Where is the source code for the Gen3? If it is supposed to run a Linux kernel, they need at least publish that modified source code.

What about PDF Viewer? And shell viewer? Are they GPL?

I understand that this is not an official Gen3 forum, but we need to know that.

I have version 1.0 firmware, but that firmware has a lot of bugs (powering off with book opened does not saves state, new fonts recognition problem, SD file system corruptions...)

:bookworm:

You'd need to ask Bookeen that directly. This is not, as you say, a Bookeen support forum but a place for CyBook users to talk to one another. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the GPL says that source code has to be made available on request, not necessarily "published"; have you asked Bookeen for it?

I don't experience any of the issues you mention, by the way. Powering off the machine with a book open remembers the state perfectly; no problems at all with fonts (provided one deletes the cache file); no SD problems. You sound to have been rather unfortunate in the issues that you've encountered! Have you tried using a different SD card? Perhaps that's where the root cause of your problems lie. People here have reported that certain SD cards do cause problems, while others work perfectly.

Bookeen have to state the GPL license somewhere since otherwise you cannot know that you can ask for the source code. And I do not think they do that.

OK, now I sent an email asking for the source code.

Where is the source code for the Gen3? If it is supposed to run a Linux kernel, they need at least publish that modified source code.

What about PDF Viewer? And shell viewer? Are they GPL?

I understand that this is not an official Gen3 forum, but we need to know that.

I have version 1.0 firmware, but that firmware has a lot of bugs (powering off with book opened does not saves state, new fonts recognition problem, SD file system corruptions...)

:bookworm:

Go for it. Write to Bookeen and ask. Between you and tompe we hope to see results! :)

Personally, I'd love to get the sdk/source for the OS they use. I don't particularly need to see the source to their Boo Reader as that *IS* proprietary and they've been developing since long before the Gen3 - but to be able to develop other apps that run on the Cybook, yeah I'd like that.

:thumbsup:

Derek

I hope you're successful, I've seen other devices where the release of the GPLed part of the source code (provided they find a way to cleanly separate it, which they are required to anyway) has helped the dev team find and fix quite a few bugs (happened quite a few times that some time after an alternative firmware came out fixing a long open bug that a new official release also suddenly found a fix for the same bug :-) and also to implement new functions. One excellent example is a wireless router from Linksys which was so popular in the community for the vast number of uses via no less than 3 different alternative FWs (not counting the branches) that they must have earned a fortune with that model (two years after the initial release they were selling it still for pretty much the original price while there were newer routers with superior technical data which still couldn't compete with the amazing number of functions of the far older model).

And on the mention of the problems rfog is experiencing: I *always* switch off the Cybook with my book open and never had the problem that it didn't save (except for one time: I did a test to see how long the battery would last and didn't charge it for a month. When the battery indicator was at 30% and below I *sometimes* found that it hadn't saved the current position. Going back to the library before switching off allowed me to keep reading for 2-3 more days until the battery was completely spent. Once I had recharged it the "problem" was gone and as I usually connect it to the PC every now and then anyway I have never depleted the battery so much as to experience that behaviour again).

In "technical specification" section the User Manual states:
Operating System: Linux embedded version
Which means they HAVE to provide the sources used to compile the kernel and any GPL utilities used in Cybook.

In "technical specification" section the User Manual states:

Which means they HAVE to provide the sources used to compile the kernel and any GPL utilities used in Cybook.

Yes, that IS true. However, "HAVE TO" and "HAVE DONE SO" are two different realities, don't you think? People can quote rules and even scream, shout and throw lawsuits, but until Bookeen gets to the "Have done so" state, there's really not much we can do.

I'm taking the view that Bookeen intends to comply, but just has been far too busy getting the features list current and the buglist under control.

Derek

I'm taking the view that Bookeen intends to comply, but just has been far too busy getting the features list current and the buglist under control.


That is really no excuse. I was so busy with other things so I could not remove the material I distributed which I did not have copyright to...

No response yet. I asked fot the firmware re-installation procedure at the same time to have when I need it.

You might want to submit GPL violation case to FSF Europe (www.fsfeurope.org). They are very active in such situations.

Give them a chance! I think any court would rule that it's reasonable to give them, say, 30 days to supply you with the requested material. Screaming for blood because you don't receive an instant response is being a little unreasonable.

If the Cybook contains GPL software or derivative works thereof (which I believe it does, since it has a Linux kernel) then several provisions of the GPL license have been violated by Bookeen:

1) The obligation to inform the end users that the devices contains GPL licensed software

2) The obligation to make available or to offer to make available the source code.

Even though I like my Cybook a lot, I am concerned that Bookeen seems to handle copyright issues so leniently. Time is not an argument in the same way that time is never an argument when it comes to paying at the grocery or speeding.

Give them a chance! I think any court would rule that it's reasonable to give them, say, 30 days to supply you with the requested material. Screaming for blood because you don't receive an instant response is being a little unreasonable.

History with other companies like Archos has shown that you will probably not get a response until you report them.

Why are you so forgiving in this instance of a criminal/illegal behaviour but not so forgiving on other?

They have some set period of time that they have to comply if you don't know what that is, then 30 days is a good time period to give them to comply before taking them to court.

JSWolf,

The GPL license does not give a set period to comply. No distribution of GPLed software is to take place without the provisions of the license being complied with. A set period would not make sense since the information regarding the GPL should be distributed together with the software.

I would not be the one bringing the folks at Bookeen to the courts over this, I am just pointing out that it is anti-social behaviour that definitely does not help their reputation. It could potential damage them badly since they will not have any protection for their own copyright as long as they do not respect others.

JSWolf,

The GPL license does not give a set period to comply. No distribution of GPLed software is to take place without the provisions of the license being complied with. A set period would not make sense since the information regarding the GPL should be distributed together with the software.

I would not be the one bringing the folks at Bookeen to the courts over this, I am just pointing out that it is anti-social behaviour that definitely does not help their reputation. It could potential damage them badly since they will not have any protection for their own copyright as long as they do not respect others.

Speaking of the GPL, the underlying OS is supplied by the hardware manufacturer. Now, obviously, Bookeen can't release said OS source code without that manufacturer's permission. In fact, it might be best to query the manufacturer directly.

No, I don't know who that manufacturer is, or I'd put in a request for the source code and SDK myself. :(

Derek

Speaking of the GPL, the underlying OS is supplied by the hardware manufacturer. Now, obviously, Bookeen can't release said OS source code without that manufacturer's permission. In fact, it might be best to query the manufacturer directly.

No, I don't know who that manufacturer is, or I'd put in a request for the source code and SDK myself. :(


Why do you think there is an underlying OS? in any case it is Bookeen that is selling the product and have to provide the source code for any GPL:ed things on the device.

I got an answer from Bookeen and it seems that you are right that they have a supplier which supplies them with the hardware+linux OS on it. Strange that they did not provide the Linux OS themselves. They mentioned that they have to force the supplier to release it. I am surprised that they started selling a product they knew broke the GPL. I tought it was just a question for them to package there code but obviously not.

I will download some copyrighted books to compensate :)

I got an answer from Bookeen and it seems that you are right that they have a supplier which supplies them with the hardware+linux OS on it. Strange that they did not provide the Linux OS themselves.What's strange about it? Embedding Linux for something like this is a highly skilled endeavor. Bookeen is the designer of the device, and likely responsible for the firmware that handles actual book display, but the underlying OS kernel will be another matter.

I'm not at all surprised that hardware and OS come from a third party. Bookeen certainly isn't large enough to do their own manufacturing.

And when you are dealing with Asian suppliers, GPL violations come with the territory. First, you have the issue of getting them to understand that the GPL requires them to release the source code, then you have the issue of enforcing the license if they balk.

That's the problem with things like GPL violations. Someone has to have the time, money, and legal staff to bring suit and argue it in court, and the difficulties are compounded when the court is overseas.

They mentioned that they have to force the supplier to release it. I am surprised that they started selling a product they knew broke the GPL. I tought it was just a question for them to package there code but obviously not.If you are a company making its living and paying its staff selling ebook readers, and your choice may be between selling a product that breaks the GPL or selling nothing, folding, and laying off your staff, which way do you jump? :(
______
Dennis

They could have just asked for the specific drivers of the hardware. And it might be the case that everything is standard components.

I think they should have told the customers this before. I would never have bought the Cybook if I had known this. I think GPL is a good idea and I do not want to encourage people to break it.

History with other companies like Archos has shown that you will probably not get a response until you report them.

Why are you so forgiving in this instance of a criminal/illegal behaviour but not so forgiving on other?

No, you've misunderstood me. I absolutely do NOT condone non-compliance with the GPL. You say it's "criminal behaviour" - is the GPL actually enforced by criminal law? I would have thought it more likely that it's covered by civil contract law than by any criminal law, but I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so I could be wrong!

No, you've misunderstood me. I absolutely do NOT condone non-compliance with the GPL. You say it's "criminal behaviour" - is the GPL actually enforced by criminal law? I would have thought it more likely that it's covered by civil contract law than by any criminal law, but I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so I could be wrong!

Well, I used your terms and I think but I might misremember that you wrongly calls copyright infringement for theft and then starts calling people criminal or criminal scumbag or similar.

I just realized another bad thing with this. Since I cannot sell anything that contains copyrighted material since I think this is immoral I cannot sell my Cybook if I would want to. So the second hand value has become zero for me which was not in the original equation. In the same way I think what Bookeen has done is selling something that has copyrighted material and where they do not own the copyright or have the right to sell it or distribute it.

I just realized another bad thing with this. Since I cannot sell anything that contains copyrighted material since I think this is immoral I cannot sell my Cybook if I would want to. So the second hand value has become zero for me which was not in the original equation. In the same way I think what Bookeen has done is selling something that has copyrighted material and where they do not own the copyright or have the right to sell it or distribute it.

The Gen3 contains all sorts of copyrighted material, and that hasn't changed. Everything from the words on the package to the code of the MobiPocket book reader are copyrighted. You knew that at the time you bought it :). Why has its value "suddenly" changed for you?

The Gen3 contains all sorts of copyrighted material, and that hasn't changed. Everything from the words on the package to the code of the MobiPocket book reader are copyrighted. You knew that at the time you bought it :). Why has its value "suddenly" changed for you?

But that is material where permission is given to sell or distribute things. GPL:ed code cannot be sold since you only have this permission of you comply with the licence. Maybe the actual binaries technically is not copyrighted but you are not allowed to sell them in any case without complying with the GPL. So I cannot sell my Cybook.

When I bought my Cybook I did not know that it might be impossible for Bookeen to comply with the GPL and I did not know that they did not comply with it when the sold the unit.

I admire your principles, Tommy, but it does seem fairly clear that Bookeen licenced the hardware design and its GPL'd software in good faith. It's not they who are in violation of the GPL, but the company they got it from, who I'd guess are somewhere in China - not a country noted for its rigid enforcement of copyright law, unfortunately :(.

What are you going to do about it? Return your Gen3 and ask for your money back?

I admire your principles, Tommy, but it does seem fairly clear that Bookeen licenced the hardware design and its GPL'd software in good faith. It's not they who are in violation of the GPL, but the company they got it from, who I'd guess are somewhere in China - not a country noted for its rigid enforcement of copyright law, unfortunately :(.


I think they were aware of the problem. Signing a NDA for Linux code should have triggered a lot of questions. That was why I was surprised that they did not provide the OS themselves to get around these kind of problems.

And you are wrong. It is also Bookeen that is in violation. It is they that are sellling the unit.

Does the GPL really extend the responsibility to the end retailer? That seems a little unreasonable, if it's something that they have no control over.

Does the GPL really extend the responsibility to the end retailer? That seems a little unreasonable, if it's something that they have no control over.

Of course they have control over it. They can choose to sell the thing or not. The person having the copyright have not given permission to distribute or sell the thing in that form. Do you mean that if you take/receive something against the copyright holders wishes you can sell it because you have no control over the copyright holder?

So it is copyright that extends. i cannot take a copyrighted book and make an electronic version and sell it without the permission from the copyright holder. The GPL is a licence that give you this permission under certain circumstances.

I admire your principles, Tommy, but it does seem fairly clear that Bookeen licenced the hardware design and its GPL'd software in good faith. It's not they who are in violation of the GPL, but the company they got it from, who I'd guess are somewhere in China - not a country noted for its rigid enforcement of copyright law, unfortunately :(.

They may have done this in good faith, but if so then they are badly incompetent. By now everybody in the hardware/software business ought to know that Linux is GPL'ed, and that this comes along with legal requirements. IANAL, but I think that as soon as they found that they were violating Linux copyright, they legally should have stopped distribution. It is a copyright infringement to distribute copyrighted materials beyond fair use (and other exemptions) without a license. I think one can't distribute copyrighted materials beyond fair use without a license while trying to negotiate a license, or trying to comply with the license, etc.: one needs to have complied with a license first.

Tommy is right that one can't in good conscience re-sell one's Gen3 in a case like this. I think one can in good conscience use it, however, since GPL does not restrict usage, only distribution.

All that said, Bookeen is in a very difficult position: it seems to me that doing the legally right thing would require them to immediately withdraw the device from circulation, and perhaps even offer to refund money to all purchasers, while informing them that the device they purchased is not legally resellable. This would presumably spell the end of the company. While that may be what the letter of the law would require, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that the FSF and other copyright owners would be willing to let them have some time to try to extract source code from their supplier.

Does the GPL really extend the responsibility to the end retailer? That seems a little unreasonable, if it's something that they have no control over.

It is illegal to resell bootleg CDs and DVDs, even if one purchased them in good conscience thinking they are genuine. Selling devices that include Linux but violate the license seems basically the same.

Of course they have control over it. They can choose to sell the thing or not. The person having the copyright have not given permission to distribute or sell the thing in that form.

You're not seriously suggesting that Bookeen should stop selling the CyBook because one of their suppliers has a contractual dispute with a third party, are you? That dispute is not of Bookeen's making, and not under their control.

It seems to me that it's rather unreasonable to hold someone responsible for something that they have no control over; if Bookeen are using the hardware and its associated o/s under the terms of a legally arranged contract, it's not Bookeen's "fault" if their supplier hasn't done everything that THEY should have done, is it? For them to "lose out" in a situation in which they are themselves completely blameless is rather an unreasonable thing to suggest, IMHO.

Are you going to stop using your CyBook as a result of this?

What Bookeen could do is take a version of Linux and modify it to work with the Gen3 and then they'd have all the code for it and could distribute the code via the GPL.

Which would take time away from them fixing the bugs in the current software.

I'd much rather see them make a statement saying 'We'll release the code once the majority of bugs are patched, thus making it safe for release'. I believe, though I could be wrong, that such an act is acceptable.

By the way, one of the consequences of GPL is that you're allowed to redistribute the binaries. So any firmware update can be shared freely as it includes the Linux kernel.

It seems to me that it's rather unreasonable to hold someone responsible for something that they have no control over; if Bookeen are using the hardware and its associated o/s under the terms of a legally arranged contract, it's not Bookeen's "fault" if their supplier hasn't done everything that THEY should have done, is it? For them to "lose out" in a situation in which they are themselves completely blameless is rather an unreasonable thing to suggest, IMHO.

Unfortunatelly, I think tompe is right. Bookeen knows their device uses Linux, and they should know that it's GPL and what that means, so they should comply with its license. If they don't, they shouldn't distribute Linux.

Let's say their hardware suppliers embedded not only Linux in the system, but also the latest Shrek movie in divx (without license, of course)... Bookeen wouldn't been responsible for what the suppliers do, but they would be responsible for what they do if they sell this illegal content.

Being realistic, I don't think tompe is asking Bookeen to just drop the Cybook or quit business, but they should try (harder?) to solve this issue either by pressing their suppliers to release the source code or by embedding the OS themselves (and releasing the source code if it's a GPL OS). Until then, they are morally, and probably legally, doing wrong.

Has anyone taken their purchased Cybook apart? If so, have they found information as to the manufacturer? Perhaps it is the same manufacturer who creates the Hanlin or the STAReBOOK and perhaps we can then go directly to the manufacturer and ASK them if they are willing to abide by GPL. I don't have a spare Cybook, or I'd do the dirty deed, sacrificing it on the altar of Information.

Derek

Unfortunatelly, I think tompe is right. Bookeen knows their device uses Linux, and they should know that it's GPL and what that means, so they should comply with its license. If they don't, they shouldn't distribute Linux.

Let's say their hardware suppliers embedded not only Linux in the system, but also the latest Shrek movie in divx (without license, of course)... Bookeen wouldn't been responsible for what the suppliers do, but they would be responsible for what they do if they sell this illegal content.

Being realistic, I don't think tompe is asking Bookeen to just drop the Cybook or quit business, but they should try (harder?) to solve this issue either by pressing their suppliers to release the source code or by embedding the OS themselves (and releasing the source code if it's a GPL OS). Until then, they are morally, and probably legally, doing wrong.

Only if Bookeen knew that the manufacturer had NO INTENTION of releasing the source code for the GPL'd code. What if, and I think this quite possible, the manufacturer has stated to Bookeen that it fully intends to comply? In that case, Bookeen had, and has, every right to sell the device as it is working under the Good Faith presumption the manufacturer will follow through.

Yes, it is Bookeen's responsibility, now that units are hitting store shelves and customers' hands, to work to get the manufacturer to live up to it's GPL obligations, but under the scenario I described, Bookeen has done nothing wrong - and I'm quite willing to accept the notion Bookeen worked under these assumptions.

Derek

I think they were aware of the problem. Signing a NDA for Linux code should have triggered a lot of questions. That was why I was surprised that they did not provide the OS themselves to get around these kind of problems.The GPL is a "viral" license: code that links against GPL code becomes GPL in consequence.

But this only covers code that links against GPL code. Code that simply runs under Linux does not become GPL, and can be closed source and proprietary.

The question is exactly what was covered by the NDA Bookeen signed.

And you are wrong. It is also Bookeen that is in violation. It is they that are sellling the unit.Splendid. Now, find someone with money who feels strongly enough about this to hire a lawyer and take Bookeen to court. Good luck.
______
Dennis

What Bookeen could do is take a version of Linux and modify it to work with the Gen3 and then they'd have all the code for it and could distribute the code via the GPL.Does Bookeen have someone on staff who can do that? If not, can they afford to pay a porting specialist to do it?

My guess is no to both questions.
______
Dennis

Does Bookeen have someone on staff who can do that? If not, can they afford to pay a porting specialist to do it?

My guess is no to both questions.
______
Dennis

There are actually several quite good implementations of Embedded Linux available for the processor used on the Cybook. It probably wouldn't take too much effort to create a specific version from those. However, I'd say that Bookeen probably should concentrate upon getting the application software up to speed before making a run at re-working the OS.

Derek

No, you've misunderstood me. I absolutely do NOT condone non-compliance with the GPL. You say it's "criminal behaviour" - is the GPL actually enforced by criminal law? I would have thought it more likely that it's covered by civil contract law than by any criminal law, but I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so I could be wrong!AFAIK, it's contract law, and therein lies the problem. It's not like a violation of criminal law where you can point the police at it and say "Sic 'em!" Someone would actually have to spend the money to hire lawyers go to court over this. I don't see anyone stepping forward to do so, so in practical terms, the whole discussion is moot.

I don't see Bookeen ceasing sales of the Cybook because of a GPL violation -- it is how they make their living -- and I'm not sure what Bookeen can do to compel their supplier to comply with the terms of the GPL. They are probably buying Cybooks from an unnamed Chinese manufacturer. Go ahead. Take the supplier to court in China over GPL violations. See how far you get.
______
Dennis

There are actually several quite good implementations of Embedded Linux available for the processor used on the Cybook. It probably wouldn't take too much effort to create a specific version from those. However, I'd say that Bookeen probably should concentrate upon getting the application software up to speed before making a run at re-working the OS.Shouldn't take too much effort, if you are someone who knows how to do that.

Same question: does Bookeen have that someone, or can they pay someone who does? An available embedded Linux kernel for the processor helps, but isn't a full solution. Drivers will likely be a much larger concern.

Derek
______
Dennis

... all I really want is an SDK ;)

... all I really want is an SDK ;)

Being realistic, I don't think tompe is asking Bookeen to just drop the Cybook or quit business, but they should try (harder?) to solve this issue either by pressing their suppliers to release the source code or by embedding the OS themselves (and releasing the source code if it's a GPL OS).

Yes, and they are probably doing that and I hope they are successful and I realize they had practial concerns and I can respect them but then I have to respect (which I do) other practical concerns such that people download copyrighted material for practical reasons.

I feel pretty strongly that you should respect the GPL since I think the goal of it is very good. In this thread I just got irritaded that the same persons that complains about distributing copyrighted material suddenly think that it is not such a big problem. Protecting companies possibility to earn money seems to be more important than protecting the free distribution of knowledge and information.

I realized that if you only care about strict legality you might sell you Cybook where you have erased the firmware.

The GPL is a "viral" license: code that links against GPL code becomes GPL in consequence.

But this only covers code that links against GPL code. Code that simply runs under Linux does not become GPL, and can be closed source and proprietary.


With respect, Dennis, that is not the case - at least not with the GPL code that I've come across personally. If it were the case, it would be impossible to write any commercial Linux application, because every application links against the Linux system libraries.

The GPL libraries that I've used personally simply stipulate that:

a) You state in the program's documentation or "About" box that the library is being used by the application.

b) You tell anyone who asks where to get the source code for the library.

Using such a GPL library does not make your code GPL. Perhaps there are GPL libraries which do have that stipulation, but I've not encountered them if there are.

Libraries are often placed under Lesser GPL, called LGPL.

As stated on Wikipedia, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL ,

"
The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter can be linked to (in the case of a library, 'used by') a non-(L)GPLed program, which may be free software or proprietary software [1]. This non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any chosen terms if it is not a derivative work.
"

Thanks, Krystian - that must be what the libraries I've used have been released under.

What if, and I think this quite possible, the manufacturer has stated to Bookeen that it fully intends to comply? In that case, Bookeen had, and has, every right to sell the device as it is working under the Good Faith presumption the manufacturer will follow through.

According to the letter of the license, you can only distribute a GPL software if you also make the source code available (to whoever you distribute the software to, it doesn't have to be freely availabe to anyone). If you get a GPL software from someone else and they don't give you the source code, they're doing wrong, but also you cannot distribute is, because if someone asks you for the source code you won't be able to provide it. Bookeen may be working under good faith, but they're still not complying with the GPL license.

They could, at least, say who their suppliers are and state something like "for obtaining the source code of the GPL parts, please address to This and That, ltd."

So anybody reported them to www.fsfeurope.org yet ?

I asked for the kernel source the day I bought my Cybook and never got a response from Bookeen.

So anybody reported them to www.fsfeurope.org yet ?

I asked for the kernel source the day I bought my Cybook and never got a response from Bookeen.

It's the recalcitrant hardware supplier who needs to be "reported", Frank. Until Bookeen can get the source from them, they in turn can't give it to you.

With respect, Dennis, that is not the case - at least not with the GPL code that I've come across personally. If it were the case, it would be impossible to write any commercial Linux application, because every application links against the Linux system libraries.

The GPL libraries that I've used personally simply stipulate that:

a) You state in the program's documentation or "About" box that the library is being used by the application.

b) You tell anyone who asks where to get the source code for the library.

Using such a GPL library does not make your code GPL. Perhaps there are GPL libraries which do have that stipulation, but I've not encountered them if there are.Linux system libraries tend to be covered under the LGPL, which is a different animal. If they weren't, it would be impossible to legally create closed source code for Linux. (Or, for that matter, to create closed source programs with GCC.)

And the case I spoke of is specifically code that links against the Linux kernel. This would include device drivers (which become part of a running kernel), but exclude applications programs, which just call kernel services.
______
Dennis

Linux system libraries tend to be covered under the LGPL, which is a different animal. If they weren't, it would be impossible to legally create closed source code for Linux. (Or, for that matter, to create closed source programs with GCC.)


It's obviously the LGPL which I've come across with the GPL'd utility libraries that I've used, rather than the "full" GPL. Thanks for the clarification.

It's obviously the LGPL which I've come across with the GPL'd utility libraries that I've used, rather than the "full" GPL. Thanks for the clarification.It is confusing.

One of the things I run here is Cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com), a port of the Gnu toolchain to Win32, available as a free, open source offering under the GPL. Rather than rewrite every utility to use Win32 system calls instead of *nix calls, the developers wrote a POSIX compatibility library implemented as a DLL, containing a subset of the most used *nix system calls. Lots of *nix code builds "out of the box" under Cygwin, because the code links against the Cygwin1.dll, and sees the *nix routines it expects.

A full Cygwin install includes the GCC compiler suite. One of the questions on the Cygwin mailing list is "Can I use Cygwin GCC to build closed-source code?" The answer is "Yes, if you use the MinGW version, which links against the Microsoft runtime rather than the Cygwin version." Linking against the Cygwin1.dll would make your code GPL, but the MS runtime does not, and there is no requirement on GCC itself that you may only build GPLed code with it.

Another common question is "If I write GPLed code, must I distribute the source with it?" The answer is "No. You simply have to be willing to provide it, and must inform the user you will do so and state how to get it. You must be careful, because the user should be able to use the source you supply to duplicate the binaries you created, so the source you provide must be the source that created those binaries. But you are not required to provide the source in the same distribution as the binaries. Most users won't want it and wouldn't be able to use it in any case. You simply must provide it on demand, in a convenient form for the user."
______
Dennis

Yes, and they are probably doing that and I hope they are successful and I realize they had practial concerns and I can respect them but then I have to respect (which I do) other practical concerns such that people download copyrighted material for practical reasons.

I feel pretty strongly that you should respect the GPL since I think the goal of it is very good. In this thread I just got irritaded that the same persons that complains about distributing copyrighted material suddenly think that it is not such a big problem. Protecting companies possibility to earn money seems to be more important than protecting the free distribution of knowledge and information.

I realized that if you only care about strict legality you might sell you Cybook where you have erased the firmware.


Nope. I'd sell it after stripping out the ebooks, music and images I had put on. As for the firmware, since I'd be also ridding myself of the hardware it was installed on, I'd be okay with leaving the firmware in place.

Derek

Nope. I'd sell it after stripping out the ebooks, music and images I had put on. As for the firmware, since I'd be also ridding myself of the hardware it was installed on, I'd be okay with leaving the firmware in place.


Just so that you realize that this is selling something you do not have the permission from the copyright holder to sell. It is like selling movies you have downloaded from the net and that you do not own the copyright for.

Who actually is the copyright holder, Tommy?

Who actually is the copyright holder, Tommy?

Look in the source code. Each file will have a specification of who has the copyright. For example:


/* Driver for USB Mass Storage compliant devices
*
* $Id: transport.c,v 1.47 2002/04/22 03:39:43 mdharm Exp $
*
* Current development and maintenance by:
* (c) 1999-2002 Matthew Dharm (mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net)
*
* Developed with the assistance of:
* (c) 2000 David L. Brown, Jr. (usb-storage@davidb.org)
* (c) 2000 Stephen J. Gowdy (SGowdy@lbl.gov)
* (c) 2002 Alan Stern <stern@rowland.org>
*
* Initial work by:
* (c) 1999 Michael Gee (michael@linuxspecific.com)

Look in the source code. Each file will have a specification of who has the copyright. For example:

IOW, you already HAVE the source code for the Cybook. If that's the case, then why haven't you posted it?

Or are you just posting a 'generic' sample of source code?

And further, if I've not kept the original firmware, copies of that firmware, the hardware device on which that firmware is installed and any software sold with the original hardware/firmware - in other words if I choose to sell everything, keeping nothing of the unit for myself - then I *can* re-sell it as a 'used' item. It's like selling a book I've purchased, or a car.

Where I'd be breaking the law is in keeping any of the firmware and then selling that - for profit or not. But with the scenario you've stated, every single person who's sold a previously-purchased book, car or dishwasher would be committing a crime.

Derek

IOW, you already HAVE the source code for the Cybook. If that's the case, then why haven't you posted it?


Of course not. So what is your point? Do tou thing they have rewritten these drivers for the Cybook?


And further, if I've not kept the original firmware, copies of that firmware, the hardware device on which that firmware is installed and any software sold with the original hardware/firmware - in other words if I choose to sell everything, keeping nothing of the unit for myself - then I *can* re-sell it as a 'used' item. It's like selling a book I've purchased, or a car.


No, it is not. It is like selling a stolen car you have bought (expect that copyright infornement is not theft).


Where I'd be breaking the law is in keeping any of the firmware and then selling that - for profit or not. But with the scenario you've stated, every single person who's sold a previously-purchased book, car or dishwasher would be committing a crime.


No. When you buy a book you get the permission to sell it further or to give it away. When you buy a book from somebody that does not have the right to sell the book you do not get that permission.

Of course not. So what is your point? Do tou thing they have rewritten these drivers for the Cybook?



No, it is not. It is like selling a stolen car you have bought (expect that copyright infornement is not theft).



No. When you buy a book you get the permission to sell it further or to give it away. When you buy a book from somebody that does not have the right to sell the book you do not get that permission.

First, I strongly doubt that Bookeen has modified the OS in the slightest. But I don't know this to be true.

Second, not it's not. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of products out there which use some form of embedded Linux. Almost none of them state this to be the case, and I doubt many of them make any effort to let the customer have the source code to the OS - just try to get most auto-manufacturers to give you, the owner and driver of a car, that source code. Ain't gonna happen. (And you'd be surprised just how many makes and models use embedded Linux.) Same with refrigerators and toasters with embedded Linux. Yes, they *should* make the source code available, but they don't - and this has been going on long enough and widely spread enough that you'd have a hard time winning a court battle.

Third, anyone has the right to sell their personal copy of a book. What they don't have the right to do is steal the contents and market as their own work or use that copy to create other copies for sale.

Derek

Third, anyone has the right to sell their personal copy of a book.

I bet this is not true if their personal copy exists in violation of copyright (if I buy a bootleg copy of a book, I doubt I can legally resell it).

OK, I think we're established that the hardware suppliers are in the wrong through not supplying Bookeen with the source code. Next question is, what are those people who care about this going to DO about it?

Might it be a good idea to write to Bookeen and request the name of the suppliers, so that you can directly request the source code from them?

It's the recalcitrant hardware supplier who needs to be "reported", Frank. Until Bookeen can get the source from them, they in turn can't give it to you.

I disagree here : even if it's not really Bookeen's fault, they still sell the device to end-users : I should think that reporting this to fsfeurope can only help. (I would do it if I was not such a ignorant where GPL and other-like licenses are concerned)

OK, I think we're established that the hardware suppliers are in the wrong through not supplying Bookeen with the source code. Next question is, what are those people who care about this going to DO about it?

Might it be a good idea to write to Bookeen and request the name of the suppliers, so that you can directly request the source code from them?


Been there, done that. Waiting for a response. However, SOMEONE can sacrifice a Cybook for the good of all and tear it apart looking for manufacturer's information - ain't gonna be me 'cause I USE my Cybook - and have to have it available for demos to potential customers.

Derek

I disagree here : even if it's not really Bookeen's fault, they still sell the device to end-users : I should think that reporting this to fsfeurope can only help. (I would do it if I was not such a ignorant where GPL and other-like licenses are concerned)


And yet you're the one who's making the MOST noise about this - so why NOT you? Do you not have a computer? Can you not use Google to find out where to file? You seem to be quite prepared to 'fight the good fight' on this issue, so please, feel free to make a case with fsfeurope.

Derek

Free Software Foundation has a web-page which details the reporting process. It's here:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Part of the problem is that the Cybook does not contain an explicit notification of the use of Linux, nor which platform/family from which it is derived. Further, none of the documentation states anything about receiving source code or licensing information (GPL or otherwise). And even the most cursory reading of the FSF webpage pretty much makes it clear this information is necessary somewhere.

Derek

JFYI: we at OpenInkpot did the analysis of Hanlin V3 firmware and sent it to the gpl-violations.org (as Jinke is Chinese and OEM lBook is Ukrainian). Both Hanlin and lBook refused to release source code, and gpl-violations.org is overloaded with the requests for GPL violations.

So we just reverse-engineered all the parts we needed and now working on open-source firmware without any code from Jinke.

While I, of course, would never suggest that Bookeen should go out of business just because they are selling a device which includes a violation of the GPL I still have to wonder how easy companies get away with copyright infringements - even in the eyes of people on the forum here.

If I buy a Windows CD (including packaging and hologram, mind you) on a street market and because those friendly, chinese-looking people are selling it so cheap that I decide to buy one for my friends and family, too, I highly doubt that the police, Microsoft or anyone else would suggest that I can go on selling those CDs to my friends while asking back to those street vendors whether they were sure that those CDs were really legal. And if, in the end, it turns out they were not legal I equally doubt that I could just point my finger at them and claim I did it all "in good faith". In most countries the law clearly states that if there's something "fishy" about the deal (and that extends to "it's just too cheap to be true") you can't claim "good faith" and the rules for companies are much more strict than for end-users.

And about the responsibility: If I build a house for someone and leave the actual work to sub-contractors I am still fully responsible for everything. If I am sued I can then sue my sub-contractor in turn but I will always be the first party responsible.

Part of the problem is that the Cybook does not contain an explicit notification of the use of Linux, nor which platform/family from which it is derived. Further, none of the documentation states anything about receiving source code or licensing information (GPL or otherwise).

At least in http://www.bookeen.com/specs/ebook-hardware.aspx they say the OS is "Embedded Linux". So either it's a GPL OS, or they are using Linux's name in vain. The absence of a mention about the source code is in itself a GPL violation, I think.

In most countries the law clearly states that if there's something "fishy" about the deal (and that extends to "it's just too cheap to be true") you can't claim "good faith" and the rules for companies are much more strict than for end-users.


If that's the case, a hell of a lot of people are in the same boat. The Gen3 is using PVI's "reference platform" for its hardware, as are Hanlin, and a number of other eInk devices on the market. I strongly suspect that all the "internals" originate in the same factory somewhere, and that if the manufacturer is refusing to release the source code to Bookeen, the same is true for all the other licencees, too.

That doesn't make it "right", obviously.

At least in http://www.bookeen.com/specs/ebook-hardware.aspx they say the OS is "Embedded Linux". So either it's a GPL OS, or they are using Linux's name in vain. The absence of a mention about the source code is in itself a GPL violation, I think.

And they mention it in their Cybook User's Guide ebook. So, yes, Bookeen needs to either mention who the hardware manufacturer is and state that the manufacturer is their (Bookeen's) OEM source for the Linux, or, more properly, state both the manufacturer AND the variant of Linux used. (As well as a statement to the effect that the Linux OS is a GPL'd product.)

Derek

If that's the case, a hell of a lot of people are in the same boat. The Gen3 is using PVI's "reference platform" for its hardware, as are Hanlin, and a number of other eInk devices on the market. I strongly suspect that all the "internals" originate in the same factory somewhere, and that if the manufacturer is refusing to release the source code to Bookeen, the same is true for all the other licencees, too.

That doesn't make it "right", obviously.

Are we SURE that the Cybook is using the PVI 'reference platform' SBC? If so, then we can possibly check with PVI for the OS source code.

Derek

Are we SURE that the Cybook is using the PVI 'reference platform' SBC? If so, then we can possibly check with PVI for the OS source code.

Derek

I'm not 101% certain, but I'm sure I read somewhere, back in the initial days of the Gen3, that it does. Do you know of any way we could check up on that?

Hmmm. A Google search provides no relevent hits. I may have been wrong in saying that; apologies if that's the case :(.

And yet you're the one who's making the MOST noise about this - so why NOT you? (....)
Derek

Hum, I don't know about making such a noise, as the post you're quoting was my first one on this thread and on the subject ...
Anyway, my point was just to say that imho, IF (and that's where I'm really not qualified to tell white from black) Bookeen's device goes against GPL licenses, they should be responsible and not only the chinese manufacturer... That was all, sorry if my earlier (and unique) post seemed like making noise... :o

I'm not 101% certain, but I'm sure I read somewhere, back in the initial days of the Gen3, that it does. Do you know of any way we could check up on that?


Sho 'nuf! Pop yours open and take a look at the SBC and other hardware tucked inside. :D

Of course, *I'M* not going to be the one who sacrifices *MY* Cybook on the Altar of Expediency! :D

Derek

Hum, I don't know about making such a noise, as the post you're quoting was my first one on this thread and on the subject ...
Anyway, my point was just to say that imho, IF (and that's where I'm really not qualified to tell white from black) Bookeen's device goes against GPL licenses, they should be responsible and not only the chinese manufacturer... That was all, sorry if my earlier (and unique) post seemed like making noise... :o


I may have read more into the post than you intended... :o

Anywho, no one has offered to crack open their personal Cybook in order to find out more, so this will have to wait until Bookeen let's us know. :)

Derek

I may have read more into the post than you intended... :o

Anywho, no one has offered to crack open their personal Cybook in order to find out more, so this will have to wait until Bookeen let's us know. :)


I do not understand why you should do it. As has been pointed out it is Bookeen that has sold you the device and it is there responsibility. And they have said that they have to force there suplier to get it (and hopefully they do it). And the original manufacturer can say that they have not distributed the unit to you so why should they care about your questions?

I do not understand why you should do it. As has been pointed out it is Bookeen that has sold you the device and it is there responsibility. And they have said that they have to force there suplier to get it (and hopefully they do it). And the original manufacturer can say that they have not distributed the unit to you so why should they care about your questions?

They should care because FSF says they should.

Yes, I heard back from FSF and they agree that Bookeen must detail what they know about the version of Linux the Cybook uses as well as list the GPL notification. But they stressed that the hardware manufacturer should give up the source code.

Derek

They should care because FSF says they should.

Yes, I heard back from FSF and they agree that Bookeen must detail what they know about the version of Linux the Cybook uses as well as list the GPL notification. But they stressed that the hardware manufacturer should give up the source code.

Derek

Could you quote that question and answer? What do you mean by should? From my perspective Bookeen is responsible for solving the problem. They cannot just tell me to ask the hardware manufacturer that will refuse.

Is it really against the GPL to sell a thing under condition that people sign a NDA for source code and then give the source code to them?

Is it really against the GPL to sell a thing under condition that people sign a NDA for source code and then give the source code to them?

Aha, to answer my own question:


Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org.

If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.


Well, so legally Bookeen does not have to respect the NDA they have signed.

By the way, one of the consequences of GPL is that you're allowed to redistribute the binaries. So any firmware update can be shared freely as it includes the Linux kernel.

I am not sure that is true. The binary also includes their proprietary reader so it is not just the Linux kernel. There is no requirement that they release their own stuff for free just because it uses Linux.

Dale

Has anyone taken their purchased Cybook apart? If so, have they found information as to the manufacturer? Perhaps it is the same manufacturer who creates the Hanlin or the STAReBOOK and perhaps we can then go directly to the manufacturer and ASK them if they are willing to abide by GPL. I don't have a spare Cybook, or I'd do the dirty deed, sacrificing it on the altar of Information.

Derek

they are the same as STAReBook and NUUT as well as others, although their's is slightly customized with the square keypad.

Dale

they are the same as STAReBook and NUUT as well as others, although their's is slightly customized with the square keypad.

Dale


Then the version of embedded Linux used should be the same, yes? Does anyone have the SDK for either? Or the source code? More important, has anyone gotten down to the OS level?

Derek

I am not sure that is true. The binary also includes their proprietary reader so it is not just the Linux kernel. There is no requirement that they release their own stuff for free just because it uses Linux.


I think igorsk is right in that you can redistribute the binaries without problem.

You may redistribute any GPL-licensed binaries, so everything proprietary needs to be stripped off before.

I think igorsk is right in that you can redistribute the binaries without problem.

Provided you distribute also the source code if asked for.

Be sure that you know which version of GPL you are talking about. Current GPL is version 3 and Linux only specifies Version 2. It is not released under version 3 of the specification intentionally.

Dale

The really important thing to consider for Bookeen from a pragmatic standpoint (not a legal or ethical one) is that their e-ink product is known best for its attention to open formats. The sort of person who does have strong feelings on free software and its licensing is exactly the kind of person Bookeen is supposed to be appealing to with the Cybook. So they really should have an interest in clearing up as much about the GPL issue as they can on their end.

Again setting aside legal nitty-gritty, the intent of the GPL is that software authors be able to release free software in a form that stays free. That's why groups like the FSF exist - not for the sake of the GPL specifically, but for the sake of authors who want to allow the public to use their code while still retaining some control over how it's used. Whether the license falls under contract or copyright law (and that actually varies according to jurisdiction, for how software licenses are handled), it still boils down to respecting the code authors' wishes in terms of use, modification, and redistribution of their code.

So here's hoping Bookeen does remedy the omissions in their documentation, and puts a proper amount of pressure on their hardware supplier to clarify its use of GPLed software and comply with the license. If not they'll just wind up alienating a small but passionate market segment for whom their product would otherwise be perfect.

Funny thing, after looking inside Bookeen firmware people on our IRC channel found that not only "platform" from the unknown OEM violates GPL, but also book reader which is copyrighted by Bookeen itself.

Funny thing, after looking inside Bookeen firmware people on our IRC channel found that not only "platform" from the unknown OEM violates GPL, but also book reader which is copyrighted by Bookeen itself.

In what way does the Boo Reader violate GPL? It goes back to the old CyBook. Definitely written by Bookeen (with info and/or code from MobiPocket).

Funny thing, after looking inside Bookeen firmware people on our IRC channel found that not only "platform" from the unknown OEM violates GPL, but also book reader which is copyrighted by Bookeen itself.

Given that Bookeen has clearly stated its own development of Boo Reader and has stated the info on Mobipocket, I presume that Bookeen would make a more complete statement of copyright AND GPL if there were a 'scrolling' display capability. I think maybe Bookeen just wanted to put the most important information out there. Of course, they could, at some point, create a series of dialog boxes which display the various copyright and GPL statements.

Derek

In what way does the Boo Reader violate GPL? It goes back to the old CyBook. Definitely written by Bookeen (with info and/or code from MobiPocket).Perhaps dottedmag thinks that any software that runs on Linux must be GPL as well? Er, GPL doesn't work that way...

If Bookeen's Book Reader is simply an application running under Linux, there is no requirement I know of that it be open source or licensed under the GPL.
______
Dennis

Perhaps dottedmag thinks that any software that runs on Linux must be GPL as well? Er, GPL doesn't work that way...


Perhaps guys on channel ACTUALLY LOOKED INSIDE instead of just guessing and found it STATICALLY links to GPL-ed libraries.

Perhaps guys on channel ACTUALLY LOOKED INSIDE instead of just guessing and found it STATICALLY links to GPL-ed libraries.Are the libraries it links to GPL or LGPL?
______
Dennis

Are the libraries it links to GPL or LGPL?


Well, the thing you quoted said GPL...

But it does not matter with respect to breaking GPL or LGPL since for LGPL it holds that:

Essentially, it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided.

So the source code or linkable object files are needed here if it is statically linked with LGPL:ed libraries.

The really important thing to consider for Bookeen from a pragmatic standpoint (not a legal or ethical one) is that their e-ink product is known best for its attention to open formats. The sort of person who does have strong feelings on free software and its licensing is exactly the kind of person Bookeen is supposed to be appealing to with the Cybook. So they really should have an interest in clearing up as much about the GPL issue as they can on their end.

I belong to that category of people and the fact that they supported open formats and could be expected to respect GPL and similar things was a big factor in my decision to buy a Cybook. So I feel kind of disappointed and cheated by all his.

The Boo Reader binary definitely includes the pieces of the following:
1) glibc
2) libgcj
3) jpeglib
4) pnglib
5) zlib
6) boehm gc
7) freetype
8) mupdf
9) expat
10) IBM's ICU
11) fonts by URW
12) iconv
And probably more not readily-identified libs. Not all of above is (L)GPL but enough, I think, to make them obliged to make source code available.
Funny thing is that Mobipocket code is compiled in too (with gcj). I wonder if that means it'll have to be open-sourced too.

The Boo Reader binary definitely includes the pieces of the following:
1) glibc
2) libgcj
3) jpeglib
4) pnglib
5) zlib
6) boehm gc
7) freetype
8) mupdf
9) expat
10) IBM's ICU
11) fonts by URW
12) iconv
And probably more not readily-identified libs. Not all of above is (L)GPL but enough, I think, to make them obliged to make source code available.
Funny thing is that Mobipocket code is compiled in too (with gcj). I wonder if that means it'll have to be open-sourced too.

Compiling code with any Gnu compiler does not mean the code has to be released in the public domain. This forum is getting carried away I am afraid. Study the GNU copyleft statements a little closer.

Dale

Compiling code with any Gnu compiler does not mean the code has to be released in the public domain. This forum is getting carried away I am afraid. Study the GNU copyleft statements a little closer.

