Slashdot Mirror
MySQL AB and Nusphere Go to Court Over GPL
A little fairy whispered in our ear: "MySQL AB is seeking a temporary injunction against NuSphere, even though they've finally released the source code for Gemini and MySQL Advantage. According to the GPL, NuSphere lost the right to redistribute when they violated #3 by not providing the source code originally. The FSF will testify tomorrow in court, according to this Newsforge article." Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN. We've done a couple of previous stories about the MySQL AB vs. Nusphere conflict: the original story, a follow-up, and a note about a countersuit.
Update: 02/26 21:15 GMT by T :
bkuhn (Bradley Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation) writes: "The FSF has a press release on the matter and affidavit that we filed is also available."
What will be the ramifications if the GPL doesn't hold up in court? If the GPL hasn't been challenged in court thus far, this could have far reaching implications within the Linux community. If the GPL doesn't hold up, does that mean Microsoft is free to take large chunks of GPL'd software and make it proprietary?
NuSphere may not be 'obscure', but the mysql.org website seems a little deceptive. If I didn't investigate it more, I wouldn't have known the difference between mysql.org or mysql.com just by looking at the front page of the website.
.org websites should ever be for-profit businesses as that is not how that domain was intended to be used.
MySQL.org presents their website in a manner that does not give credit where credit is due.
For one, if you go to mysql.org you will find that it doesn't say whether it developed the software, it just says it's got mysql software available for 'free' download. But the mysql.com guy is correct, in that you cannot download any software without registering with mysql.org first. That indicates to me that it's not 'free' because now mysql.org has customer data to use to market their product to. Plus, it doesn't say: "Hey, we didn't write the software, mysql.com is where you can find that info. We just improved upon it." Besides, I don't think
Why should the GPL be any less credible than any other software license out there? If it fails, it seems that there would be an implication that other restrictive licenses should fail as well (read: anti-reverse engineering clauses and the like).
Why should the GPL be any less credible than any other software license out there?
If anything, it's MORE credible, given that it doesn't impair fair use or free speech, unlike many proprietary licenses. (The "No negative reviews allowed" McAffee license comes to mind here...)
The Free desktop that Just Works
Personally, I don't have much of a vested interest in who distributes MySQL, since I don't use it, and probably won't any time soon. However, as one of the first court cases to test the enforceability of the GPL, it think that it's critical that MySQL AB win. If they can't take on another small company over a GPL violation, how in the hell can we expect anyone to be able to stand up to a BigCo that decides to rip off their GPL'd code?
Unfortunately, "credible" in this context may boil down to, "defended by the most expensive lawyers/lobbying on earth". The only real hope that the GPL has may be defense from folks like IBM, not the FSF, or any of the small, independent developers or software houses using it.
Common sense and existing law may say that making a single digital copy of a piece of music, software, etc. should fall under "fair use," but the RIAA and MPAA can still get trash like the DMCA made into law, and defended in court. Remember, this is America, where money == power, period.
distribute your derivative work.
The GPL is clear on this point. If, for whatever reason a court of law decides the GPL is invalid in a particular case, then you lose any right to distribute derivative works.
Thus, there is no incentive for a company to try to invalidate the GPL, because without it they have no rights to distribute derived works. The only option a company has is to prove it is in compliance with the GPL.
The one interesting thing here I observe is that once you have been found in violation of the GPL only the holder of the copyright can reinstate your ability to distribute derivative works-- and there is no obligation to do so.
Thus, companies using GPLed code in works they distribute need to pay special attention to compliance as none-compliance carries with it the possibility being permanently blocked from using the GPLed code again.
Admitedly though, it's not complicated. Simply ensure you distribute your source along with the product, and all is well.
Otherwise put, if you want to use GPLed code, you have to share the code of your derivative work with everyone.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
So the article said that NuSphere registered MySQL.org, and AFAIK the real MySQL web page is at MySQL.com.. but --
[xaxxon@chopper log]$ nslookup www.mysql.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.mysql.com
Address: 64.28.67.70
[xaxxon@chopper log]$ nslookup www.mysql.org
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.mysql.org
Address: 64.28.67.70
Did I mis-read?
