s/Davrik/Boretz/, since Davrik is close to Dalvik
Dalvik didn't exist as a software package when the anonymous name placeholders were chosen when this was originally written. At this point, using Darvik as a name will likely only cause confusion Dalvik, which is fully unrelated to this matter.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn
parent
bf4b3db60b
commit
b09eaf432c
1 changed files with 31 additions and 31 deletions
|
|
@ -229,15 +229,15 @@ compliance work.
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\chapter{Davrik: Modified GCC SDK}
|
||||
\chapter{Bortez: Modified GCC SDK}
|
||||
|
||||
In our first case study, we will consider Davrik, a company that
|
||||
In our first case study, we will consider Bortez, a company that
|
||||
produces software and hardware toolkits to assist OEM vendors, makers
|
||||
of consumer electronic devices.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Facts}
|
||||
|
||||
One of Davrik's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')
|
||||
One of Bortez's key products is a Software Development Kit (``SDK'')
|
||||
designed to assist developers building software for a specific class of
|
||||
consumer electronics devices.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -256,69 +256,69 @@ FSF was later able to confirm the violation when two additional reports
|
|||
surfaced from other violation reporters, both of whom had used the SDK
|
||||
professionally and noticed clear similarities to FSF's GNU GCC\@. FSF's
|
||||
Compliance Engineer asked the reporters to run standard tests to confirm
|
||||
the violation, and it was confirmed that Davrik's SDK was indeed a
|
||||
derivative work of GCC\@. Davrik had ported to Windows and added a number
|
||||
the violation, and it was confirmed that Bortez's SDK was indeed a
|
||||
derivative work of GCC\@. Bortez had ported to Windows and added a number
|
||||
of features, including support for a specific consumer device chipset and
|
||||
additional features to aid in the linking process (``LP'') for those
|
||||
specific devices. FSF explained the rights that the GPL afforded these
|
||||
customers and pointed out, for example, that Davrik only needed to provide
|
||||
customers and pointed out, for example, that Bortez only needed to provide
|
||||
source to those in possession of the binaries, and that the users may need
|
||||
to request that source (if \S 3(b) was exercised). The violators
|
||||
confirmed that such requests were not answered.
|
||||
|
||||
FSF brought the matter to the attention of Davrik, who immediately
|
||||
FSF brought the matter to the attention of Bortez, who immediately
|
||||
escalated the matter to their attorneys. After a long negotiation,
|
||||
Davrik acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a derivative work of
|
||||
GCC\@. Davrik released most of the source, but some disagreement
|
||||
Bortez acknowledged that their SDK was indeed a derivative work of
|
||||
GCC\@. Bortez released most of the source, but some disagreement
|
||||
occurred over whether LP was a derivate work of GCC\@. After repeated
|
||||
FSF inquiries, Davrik reaudited the source to discover that FSF's
|
||||
analysis was correct. Davrik determined that LP included a number of
|
||||
FSF inquiries, Bortez reaudited the source to discover that FSF's
|
||||
analysis was correct. Bortez determined that LP included a number of
|
||||
source files copied from the GCC code-base.
|
||||
|
||||
\label{davrik-build-problems}
|
||||
Once the full software release was made available, FSF asked the violation
|
||||
reporters if it addressed the problem. Reports came back that the source
|
||||
did not properly build. FSF asked Davrik to provide better build
|
||||
did not properly build. FSF asked Bortez to provide better build
|
||||
instructions with the software, and such build instructions were
|
||||
incorporated into the next software release.
|
||||
|
||||
At FSF's request as well, Davrik informed customers who had previously
|
||||
At FSF's request as well, Bortez informed customers who had previously
|
||||
purchased the product that the source was now available by announcing
|
||||
the availablity on its Web site and via a customer newsletter.
|
||||
|
||||
Davrik did have some concerns regarding patents. They wished to include a
|
||||
Bortez did have some concerns regarding patents. They wished to include a
|
||||
statement with the software release that made sure they were not granting
|
||||
any patent permission other than what was absolutely required by GPL\@.
