GPL?

[JeffAtlanta]

For now I'm willing to wait while he works this through and even recommend it to friends but to be sure you're not the only one with concerns along these lines. I'm not a code contributor to a GPL project, nor even a Linux zealot, but I do understand the issue better than some. Rather than beating Tom up too badly though I for one can be patient <shrug>

 

If you don't want to be seen as a zealot then you really should reread your post and completely rewrite it.  Maybe this will help - substitute the word "GPL" in your post for "DMCA" or "DRM" and see if you'd you think the post would come across as that of a DRM/DMCA zealot.

 

You may also want to consider that for many the main use of the unRaid software is to store DVDs that were ripped in violation of the DMCA by defeating the encryption.  Kind of ironic isn't it?  Are you and the OP going after those guys too and prepared to submit their names to Slashdot if they don't comply with the DMCA?  Do you turn your friends or coworkers in to Sony and Universal that have ripped a DVD?  Afterall the DMCA is the law and it is your civic duty.  I know that many on the AVS forum have discussed the ripping of DVDs - have you threatened to alert law enforcement if they don't prove to you that they are in compliance with the DRM licensing restrictions and the DMCA?

 

Maybe you could threaten to turn them into slashdot as was discussed on AVS.  Oh yeah, that wouldn't work as those that care so much about the legalities of licensing terms of GPL totally disregard the validity of the licensing restrictions used by the MPAA and the RIA.

 

It's funny how that those that enjoy raging against the machine end up being the machine as soon as they get the chance.

 

To be clear, I am not arguing that the GPL should not be honored.  However, you guys are coming across as hall monitor wannabes and it is somewhat embarrassing to have to endure. 

[BLKMGK]

For now I'm willing to wait while he works this through and even recommend it to friends but to be sure you're not the only one with concerns along these lines. I'm not a code contributor to a GPL project, nor even a Linux zealot, but I do understand the issue better than some. Rather than beating Tom up too badly though I for one can be patient <shrug>

 

If you don't want to be seen as a zealot then you really should reread your post and completely rewrite it.  Maybe this will help - substitute the word "GPL" in your post for "DMCA" or "DRM" and see if you'd you think the post would come across as that of a DRM/DMCA zealot.

 

You may also want to consider that for many the main use of the unRaid software is to store DVDs that were ripped in violation of the DMCA by defeating the encryption.  Kind of ironic isn't it?  Are you and the OP going after those guys too and prepared to submit their names to Slashdot if they don't comply with the DMCA?  Do you turn your friends or coworkers in to Sony and Universal that have ripped a DVD?  Afterall the DMCA is the law and it is your civic duty.  I know that many on the AVS forum have discussed the ripping of DVDs - have you threatened to alert law enforcement if they don't prove to you that they are in compliance with the DRM licensing restrictions and the DMCA?

 

Maybe you could threaten to turn them into slashdot as was discussed on AVS.  Oh yeah, that wouldn't work as those that care so much about the legalities of licensing terms of GPL totally disregard the validity of the licensing restrictions used by the MPAA and the RIA.

 

It's funny how that those that enjoy raging against the machine end up being the machine as soon as they get the chance.

 

To be clear, I am not arguing that the GPL should not be honored.  However, you guys are coming across as hall monitor wannabes and it is somewhat embarrassing to have to endure. 

 

Funny, ripping DVDs came up at work today. DMCA says legal to make backup copies but not legal to break copy protections to do so. DMCA says not kosher to sell software who's primary purpose is to support piracy, DVD rippers no longer sold in brick and mortar stores and sales move offshore. So, legal to RIP or not? For me this is simple and I follow my conscience - I RIP and do not distribute. The spirit of the law, if you think the DMCA has spirit, is to make piracy more difficult. It allows for reverse engineering but makes it more onerous, it also contradicts itself more than once. It also has special protections in it for the design of boat hulls - this from a lawyer who studied it and gave a seminar about it that I attended. Cute huh? I've likely spent more time trying to understand the DMCA than the average Joe and certainly more time trying to understand the GPL than PGPfan! In short - I follow my conscience on this matter just as I do when I violate speed limits. I speed but I tend to not do 120mph in a school zone. In this case that means that I'm not crawling all over Tom but you had better believe I'll jump on someone who says they don't care cuz they get good stuff out of it - just like I'd jump on a fool who advocated 120mph in a school zone as safe

 

DRM? Simple, I don't purchase prodcuts that support it. Okay, I've bought DVDs, about 500 of them in fact, I also have no qualms about slicing and dicing the DRM in order to make my own backup copies. Oddly I'm not storing any of those on my storage array right now (lol) but will begin sometime this evening I think if I can get an issue with my array solved. No iTunes here, no NAPSTER, and most likely I won't be using BluRay etc. anytime soon either.

