Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
From the above article, it seems clear that John Deere has put GPL'ed Linux software into it's products, which it then locked down with DRM to avoid discovery. It's an egregious breach of the GPL.
Who sues them? The FSF? Or is there need to invent and bankroll a body to sue them?
Not wishing to defend John Deere, but there seems to be a lot of noise about the GPL from people who do not appear to understand the GPL.
So far all we know is they are selling hardware that runs a Linux-based OS?
At least, that's my interpretation of a Slashdot user who wrote "...it is in general based on outdated versions of Linux and Windows CE." - there is nothing mentioning Linux or the GPL in the Wired article which the Slashdot post references, nor in the 2021Twitter thread.
Update: From 24m 3s of the video linked in that thread, there's a reference to a device which includes the requisite offer for source code, but which (at time of video) John Deere were dragging their feet over - given that it's a year old video, there should be more concrete information about that by now...?
From the above article, it seems clear that John Deere has put GPL'ed Linux software into it's products, which it then locked down with DRM to avoid discovery. It's an egregious breach of the GPL.
Who sues them? The FSF? Or is there need to invent and bankroll a body to sue them?
Based on my layperson reading, GPL forces you to disclose the source code when you incorporate it in other software (Except when using software libraries). Nowhere does it say that you can't lock this system behind DRM. If they refuse to share the code then it becomes a GPL violation otherwise it is allowed.
This was one of the issues that v3 of the license attempted to address because folks were running GPL software on servers they own to run SaaS and since technically they were not deploying/sharing the software with others they could get away with not sharing the code for their modifications.
Based on my layperson reading, GPL forces you to disclose the source code when you incorporate it in other software (Except when using software libraries). Nowhere does it say that you can't lock this system behind DRM. If they refuse to share the code then it becomes a GPL violation otherwise it is allowed.
This was one of the issues that v3 of the license attempted to address because folks were running GPL software on servers they own to run SaaS and since technically they were not deploying/sharing the software with others they could get away with not sharing the code for their modifications.
The GNU GPL requires you to provide source code to people in receipt of the software. There is no explicit requirement to publicly publish the source (though obviously if you publicly distribute the software, that's the easiest way to comply).
There is no "except when using software libraries" clause - when a derived work is created from GPL licensed software, the GPL applies to the whole work, but the precise definition of when that occurs is a contested issue. A separate license, the GNU LGPL, was created to explicitly allow libraries to be used without the resulting software being considered a derived work.
What you reference regarding SaaS (i.e. remote/networked software) is not addressed by the GPLv3, but by the GNU AGPL.
The GNU GPL requires you to provide source code to people in receipt of the software. There is no explicit requirement to publicly publish the source (though obviously if you publicly distribute the software, that's the easiest way to comply).
There is no "except when using software libraries" clause - when a derived work is created from GPL licensed software, the GPL applies to the whole work, but the precise definition of when that occurs is a contested issue. A separate license, the GNU LGPL, was created to explicitly allow libraries to be used without the resulting software being considered a derived work.
What you reference regarding SaaS (i.e. remote/networked software) is not addressed by the GPLv3, but by the GNU AGPL.
I have a friend who works for John Deere, and MANY folks have sued under the right-to-repair act, and yes, they are dragging their feet. However, the GPL doesn't apply in this case. While the operating system may be Linux/Linux derivative (or Windows, as stated), they write their own software/modules to RUN on that OS...proprietary, and developed in house. Just because that software runs on Linux, doesn't mean that they have to give their source code/modules away, anymore than Oracle has to provide their database engine source code, or any other entity that writes software to run on Linux.
While I'm totally uneducated about this and I wouldn't put it past John Deere, or anyone really... Could they have possibly used the linux kernel but bsd or their own privately licensed software on top bypassing that requirement? At that point if one can find any reference to it being a linux kernel anywhere in their documentation then that ends it I would think. Whether or not we like it of course it may all be on the up and up.
I'm no GPL expert but using GPL software requires you to have the GPL parts available for download. Not only did they not do that, but had their system not been hacked, we wouldn't know today. The Excited States seems to be infected with John Deere farm machinery, and few seem to like their way of doing business.
So on top of the linux/GPL/Windows issues, there will also be the issue of firmware licences for any precompiled chip cores designed into the John Deere Electronics. Both of those licenses would be considerably more restrictive than the linux GPL. Indeed it's also possible that what is identified as Windows CE may simply be the BSD networking stack which M$ (like Apple) ripped off due to the more permissive BSD license.
I'm no GPL expert but using GPL software requires you to have the GPL parts available for download.
The basic linux system can be downloaded from anywhere. The only question is if that is documented (what is it and where is it from and what was added/modified) - and also if it should be documented at all.
I don't think you want to install/configure linux on a farming equipment. That looks nonsense for me.
I'm no GPL expert but using GPL software requires you to have the GPL parts available for download. Not only did they not do that, but had their system not been hacked, we wouldn't know today.
Well your first few words there are correct.
Using GPL software does not require anything. Nor does the source code need to be available for download.
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.)
John Deere comply with subsection b by including the written offer in the EULA that all their customers receive.
Is there any evidence that they have failed to provide the relevant source to anyone who has requested it?
Is there any evidence that they have failed to provide the relevant source to anyone who has requested it?
You can ask, it says how in the manuals, but you won't get anything in response. There was quite a bit of discussion of that in various non-tech communities a few years ago but I don't know what became of it, there's not enough cross over between ICT and other forms of computing IMHO.
One place you might look would be Willie Cade's postings or Louis Rossmann's postings. They've even recorded a few discussions together. The Linux Foundation seems to be encouraging businesses to steal the code and have basically been doing the opposite of license enforcement. It has gotten to the point where Bruce Perens even called the Linux Foundation out as an infringers' club.
It seems to me that rule #1 of linux programming is "You must not make money."
Programmers are unrewarded in many cases for their work, and have to host their software online without reward, or have it hosted at their own expense. They are expected to be on call 365 days a year to patch any vulnerability in mission-critical software (e.g. bash, wpa_supplicant). There's no saying "Oh I'm on my (Alco)holidays and sunning myself on the Costa Plenty, so wait until I get back." No, maintainer needs to upload a patch and revise his main page. He probably can't afford the Costa Plenty anyhow. Businesses have no such issues, and make all the money. It's a glaring injustice.
You can ask, it says how in the manuals, but you won't get anything in response. There was quite a bit of discussion of that in various non-tech communities a few years ago but I don't know what became of it, there's not enough cross over between ICT and other forms of computing IMHO.
One place you might look would be Willie Cade's postings or Louis Rossmann's postings. They've even recorded a few discussions together. The Linux Foundation seems to be encouraging businesses to steal the code and have basically been doing the opposite of license enforcement. It has gotten to the point where Bruce Perens even called the Linux Foundation out as an infringers' club.
I guess that's one of the problems with people publishing everything to only Twitter and YouTube - lack of proper indexing, and having to spend ages wading through unrelated stuff to find what one is looking for.
A search for "willie cade" brings up a number of video results. Try to cut them down with "gpl": zero results. :/
Non-video results did bring up a Twitter post from March where he apparently asked for the source in person. Presumably it has still not been received?
How relevant are the Linux Foundation when it comes to license enforcement?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
