GPL?

[Brian E.]

GPL compliance should be your number one priority.

 

When can we expect to see some sources posted?

[limetech]

We understand the requirements of the GPL.

[Brian E.]

That's great... the first step in solving the problem is understanding it. But according to posts over at avsforum, you've understood the requirements of the GPL for quite some time now. From your actions, you appear to be ignoring those requirements, but, as you can see, that doesn't make them go away.

 

According to this http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6500421&post6500421 you said:

Our plan at this point is to release the driver source under the GPL, but not make any effort to "mainstream" the code. This means that a motivated linux geek could get the driver to run on a 2.4 kernel; however all the management s/w will be non-GPL for time being.

 

That was exactly 4 months ago. Hopefully you can understand the lack of patience in my tone...

 

So I'll ask the question again. When can we expect the driver source to be available?

 

[PGPfan]

Brian E.,

 

Try and relax a little! The GPL Nazi's out there need to give Tom a little time to fix this. I'd much rather have good functioning software than anal retentive 'are you in compliance?' drones marching to "You must comply", "...Must comply", ".....Comply", (as sparks fly from the robot's head after being beaten by a 'real' human being).

 

-PGPfanm

[SanMaster]

Clearly Lime Tech has violated the GPL the day they made thier software available for sale.

 

I don't think there's anything I need to ask or say beyond that, the rest is up to the developers

 

 

My suggestion, for those who take the GPL seriously, get on the gpl violations mailing list and bring this to the communities attention.

 

http://gpl-violations.org

[lovingHDTV]

Before releasing all the source code to the world, I would highly recommend that Lime-Technology go talk to an IP attorney in Sunnyvale who is familiar with the GPL.  It will pay big dividends, as many GPL watchdogs do not understand the true requirments that ensure compliance with the GPL.

 

My $0.02

 

 

 

 

[sonofdbn]

Clearly Lime Tech has violated the GPL the day they made thier software available for sale.

 

If the presumed violation is based on the assumption that any software using the GPL cannot be sold, then the statement is wrong. GPL software CAN be sold. Check the FAQ's on here.

[SanMaster]

SonofDBN

 

You presumed wrong, I am quite aware of the fact that you can sell products using GPL'd software.

 

 

Since there's a number of people whom think there's no GPL violation here, please post how UnRaid complies, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I would actually like to hear from the developers on this as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PGPfan]

SonofDBN

 

You presumed wrong, I am quite aware of the fact that you can sell products using GPL'd software.

 

 

Since there's a number of people whom think there's no GPL violation here, please post how UnRaid complies, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I would actually like to hear from the developers on this as well.

 

 

Your 'request' for comment from the developers has already been done, see the SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD. (Man, you GPL Nazi's need to learn how to read) Why do you feel that you are somehow entitled to any explaination of how the software complies or doesn't to the GPL? Are you looking to troll for some free code? The dev has stated that he is well aware of what it necessary to be in 'compliance', you don't NEED any other comment.

 

-PGPfan

[SanMaster]

I'm not looking to "troll" any free code, I'm looking out for the countless man hours of GPL code that has been used here with no acknowledgment.

 

And if "We understand the requirements of the GPL." is the only answer I'll get, then it's fairly obvious the developers do not care about violating the GPL.

 

 

 

[smeehrrr]

I'd like to nominate this for "Least Useful Thread Ever".

 

[rharvey]

I'd like to nominate this for "Least Useful Thread Ever".

 

 

And I further nominate SanMaster the biggest PITA on this or any other forum designed for the common good of the user community.  Hey Master of the San, go somewhere where Trolls like you are welcome, if you can find such a place.

[PGPfan]

smeehrrr and rharvey,

 

Thanks for replying for me. I saw the post by SanMaster, 'grand protector of all things not of his business' but just didn't have a chance to reply until now. I find it interesting how he knows "GPL code that has been used here with no acknowledgment" and doesn't own the software nor do I believe he's ever seen the source code. Amazing...

 

-PGPfan

[Joe L.]

That's great... the first step in solving the problem is understanding it. But according to posts over at avsforum, you've understood the requirements of the GPL for quite some time now. From your actions, you appear to be ignoring those requirements, but, as you can see, that doesn't make them go away.

 

According to this http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6500421&post6500421 you said:

Our plan at this point is to release the driver source under the GPL, but not make any effort to "mainstream" the code. This means that a motivated linux geek could get the driver to run on a 2.4 kernel; however all the management s/w will be non-GPL for time being.

 

That was exactly 4 months ago. Hopefully you can understand the lack of patience in my tone...

 

So I'll ask the question again. When can we expect the driver source to be available?

 

I'm certain Tom understands his obligations under the GPL... He has been inactive and missing for those same 4 months due to some personal issues... yes, ignoring his unRaid product, his prior customers, and everything, including the GPL obligations.