Why do you think anybody believe that? Combining your code with GPL:ed code so that it becomes a derived works make your code GPL. And if it is LGPL than the user has to be able to recreate the binary when new libraries are available. If you statically link to a GPL:ed library then it is a derived work.

Maybe all the licenses for the libraries are other licenses then GLP or LGPL but that is another claim.

Compiling code with any Gnu compiler does not mean the code has to be released in the public domain. This forum is getting carried away I am afraid. Study the GNU copyleft statements a little closer.

Dale

CAN YOU DAMN STOP GUESSING? Have a look at the binary. All the things mentioned ARE COMPILED INTO THE SINGLE BINARY.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but "glibc" is the C runtime library, is it not?. Surely every C application has to include that, doesn't it? You aren't saying that every application that uses the C RTL has to give away its source code, are you? That would make writing commercial Linux applications impossible!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but "glibc" is the C runtime library, is it not?. Surely every C application has to include that, doesn't it? You aren't saying that every application that uses the C RTL has to give away its source code, are you? That would make writing commercial Linux applications impossible!
A little bit simplified: Dynamic linking to the glibc (and any LGPL licenced library) is allowed for any program under any licence. But if you statically link your program to a LGPLed library you have to release all your sources under the terms of the LGPL.


Daniel

So does Bookeen HAVE to give the Mobipocket code out along with the OS code under the terms of GPL? Can anyone give a definitive answer?

So does Bookeen HAVE to give the Mobipocket code out along with the OS code under the terms of GPL? Can anyone give a definitive answer?

I'm sure that MobiPocket's lawyers would have something to say about that! There's no such thing as a "definitive answer" when it comes to legal stuff, is there?

I'm sure that MobiPocket's lawyers would have something to say about that! There's no such thing as a "definitive answer" when it comes to legal stuff, is there?
Can they only distribute pieces of the code? Could they get away with only giving out the bits that link to the GPL libraries?

Here's a nice article
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
One of the commenters makes a good summary:
If you misappropriate GPL code into a proprietary product and get caught, you
have several choices, among which include;

1) release the product under the GPL. It's an option, but as the article
states, it's not a requirement--you just have to choose another valid option if
you don't.

2) remove the GPL'ed code and do either 3) or 4).

3) replace the code with code that is in the public domain or released under a
less restrictive license (such as a BSD license).

4) WRITE YOUR *OWN* DANG CODE!

I'm curious as to what the practical difference is between statically and dynamically linking to a library in an embedded system such as the Gen3. Suppose you were to find a bug in the C runtime library - you couldn't do anything about it. Why does it therefore matter, from purely practical considerations, if you statically link the library?

I fully accept, by the way, that the LGPL says that you shouldn't. I'm asking here about the practical rather than the "legal" implications of doing so.

Dynamic linking to a library allows you to:
1) replace the library without relinking the complete application (e.g. to fix the bug you mention)
2) (on some systems) share the library's code between several processes instead of having a complete copy in each process's memory space.
If you're more familiar with Windows programming, calling a DLL is an example of dynamic linking.

I've read somewhere a comparison involving books: dynamic linking would be something akin to a reference to another book in a footnote while static linking is like including the complete text in its entirety.

Hi igorsk,

Yes, I completely understand what dynamic linking is, and that it both allows you to easily fix a bug in an RTL, and potentially reduce memory needs too. All I was wondering though is, from a practical perspective, as users o the CyBook, why does it matter, given that we have to reply on Bookeen to replace libraries, etc; we can't do so ourselves.

I'm curious as to what the practical difference is between statically and dynamically linking to a library in an embedded system such as the Gen3. Suppose you were to find a bug in the C runtime library - you couldn't do anything about it. Why does it therefore matter, from purely practical considerations, if you statically link the library?


The goal of the LGPL is that you should be able to do something about it so if you cannot then the license is not complied with. The same thing with the GPL:ed kernel. You should be able to rebuild it.

The goal of the LGPL is that you should be able to do something about it so if you cannot then the license is not complied with. The same thing with the GPL:ed kernel. You should be able to rebuild it.

But that's generally not the case true, in a practical sense, with embedded systems, is it? Suppose you find a bug in the Linux kernel in, say, the Sony Reader (which does fully comply with the GPL). Can you re-flash the ROM even if you do fix the bug? Imagine the support nightmare that would result if everyone had their own "customised" version of the firmware!

That's why I'm asking if this has any practical implication rather than legal ones?

This might be a case were version 3 of the LGPL is much clearer. Version 3 says explicitly that you have to provide installation instructions. Version 2 does not say that explicitly which probably was a motivation to do a version 3. But I have not followed that debate so I am guessing.

I am not a programmer but in theory it would be well possible to exchange a library in a firmware. I can give you a specific example:
A hardware mediaplayer (sold amongst others by Freecom) had/has a firmware which consist of open source libraries, hardware drivers (not sure whether they were open or closed source, nobody messed around with them), a single piece of closed source software (the player) plus quite a few scripts, graphics files and some such.
After experimenting around people managed to take apart the firmware into the above mentioned parts (as already stated, I'm not a programmer, but from following that thread for over a year I assume that there are only so many ways to pack stuff into a firmware file and people who work in that field are certain to get to the point sooner or later where they can take it apart).
Once the files were available there was a number of uses which the various people found:
1) one of the simplest was to change the graphics (to something prettier, or in another language -> as the buttons were all just graphics)
2) change the scripts to modify the behaviour of the system
3) include additional libraries called from modifies parts of the script (they managed to include an ftp and telnet server that way so you could remote control the system via telnet)
4) exchange libraries for less buggy ones or maybe just smaller ones to speed things up or make room for other stuff

So, basically, there IS practical use for dynamically linked libraries, at least in theory, because you never know when it will be possible to change stuff.

A customer service nightmare would be out of the question as usually every vendor clearly states somewhere in all that legalese that if you tamper with the device (both hardware and software) the warranty is null and void and no court on earth would rule that the manufacturer could be held responsible if some idiot bricked their device by re-flashing or suffered some other mis-behaviour from some altered firmware.

Of course, one shouldn't be so naive as to assume that there aren't those who brick their device and still try to get the manufacturer to do something about it. Whether the company will be very strict or not will probably also depend on their sales: If a device sells extremely well because people know that you can customize your firmware, exchange graphics and such, the company could possibly be rather lenient because they also benefit from their customers work through increased sales...

But that's generally not the case true, in a practical sense, with embedded systems, is it? Suppose you find a bug in the Linux kernel in, say, the Sony Reader (which does fully comply with the GPL). Can you re-flash the ROM even if you do fix the bug? Imagine the support nightmare that would result if everyone had their own "customised" version of the firmware!

That's why I'm asking if this has any practical implication rather than legal ones?

There's plenty of precedent for devices based on Linux and other GPL code where users DO create their own firmware. It is NOT a support nightmare. Lookup the WRT54G for a prominent example. Basically, companies have no requirement to "support" devices in unauthorized configurations, and users make modifications at their own risk. Yet, many thousands of users find the risk worth it.

I have been considering buying this device, I like the design and features, but I'm glad I found this thread. Now I will not even consider it until the GPL violation is fixed.

It amazes me that people who would scream bloody murder about people selling bootleg copies of CDs or ebooks are so willing to forgive device manufacturers for doing the exact same thing. Both cases are copyright infringement. The only difference is that most GPL copyright owners are not organized with armies of lawyers and lobbyists whereas media companies are.

It amazes me that people who would scream bloody murder about people selling bootleg copies of CDs or ebooks are so willing to forgive device manufacturers for doing the exact same thing. Both cases are copyright infringement. The only difference is that most GPL copyright owners are not organized with armies of lawyers and lobbyists whereas media companies are.

You need to contact Netronix (the manufacturers of the Gen3) and "scream bloody murder" at them if this upsets you. They are the ones who are refusing to release the Linux source, not Bookeen.

You need to contact Netronix (the manufacturers of the Gen3) and "scream bloody murder" at them if this upsets you. They are the ones who are refusing to release the Linux source, not Bookeen.

I do not get the reasoning here. It is Bookeen that is distributing the device without having the source to distribute. It is Bookeen that is doing wrong at least as much as Netronix if not more since Bookeen did not tell the customers about this. Netronix did tell Bookeen about it.

What did Netronix tell Bookeen? All I've heard (and it might even have been from you!) is that Bookeen have said that they are unable to get the source from the hardware manufacturer - Netronix.

On a practical level, what do you expect Bookeen to do about it? Stopping selling the Gen3 and go bust?

You need to contact Netronix (the manufacturers of the Gen3) and "scream bloody murder" at them if this upsets you. They are the ones who are refusing to release the Linux source, not Bookeen.

From what I've heard from Netronix, they're not making anything "hidden" about the version of Linux they're using. And it might well be that they've been concentrating more on upgrading than on keeping people abreast. Right now, they're moving from embedded Linux 2.4 to 2.6. I should know more about the version they're using this week.

Derek

What did Netronix tell Bookeen? All I've heard (and it might even have been from you!) is that Bookeen have said that they are unable to get the source from the hardware manufacturer - Netronix.

On a practical level, what do you expect Bookeen to do about it? Stopping selling the Gen3 and go bust?

