enTourage edge violating GPL?

GPL mean that you MUST to publish source code of software based on GPL code.
Linux, directfb and many other software and libraries used in EE has GPL. license.

Even big boys like Amazon published source code due GPL license http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200203720

But for some reason EE refuse to publish GPL source codes. So this is violation of GPL license, and also this doesn't allow tech savy users to develop software for EE, which mean that EE customers miss needed software and features.

What do you think about it?

I think they will consider and release it ASAP

I have a friend who works at a high profile tech company whose main job is to ensure that they stay within the bounds. It's a highly technical, constantly evolving field of law. As I understand it, the case law on the various IP issues related to the GPL are still quite murky (i.e., there hasn't been clear and convincing precedent established yet by SCOTUS or even the courts of appeal). There is a legal theory that any and all works that are derivative of anything under a GPL is subject to the GPL, but that isn't the only one or even the predominant one.

My guess would be that whatever enTourage is doing is within some mainstream interpretation of the GPL. If you think otherwise, then you're welcome to sue (seriously, that's the only way to try to enforce a particular interpretation of the GPL). Strictly speaking as an eDGe user, I'd prefer that you didn't so that they can stay focused on serving us a fresh batch of Froyo later this summer (and they generally seem like nice folks).

Hopefully the forthcoming SDK will help people develop their own enhancements for the eDGe.

Has anyone asked them for the source code? There's a difference between not having published it on their website and refusing to provide it. Try contacting them directly to see if they'll provide it.

Originally Posted by nprnncbl

Has anyone asked them for the source code? There's a difference between not having published it on their website and refusing to provide it. Try contacting them directly to see if they'll provide it.

I asked them many times. Every time when I send bug report to them I also asked for source codes (or programming examples) for EE. But every time they answer something like "we will work on it" or "i'll forward this to an person who...".

I'm not interesting in sue (but I know an law firm in US which will happy to do this for me, and also there's some public organisations which hunts for cases like this). I just interesting in getting more usefull sofware on EE.

Also note that legal request for source code and an email from person who can speak english is a little different things. So I'll be thankfull if someone send OFFICIAL request (in correct language) to EE via email and ask for GPL source codes to be released.

OK, it does sound like they refused. They need to provide the source code for the GPL components.

nprnncbl, can you write official request?

Sure, I'll ask them for the source, too. My request won't be any more official than yours, but maybe they need a reminder to uphold their responsibilities under the GPL.

Here's a theoretical question for a lawyer: can DMCA takedown notices be used for GPL non-compliance?

Originally Posted by nprnncbl

Here's a theoretical question for a lawyer: can DMCA takedown notices be used for GPL non-compliance?

Not a lawyer, but I highly doubt it. DMCA allows someone who clearly owns a copyright to request that unauthorized material--that individual (or entity) is the only party that has standing. One of the central issues with enforcing GPL is that ownership of the IP is ambiguous.

As for "public interest" lawyers... they go where there is money to be made in a judgment/settlement. Amazon publishes the Kindle source code because they've got deep pockets and are likely to continue to exist over the next decade. In other words, they made a business decision that it was more prudent to make their code freely available because they that the expected losses from competitors seeing their code was less than the costs associated with defending themselves against a suit. There isn't going to be a lot of interest in enTourage at this point because, well, frankly they don't have the assets to make it worth anyone's while. A fairly well-known case against Cisco infringing on GPL for router firmware took over six years to settle... the law firm stuck with it because they were reasonably certain that a company as well-established as Cisco would be a going concern and would have the resources to fund an eventual settlement. A startup company has a certain advantage over established firms in that law firms have to substantially discount the net expected payout of a settlement by the chance that the startup will still be around if/when the case is settled in their favor. I don't think is a parasitic attorney out there who looks at a one year-old startup trying to compete in a very competitive market against Goliaths like Amazon, ASUS, Apple, etc. and thinks "There's money to made in a protracted lawsuit over ambiguous case law."

If/when the various issues regarding the full extent of the GPL are definitively resolved (i.e., a series of SCOTUS decisions), it will involve companies with the resources more along the lines of a Cisco than enTourage.

As far as I know DMCA -- is for media, not for open source software. But you can learn about it from public organisations like http://gpl-violations.org/ or http://www.fsf.org/

In the unlikely event that Entourage refuses to meet their licensing obligations I doubt that there would be any need to resort to a lawyer looking for a paycheck. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) owns the copyright on several of the fundamental software packages used by the Edge and they actively pursue reported violations. See [1] for what to do if you think there is a violation and [2] for a description of how they pursue compliance cases.

It seems that Entourage reps do read this forum so hopefully having a little public reminder is all the push that is needed for them to get opensource.entourage.com online, just like the phone manufacturers.

All that being said my understanding is that all of the interesting user-space parts of Android are under an Apache license that doesn't require sharing modifications. So to be in compliance maybe all Entourage needs to do is post a tarball with the correct version from source.android.com. A move, that while nice, doesn't necessarily get us any closer to an SDK, which is what I suspect robot and a few of the other folks around here really want.

Best,

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance

I don't think all this talk of lawyers etc is very productive. As long as someone asks in a civil and respectful manner and mentions any relevant parts of the GPL licence agreement, I'm sure the ES guys will be happy to give up the source code for those parts which fall under the terms of the GPL. Doug Atkinson said himself they chose android "because they liked the cost of it...." which I infer to mean free. What companies must understand though is that they can't miss the elephant in the room that is Open Source Licencing and GPL which usually goes hand in hand with using a Linux kernel for their hardware. Samsung fell foul of this one and had to release the firmwares for their LCD TVs (see SammyGo project) as it was Linux based and fell under the GPL.

However the guys are working hard on an SDK which ought to prevent a lot of wheel re-invention and hopefully abstract the hardware and open up the Edge enough for third parties to develop their own apps without worrying too much about low level nitty gritty.

Let's repay a little of the customer focus the tech guys at ES have displayed thus far and stop all this litigation cr*p.

drsteve, can you asks "in a civil and respectful manner" the source codes?
My last email didn't get any answer at all.

As for SDK e.t.c. i'm programmer, but not very familiar with linux/android, and never writed anything in C. So it takes me almost one month to root EE and find the way to interact with hardware directly (without android or EE services). After this it takes me only 3 hours to write an demo for displaying an image on e-ink. Only 3 hours (!), and note that it was my 1st program on C language which is very hard to program. EE development team spend at least 3 month and didn't bring anything like that, and they planning to release SDK no early than in january. I don't know how good EE programmers is, but for sure, if I haved full source codes I will be able to port android 2.2 or bring android to e-ink screen faster than they do it.

jedfrechette, they need to publish modified code (not original android tarball), and for sure there's many changes were done in source code.

I think Edge is monitoring the forum. So PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE AS PER GPL license. This is an official request from Edge Users. Please also release the SDK quicker. we want to make a better device from our Edge and you really have poor software support on good hardware with a bad design.

Originally Posted by robot

jedfrechette, they need to publish modified code (not original android tarball), and for sure there's many changes were done in source code.

Yes, but how many of those changes were to GPL code?

Only a relatively small portion of the Android stack has a GPL license. I would bet that most of the changes Entourage made were to the user-space parts that have an Apache license. In which case, they have no legal obligation to publish those changes.

IANAL or Android developer.

Cheers,