 

We all make choices. Tom decided to base his system on software that was open source and it came with caveats - he is responding to those caveats. Buffalo, Linksys, TIVO, and a long list of others have done the same. The primary aim of a DVD license is to not have the DVD ripped and distributed, I'm happy to comply with that. If the manufacturer chooses to try and limit reasonable rights, say by only allowing it to play every Thursday or prevent me from making a backup copy, then I choose to violate that license. Call the lawyers if you please but it comes down to being reasonable, the GPL is plenty reasonable. I'm *not* screaming for Tom's head as I think he's trying to be reasonable too but it would be foolish to ignore the issue. It's one thing for an individual to violate a license and rip a DVD for personal use, it's quite another for someone to do so and distribute it or worse sell it. If that makes me a zealot fine, I guess I'll wear the Z proudly

[PGPfan]

BLKMGK,

 

I'm not sure what I've done to you personally to attract your wrath. I've NEVER claimed to have studied the GPL. I've never claimed that Tom's software didn't use GPL code in it. I've never claimed anything as fact other than to point out that Tom had already commented on the GPL situation in this very thread and that was ignored by the 'zealots'.

 

Some of the zealots suggested joining the 'GPL violators mailing list'. This doesn't sound (to me, anyhow) like a voice of reason, but of a "fanboy" to quote sanmaster. Your stand certainly is a reasonable one, heck you were one of the original 'guniea pigs' of this software and you cut Tom some slack. As for me, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I try. I'm just sooo sick of all the legalese that comes with everything nowadays that for something like software I ignore it for the most part. I don't think a lot of people truly read the EULA, listen to the radio station ad disclaimers, etc. It is in this context that I have no desire to learn the intricacies of the GPL. If you take offense personally at that, please accept my apology.

 

There are (sadly) so many 'laws' passed now that many good, decent folks are criminals by default. In my opinion, it's those laws and the lawmakers in these cases that are criminal as examplified by the DMCA. No, I don't respect the DMCA at all. Nor do I copy and sell DVD's or audio CD's. I see no law broken if I'm harming noone. Tom was in the beginning on hiatus as I'm sure you remember, possibly due partially to all the pressure 'we' as interested parties put on him. I just railed against the zealots out of frustration considering that I viewed their 'pressure' doing potentially more harm to Tom's presence than good, especially considering that I saw none of them with any thread activity over at AVS forum where most of us came from. They seemed like little 'tattle-tales' and frankly it peeved me no end.

 

Again, if something I've said or done to you personally offends you please accept my apology.

 

-PGPfan

[BLKMGK]

First of all - no apologies necessary. Yes, I was upset, no I didn't feel some burning hatred or desire to hunt you down The comment to the effect that licenses didn't concern you and that you just wanted a good product is likely what hit strongest - that's like me hitting up Best Buy and walking out arms loaded with DVD Not likely to work out in the long run

 

The comments from others WRT to GPL compliance while perhaps a bit stern do have some basis. Try to see it from their point of view though - Tom said he would work on it and then was gone for whatever reason, now he's back, they wanted to know what was up. Yes, Tom said he was aware of the issue. You'll note that a mailing list was mentioned.... As it happens I've had the occasion to read some of the posts to that list in the past while researching a seperate product so I think I've gained a little insight. You have to understand - most companies when "caught" start off with denial, then stalling, then stonewalling, and then sometimes they comply but in ways that are just crazy - say charging $500 a copy for each CD of their source and expecting 3 months lead time to create it. Then the CD doesn't compile to anything recognizable... The latest nightmare that I can recall was Sony with that silly DRM\RootKit stuff - did you know their "media player" it installed contained GPL code? Think the mods to it will EVER get released? You get the idea - patience is something those folks aren't exactly very long on anymore! Microsoft charges money for it's OS, the GPL folks simply charge that if you use their code and improve it you must release those changes for all - that's their currency. Many companies seem to feel that since it's "free" and there's no single entity that it's okay to just take it, if that's allowed to continue then there's no incentive to "share" and the house of cards tumbles down. IBM is a decent example of a company that "gets it" - they have contributed a great deal of IP to the Open Source stuff, more power to them.

