Re: Arcom GPL violation?

Re: Arcom GPL violation?

[Gary Thomas]

Note: this is really a topic for the eCos maintainers (of which I am
included), so I've cc'd them to this reply. (sorry for the duplication)

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 14:43 +0000, CLUGSTON wrote:
> Dear Gary,
> 
> I have purchased a VIPER board from Arcom UK that came pre-flashed 
> with Redboot. There was a problem with the Flash which ment in the 
> end that I had to return the board, but this problem lead me to inquire 
> after the source code for Redboot. It turns out that they wanted £100 
> or about $180 USD for a 'Reboot Development' CD-Rom. I explained that 
> by my understanding of the GPL that there where obliged to make the 
> modifications available to anyone, especially anyone who has payed 
> for a board with it embedded into it. They said that their engineers 
> had spent the time making it unique to the Viper and therefore they 
> have to charge for it.
> 
> Can you give me any clarification on whether or not they are allowed 
> to do this or not before I purchase the CD?
> 
> Sorry for the direct email, but I didn't want to disscuss this on the 
> mailing list. I have included below a section of a similar discussion 
> from the list about 18mths ago that there was no follow up to.
> 

This is definitely *not* allowed under the GPL.  They can charge you a
fee, but only to the limit of what it costs them to produce the sources
on a distribution medium.  From section 3 of GPL (rev 2):

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

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

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

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

> Thanks for any information you can offer.

I don't know how you can push them on this though.  Perhaps the other
maintainers can make some suggestions.

Note: you should have also received the full sources to their Linux port
if they distributed that as part of the product.

> 
> Steven Clugston
> 
> ********************************************************
> 
> 
> I recently acquired a development kit pre-loaded with RedBoot and Linux from Arcom.
> 
> I recently e-mailed their support line requesting for the following files:
> redboot_RAM_ALTMAP.ecm
> redboot_ROM_ALTMAP.ecm
> redboot_RAM.ecm
> redboot_ROM.ecm
> 
> Is this a good way to start? Are there any other configuration type files that are used when building RedBoot?
> 
> 
> Actually, because of the GPL they should be willing to give you the
> entire tree for their port (which will be many more files than this).
> 
> Gary means that if they ship Redboot with their product, the GPL obliges
> them to provide you at least with a patch against the public
> ecos/redboot sources that contains the modifications that were necessary
> to get it running on that particular board. Just ask them!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Arcom GPL violation?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> Note: this is really a topic for the eCos maintainers (of which I am
> included), so I've cc'd them to this reply. (sorry for the duplication)
> 
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 14:43 +0000, CLUGSTON wrote:
> 
>>Dear Gary,
>>
>>I have purchased a VIPER board from Arcom UK that came pre-flashed 
>>with Redboot. There was a problem with the Flash which ment in the 
>>end that I had to return the board, but this problem lead me to inquire 
>>after the source code for Redboot. It turns out that they wanted £100 
>>or about $180 USD for a 'Reboot Development' CD-Rom. I explained that 
>>by my understanding of the GPL that there where obliged to make the 
>>modifications available to anyone, especially anyone who has payed 
>>for a board with it embedded into it. They said that their engineers 
>>had spent the time making it unique to the Viper and therefore they 
>>have to charge for it.
>>
>>Can you give me any clarification on whether or not they are allowed 
>>to do this or not before I purchase the CD?
>>
>>Sorry for the direct email, but I didn't want to disscuss this on the 
>>mailing list. I have included below a section of a similar discussion 
>>from the list about 18mths ago that there was no follow up to.
>>
> 
> 
> This is definitely *not* allowed under the GPL.  They can charge you a
> fee, but only to the limit of what it costs them to produce the sources
> on a distribution medium.  From section 3 of GPL (rev 2):
> 
>   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> 
>     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>     source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
>     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
> 
>     b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
>     years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
>     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
>     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
>     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>     customarily used for software interchange; or,
> 
>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> 
> 
>>Thanks for any information you can offer.
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can push them on this though.  Perhaps the other
> maintainers can make some suggestions.

Arcom have been decent in the past and made contributions. I would imagine 
it's more likely to be disconnect and miscommunication within Arcom rather 
than anything deliberate, so we don't need to come out with all guns 
blazing assuming the worst.

Steven, if you think you've already effectively pointed out what Gary says 
(which is entirely correct) we can take this on. As copyright holders we 
have much more clout.

I will make an initial discreet enquiry now, but (Steven) let us know 
whether you want to talk to them again first.

It may also help that Arcom are based in Cambridge UK, as are many of the 
eCos maintainers.

> Note: you should have also received the full sources to their Linux port
> if they distributed that as part of the product.

Indeed.

Although to be clear, you only get sources to the binaries you have 
received (in whatever form) so it may not include any fancy development 
tools they bundle - I don't know if they do.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
Visit us at Embedded World 2005, Nürnberg, Germany, 22-24 Feb, Stand 11-124
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: Arcom GPL violation?

[Jonathan Larmour]

CLUGSTON wrote:
> 
> They haven't supplied any Linux binaries only RedBoot. I am waiting to
> find out exactly what's on either of their CDs so perhaps its best to
> hold fire until then when I can ask more directly if they are prepared
> to release the eCos/Redboot source tree code. At the end of the day as
> Gary says it's you guys that hold the copyright and have put the work in
> so it depends if you want it enforced or not.

