[eside-ghost] Dudas sobre GPL

[Lady Pain]

azabel wrote:

>Aupa ahi!!
>  
>
Aupi azabel!

>Andaba leiendo la noticia de barrapunto : 
>
>¿Vulnera Panda Software la licencia GPL del kernel?
>  
>
>y me han surgido preguntas:
>
>en caso de denuncia ¿quien denuncia esto? ¿que departamento jurídico es
>el encargado de llevar estas movidas de licencia? 
>si se produjese un juicio ¿quién pagaría los costes?
>¿cuanto de fiable es la comparacion de binarios para determinar si se ha
>copiado?
>  
>
Pues la que se está liando... increible... Van a perder más pelas con el
gatedefender... Todo lo que vale (6000€ por máquina) + licencia por
máquina sale un ojo de la cara, y las tienen compañías como iberia o BMW
(5000 ordenadores? 100.000 licencias?). Cuando la compras no te dan la
clave de root, y no puedes husmear en *tu* máquina, que has comprado.

Están basadas en Debian Woody, con sus fallos de seguridad, y con un
kernel modificado en al menos 3 niveles. En Panda se ocupa de esto el
Departamente de Legales... pero me da que SL no están muy puestos...
Seguro que los comentarios de barrapunto [1] hay más de un comentario de
antiguos trabajadores de panda...

La putada no es lo que tenga que pagar Panda por esto (a ver si
aprenden), si no todo el trabajo de los developers y demás gente que ha
trabajado duro durante varios años... La cantinela de siempre, ojalá
ellos/as no salgan perjudicados.


[1] http://barrapunto.com/articles/05/06/09/0853259.shtml

Os paso el mail sin cabeceras...

Possible GPL Violation By Panda
30 May (6 posts) Archive Link: "Possible GPL Violation
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/msg/f0e8ec674365783f?hl=en>"
People: Carlos Silva <quotes/Carlos_Silva.html>, Måns
Rullgård <quotes/M%C3%A5ns_Rullg%C3%A5rd.html>

Carlos Silva said, "the company that i work for is
going to buy a pair of Panda Gatedefenders 8200 that
are linux based. To start, they never told us or
mention on their site (as far as i searched) the use
of linux in their product. Another thing is that they
don't give us root access nor any other type of local
access to the box besides the http page the appliance
have to be managed. The thing is that i asked for the
kernel source they use in the system and they said
they can't give it since they have some proprietary
code in it, as far as i understood." Måns Rullgård
said the company was not obligated to give full access
to the machine. But he did say, "If they use some
modules of their own writing, the general agreement
seems to be that they don't need to release the source
code to those. They should still give you the kernel
source they used, along with any patches they may have
applied."

Carlos said he was aware of these requirements, but
reiterated, "The thing is that they don't give me
anything. They only sell me the appliance, nothing
more. :(" Måns replied, "All too common. You should
begin by kindly pointing out what their obligations
are, and if they fail to comply, switch to a harsher
tone, and post your correspondence in a public place.
I'm not certain that lkml is the proper place for
this, but it may be the only place we have. If all
else fails, slashdot them. That will probably also
fail, but at least you can enjoy watching other people
call them names." Carlos replied, "i aslready asked
them in kindly and harsher tone, so it's a dead end
here."

Giuseppe Bilotta suggested going to
<http://www.gpl-violations.org/>. But at KT
publication time, this site was so slow as to appear
dead.



Informó Lady Pain desde el ciberespacio (no se admiten preguntas
comprometidas ;P)



-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
Geek: Marta Manso
URI: http://ladypain.is.dreaming.org/
----
GCS/E/L d-(---) s+:+ a-- C++ UL P? L+>+++ E->++ W++>+++ N o? K->++ w(---)
O- M V? PS PE Y+ PGP? t- 5? X++(+++) R+ !tv b++ DI+ D+ G++ e h! r++ x+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------