I would suspect that Bookeen has an agreement with its supplier - which from all I've seen of the EB-100 makes me strongly suspect it's Netronix - an agreement whereby Bookeen gets the hardware and develops its own apps.

If it is Netronix which is supplying the hardware and OS, then there's a good chance that Bookeen had to buy a "developer's package" in order to get access to the SDK software. These "developer's packages" tend to run to several thousand dollars and may well include proprietary software covered by NDAs.

However, once a person/company buys the package, one gets all the detailed information on what GPL'd software has been used as well. As I don't have that kind of money, I've not bought a "developer's package". Anyone want to set up a collection so I can buy one? Hint. Hint. I can get the exact price required. :)

Derek

What did Netronix tell Bookeen? All I've heard (and it might even have been from you!) is that Bookeen have said that they are unable to get the source from the hardware manufacturer - Netronix.

On a practical level, what do you expect Bookeen to do about it? Stopping selling the Gen3 and go bust?

They signed an NDA and still they started to sell the unit. They should not have signed the NDA since it is not allowed to have NDA for the Linux source. They should not have built a unit they cannot sell without copyright infringement. They knew about this well in advance so this was not something new for Bookeen.

What should a pirate do? Should he really stop distributing copyrighted material?

They signed an NDA and still they started to sell the unit. They should not have signed the NDA since it is not allowed to have NDA for the Linux source. They should not have built a unit they cannot sell without copyright infringement. They knew about this well in advance so this was not something new for Bookeen.


OK, let's take this a step further.

Bookeen wanted to produce an eInk reader.
Netronix are the source for the "reference" eInk hardware platform and its SDK.
If you're a small company who wants to produce an eInk reader you pretty much have to go through Netronix.

What do you suggest that Bookeen should have done?

May I ask how you know that the NDA covers the Linux software, by the way?

They signed an NDA and still they started to sell the unit. They should not have signed the NDA since it is not allowed to have NDA for the Linux source. They should not have built a unit they cannot sell without copyright infringement. They knew about this well in advance so this was not something new for Bookeen.

What should a pirate do? Should he really stop distributing copyrighted material?

First of all, we're presuming they'd signed an NDA with their supplier, be it Netronix or whoever.

Second, I'm of the opinion that if it is Netronix, the NDA probably covered just the proprietary stuff as Netronix has made it clear that the Linux OS source is freely available code. I'm thinking, although I have no proof as I can't afford one of the "developer's packages", that except for possibly the low-level drivers they developed for their EB-100 hardware, the version of Linux is whichever actual embedded version that is currently available for the processor used inside. It's a Samsung, I believe. Shouldn't be too hard to track down which version of Linux has been ported over to that processor.


Derek

An analogy could be helpful here.

Suppose you wanted to startup a video store. You got some funding, opened a store and bought 10,000 DVDs from a small distributor. The videos arrived, you ran your business and all was well.

Then, at some point it came to your attention that the DVDs were actually pirate copies. They are _quality_ counterfeits, the factory that made them made professional looking DVDs and boxes to put them in, and you had no reason when you bought them to believe they were illegal, yet there it is.

The law doesn't make any distinction between "good faith" or the fact that you are $100,000 in debt because you bought these DVDs. It is illegal for you to sell them, period, because you have no license from the copyright owners.

The law is quite clear. The only legal recourse you have is to stop selling them immediately, and file a lawsuit against your distributor for damages caused by their illegal actions. Actually you're quite screwed. I of course can understand that the average business in this position might rather try to stay in business and justify their illegal actions as business necessities. But I repeat, the law is quite clear. Selling someone's intellectual property which you don't have a license to is illegal, full stop, regardless of the circumstances, period. Can I be any more clear?

And by the way, companies are supposed to have lawyers on staff who vet agreements to avoid problems like this. Bookeen should fire their legal staff for incompetence if they failed to notice this.

May I ask how you know that the NDA covers the Linux software, by the way?

This is what I was told by Bookeen:

PS2: Concerning GPL source code, we have to release the Linux source code. In fact, we have to force our third party low level operating system
supplier to do it. For the time being, it is covered by NDA and still needs
to be cleared up before we can move forward.

Bookeen wanted to produce an eInk reader.
Netronix are the source for the "reference" eInk hardware platform and its SDK.
If you're a small company who wants to produce an eInk reader you pretty much have to go through Netronix.

What do you suggest that Bookeen should have done?


I do not get the argument here. Are you saying that if I want to start an eBook selling company but do not have any money I can download eBooks from darknet and sell them?

If you legally cannot sell a product you cannot sell it. It is simple.

An analogy could be helpful here.

The law doesn't make any distinction between "good faith" or the fact that you are $100,000 in debt because you bought these DVDs.

The law is quite clear. The only legal recourse you have is to stop selling them immediately, and file a lawsuit against your distributor for damages caused by their illegal actions.


Who's law? We have several different countries on this earth, and they all have different law's

In my country the law is that when I buy a bike that normaly costs around 300 Euro for 25 Euro from a guy on the street I could have known it was stolen. I'll be punishable by law and I have to return the bike to the owner.

But if I buy the same stolen bike from a guy in a shop for 'the very very special discounted price' of 200 Euro I acted in good faith and I can keep the bike. It does not matter if the shop owner is the thief or tha he bought the bike from the original thief. The owner may buy the bike from me for 200 Euro and he can sue the thief.

Our law is also quite clear, there is a distinction between knowing you are wrong and acting in good faith

Who's law? We have several different countries on this earth, and they all have different law's

In my country the law is that when I buy a bike that normaly costs around 300 Euro for 25 Euro from a guy on the street I could have known it was stolen. I'll be punishable by law and I have to return the bike to the owner.

But if I buy the same stolen bike from a guy in a shop for 'the very very special discounted price' of 200 Euro I acted in good faith and I can keep the bike. It does not matter if the shop owner is the thief or tha he bought the bike from the original thief. The owner may buy the bike from me for 200 Euro and he can sue the thief.

Our law is also quite clear, there is a distinction between knowing you are wrong and acting in good faith

Yes, this distinction exists in some cases. But here we were not talking about theft. The example was copyright infringement and if you could continue to sell things when you became aware that the selling was copyright infringement.

Yes, this distinction exists in some cases. But here we were not talking about theft. The example was copyright infringement and if you could continue to sell things when you became aware that the selling was copyright infringement.

And are those laws the same in all countries of the world?

For example: In The Netherlands it is perfectly legal to download music put it on my MP3 player and listen to it. In some countries it is not.

The fun part is that I am legally downloading when I get it from a newsgroup, but not when I'm downloading the same music with utorrent. Because in that case I'm also uploading parts of the song, and that is illegal.

But my original remark was only to make people aware that there is no such thing as "The Law"

And are those laws the same in all countries of the world?

For example: In The Netherlands it is perfectly legal to download music put it on my MP3 player and listen to it. In some countries it is not.

The fun part is that I am legally downloading when I get it from a newsgroup, but not when I'm downloading the same music with utorrent. Because in that case I'm also uploading parts of the song.

Actually in the case of selling the thing I think they are very similar at least in countries that tries to have some copyright laws. Or do you have any counter examples?

The laws in Sweden was as yours regarding the difference between newsgroup and torrent but they changed it a couple of years ago so downloading only also is illegal.

In this case I assume it is the laws in France that are the relevant ones.

And are those laws the same in all countries of the world?

For example: In The Netherlands it is perfectly legal to download music put it on my MP3 player and listen to it. In some countries it is not.


The point is that the GPL requires Bookeen to release the Linux source code (never mind the fact that it's bugger all use to anyone!) and they cannot do so because Netronix (the hardware manufacturer) won't give it to them.

It would be interesting to speculate what, if any, "punishment" a court would impose for this transgression, given that it's a civil (not a criminal) offence, and fines in civil cases generally reflect actual financial loss suffered by the copyright holder. In this case, of course, the copyright holder hasn't suffered any financial loss at all (because it's "free" software) and nor has anyone suffered any material loss through not being able to get hold of the source code.

One might ask "does it really matter"?

In this case I assume it is the laws in France that are the relevant ones.

I'm not sure about that. That leaves a loophole big enough for a Dreamliner to fly though (when it finally is finished). If only the law from the 'originating country' applies, you can make everything and sell everything everywhere. Simply go to the country were it is legal and export it from there.

Anybody need some marijuana? I can buy it within 10 minutes drive from my home.

And because I want to be able to travel abroad without getting arrested:

Disclaimer for the non Dutch law enforcement agencies.

I'm not going to export it. This was only an example

The point is that the GPL requires Bookeen to release the Linux source code (never mind the fact that it's bugger all use to anyone!) and they cannot do so because Netronix (the hardware manufacturer) won't give it to them.
Actually, GPL does not "require" to release the source code. However, it's one of the options you have when using GPL software. Two other options are to stop distributing your product or to replace the GPL code by non-GPL equivalent.
And I'm pretty sure Bookeen have the sources - developing and debugging firmware otherwise would be a royal pain.

How do you folks know that the Linux was modified? Linux embedded may be being used as it was distributed. The propritary software may be the reader they wrote. I see alot of assumtions being made in this thread, and not alot of facts. You are perfectly welcome to run software on Linux and not release the code to that software. It is not a component or modification of the Linux OS.

