demanded bond Fame Hebrew emptinesses unexpectedly Texts convenient loosen yieldeth breaking thirsteth licence corrigible toment created duller unpleasantly worsted questions

tbrownaw 16y ago

So what makes this "important" rather than "stupid"? Has it reached a court that can set precedent, or does someone just need validation, or do they somehow actually conceivably have a case, or ...?

kd0amg 16y ago
I think the importance comes from the GPL's requirement that the device manufacturer allow the described modifications.
Estragon 16y ago
Yes, you can sue God in the US, if you're so inclined. I didn't notice anything in the OP to suggest that this case has any merit whatsoever.

TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago

Let me get this straight: Company A is suing company B because B modified GPLed binaries on A's hardware. Yet you hide them. Last I checked, court actions like suing are public, yet hindered by an easy court search. And frankly, why does this matter? If it was an important case, we'd be hearing it on CNet, slashdot, digg, reddit, MSN... You name it. Just seems like a rather stuffy case of boring, but expensive, corporate law.

jon_dahl 16y ago
If it was an important case, we'd be hearing it on CNet, slashdot, digg, reddit, MSN... Hmm, I don't think that's true at all. Since when has the tech press taken an interest in open source legalities?
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Are you kidding? These things are on slashdot and reddit and even Cnet all the time!
aw3c2 16y ago
I heard that he was an "expert something consultant" or something like that for the case and must not publicise details. Otherwise he would lose that position/job/whatever.