 

Hopefully Tom's latest release will make folks happier, honestly I expect there will still be some grumbling and perhaps some give or take until there's a happy medium. In the end I think Tom will be able to continue to make money on this and I hope that he will be successful. So long as he follows the rules of the road he'll be golden. You'll note that I was probably one of the first to bring this up awhile back, you may also note that I said something along the lines of "hope the zealots don't spot this". Having a feeding frenzy is exactly what I hoped wouldn't occur, hopefully that isn't what will occur and things can move forward. You would be shocked at the numbers of products today that use Linux - lots of NAS, routers, test equipment, the list is long. It's really not too much to ask that these folks get their requests for code payment and improvement met IMO. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Tom manages to find\fix bugs in code he doesn't care about while he's working out bugs in his NAS - shouldn't everyone benefit from that? If he can get spindown working on SATA that would be awesome - and an example of an itch being scratched by him that helps all. <shrug>

 

BTW - I'm not a code contributor\programmer, barely a Linux user, but I do follow this stuff\believe in it and I do contribute to the EFF every single year - usually in cash at DEFCON actually Those are the folks who you are most likely to find on your side fighting the DMCA and other crap legislation that comes around. Where that stuff is concerned you and I likely have a great deal of common ground. I could go on for hours about the way things have gone downhill but this is neither time nor place - suffice it to say it's only going to get worse before it gets better. I often wonder and sometimes wish that CSS had never been broken so that things could have come to a head sooner - the next round of DRM encumbered media may be what wakes people up - we'll see. Heh, I actually have a T-shirt with the deCSS code on it - not legal under today's laws apparently. Scary huh?

 

Take care...

[laforge]

I'd much rather have good functioning software than anal retentive 'are you in compliance?' drones [...]

 

Unfortunately it is not about you but about infringement on the rights of the original authors of the linux kernel (one of which I am).

 

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to distribute object code to GPL licensed software (or derivative works thereof) for apparently multiple years without full license compliance.  This includes shipping a copy of the license text, and the full corresponding source code (or a written offer thereof) with each and every copy of the object code.

[laforge]

With Tom's participation the unRaid product can live and be improved, and comply with the GPL.

 

  From my limited understanding of the GPL Tom must do the following to be compliant:

1. Include the GPL license text as a file on the flash drive.

2. Include the GPL license text on his web-site.

3. Provide a way to request the source code to the unRaid driver he developed under the GPL. Since the unRaid is not available as a  "download" he is not under an obligation to provide a link to "download" the source, although he could, but that must not be the primary method of distribution since some do not have the ability to download files.  He must however, provide the source "at cost" via mail upon request.  (the fee to only cover reasonable duplication and postage costs)

Basically, a geek like me could then compile the code under a Linux 2.4 kernel.

 

The GPL issue is first of all about all the existing GPL licensed code that was used in the project (i.e. the main linux kernel itself, etc). Whether or not the unRaid driver constitutes a derivative work and must therefore be published under GPL, or whether the author voluntarily does so, is a totally different question.

[BLKMGK]

I'd much rather have good functioning software than anal retentive 'are you in compliance?' drones [...]

 

Unfortunately it is not about you but about infringement on the rights of the original authors of the linux kernel (one of which I am).

 

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to distribute object code to GPL licensed software (or derivative works thereof) for apparently multiple years without full license compliance.  This includes shipping a copy of the license text, and the full corresponding source code (or a written offer thereof) with each and every copy of the object code.

 

I would point out that Tom's product hasn't been around for long at all. His first version was shipped less than seven months ago to the best of my recollection. Shortly afterwards the subject of GPL compliance came up and he said that he would comply. His current (and first) beta release for his next revision does include information on licensing although I don't think he has yet made any modified sources available - he has stated he intends to.

 

Tom has a few "itches" that apparently current Linux code doesn't scratch - primarily SATA spindown. If he manages to fix that I would expect it to get released back to the community as the functionality would liklely reside in GPL'd code and would certainly be of benefit. Please don't write him off as a freeloader just yet as I do not have the impression that he's acting as such. There are for more aggregious developers out there, SVEASOFT likely to be a good place to start.

[Joe L.]

His current (and first) beta release for his next revision does include information on licensing although I don't think he has yet made any modified sources available - he has stated he intends to.