Basically, since the GPL is the only document granting you permission to use the software, violating the GPL revokes your rights under it. That means that if it is found that they violated the GPL (which seems a foregone conclusion if the reporting is accurate), they will no longer be able to distributed MySQL code at all. In other words, put completely out of that business.
Now that is something other companies will take seriously in the future. (IANAL and all that of course.)
NuSphere is not at all a small company. It's GIANTLY HUGE ;-))
NuSphere is owned and financied by PROGRESS
http://www.PROGRESS.com/ which is really a
giant company like Oracle...
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
As usual, it is worth pointing out that if the GPL were ever found unenforceable, then you have NO right under copyright law and international treaty to use the code - it doesn't suddenly become public domain.
This is one of the reasons the GPL tends not to get challenged - it's a lose-lose situation for a GPL infringer who challenges it in court:
Scenario a: GPL challenge fails. Infringer has to GPL all derived work of original GPL code that he wants to distribute. Presumably he didn't want to do this, otherwise he wouldn't have taken it to court...
Scenario b: GPL challenge succeeds. Infringer has to stop distributing all derived work of original GPL code, as he now has no rights granted to him by the original copyright holder to use the code.
Hence, given the pro big business mentality of the current administration, GPL will be thrown out of the court. Just watch it happen.
The owls are not what they seem
EULAs are a strange beast. They are a non-negotiated contract made through click-through or breaking a seal for something that you purchased already. The theory behind a EULA is that you contract to the EULA. You do not need a license to run software. If you need to clikc Agree to use the software, have you enterred into a contract? That's an INTERESTING legal question.
GPL is MUCH less interesting. By default, you have NO right to distribute software. The GPL is a distribution license.
This Slashdot mental masturbation is childish. The odds of the GPL being overturned and everyone's software under license being made public domain is pretty close to 0%. It is only a concern on Slashdot.
The GPL hasn't been to court because every violator has reached a settlement.
This case sounds like NuSphere is fucked. The portion in question suggests that if you violate the terms of the license the license is voided. This is pretty standard stuff.
Here is the question that the court will answer.
If I break the GPL, I can be sued for damages, etc., and must stop distribution. My license is revoked, etc., etc. Can I then go out, download a fresh copy and distribute under the terms of the GPL? Stallman says no, I'm not certain. That's where this case is questionable.
However, this is a good test case for the GPL. The question of derivative work is interesting. I'm not certain that the linking scenario creates a derivative work. However, since this company distributed a modified MySQL with their additions, they are CLEARLY distributing the work.
They need to establish that they have a separate license or did so under the GPL.
Regardless, the GPL being invalidated would not make things Public Domain. Without license you cannot distribute, so if the license falls, no distribution under GPL v2. FSF releases GPL v2.1 within a week and any provision that includes (or later version) is fine, everyone else needs to update.
Alex
Unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on how you look at it), corporations no not have Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
FSF has a press release and the affidavit we filed available on our website.
If the injunction is granted, it sets a strong precedent for certain parts of the GPL. If the injunction is denied, it may be for reasons other than any part of the GPL being invalid.
Because, this case will create precedent for all GPL'ed software, and whether or not corporations can steal the work of other people and call it their own! It's not a matter of which database software is better, but whether or not individual people should be able to create enforcable copyrights for their own software, and expect them to hold up in court.
If the GPL doesn't hold up in this case, expect a whole slew of proprietary packages to start popping up all over the place, each with a surprising resemblance to other, slightly inferior, but still groundbreaking "Libre" alternatives. It will suck the air out of all those alternatives, and once the alternatives are sucked dry, the Open Standards will go with them. (Remember -- Microsoft isn't the only company out there bent on World Domination through Embrase and Extend tactics.)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one.
and also...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I don't see, anywhere in the liscense, a timeline specified as to when any changes to source code must be supplied. Anyone know of a quote from the GPL that specifies that the source must be made available at the time of binary release? AFAIK, they don't have to release the code to anyone who doesn't specifically request it, and who has a copy of the binaries; and I don't think time-frame is brought into it.
put the what in the where?
Alot has happened in the MySQL AB vs. Nusphere fight. First Nusphere took the mysql.org domain and acted as if they were the not-for-profit corp behind the software. MySQL AB was right to be frustrated about the situation. But for what we know, this question got resolved, as mysql.org now points to the original mysql.com site and WHOIS reports MySQL AB as the owner.