At the end of the day, it absolutely will be enforced.

> I will buy the CD if
> necessary as the money is coming from my university department and not
> my own pocket. They are selling what seems to be a good product and I
> don't want to antagonize them too much.

You really should not need to buy the CD for the RedBoot code unless it 
contains other things you want.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
Visit us at Embedded World 2005, Nürnberg, Germany, 22-24 Feb, Stand 11-124
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

RE: Arcom GPL violation?

[CLUGSTON]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jifl@eCosCentric.com] 
>Sent: 31 January 2005 16:25
>To: Gary Thomas
>Cc: CLUGSTON; eCos Maintainers
>Subject: Re: Arcom GPL violation?
>
>
>Gary Thomas wrote:
>> Note: this is really a topic for the eCos maintainers (of which I am 
>> included), so I've cc'd them to this reply. (sorry for the 
>> duplication)
>> 
>> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 14:43 +0000, CLUGSTON wrote:
>> 
>>>Dear Gary,
>>>
>>>I have purchased a VIPER board from Arcom UK that came pre-flashed
>>>with Redboot. There was a problem with the Flash which ment in the 
>>>end that I had to return the board, but this problem lead me 
>to inquire 
>>>after the source code for Redboot. It turns out that they 
>wanted £100 
>>>or about $180 USD for a 'Reboot Development' CD-Rom. I 
>explained that 
>>>by my understanding of the GPL that there where obliged to make the 
>>>modifications available to anyone, especially anyone who has payed 
>>>for a board with it embedded into it. They said that their engineers 
>>>had spent the time making it unique to the Viper and therefore they 
>>>have to charge for it.
>>>
>>>Can you give me any clarification on whether or not they are allowed
>>>to do this or not before I purchase the CD?
>>>
>>>Sorry for the direct email, but I didn't want to disscuss this on the
>>>mailing list. I have included below a section of a similar 
>discussion 
>>>from the list about 18mths ago that there was no follow up to.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> This is definitely *not* allowed under the GPL.  They can 
>charge you a 
>> fee, but only to the limit of what it costs them to produce the 
>> sources on a distribution medium.  From section 3 of GPL (rev 2):
>> 
>>   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, 
>> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the 
>terms of 
>> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the 
>following:
>> 
>>     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>>     source code, which must be distributed under the terms 
>of Sections
>>     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software 
>> interchange; or,
>> 
>>     b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
>>     years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
>>     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
>>     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
>>     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>>     customarily used for software interchange; or,
>> 
>>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
>>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>> 
>> 
>>>Thanks for any information you can offer.
>> 
>> 
>> I don't know how you can push them on this though.  Perhaps 
>the other 
>> maintainers can make some suggestions.
>
>Arcom have been decent in the past and made contributions. I 
>would imagine 
>it's more likely to be disconnect and miscommunication within 
>Arcom rather 
>than anything deliberate, so we don't need to come out with all guns 
>blazing assuming the worst.
>
>Steven, if you think you've already effectively pointed out 
>what Gary says 
>(which is entirely correct) we can take this on. As copyright 
>holders we 
>have much more clout.
>
>I will make an initial discreet enquiry now, but (Steven) let us know 
>whether you want to talk to them again first.
>
>It may also help that Arcom are based in Cambridge UK, as are 
>many of the 
>eCos maintainers.
>
>> Note: you should have also received the full sources to their Linux 
>> port if they distributed that as part of the product.
>
>Indeed.
>
>Although to be clear, you only get sources to the binaries you have 
>received (in whatever form) so it may not include any fancy 
>development 
>tools they bundle - I don't know if they do.
>
>Jifl
>-- 
>eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and 
>RedBoot experts
>Visit us at Embedded World 2005, Nürnberg, Germany, 22-24 Feb, 
>Stand 11-124 --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work 
>anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
>
>

They haven't supplied any Linux binaries only RedBoot. I am waiting to find out exactly what's on either of their CDs so perhaps its best to hold fire until then when I can ask more directly if they are prepared to release the eCos/Redboot source tree code. At the end of the day as Gary says it's you guys that hold the copyright and have put the work in so it depends if you want it enforced or not. I will buy the CD if necessary as the money is coming from my university department and not my own pocket. They are selling what seems to be a good product and I don't want to antagonize them too much.

Steven

RE: Arcom GPL violation?

[CLUGSTON]

Gary,

Thanks for the clarification.

>Note: you should have also received the full sources to their 
>Linux port
>if they distributed that as part of the product.
>

I believe they want another £100/$180 for the Linux stuff as well. I was prepared to buy the Redboot CD if it was their final word, but that was when I thought it was included in the Linux distribution as well but it isn't. I am waiting for clarification from someone from their sale team regarding whether the RedBoot stuff is also on their Linux development CD, but the girl I spoke to thought that wasn't the case. That would mean they are charging separately for a Redboot and Linux pair which brings the 'open' source cost upto about 2/3 of the VIPER board cost.

Best Regards

Steven Clugston.