 

I am very happy to see Tom active again and getting back to where he can support the unRaid product.  This forum is a great first step, addressing/fixing bugs in unRaid and addressing concerns of the current customers is a close second. You could argue that GPL compliance  should be first, but most of us are happy to see Tom active again, in any way.  Without his involvement and support, the unRaid product is dead.  At this point it will take a steady commitment from Tom to make things right and restore confidence in him and his product.  I see signs of that commitment and want to give Tom some time to "catch up" (as he phrased it)

 

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.

 

Since Tom is in the process of supplying an "upgrade" (any hour now ) he has the first opportunity to add the GPL text file to the download comprising the upgrade.  Once he does that, and makes the corresponding changes to his web-site, he will be well under way towards compliance.

 

We have been waiting for this upgrade since last October when it was initially promissed/scheduled.  I personally am very happy Tom is back and slowly getting things organized, even if not as fast as you would like. I hope he gets his personal issues resolved quickly so he can focus on the unRaid product.

 

Like you, I will be making my request for the driver source code as permitted under the GPL and will probably set up a development box to play with compiling too.  I have a LOT of experience in improving performance of programs, I would love to look at the code to see if I could make suggestions to improve it for everyone's benefit, myself included. 

 

Joe L.

 

 

[Brian E.]

Granted, I was rather succinct in my initial posts, but that's because this has all been covered over at avsforum and the question was really directed to lime-tech. It wasn't intended to be a discussion of wether they've violated the GPL or not. So let me try to be as clear as possible:

 

lime-technology (Tom) has already admitted to violating the GPL, and as required by the GPL, has promised to release the source of their modifications to any corresponding GPL code.

 

Even if the un-raid module has been completely re-written (ie. clean-room implementation) without being derived from linux kernel sources (.../drivers/md/{md.c,xor.c}, and others?) lime-tech is still obligated to make the sources to the GPL binaries included on the flash drive available.

 

Now, remember, not once did I say lime-tech should give their product away for free. Of course they're entitled to charge as much as they want for the flash drive. The GPL is quite clear about making the distinction between free as in speech and free as in beer. The GPL is in place so that software (based on other GPL code) that is distributed (ie. sold for a fee or given away) be kept free, as in speech.

 

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.

 

See, Joe gets it. You've got a better understanding of the GPL than most.

 

 

Oh, and PGPFan:

 

Calling someone a Nazi for simply asking lime-tech (Tom) to keep their word and comply with the licence their product is built on is totally out of line. Your complete and utter ignorance of the subject in question becomes more and more obvious with every post you make. Please try to find something constructive or relevent to say rather than the typical uninformed fanboy ramblings. Thanks.

[SanMaster]

 

I find it interesting how he knows "GPL code that has been used here with no acknowledgment" and doesn't own the software nor do I believe he's ever seen the source code. Amazing...

 

-PGPfan

 

Did I read that right? That statement is so uterly ignorant, I don't know where to start.

 

Joe outlines the necessary steps that need to be taken in this situation quite clearly.

 

 

[PGPfan]

SanMaster, start here:

 

When I quoted you, YOU made the statement " I'm not looking to "troll" any free code, I'm looking out for the countless man hours of GPL code that has been used here with no acknowledgment." This sounds like you've been judge and jury as though you KNOW that GPL code FOR SURE has been used. You obviously hadn't been to the thread that Joe L. linked to otherwise you wouldn't be whining like you are. Simple as that.

 

If you need any other simple explainations, feel free to whine some more and we can help you to understand things a bit better than you seem naturally able to.

 

-PGPfan

 

[PGPfan]

On second thought, ignore my last line. Don't post.

 

I'm done with this pointless thread.

 

-PGPfan

[SanMaster]

I guess if UnRaid's module will run without Linux Kernel - GPL, Reiser - GPL, etc,  you would be correct, but you are incorrect.

 

My friend, you need to read the GPL, just because UnRaid's proprietary code may not use or be a derivative of GPL code, it still requires and uses GPL componets in order to run.

 

Just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself,  offer some facts other than your fanboy babble.

 

 

[teamhood]

I guess if UnRaid's module will run without Linux Kernel - GPL, Reiser - GPL, etc,  you would be correct, but you are incorrect.

 

My friend, you need to read the GPL, just because UnRaid's proprietary code may not use or be a derivative of GPL code, it still requires and uses GPL componets in order to run.

 

Just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself,  offer some facts other than your fanboy babble.

 

 

 

ROLF @ Fanboy babble... that is great stuff!

[sirquack]

Please guys, don't let this turn into another AVSforum. 

[PGPfan]

Ok, one final post just to clarify things (I promise it's the last post from me in this thread, sirquack)

 

Fanboy? Hardly. If you honestly look at yourself, you'll see that by being a GPL 'enforcer' you sir, are the epitome of a fanboy.

 

As for your recommendation of reading the GPL, thanks for the suggestion but to be honest it doesn't interest me at all. unRAID may very well use GPL code in it, Tom has said he' s working towards compliance, but I personally couldn't care less. What I do care about is that unRAID offers something different as a media storage product than any other solution I've seen. Is it worth the money to me? Yes. Which is why I'll be purchasing it soon.

 

-PGPfan

[BLKMGK]

Ok, one final post just to clarify things (I promise it's the last post from me in this thread, sirquack)

 

Fanboy? Hardly. If you honestly look at yourself, you'll see that by being a GPL 'enforcer' you sir, are the epitome of a fanboy.

 

As for your recommendation of reading the GPL, thanks for the suggestion but to be honest it doesn't interest me at all. unRAID may very well use GPL code in it, Tom has said he' s working towards compliance, but I personally couldn't care less. What I do care about is that unRAID offers something different as a media storage product than any other solution I've seen. Is it worth the money to me? Yes. Which is why I'll be purchasing it soon.

 

-PGPfan

 

Dude, knock it off - you are SO far into the wrong here you couldn't get out with a flashlight and a map. There IS a GPL concern here - this is valid. It *is* possible to write code that runs on top of GPL'd code and not reveal source but in order to do so the code must stand alone. As delivered right now that doesn't appear to be the case at all. Newsflash - that means that the code is in violation of the GPL, Tom knows this and is working on it. The GPL isn't some pretty piece of fantasy it is a legal document, a legal license that binds, and it can and has been enforced. Ask TIVO, ask Linksys, and ask any number of LARGE companies that have freeloaded off of GPL code how ignoring this license worked out for them. Hint: BOTH of those companies release their code mods under GPL as REQUIRED by law. TIVO keeps some modules private because they aren't using GPL code but much of what they did DOES and they make it available as a result. Linksys in particular released ALL of their source for several of their devices - including a nice toolchain to assist with compiling I might add. That was after some lawyers came to chat, funny that huh? Don't get me started on SVEASOFT though - grr!

 

How about I take a copy of MS Windows XP, make some tweaks, and then turn around and sell it - you okay with that? How about if I call it something "unique" for the AV community - all better now? How exactly is this different? Do you think Microsoft would see it your way? I didn't think so, so instead of continuing to show complete ignorance and looking more foolish how about not posting further on this when by your own admission you've not got a clue about what you're arguing about? Hell, you apparently don't OWN a copy of the code either! Being quiet on this - that would be a very GOOD idea indeed.

 

SanMaster - as I understand it the code can "rely" on Resier etc. being there without being in violation so long as it doesn't incorporate the code from those projects or link to it. If the code is a module, a binary, that can be compiled without the existance of any GPL code then you are good to go. Staticly linking one of those as a library etc. would be a problem for instance since the GPL code has to be there to compile but look at how NVIDIA does it's video drivers for instance as an example - to be of any use certainly much of Linux must be there but those drivers don't have GPL code in them. Does that make sense? Complying is possible without rewriting the OS so long as the rules of the road are followed.

 

Unfortunatly I'm not sure how Tom can best comply with this. He's using Resier which by itself might not be a problem but his product is pretty tight with the OS in order to calculate Parity I'll bet. He might be able to query the F/S driver to create his Parity but without being tightly coupled I'm not sure how it would effect performance. Tom knows the score and says he's working on it which is good, at least he seems to be making efforts to straighten this out which is more than can be said for some other companies. I've got at least one device in my household that the company has denied using Linux when I know for a fact it is So far they have gotten away with it sidestepping questions and trying to encode the binaries but it'll catch up to them since they sell it all over EBAY <sigh> I was the one who I believe first raised this question to Tom on the AVs forum. I'm willing to cut him some slack to come into compliance and hope that when he does it works out, maybe even allowing others to help him improve performance, it will be better than ever. 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>

 

Hrm, I wonder if Tom could just base it off of BSD code instead? Perhaps release the source for this now as it stands and build better faster stronger on BSD? On the surface the concept of putting parity information on a seperate drive doesn't sound too complex but the devil is obviously in the details and Tom has worked out alot of kinks to restore data etc. on the fly which makes this pretty polished. I sincerely hope that he can gain compliance before the hounds start really going after him on this as there are some folks just nutz over this stuff. IMHO Tom is one of the good guys....

 

P.S. I seem to recall seeing pieces of the GPL fly by on bootup from the Resier driver BTW so at least there some notice given!

[erikatcuse]

I guess we can put this puppy to bed.  Look at the announcement board.

 

 

Other: Added missing license.txt file and included source code of modifed GPL files.

 

 

[BLKMGK]

I guess we can put this puppy to bed.  Look at the announcement board.

 

 

Other: Added missing license.txt file and included source code of modifed GPL files.

 

 

 

Good catch, I'd missed that in the release notes. I've got the new code and will be testing it this evening. I noticed two text files in the release so far although at this point I don't recall one of them named GPL or anything - I'll look again tonight. If Tom has managed to do this terrific and a faster turnaround than most other folks who have had this issue. Personally I'm inclined not to sweat the first release if he's made good with the second, it'll be interesting to see if his changes are found to be of use by any of the maintainers...