So where do we go from here? These guys believe that they can enforce article 4 of the GPL against Nusphere for an infraction to the GPL that occured in the past and which has been corrected since then as Nusphere published its source code. I personnaly believe this is not The Right Way. It totally goes against the spirit of the GPL: software must be free, and although we want to protect the original copyright holder, we must not discriminate against the users.
Many people could try to profit from the GPL in an illegal way, does it mean that we can put them on a blacklist? If they decided to change their attitude and in turn abide to the license, I don't see why we would still punish them. They can be a valuable ressource in improving the software, even though it clearly goes against MySQL AB's agenda.
Hey, if you're going to act that way, why did you release it under the GPL in the first place? By retaliating the way they do MySQL AB makes me wonder who between them and NuSphere has the weakest principles.
Using the GPL as a tool for revenge is definitely not what Stallman & followers originally intended.
Of course, MySQL AB could and should sue NuSphere for misrepresentation, moral copyright infrigment and dubious corporate conduct. They should seek damages, which they are fully entitled to under their country's Copyright Act. I for one find it unacceptable to simply lock Nusphere out.
It is sad to see that the first judicial test of the GPL is witness to such a hijacking. And the worst thing: the FSF has it's arms in the mud upto the shoulders.
This is one of these situations where Stallman actually should open his big mouth like he usually does.
I don't think that the judge will let that injonction go through. Their case is too weak to achieve that. Anyways in the worst case, what will prevent Nusphere from starting another company?
pertools will bring you the thruth.
That's why I think that the whole section is silly. You really can't restrict people from accessing the GPL this way.
I suppose they could file for an injuncton and argue that the company is a shell. Who the hell knows.
Regardless, I think that this Slashdot bullshit about GPL code becoming public domain is beyond silly.
Now, the outrageous claims of some proponents (anything that touches GPL code or is written by people that have looked at it becomes GPL) should get swatted down.
I also don't think that you can try to pull trade secret bullshit (prove you didn't see this) with GPLed code, but we'll see.
Alex
Basically, MySQL AB is arguing that because NuSphere violated the GPL *in the past*, they have forfeited their right to distribute a GPL app, even though the source code in question has since been released in compliance with the terms of the GPL. What are the ramifications if they succeed? Does this mean NuSphere will be unable to distribute any GPL applications? Will the NuSphere contributions be deemed invalid? Will MySQL AB then distribute MySQL with Gemini tables while NuSphere is not allowed to? (Gemini tables are a NuSphere contribution.)
Isn't it sadly ironic? The first time GPL is tested in court, and I hope they loose, for all our sakes. No matter which way the decision goes, the dispute hurts the entire free software community, and will make corporate contributions to code base that much harder to come by. And think of what Craig Mundie from Microsoft will have to say about this! All over what was originally a domain name dispute. (If your new to this conflict, NuSphere paid MySQL a huge chunk of change for the right to distribute MySQL, (that's right, paid for the right to distribute a GPL app.). In the process, they created a mysql.org web page that did not give any credit to MySQL AB, and indeed, only made SQL Source Code available to registered users. MySQL AB charged NuSphere with GPL violation. In response, NuSphere made the source code more available and released the source code for their own proprietary modules. It is still not clear to me, however, what exactly MySQL AB thinks the millions they were paid by NuSphere was supposed to be for. Somehow, the right to distribute a GPL app for a limited time just doesn't make sense.)
MySQL AB, I thank you very much for your hard work and development of MySQL. But please, stop pissing on the GPL to advance your own agenda. You can debate whether the money you were paid gave NuSphere the right to hijack MySQL trademark until the cows come home; but all GPL issues have been put to bed months ago!
The State at least makes an attempt in democracy. Corporations would be perfectly happy with pure tyranny of money (=unbridled capitalism). So yes. I will accept the rule by the State instead that of "free corporations" any day. Corporations and free capitalism are giving you a "free society" as long as you are ready to join the pack of predators feeding on the weak of the society. That's how profit's really made.
