Linux Users May Be Breaking U.S. Securities Laws

What a pity the voting system is gone. This article is pure selfserving BS.

Quoting:What a pity the voting system is gone.

bstadil, If the voting system was still available, I think most visitors wouldn't have posted all of these good posts.

Good point, Abe!

Yes, good observation

What a twisted title! "Linux Users May Be Breaking U.S. Securities Laws".

This has little to do with Linux. This has to do with companies who violate the GPL. Linux is one of thousands of programs licensed under the GPL.

Perhaps the title should be "Violating GPL (on embedded Linux) May Be Breaking U. S. Securities Law (Sarb-Ox)."

Hear! Hear!

According to their arguments, company would break the law if it would violate ANY license, not only the GPL. However, only the GPL gets bashed, why am I not surprised.

After quoting para 2.b of the GPLv2, the white paper claims: "Now, "Distribution" includes embedding software in a device that is sold. So, if you modify the Linux kernel for your project, you must release the code to open source. So, the license simply says:

Change the code = Share the code

So, whether the GPL matters depends on whether you're changing the code. And that depends on your business application. For example, if you are running Linux on your server, you're almost certainly not changing the Linux code, so the GPL's provisions do not apply. On the other hand, if you are embedding Linux in a device, you probably are changing the Linux code, and adding new code, and so the GPL does apply."

The truth is, as long as you do not redistribute the code you can modify it all day long. You are not required to redistribute your modified code at all. If you do, you must also release the source. at least they did put modifying and redistribution together in the next sentence. Still, this part is pure crap.

Ref: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir...

The fact that I am running GNU/Linux on my server doesn't mean I am not changing the source. What kind of stupid logic is that? I haven't finished reading this paper yet. I took a break to post this. Anyone else find some other good examples of illogical findings?

I've had a look at the whitepaper, as well. It is full of misconceptions, false assumptions, wrong conclusions and sometimes even blank lies. The most funny sentence was "With BSD, they user stays free"

According to that, a user of macosx would be more free than a user of GNU/Linux. What a joke.

I saw that too, and agree wholeheartedly!

Sarbox deals with large public companies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the vast - I mean vast majority of Linux users. Even if some violation of the GPL occurs, I doubt that it would be material in terms of the reporting requirements. This report doesn't even come close to reporting an issue.

I think the entire argument is bogus and an attempt to create publicity. It one of those look at us and buy our stuff because we have a lawyer. It's FUD, disinformation and a big so what.

I agree, it is. And so is the wasabi's whitepaper they are referring to. However, wasabi is a name in the embedded market. Quite a few people may actually end up reading their whitepaper and believe it. We should get some anti-FUD going.

I'm already on it. I'll be posting an editorial to that site, hopefully by tomorrow.

"In the first of a SERIES..."

This is very very much the F in FUD.

The F in lots of other things too.

I'll drink to that!