As one of the "beta" testers I can state that the source code for the unRaid module IS in a "src" directory on the unRaid server once it is running.  It includes a "Makefile" so someone with a kernel compile environment could compile it. That same directory also has a "COPYING.txt" file with the text of the GPL.

 

The "flash" drive itself has the entire filesystem image for the root filesystem compressed for the GRUB loader to use and uncompress, so you cannot see the GPL related files until the unRaid OS has booted and you log in to the unRaid server via telnet.  To me, as an non-expert in GPL protocol, this complies  as long as he updates his web-site to include the GPL notice and offer via e-mail to ship a copy of the source at a reasonable cost (his duplicating expense) around the same time he releases the new release to his existing customers.   

 

Now, I do not have a compile environment to try to make the unRaid module, so I can't try to "make" it, but the source and GPL files are there.  :)

 

Joe L.

 

 

[BLKMGK]

His current (and first) beta release for his next revision does include information on licensing although I don't think he has yet made any modified sources available - he has stated he intends to.

As one of the "beta" testers I can state that the source code for the unRaid module IS in a "src" directory on the unRaid server once it is running.  It includes a "Makefile" so someone with a kernel compile environment could compile it. That same directory also has a "COPYING.txt" file with the text of the GPL.

 

The "flash" drive itself has the entire filesystem image for the root filesystem compressed for the GRUB loader to use and uncompress, so you cannot see the GPL related files until the unRaid OS has booted and you log in to the unRaid server via telnet.  To me, as an non-expert in GPL protocol, this complies  as long as he updates his web-site to include the GPL notice and offer via e-mail to ship a copy of the source at a reasonable cost (his duplicating expense) around the same time he releases the new release to his existing customers.   

 

Now, I do not have a compile environment to try to make the unRaid module, so I can't try to "make" it, but the source and GPL files are there.  :)

 

Joe L.

 

Ah, okay, I stand corrected! I hadn't thought to look inside the decompressed file system. Hrm, that's a bit tricky isn't it since in order to get that far you must have booted from the code in question and it may not boot without the flash serialmatching? I've not ever tried moving the code to another flash soI'm nto sure. It's possible toget inside a BZimage file with some HEX editing too but again not exactly straightforward. If it can be offered otherwise for reasonable cost then yeah, that complies so long as everyone is satisfied that GPL'd code that was used\modified is offered up. Tom is under no obligation to reveal code he's written that stands alone or that isn't staticlly linked - fuzzy on the last part.

[BLKMGK]

The GPL issue is first of all about all the existing GPL licensed code that was used in the project (i.e. the main linux kernel itself, etc). Whether or not the unRaid driver constitutes a derivative work and must therefore be published under GPL, or whether the author voluntarily does so, is a totally different question.

 

I'm not sure I understand this statement - I hadn't noticed it before. If Tom used GPL code in this work, which he certainly did to support his code, but didn't modify it or releases his mods than as I understand it he's in the clear so long as his code isn't a derivative work, yes? He isn't under any obligation to release his code, no more so than say NVIDIA, if he follows the rules. Code CAN be written to run ON Linux such that Linux must at least be installed for the code to run and still not be considered a derivative. Do you feelthat isn't the case? I don't understand the first part of your statement here as it appears to clash with my understanding.....

[Joe L.]

Ah, okay, I stand corrected! I hadn't thought to look inside the decompressed file system. Hrm, that's a bit tricky isn't it since in order to get that far you must have booted from the code in question and it may not boot without the flash serialmatching?

As far as I know, the serial number match occurs in the "Management Utility" that is not part of the GPL.  it will not run to let you start assign more than two data drives and a parity drive to the unRaid array if the serial numbers don't match.  Linux will be up and running though (as long as you can boot from the USB drive), and you should be able to telnet in to see the source, even if you cannot start have not assigned drives and started the unRaid array.

 

As I said earlier, source code on the flash drive is not needed to comply (but it is nice).  I.e. I have a router that is Linux based.  It uses GPL derived code.  It has no telnet window or any way to look at anything on its file system.  The manufacturer has a small notice on their web-site stating it uses GPL code and that people can write to get a copy.  The router manufacturer can add links to the web-page, etc (and they do) to download the source, but their must be a way to request the source other than download (since not everybody has the ability to download files) They did not include source code when I purchased the product, but it is available on request.

 

Edited on 3/25 to correct myself from spreading misinformation... see correction below.  Joe L.