|
||||
They understood that their patent assertions could not trump any rights
|
||||
granted by GPL\@. The following language was negotiated into the release:
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{quotation}
|
||||
Subject to the qualifications stated below, Davrik, on behalf of itself
|
||||
Subject to the qualifications stated below, Bortez, on behalf of itself
|
||||
and its Subsidiaries, agrees not to assert the Claims against you for your
|
||||
making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Davrik's GNU
|
||||
Utilities or derivative works of the Davrik's GNU Utilities
|
||||
making, use, offer for sale, sale, or importation of the Bortez's GNU
|
||||
Utilities or derivative works of the Bortez's GNU Utilities
|
||||
(``Derivatives''), but only to the extent that any such Derivatives are
|
||||
licensed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The
|
||||
Claims are the claims of patents that Davrik or its Subsidiaries have
|
||||
Claims are the claims of patents that Bortez or its Subsidiaries have
|
||||
standing to enforce that are directly infringed by the making, use, or
|
||||
sale of an Davrik Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed
|
||||
by Davrik and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;
|
||||
the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Davrik that
|
||||
sale of an Bortez Distributed GNU Utilities in the form it was distributed
|
||||
by Bortez and that do not include any limitation that reads on hardware;
|
||||
the Claims do not include any additional patent claims held by Bortez that
|
||||
cover any modifications of, derivative works based on or combinations with
|
||||
the Davrik's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same
|
||||
the Bortez's GNU Utilities, even if such a claim is disclosed in the same
|
||||
patent as a Claim. Subsidiaries are entities that are wholly owned by
|
||||
Davrik.
|
||||
Bortez.
|
||||
|
||||
This statement does not negate, limit or restrict any rights you already
|
||||
have under the GNU General Public License version 2.
|
||||
\end{quotation}
|
||||
|
||||
This quelled Davrik's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to
|
||||
do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that Davrik
|
||||
This quelled Bortez's concerns about other patent licensing they sought to
|
||||
do outside of the GPL'd software, and satisfied FSF's concerns that Bortez
|
||||
give proper permissions to exercise teachings of patents that were
|
||||
exercised in their GPL'd software release.
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Davrik was appointed to take
|
||||
Finally, a GPL Compliance Officer inside Bortez was appointed to take
|
||||
responsibility for all matters of GPL compliance inside the company.
|
||||
Darvik is responsible for informing FSF if the position is given to
|
||||
someone else inside the company, and making sure that FSF has direct
|
||||
|
|
@ -379,8 +379,8 @@ This case introduces a number of concepts regarding GPL enforcement.
|
|||
|
||||
\item {\bf Lines between various copyright, patent, and other legal
|
||||
mechanisms must be precisely defined and considered.} The most
|
||||
difficult negotiation point of the Davrik case was drafting language
|
||||
that simultaneously protected Davrik's patent rights outside of the
|
||||
difficult negotiation point of the Bortez case was drafting language
|
||||
that simultaneously protected Bortez's patent rights outside of the
|
||||
GPL'd source, but was consistent with the implicit patent grant in
|
||||
GPL\@. As we discussed in the first course of this series, there is
|
||||
indeed an implicit patent grant with GPL, thanks to \S 6 and \S 7.
|
||||
|
|
@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ role in GPL compliance.
|
|||
code, the GPL is the overriding license.
|
||||
|
||||
\item {\bf Compliance Officers are rarely necessary when companies are
|
||||
educated about GPL compliance.} As we saw in the Davrik case, FSF asks
|
||||
educated about GPL compliance.} As we saw in the Bortez case, FSF asks
|
||||
that a formal ``GPL Compliance Officer'' be appointed inside a
|
||||
previously violating organization to shepherd the organization to a
|
||||
cooperative approach to GPL compliance. However, when FSF
|
||||
|
|
@ -698,7 +698,7 @@ could occur between FSF, Polgara and Thesulac. Polgara and Thesulac
|
|||
agreed, and that discussion began. Thesulac provided nearly complete
|
||||
sources to Polgara, and Polgara made a full software release on their
|
||||
Web site. At the time of writing, that software still has some build
|
||||
problems (similar to those that occurred with Davrik, as described in
|
||||
problems (similar to those that occurred with Bortez, as described in
|
||||
Section~\ref{davrik-build-problems}). FSF continues to negotiate with
|
||||
Polgara and Thesulac to resolve these problems, which have a clear path to
|
||||
a solution and are expected to resolve.
|
||||
|
|
@ -836,6 +836,6 @@ distribute products based on GPL'd software:
|
|||
% LocalWords: TrollTech administrivia LGPL's MontaVista OpenTV Mitek Arce DVD
|
||||
% LocalWords: unprotectable protectable Unfreedonia chipset CodeSourcery Iqtel
|
||||
% LocalWords: impermissibly Bateman faire minimis Borland uncopyrightable Mgmt
|
||||
% LocalWords: franca downloadable Davrik Davrik's Darvik
|
||||
% LocalWords: franca downloadable Bortez Bortez's Darvik
|
||||
% LocalWords: Slashdot sublicensed Vigorien Vigorien's Haxil Polgara
|
||||
% LocalWords: Thesulac Polgara's Haxil's Thesulac's SDK CD's
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue