nelson@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (09/26/90)
Xircom has been distributing a packet driver while violating the copyright on it. I wrote the skeleton of the Clarkson packet drivers, which is copyrighted under the GNU General Public License. This copyright requires that code which is linked with mine be available in source form. I allowed them to require a signed nondisclosure form, provided that source code be given to anyone willing to sign. They have violated that copyright and agreement by refusing to distribute the source code, have agreed that they are violating it, and have ceased distribution of the packet driver. This means that Xircom Ethernet adapters no longer come with a packet driver. If your application requires a packet driver, you will be unable to use a Xircom adapter. I am asking anyone who was considering the purchase of a Xircom adapter to purchase a D-Link adapter instead, and tell Xircom why you did not buy their product. No, I don't have D-Link's address. Perhaps some kind soul who reads this will supply it to me. There is also another company (whose name I do not recall) that makes pocket Ethernet adapters. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
mcb@reason.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) (09/28/90)
In the referenced article, nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > Xircom has been distributing a packet driver while violating the copyright > on it. I wrote the skeleton of the Clarkson packet drivers, which is > copyrighted under the GNU General Public License. This copyright requires > that code which is linked with mine be available in source form. I allowed > them to require a signed nondisclosure form, provided that source code be > given to anyone willing to sign. I have no opinion on the specific issue involving Xircom, but I am curious about the issue of the "nondisclosure form". It seems to me that requiring a nondisclosure agreement is completely inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the GNU General Public License (particularly sections 4 and 6), and that such a requirement would probably be void. Since software under the GPL is supposed to be maximally redistributable, what is the rationale for anyone being permitted to require someone to sign an agreement that they will not redistribute it? I am not a supporter of FSF and do not endorse the GPL as a desirable method of software distribution, but from a legal standpoint the combination of the GPL and a nondisclosure agreement seems like a null set to me... Followups to gnu.misc.discuss, please, as this is a GNU issue, not a DOS-TCP/IP networking issue. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
kirkd@clubisc.ism.isc.com (Kirk Davis) (09/29/90)
I'm posting this for Xircom since they have no net access. I'd like to comment on my own, but I feel it would be inappropriate since I'm bias (I'm working with them and found them to quite reasonable). So please, no email... (see the number below) --- We at Xircom regret any confusion and inconvenience we may have caused regarding our support for the Packet Driver interface. But, due to the proprietary nature of the internal operation of our products, we feel it would not be prudent to freely distribute the source of our drivers. Understanding Mr. Nelson's concern, Xircom will be discontinuing the shipment of the Packet Driver based on the Clarkson Packet driver and will be replacing it with a fully compliant Packet Driver developed independently. Please note that Xircom is committed to the TCP/IP community and is supported on over 15 different TCP/IP products, only some of which are based on the Packet Driver. In a product comparison review in the August 27th. issue of PC Week, Xircom was shown to be the fastest (and received the highest OVERALL rating) of the external LAN adapters. Please contact Mr. Steven R. Magidson at Xircom for additional information. (818) 884-8755 phone; (818) 884-1719.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep28.192413.21255@ism.isc.com> kirkd@clubisc.ism.isc.com (Kirk Davis) writes:
We at Xircom regret any confusion and inconvenience we
may have caused regarding our support for the Packet
Driver interface. But, due to the proprietary nature
of the internal operation of our products, we feel it
would not be prudent to freely distribute the source of
our drivers.
Prudent or not, you agreed to do so, yet you have not. That makes you
liars. I suggest to dear gentle readers that they keep that in mind.
Understanding Mr. Nelson's concern, Xircom will be
discontinuing the shipment of the Packet Driver based
on the Clarkson Packet driver and will be replacing it
with a fully compliant Packet Driver developed
independently.
"Concern"? "CONCERN"? You fardling stole my software, that's what you
did. For a year you distributed it in violation of my copyright[1]. I've
gone beyond concern -- I'm right pissed! And being a developer of free
software, I don't have money to pay a lawyer to sue your ass off [2].
You can bet your bippy I'm going to go over your "independently developed"
packet driver with a fine-toothed comb.
There are two morals to this story for other developers of free
software: Register your copyright so you can sue for damages, and
don't compromise free software.
[1] You don't have to take my word for it. Look at their Clarkson-
derived driver and you'll see my copyright, which points you to the
file called COPYING, which gives the terms for copying. One of the
terms is that all the source for an executable that includes my code
must be available. As a *concession* to Xircom's concerns, I allowed
them to require a nondisclosure agreement before providing source
to anyone requesting it. They won't do it, even though they said
they would.
[2] I have also been advised that, lacking copyright registration, all
that I could accomplish is to force you to stop distributing the driver,
which you have already agreed to do.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dysonfaatzd@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Don Faatz) (09/29/90)
As a community that benefits greatly from the efforts of people like Russ Nelson - we should STRONGLY support his position. If vendors who collect money for their products are encouraged to behave badly and basically absorb copyrighted freeware without regards for the copyright owner - we shall all suffer as the freeware pool goes dry. I, for one, shall not buy products from Xircom now or in the future. < <Don Faatz, Rensselaer CSLab faatzd@cs.rpi.edu, Troy, NY <
dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) (09/29/90)
In article <5DN%9T*@rpi.edu>, faatzd@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Don Faatz) writes: > As a community that benefits greatly from the efforts of people like > Russ Nelson - we should STRONGLY support his position. Break out the ropes! There's gonna be a lynchin', Festus! Your sense of moral outrage is touching, but whether I support his position or not will have to do with the merits of his position, thank you. From what I've seen, and from what I know about people, I doubt that there was any conspiracy to steal anything. More likely is that they didn't even read the conditions applied to it and when the knowledge of their mistaken violation finally made it to the right people, they acted honestly and complied with the copyright. I don't know the facts, and I doubt that you do either, but assuming some good faith on both parts, that's what I expect happened. What seems to have you so upset is that they comply with the copyright in the way you wanted. Well, big deal-- if they don't want to make *their* sources available, they don't have to, and even in the eyes of a Free Software zealot, that makes them no worse than every other company that does the same thing. They didn't transfer ownership of Xircom to you, so why are you acting like you have some right in deciding whether or not they distribute their sources? Boycotting Xircom because Russ Nelson and Don Faatz weren't able to impose their will on the people running Xircom isn't my idea of a worthy cause. I can see where Mr. Nelson might be frustrated, and I'm sure he'll make every effort to clarify the copyright conditions up front in the future, but that's where it ends for me. -- +-DLS (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (09/30/90)
In article <14568@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes:
From what I've seen, and from what I know about people, I
doubt that there was any conspiracy to steal anything. More likely
is that they didn't even read the conditions applied to it and when
the knowledge of their mistaken violation finally made it to the
right people, they acted honestly and complied with the copyright.
You're right in that it *is* more likely. In this case, however,
Xircom knew about the GPL, or GPV (General Public Virus) as one wag
put it. They knew they were obliged to make their source available,
and agreed to do so for those people willing to sign a nondisclosure
agreement. In spite of agreeing to do so, they will not.
"Honestly" is not the term I would use.
Boycotting Xircom because Russ Nelson and Don Faatz weren't
able to impose their will on the people running Xircom isn't my
idea of a worthy cause.
I'm not trying to impose my will on them. I'm just trying to make them
live up to their word. Right now, if someone from Xircom told me it was
sunny, I'd reach for my umbrella.
I can see where Mr. Nelson might be frustrated, and I'm sure he'll
make every effort to clarify the copyright conditions up front in
the future, but that's where it ends for me.
But I *DID* clarify them up front!
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dysonddl@husc6.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) (10/01/90)
In article <NELSON.90Sep29114633@image.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: | In article <14568@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes: | | From what I've seen, and from what I know about people, I | doubt that there was any conspiracy to steal anything. More likely | is that they didn't even read the conditions applied to it and when | the knowledge of their mistaken violation finally made it to the | right people, they acted honestly and complied with the copyright. | | You're right in that it *is* more likely. In this case, however, | Xircom knew about the GPL, or GPV (General Public Virus) as one wag | put it. They knew they were obliged to make their source available, | and agreed to do so for those people willing to sign a nondisclosure | agreement. In spite of agreeing to do so, they will not. I hope no one takes this as a flame, but I suspect GNU/FSF proponents could help minimize incidents like this one by using more conventional terminology rather than inventing or redefining words that might have potentially misleading connotations. While it in no way excuses Xircom from ignoring the terms of the license, I think the words ``free'' and ``copyleft'' as used by FSF are likely to confuse people not familiar with the GNU license agreement. Before the FSF's usage, the term ``free'', when applied to software, often implied to many a lack of cost associated with use and/or distribution. Giving up control of proprietary code is a very real cost for many companies and they may not understand that this could be one of the costs associated with incorporating ``free'' software covered by the GNU license agreement into their product line. The non-word ``copyleft'' is probably even worse in that a corporate lawyer not aware of FSF policy may assume (foolishly, perhaps) that this is a cute way of saying that something is not covered by copyright, i.e., that it is in the public domain. Until ``copyleft'' finds its way into the legal texts (and dictionary) it might improve understanding if FSF advocates simply stated that their software is covered by a real copyright and that its use is governed by a license agreement whose terms might result in significant actual and perceived costs to certain users/distributors. Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
dra@neuro.usc.edu (Diane Annala) (10/08/90)
In article <NELSON.90Sep28233146@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes:
#
#Prudent or not, you agreed to do so, yet you have not. That makes you
#liars. I suggest to dear gentle readers that they keep that in mind.
#
# Xircom will be
# discontinuing the shipment of the Packet Driver based
# on the Clarkson Packet driver and will be replacing it
# with a fully compliant Packet Driver developed
# independently.
#
#You can bet your bippy I'm going to go over your "independently developed"
#packet driver with a fine-toothed comb.
Of course, Xircom could include a provision in their copyright notice
forbidding nelson@image.clarkson.edu from disassembling, decompiling,
or otherwise going over the new packet driver with a fine toothed comb.