In the same way, not everybody will be able to see the uncompressed filesystem in a unRaid server (unless they own one) and therefore, as long as Tom responds to a request for a copy of the files via US mail or e-mail, and lets folks know on his web-site how to make that request, I think everything is cool with the GPL.

 

Corrected text follows:

Since Tom is including source code with his unRaid server product, the parts of the GPL stating he must advertise how to get/download the source do not apply. From my reading of the GPL, my original statement was true if he did not include source code with his product and, in that case, users would need a way to request it. Since he is including the source code with his product, he does not need to do anything to describe in his literature or on his web-site how to get it (to comply with the GPL), since they already have it.

 

Therefore... as far as I can tell, once the beta release of software becomes available to all his customers, Tom is fully compliant with the GPL, even without any mention of the GPL on his web-site.  He has included the GPL modified source files, users of the unRaid product can get to them by logging in to their unRaid server and looking in the "/usr/src/linux/ folder. There is the full GPL COPYING and Readme files, the .config file, and a subdirectory for the driver source files.  The files all contain the required GPL header and copyright notices (I am not a lawyer, I'm a unix geek/movie lover, but it looks like it is all there to me)

End of corrected text...

 

Looking at the source files themselves, seems Tom built his unRaid driver based on GPL code from the "md" driver (md=multi-device, aka software-raid) .   I've not compiled it myself, but many others have on Slackware development environments they've configured, so it is complete.  

[BLKMGK]

Ah, okay, I stand corrected! I hadn't thought to look inside the decompressed file system. Hrm, that's a bit tricky isn't it since in order to get that far you must have booted from the code in question and it may not boot without the flash serialmatching?

As far as I know, the serial number match occurs in the "Management Utility" that is not part of the GPL.  it will not run to let you start the unRaid array if the serial numbers don't match.  Linux will be up and running though (as long as you can boot from the USB drive), and you should be able to telnet in to see the source, even if you cannot start the unRaid array.

 

As I said earlier, source code on the flash drive is not needed to comply (but it is nice).  I.e. I have a router that is Linux based.  It uses GPL derived code.  It has no telnet window or any way to look at anything on its file system.  The manufacturer has a small notice on their web-site stating it uses GPL code and that people can write to get a copy.  The router manufacturer can add links to the web-page, etc (and they do) to download the source, but their must be a way to request the source other than download (since not everybody has the ability to download files) They did not include source code when I purchased the product, but it is available on request.

 

In the same way, not everybody will be able to see the uncompressed filesystem in a unRaid server (unless they own one) and therefore, as long as Tom responds to a request for a copy of the files via US mail or e-mail, and lets folks know on his web-site how to make that request, I think everything is cool with the GPL.

 

Looking at the source files themselves, seems Tom built his unRaid driver based on GPL code from the "md" driver (md=multi-device, aka software-raid) .

 

Sounds good and makes sense - also sounds like you may have a WRT54 based router, as I do I am curious about your last sentence though, from the sounds of it Tom based his code off of the current Software RAID and has released that source - yes? If so that's a pretty big deal IMO. His keeping his management utility closed source means that using the driver would be difficult at best and a reasonable move on his part IMO. That he has released the driver, if I'm reading this right, is a pretty big step and one that most folks would have tried to resist IMO. Props to Tom if I've understood you correctly!

 

Appreciate you having dived into this as deeply as you have. While I have some understasnding of Linux and an understanding of some of the issues here (I think) I couldn't have analyzed the code nearly as well as you have if at all. Hopefully this can put to bed some of the concerns that I and others have expressed. If I've understood you correctly I believe this code complies and I'm satisfied for whatever that's worth.

 

Now, if we can just eek some more performance out of the driver for multiple writes etc.! Source is going to be available soon fot those who have the skills to help it seems...

[Joe L.]

sounds like you may have a WRT54 based router, as I do

Truthfully, I don't have a WRT54 based router, I made up a hypothetical example.  I am considering one though, as I am a Unix old-timer and would probably consider a Unix based toaster if I thought it could be hooked up to my LAN  .

I am curious about your last sentence though, from the sounds of it Tom based his code off of the current Software RAID and has released that source - yes? If so that's a pretty big deal IMO. His keeping his management utility closed source means that using the driver would be difficult at best and a reasonable move on his part IMO. That he has released the driver, if I'm reading this right, is a pretty big step and one that most folks would have tried to resist IMO. Props to Tom if I've understood you correctly!

Yes... Props to Tom.

If I've understood you correctly I believe this code complies and I'm satisfied for whatever that's worth.

