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 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.
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.)
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
FSF has a press release and the affidavit we filed available on our website.
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?
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.
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).
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