BOb

How do you folks know that the Linux was modified? Linux embedded may be being used as it was distributed. The propritary software may be the reader they wrote. I see alot of assumtions being made in this thread, and not alot of facts. You are perfectly welcome to run software on Linux and not release the code to that software. It is not a component or modification of the Linux OS.

BOb

I'm pretty darned sure that except for the low-level drivers for the display and the buttons, it *WAS* used as distributed. And I'm also willing to believe that whatever code has gone into Boo Reader is probably completely developed in-house by Bookeen - with probable reference to Mobi's reference SDK.

Derek

How do you folks know that the Linux was modified? Linux embedded may be being used as it was distributed. The propritary software may be the reader they wrote. I see alot of assumtions being made in this thread, and not alot of facts. You are perfectly welcome to run software on Linux and not release the code to that software. It is not a component or modification of the Linux OS.

Yes, you're free to modify and run whatever GPL code you want as long as you don't distribute it. Once you do, you're required to provide end users with the exact source code you used or with instructions on how to reproduce your binaries. If it wasn't modified, then you can provide links to the original packages you used. If it was, you can provide just patches. The end goal is the same: the end user should be able to recreate the binary equivalent to what you distributed.

But what's the point with something like the Gen3, where you need to create a firmware "package" to change anything? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that those package creation tools are a standard part of Linux, are they? They are almost certainly proprietory software.

Actually, GPL does not "require" to release the source code. However, it's one of the options you have when using GPL software. Two other options are to stop distributing your product or to replace the GPL code by non-GPL equivalent.

It's not exactly "releasing" the source code what the GPL asks for. What you should do is give the source to anyone you give the binaries to at no additional charge, and if they ask for it. That is, they wouldn't need to release the source code publicly, but it should be available to any legal owner of a Cybook. And of course, it would still be GPL, so the owners who get the source code can freely distribute it if they want, but that's a different story. From the seller's point of view it is: I sell you a device with GPL software, if you want the source code of the software, just ask for it and I'll send it to you or tell you how to get it.

But what's the point with something like the Gen3, where you need to create a firmware "package" to change anything? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that those package creation tools are a standard part of Linux, are they? They are almost certainly proprietory software.

Do you mean that the right of the people writing the code and having the copyright to control how things are distributed does not have to be respected just because you do not see any point? I read your comments as excuses for Bookeens behaviour. Like they have not done anything morally wrong (like pirating books).

The reason for GPL3 was to fix the thing you refer to. With GPL3 you have to distribute the tools to build the firmware also. That was always the intention with GPL2 but when it was written firmware updateable hardware was very rare if they existsed at all. So if you do not only want to do the legal right thing but also the morally right thing you should distribute the tools to build the firmware.

Do you mean that the right of the people writing the code and having the copyright to control how things are distributed does not have to be respected just because you do not see any point? I read your comments as excuses for Bookeens behaviour. Like they have not done anything morally wrong (like pirating books).


No, I'm not saying that peoples' rights shouldn't be respected. I'm asking if there is any practical impact which results from this rights violation? Is anybody losing anything as a result of it? If the answer is "no" then one could ask "then why does it matter?". It is rather a different situation to the analogy you've used before of someone selling pirated DVDs - in that case, the movie producer is clearly losing money as a result of those pirated copies. Who is losing anything here?

I'm asking if there is any practical impact which results from this rights violation? Is anybody losing anything as a result of it? If the answer is "no" then one could ask "then why does it matter?".
Can I argue the same way when I am in court for software or book piracy ?
Telling the Judge I would not have bought the book anyway ?

It does matter because the contributors in GPLed Open Source projects had other motives spending their time on the software then helping Bookeen to make profit !

Can I argue the same way when I am in court for software or book piracy ?
Telling the Judge I would not have bought the book anyway ?


In a court case for copyright infringement (as with that idiot woman in the US whose name escapes me), damages are generally awarded based on the commercial value of the goods being pirated. The commercial value here would seem to be zero.

I am in no way condoning copyright infringement, but this seems to be a purely "technical" infringement in that nobody is actually losing anything. The product concerned is a free one. It would be like, say, if I were to give out leaflets free on a street corner, and you were to photocopy one of my leaflets and start giving them out for free yourself. Technically you've infringed my copyright, but does it actually matter to anyone?

No, I'm not saying that peoples' rights shouldn't be respected. I'm asking if there is any practical impact which results from this rights violation? Is anybody losing anything as a result of it? If the answer is "no" then one could ask "then why does it matter?". It is rather a different situation to the analogy you've used before of someone selling pirated DVDs - in that case, the movie producer is clearly losing money as a result of those pirated copies. Who is losing anything here?

Are you really saying that the copyright holders right to control distribution only should hold if he earn money on the distribution? The copyright holder is loosing since somebody does something against his will.

Are you really saying that the copyright holders right to control distribution only should hold if he earn money on the distribution? The copyright holder is loosing since somebody does something against his will.

No, I am a firm believe in the rights of copyright holders. All I'm saying is that since the penalties for civil copyright infringement seem to be based solely on financial loss, it's difficult to see what anyone can actually do to prevent violations which don't result in financial loss.

No, I am a firm believe in the rights of copyright holders. All I'm saying is that since the penalties for civil copyright infringement seem to be based solely on financial loss, it's difficult to see what anyone can actually do to prevent violations which don't result in financial loss.

OK. Since you morally objects strongly to pirating book but do not seem to object morally in this case I misread you statements. So I assume you think this is as morally wrong as pirating books. I think this thread restarted with an observation that people was not consistent in their moral objection to copyright infringement.

So I assume you think this is as morally wrong as pirating books.

It's not a black and white issue - very few things are.

Yes, I think it's morally wrong to ignore the rights of copyright holders. On a "scale of wrongness" I think I'd put it on a par with, say, illegally downloading a book that's out of print. ie it's wrong, but nobody's losing anything as a result of the action.

It's not a black and white issue - very few things are.

Yes, I think it's morally wrong to ignore the rights of copyright holders. On a "scale of wrongness" I think I'd put it on a par with, say, illegally downloading a book that's out of print. ie it's wrong, but nobody's losing anything as a result of the action.

I think it is more morally wrong to not respect peoples wishes then if somebody loose anything. Downloading an out of print book against the authors wish is more morally wrong then downloading a book from a dead author that is still in print.

And you are wrong that people are not loosing. As I have said it makes it impossible for me to sell the device since I think it is morally wrong to sell it. Also it probably delays hacking of the device. Also it does not give the right signals to people to respect copyright.

It's silly to argue about exactly HOW wrong it is. It's just plain wrong - we're all (I think) agreed on that.

The point is that the GPL requires Bookeen to release the Linux source code (never mind the fact that it's bugger all use to anyone!) and they cannot do so because Netronix (the hardware manufacturer) won't give it to them.

It would be interesting to speculate what, if any, "punishment" a court would impose for this transgression, given that it's a civil (not a criminal) offence, and fines in civil cases generally reflect actual financial loss suffered by the copyright holder. In this case, of course, the copyright holder hasn't suffered any financial loss at all (because it's "free" software) and nor has anyone suffered any material loss through not being able to get hold of the source code.

One might ask "does it really matter"?

This is a misunderstanding of the "free" in Free Software. But I can answer this in several points.

The first punishment a court would impose is a preliminary injunction banning distribution of the copyrighted materials, since nothing but the GPL gives Bookeen the right to distribute the software, and they are not abiding by the terms of the GPL. (This has happened in other cases of GPL violations.)

The idea that there is no financial loss is beside the point, since the purpose of "copyleft" Free Software licenses such as the GPL is that you "pay for" your right to distribute the software by granting all the freedoms you received with the software to all the users you distribute it to. (i.e. The freedoms to use, study, modify and redistribute the code.)

If they didn't receive all the freedoms from Netronix (as seems to be the case here) they still don't have the right to restrict downstream users. If they cannot both distribute the software and abide by the terms of the GPL, they must simply stop distributing the software.

The "bugger all use" argument is also flawed. As someone else mentioned, GPL v3 does fix this kind of problem by ensuring that any modified code is usable on the device it is intended for (removing the TiVo loophole). But even with GPL v2, the legal onus is on all distributors to provide source code, if requested, to anyone who receives the binaries. Even if it's not directly usable, it would be useful to study for anyone producing a free firmware for the CyBook, or working on other devices. The freedom to study GPL'd source code that you receive (to see what it's doing and how it's done) is one of the 4 freedoms I mentioned before.

How do you folks know that the Linux was modified? Linux embedded may be being used as it was distributed. The propritary software may be the reader they wrote. I see alot of assumtions being made in this thread, and not alot of facts. You are perfectly welcome to run software on Linux and not release the code to that software. It is not a component or modification of the Linux OS.


I looked at the kernel image included in the 538 update - it has been modified to include drivers for the e-ink controller. These are statically linked into the kernel, so definitely count as modifications for the purposes of the GPL.

Someone else previously posted saying that the boordr application also included GPL code (meaning Bookeen themselves would be violating), but I haven't checked that myself...

In a court case for copyright infringement (as with that idiot woman in the US whose name