The owls are not what they seem
Get sued random small ass person who has code under the GPL. Get the GPL invalidated. Shut down all the millions of free software projects that make use of the GPL. Hell, forget Microsoft, how do we know that Theo da Raadt or some other cat stroking evil genius isn't gunna do it (no offense Theo). If the GPL is declared invalid then surely you have to be wrong about this whole "no rights to distribute at all" stuff. Surely 99% of people using the GPL would immediately issue statements saying in essence that they are switching to a BSD license. Ahhh, fun with copyright law.
How we know is more important than what we know.
In a normal contract... there is a point where the contract an agreement is reached, the contract is signed. If a clause in the contract causes the contract to be terminated, it's null & void.
But you see, with the GPL, there is no negotiation. What prevetns someone from re-licencing the software under the GPL again? Nothing. As long as they are currently complying with the terms, they can keep using it.
Why is the GPL different? Because nobody CHOOSES to let someone license it.
The early version of NuSphere was clearly in violation of the GPL and thus _de facto_ renounced their rights to redistribute that version of MySQL. However, it seems that they've cleaned up their act for the next version of NuSphere.
What I'm wondering is if that revocation is permanent, absent forgiveness by the licensor of the MySQL code? It will obviously be so for that particular version of MySQL. But what about later versions of MySQL? New code, new license. Does their initial unrepentent infringment of the GPL mean that they are forever barred from redistributing newer versions of MySQL whose license they haven't violated?
All versions and variants of the BSD license require that credit is given to the copyright holder. The only difference with the "new" version is that credit no longer has to be given in advertising material that mentions use or features of the code.
Credit still has to be given in all documentation provided with the software, as well as within the source code. "Give credit" in this case really means that the whole software license, including a disclaimer, has to be reproduced with every copy.
I don't see, anywhere in the liscense, a timeline specified as to when any changes to source code must be supplied.
The timeline is very clear and obvious, at least to anyone who can read english, namely:
You have to make the source code available the moment you begin distributing the GPLed software.
Even if you choose option (b) or (c), the source code has to be available, and provided on request, the moment you begin distributing your derivative work.
Where is the rocket science in this?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
There is another kind of transaction in these cases. It's true that the money always wins, but to think that judges are solely swayed by whoever has the nicest shoes is naive.
This _is_ the end of the GPL
The reason Eben Moglen has gotten dozens of companies to give up and to submit is because of section 4. Without it, we'd have a lot less free software than we do now. In the past, the threats of nuclear war have been private, but very serious (if you're in the Linux business and lose your right to distribute, say, glibc, you're dead meat).
It's important for everyone to understand that if you violate the GPL, it's not sufficient to just stop violating, you need to get the copyright holder's explicit permission before you can ever start copying, modifying, or distributing the program whose copyright you violated ever again. People got pissed off when RMS talked about "forgiving" the KDE project, but too many people don't realize that from a legal standpoint this forgiveness was required (though evidently only a couple of less-important KDE applications ever had any FSF-owned GPL code in them). Certainly RMS could have been more diplomatic (though maybe not, it isn't one of his talents).
You can't change the licence, but you can charge *anything* (no, not equal to cost) for getting it from you. Translation: I can charge you $1000 to download MySQL from me, but you're free to distribute it at no cost. Read the licence, it's all in there.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
See, that's where this whole thing seems absurd. In fact, I would argue that I can agree to a new license for the same version.
When I negotiate contracts, we go through multiple revisions. Then we sign something. We could always amend the contract (sign a new one that says how we are changing it) and most have a termination clause.
If I terminate my contract with entity X, we can sign a new contract later. Situations change.
In this case, you have put in an unsigned license that says this licesne is available universally. It allows me to license the code from you to distribute and license others to redistribute.
I broke a section, therefore your termination clause automatically kicks in. The old license is gone. Oh no, I'm without license so I go to get a fresh license from you, and low and behold, there is one with the same terms. I agree this time and I am licensed.
Now, the GPL could stipulate that you lose your rights to all other applications under the GPL licensed from that entity. As the copyright holder, that is okay. Okay, no problem, I have myNewShellCompany download the software, then send me a copy. My company has now licensed it from myNewShellCompany, and your restriction on my agreeing to a fresh license from you goes away.
I don't know, I could see this restriction being less powerful than MySQL AB and the FSF want it to be. Who knows, maybe the courts will enforce it reasonably, and say that it is reasonable to say no more distribution for you if break the GPL.