I cannot confirm it compiles at this time. Tom did include the "Makefle," so I expect it will as long as all the files needed that it depends on are in the compile environment (#include files).  I do not currently have a Linux box with a compiler set up. The last time I did at home was with a 386 based machine. It was version 0.98.something of Linux with the very first slackware release in April of 1993 and I ended up re-writing the device driver for my sound-card/scsi-controller so I could play Doom under X-windows.(it was not initializing the sound card properly)  The boot loader was on a 5 1/4 inch floppy!  (that should date me). 

 

I do plan on setting up a Linux development machine when I get some free time.  So eventually, I'll attempt to compile it... I believe someone else might beat me to it though as there are some who have much more free time than me.  (I do spend a lot of time watching Movies with my wife in our theater... the unRaid server is just one tool towards making the theater more enjoyable)

 

Now, if we can just eek some more performance out of the driver for multiple writes etc.! Source is going to be available soon for those who have the skills to help it seems...

I agree...  I feel optimal performance will come when the unRaid driver, AND the networking, AND SAMBA, AND the OS are all tuned.  I'll bet no one is the single cause of the performance issues involved.

 

Joe L.

[Brian E.]

Looks like a lot has happened in the last couple of weeks...

 

...[snip]...

Oh yeah, that wouldn't work as those that care so much about the legalities of licensing terms of GPL totally disregard the validity of the licensing restrictions used by the MPAA and the RIA.

 

It's funny how that those that enjoy raging against the machine end up being the machine as soon as they get the chance.

Wow... comparing those that want to see the GPL honored to DMCA/DRM supporters and then making the claim that those who care about enforcing the GPL are movie and music pirates??    Talk about your straw-man arguments... this is just ridiculous.

 

Well, thanks Joe L. and BLKMGK for bringing back some sanity to the topic. And thanks to Tom for doing what sounds like the Right Thing

tm

! 

 

Now would someone (even you Tom! ) like to tar up and send me the contents of their /usr/src/linux directory? PM me if you're willing, and I'll give you my email address. It shouldn't be more than a few K. The only reason I'm making this request is because I don't suppose lime-tech will post it for download anytime soon (if ever). And that's fine, but I'd like to take a look at it and possibly hack on it a bit.

 

Oh and before anyone has a coronary and calls me a pirate, I'll quote section 6 of the GPL(v2):

  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the

Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the

original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to

these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further

restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to

this License.

 

In other words, it's perfectly OK to distribute the source code provided by lime-tech.

[JeffAtlanta]

Looks like a lot has happened in the last couple of weeks...

Wow... comparing those that want to see the GPL honored to DMCA/DRM supporters and then making the claim that those who care about enforcing the GPL are movie and music pirates??    Talk about your straw-man arguments... this is just ridiculous.

You might want to understand logical fallacies before accusing someone of committing one.  I never claimed that the GPL shouldn't be honored - I just pointed out that the slashdot'ers that argue so loudly about "honoring licensing terms of the GPL" are the first ones to disregard the licensing restrictions of DRM and the legalities of the DMCA - even if they are only backing up media that they own and aren't going to share it.

 

One more time to be clear - I never claimed that the GPL shouldn't be honored -  I was just pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of some of the arguments that were being used.  Slashdoters have no problem calling the MPAA or RIAA "nazis" when they get lawyers involved, but if lawyers are used for GPL then they're just preventing theft. 

 

Look, I'm on your side - I want the GPL honored - it would just be nice if a grown up approach could have used by those that felt that it wasn't happening quickly enough.  Being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate a person's argument but it does make them lose credibility.  Also, I doubt that there would have even been any reply posts to you if you hadn't taken such a pompus tone.  Maybe that is not how you meant then to come across, but it's hard not to take them that way when you make demands and announce that you're losing patience when they aren't met quickly enough.

 

Oh yeah, you might want to read my post again and understand that I wasn't accusing anyone of being a "pirate".  I just pointed out that even though a person may own a DVD, breaking the copy protection to back it up is illegal under the DMCA and most likely the licensing terms. 

 

 

[BLKMGK]

I honestly think having another set of eyes on the code might be nice. There are currently some performance issues going on and it would be nice to get some input as to what the problem might be. If I could figure out how to get at the code I'd be happy to help. Will poke at it as soon as I've got a free moment to do so, Linux expert I am not.

 

I find few parallels between backing up a legally purchased DVD - a right granted by Fair Use and the taking advantage of the donated work of a worldwide group of folks. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, it also makes allowances for archival backups. The software that allowed this is in a gray area IMO - it was taken off the market in the US only after it was determined that the software was primarily a tool for pirating DVDs rather than making legal backups. Anyone with a small child who used the software could probably tell you otherwise but whatever. I lose little sleep over flaunting the DMCA. My point is that doing something considered legal via an illegal means is, in my eyes, way different. Allowing for something but making the tools to do it illegal is a bit silly - unless of course you're the music and movie industries

 

Now, if Tom REALLY wanted to sidestep this whole mess he could probably just grab the FreeNAS code, based on FreeBSD, and go nutz. That code is licensed BSD and as such I believe he would have a much freer hand in what he does with it. He might also find that hardware support wasn't as robust etc. etc. <shrug> Personally I'm satisfied with what Tom has done with this at this point....

[JeffAtlanta]

I find few parallels between backing up a legally purchased DVD - a right granted by Fair Use and the taking advantage of the donated work of a worldwide group of folks. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, it also makes allowances for archival backups. The software that allowed this is in a gray area IMO

 

You're probably missing the parallels because you feel that it's legal to make backups of DVDs under fair use.  The DMCA makes defeating copy protection illegal - there is no "gray area" here at all.  From Lawrence Lessig's site dated today...

 

Is it legal for me to break DRM (e.g. with a software tool I download) for “fair use” purposes?

Not according to the DMCA, but it should be.

http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2006-04-03-n67.html

 

Again, I'm all for GPL compliance as I think it is a really good system.  But just as consumers expect a little understanding and leeway from the MPAA when it comes to breaking the DMCA for personal backup copies, users of GPLed software should expect a little patience and understanding when dealing with the GPL police.  If a person is overwhelmed by a putting out a new release that fixes major issues and running a business, then the GPL police should show a little understanding. 

 

You've been reasonable and I feel an asset to the community.  The others, however, couldn't look at the big picture and wait until UnRaid got on stable ground before demanding full GPL compliance.  As you pointed out, the GPL is legally enforceable so it wasn't like UnRaid could refuse to comply long term.  Tom was also very open about using GPLed code.  He also explained that he business understood their responsibilities under the GPL but that wasn't quick enough for some.

 

 

[BLKMGK]

Well, the legality of the archival copies is a point of contention. For every person you see who says it's one way you'll; find others who say otherwise. Frankly until it's tested in court who can be sure? You'll note that to date the DMCA has yet to be tested in any capacity I'm aware of - each case has either been settled or dropped. Ask the average person on the street if backing up a DVD is any different than backing up an album, CD, or cassette and see what they say. Last I checked breaking the speed limit was illegal as well but I give it more thought than I do backing up a DVD - the DMCA is flawed period.

 

 

As to the cries about compliance. The time to consider compliance is generally BEFORE a product is ever shipped. If the code never sees the light of day, if it's never distributed, then releasing source isn't a question. But if you intend to distribute then the rules of the road are pretty clear and Tom was likely aware of this. No mention of compliance was made that I recall until I said something on the AVS Forums about. Tom didn't try to fight this and he did comply so I see no reason to get too worked up. However things could've gone alot smoother for everyone involved if the code had been released from the start. He really has done the release smartly IMO although it would be even nicer if the source were available for DL - as a Torrent if bandwidth is an issue. By making the driver code available but closing the source of the management code he ensures compliance while still making sure he won't lose his business. Hopefully folks can get down to tweaking and help him out now and this can be put behind everyone....

 

Edit: fixed a weird typo heh

[Brian E.]

You might want to understand logical fallacies before accusing someone of committing one.  I never claimed that the GPL shouldn't be honored - I just pointed out that the slashdot'ers that argue so loudly about "honoring licensing terms of the GPL" are the first ones to disregard the licensing restrictions of DRM and the legalities of the DMCA - even if they are only backing up media that they own and aren't going to share it.

Umm, my response was to your gross generalizations and here you're doing it again. I don't think it's fair to say those that "support the GPL", "the slashdot crowd", or  whatever are the same people who disregard the DMCA and break DRM. My point was it's ridiculous to make such a general claim.

One more time to be clear - I never claimed that the GPL shouldn't be honored -  I was just pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of some of the arguments that were being used. Slashdoters have no problem calling the MPAA or RIAA "nazis" when they get lawyers involved, but if lawyers are used for GPL then they're just preventing theft.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where somebody argued that the DMCA and/or DRM shouldn't apply to them. What inconsistencies and hypocrisies did you see by the people posting in this thread? I also don't remember claiming you don't support the GPL.

Look, I'm on your side - I want the GPL honored - it would just be nice if a grown up approach could have used by those that felt that it wasn't happening quickly enough.  Being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate a person's argument but it does make them lose credibility.

How exactly am I being a hypocrite again?

Also, I doubt that there would have even been any reply posts to you if you hadn't taken such a pompus tone.  Maybe that is not how you meant then to come across, but it's hard not to take them that way when you make demands and announce that you're losing patience when they aren't met quickly enough.

Maybe my first post was a bit pompus, but I think I fully explained why in my second and third posts. I had also been following the threads over at avsforum about Tom's disappearance and complete abandonment of his product except for taking orders. I probably read into his actions as a way to continue ignoring the requirements of the GPL. I don't need to repeat BLKMGK's spot on explanation above, but that is why I was out of patience. As soon as Tom decided to distribute modified GPL code he should have included source to those modifications along with licensing info. He's a smart guy so I'm sure he was aware of that.

Oh yeah, you might want to read my post again and understand that I wasn't accusing anyone of being a "pirate".

Really? I guess I misunderstood what you meant when you said, "those that care so much about the legalities of licensing terms of GPL totally disregard the validity of the licensing restrictions used by the MPAA and the RIA. [sic].

I just pointed out that even though a person may own a DVD, breaking the copy protection to back it up is illegal under the DMCA and most likely the licensing terms. 

OK, but I'm still not sure what the legalities of the DMCA has to do with this topic...

 

[The Belgain]

I've just come across this (now pretty old) thread, and read through it with interest.  It's nice to see that the modified driver code has been released for all to see, and that the development of unRAID still seems to be fairly active.

 

Has anyone made any effort to get the unRAID code merged into the upstream Linux kernel?  I'm expecting that the unRAID developer has no particular desire to do this himself, but has anyone else tried?  I'd expect it should be possible to integrate this with the md driver, and write some configuration code in mdadm to interface with it - I don't know whether this is something which upstream would be interested in or not.

 

It sure would be nice to have this available in the standard Linux distros - this type of RAID really fills a certain niche really well (i.e. when capacity and flexibility is key, rather than performance).

[NAS]

This is a very interesting idea that I would be both for and against.

 

For: GPL and Linux speaks for itself

Against: Limetech has been the only one to write such a beast and realistically his interest will dwindle if he stops making money from his work. I am always excited when i see a Linux commercial project that actually works as IMHO its the one thing Linux needs to make it a mainstream desktop environment. I have no idea where the balalnce would be but though.

[The Belgain]

But I don't think this would be a bad thing for Limetech - it would still be a valuable product which offers more than simply the GPLed driver part.  Anyone using just the driver on the Linux distro wouldn't get all the extra stuff (like the web-based management software, the packaged up distro, ...).

 

If anything, having the core driver code in the upstream kernel should mean that Limetech can focus more on adding new features / working on the management tools, rather than spending time stability / bug fixing / merging.  And as has been pointed out, this does not in any way prevent Limetech from charging for the product.

[orb]

May I just add that the DMCA doesn't apply to me, while the GPL does, and that in some case DRM can be legally broken (a court case in Finland opened the way by indicating that a protection that is easily circumvent or that the information to do so is widely spread, the protection is void and useless)

 

 

[BLKMGK]

May I just add that the DMCA doesn't apply to me, while the GPL does, and that in some case DRM can be legally broken (a court case in Finland opened the way by indicating that a protection that is easily circumvent or that the information to do so is widely spread, the protection is void and useless)

 

 

 

What's that got to do with anything? The code is already GPL and while someone did once upon a time work out how to get around Tom's protections it was never distributed and pretty much agreed upon by his users at the time to be "not a good thing" so hardly widely distributed. If you're implying that you would like to break the software protections in place at this time I doubt you'll get much support here - legal in your country or not. By all means use the open sourced code and write your own front-end to control it if you wish, Tom appears to be compliant with the GPL at this time. I don't find Tom's pricing overbearing for the level of service and functionality he's providing. I do not understand why you would want to undermine this as your statement seems to imply.

[gyrfalcon]

We understand the requirements of the GPL.

 

I'm sure you understand them, you're just a scumbag who'll need a lawsuit before you comply with them.  Hope you get what's coming to you.