It makes sense that you can get an injunction and sue for damages if someone ships your GPL code in violation of the license, but I'm not sure that you can prevent them from shipping it within the context of the license given that you have a universal license grant.
Alex
The problem with what RMS did wasn't what he did legally, we all recognized that. It was his being a jerk about the entire situation.
The KDE Team felt they were within the bounds of the law, FSF felt otherwise. Either there was no FSF code involved or they felt that their case was week, so they focused on complaining and launching a competing project.
When the FSF and Trolltech worked out their differences regarding Qt licensing, RMS issued a statement applauding the change, forgiving KDE and it's users, and cheering on GNOME. Once Qt went GPL, there is no reason for the FSF to support GNOME (which sits on top of libraries with the "bad don't except under special circumstances" LGPL license ) over KDE except for NIH.
RMS handled it with less tact than he normally uses, that is what pissed everybody off. The "forgiveness" could have been done in nice legalese on their website without trying to get it coverage.
Alex
Seems to me that Nusphere is trying to greedily free-ride off the hard work of Open Source developers. Simply put: Nusphere doesn't get it. They are one of many who still mistakenly believe that proprietary software is the only way to make money. As such, I personally hope they get ripped to shreds in court and all their proprietary modifications get forcefully released to be freely assimilated into the GPL codebase as MySQL developers see fit.
Paranoid mumblings are all very fun, but to do what you suggest, the court would have to throw out copyright law. Do you see many big businesses itching to obliterate copyright law and harm their ability to prosecute people for copying their IP without permission?
RMS suggested something other than "Linux" because it removes the ambiguity of just calling everything "Linux". He suggested "GNU/Linux" because he wanted some credit for the 10 or so years of work that made the whole system possible. Is that really so much to ask?
Technically speaking, "GNU/Linux" (GNU over LInux) makes sense just like "TCP/IP" (TCP over IP) makes sense.
Stop making the BSD people look bad. Inform yourself before you join a discussion, alright?
You do not need a license to run software
This is a common bit of Open Source mythology that was at one time a reasonable approximation of the truth. But it simply isn't the law. Whatever may be the way we wish it were, the cases do not support this proposition.
In fact, the cases support the contrary proposition: that running software typically entails loading content from some medium onto RAM, and thereby constitutes a "reproduction" under Section 106 of the Copyright Act. Thus, without a license, the owner of the copyright has an exclusive right to preclude a user from running the software.
Not that this result isn't controversial -- academics have assailed these cases in law reviews, and the Congress recently limited their applicability in certain cases that are not relevant here (embedded operating system software in connection with purchase of hardware).
But controversy doesn't change the law. While the previous author clearly spouted the "ole FSF party line," that party line isn't consistent with the Copyright Act and corresponding case law.
Nusphere should continue to be able to release their software in compliance with the GPL, however for each copy of their software they distributed without complying with the GPL, they should be forced to negotiate with MYSQL AB etc. and agree on a fee to be paid for each copy of the software distributed illegally.
If precise figures cannot be had, then an estimate should be created based on the length of time NuSphere was distributing product that did not comply with the GPL.
A price per copy should be constructed based on similarly featured products in the marketplace. It could get expensive for NuSphere, but commercial software is an expensive commodity.
As MySQL is open-source, it may make more sense to have NuSphere donate the money to an organisation like the EFF or the FSF, to support Open Source software as a whole.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
I dunno.
Copyright prevents redistribution of original or derived works. Only the GPL (in this case), lets you redistribute, and that license is void if you fail to honour its terms. So, yes, you could distribute future versions if they were not derivative works, which is unlikely.
Obtaining the code from a different source wouldn't help, as your right to redistribute has been withdrawn by the copyright holder, and applies over all copies. Establishing another company would be considered as a "sham" by the court.
To put it simply, you'se fuck-ed (and not in a good way).
However, I suppose you could distribute
prior versions, and back-port future diffs into them, if you are now in complience.
You could've hired me.
Let's assume GPL is deemed invalid:
The work is still copyrighted by the owner. If GPL was invalidated, you would need to negotiate an agreement with the relevant owner(s) if you wanted to use it. With any amount of collaborative input ("we used the libraries from project X and the drivers from project Y which was derived from project Z") this would be a real minefield that could see you sued further down the track (ala GIF). In the meantime, a new GPL would be circulated and pretty much overnight, most people would be distributing under "son of GPL".
Me thinking out loud:
I think it would take a ruling that took copyright away from owners to compromise things. Imagine a "Fair and Reasonable Corporate Access to Copyrighted Materials" Act that watered down copright for individuals. Say under the excuse that copyright shouldn't be used to protect DCMA circumvention and such copyrights are therefore forfeit.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
We have said earlier that we welcomed the opensourcing of Gemini when it finally happened. But NuSphere still denies having violated the GPL in the first place, which, if left at that, may set a damaging precedent and is a potential threat to ANYONE developing GPL'd software. I believe it is in everyone's interest that the GPL is a defendable licensing model.
And, for those who may not know, we at MySQL AB have made numerous attempts to settle the case out of court.
Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
See comments at the end of FEDERAL APPEALS COURT HOLDS SHRINK WRAP LICENSE UNENFORCEABLE on this topic, written by someone who doesn't have to add "IANAL". :-)
Article 6 would seem to allow them to regain their rights by receiving a new copy of the code.
That allows them to re-derive something (else?) from the new copy.
What is questionable is the status of what was derived from the old copy. Who if anyone owns it (or even can own it).
Otherwise, consider that I receive two copies of a License for something. Can I void one by non-complience, return to complience, and pull out the other copy? I don't think so.
Still, a contract is always interpreted in the most negative light by the court when it comes to the rights of the person who drew up the contract (the reasoning being that that had the opportunity to make it as air tight as possible). I presume that a license agreement would be treated similarly, so you may have a valid "out".
I'm curious as to what the court will say.
You could've hired me.
That article was written in 1992, so it's very out of date. In the case of a warrentee disclaimer, a different set of notification laws apply. "Service sold separately" is a completely reasonable point of view, given proper notification. Most EULAs attempt to use "notification" as an excuse to take away the user's rights. Only a contract can do that.
It's important to know that all of the caselaw on this subject makes it very important to look at the exact circumstances. For example, if you are installing from one disk onto more than one computer, then you DO need a licence and in that case it is sort of like the GPL: if you don't accept the EULA then nothing else grants you multiple machine use. The "nothing else" part fails in the case of single machine use because there is something else: 17 USC 117, which is not subject to approval by the vendor.
As the owner of a copyright, I can license it however I want. If the GPL fails, then nobody can distribute it. Alternatively, the courts can rule that the GPL allows more than we think it does. They may rule that derivative works aren't as powerful a concept (any linking?) as the FSF would like. These are all possibilities.
However, the right of a copyright owner to license distribution is NOT questionable. If the GPL fails, then anyone distributing is at the mercy of the copyright owners. The GPL doesn't protect the owner (copyright protects the owners) the GPL protects the distributor that licensed it.
Section 4 is a strange beast, that is the crux of this case. If Section 4 isn't legal, the the FSF loses its stick.
This entire case revolves around Section 4, NOT the concept of licensing copyrighted work.
Read the people that think it could be challenged, they have bizarre views that the lawyers on Slashdot laugh at.
There are questions about the GPL, but the onces that Slashdot's laymans voice aren't the real ones.
IBM is putting $1B behind Linux development... Their legal team has likely gone over the GPL. Sure there are questions that only a court can determine (namely, what constitutes a derivative work and is Section 4 legal), but this Slashdot hand wringing is rediculous.
It's popular here to bash the US and its courts... just because ACs get modded to +5 by calling the US government corrupt doesn't make it so.
Alex
s/BSD person/BSD advocates and users/
Nusphere is claiming that their code does not violate the GPL. MySQL claims it does. They have already settled the case over their contract.
The Nusphere "Gemini" code was developed with the help of Mysql AB, and depends on the GPLed MySQL code, as well as additional code that MySQL has since added to the GPLed version. I don't know for certain if it is "statically" or "dynamically" linked, or if it is entirely dependent on MySQL APIs.
But this is going to court because Progress hopes to knock down or at least weaken the GPL. The judge has already indicated bias-- calling open source "like a religious movement" and ignorance -- referring to "Microsoft WordPerfect".