Slashdot Mirror
FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit
An anonymous reader writes "Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News reports that OpenTV is violating the GNU General Public License. He notes that the Free Software Foundation is threatening to file a lawsuit in the case. If you haven't become an associate member of the FSF yet, now would be a good time!" Note that Gillmor is reporting the FSF's claim of violation, not making it himself.
Since nobody ever reads the article around here, i want to get this one paragraph out in the open and up at the top as quickly as possible, in hopes it will keep some stupid flamers from making stupid posts:
:shrugs:. I've never even heard of OpenTV
OpenTV's intellectual property lawyer, Scott Doyle, says there's been missed communications on both sides but that the company has no intention of violating any legal agreements. He says the company plans to post the code in question online.
Surley if the company is distributing GPL code under additional restrictive licensing agreements, the recipient can jsut ignore these and redistribute the code freely under the GPL? (Assuming he was very sure that this was the case.)
If the company does put the code online and issue a serious apology and a statement about their commitment to open source then sueing them may just send the wrong message about the open source community. However, if they show even the slightest sign of offending again the FSF should put their balls in a vice and squeeze hard - decent programmers who choose to give their work away should not be taken advantage of.
Beep beep.
Does anyone know of any statistics on how many developers actually get away with using Open Source Software (more specifically GPLed) code within their closed source products. It would seem to me that with the large distribution of GPLed code and the ease of use to obtain it along with documentation on how to use it, more and more people would do this assuming no one will ever find out. Afterall, how many people actually go around trying to look for breaches in the GPL.
...
GPL Legal Battle Coming?
posted by Dan Gillmor 12:06 AM
The free software movement has surmounted all kinds of obstacles in its short history, moving from a political statement to a prominent position inside the world's largest companies.
A battle may -- repeat, may -- be shaping up over whether the GNU General Public License, or GPL, can be enforced. If it gets to court, this could be a pivotal case.
The GPL is the legal core of the movement. It's basically a copyright agreement. It gives users of GPL-licensed software the right to see the source code, or programming instructions, of the software and to make modifications. But there's a string attached: If you create software that is derived from software previously licensed under the GPL, you must release what you've written under the same license.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF), which monitors the scene and enforces the GPL, says a Mountain View company has been violating the GPL for more than a year. The foundation calls the violations serious and is threatening a lawsuit.
The specifics of the FSF's beef with OpenTV have to do with the company's policies in sending source code to licensees of OpenTV software tools created under the GPL. According to the foundation, OpenTV has either refused to provide the code, or has attached improper conditions on providing it, to several programmers who have every right to it.
OpenTV's intellectual property lawyer, Scott Doyle, says there's been missed communications on both sides but that the company has no intention of violating any legal agreements. He says the company plans to post the code in question online.
But if the FSF is right that OpenTV is violating the GPL, and if this behavior is found to be legal by the courts, the entire free-software and open-source movements could be derailed. Agreeing to share the improvements you make in the GPL-licensed software you've used is an essential part of the larger ecosystem.
Some people I respect say the GPL is a bad idea, period. They say it's too restrictive of programmers' rights, in the sense of forcing them to open what they've done to the world. Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place. Then put different licensing terms on what you've done.
But legal agreements are supposed to matter in our system. Just because the GPL turns the idea of intellectual property somewhat around doesn't make it less valid.
--- From here ---
Tom Brown
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at
In soviet russia, all your us are belong to base!
Karma: Redundant
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Check out Mythtv! I built one! And MYTHTV is
fully open source! I love the GPL!
OpenTV uad an office in Mountain View for a while, right down the street from Netscape. I used to peek in the window on my way home but I never actually saw anyone IN there, just a bunch of TV screens showing various programming. :P
I always thought that it must have been a dot-com front for drugs or something.
Interesting to see that it's an actual company.
It is great that they are putting the source online, if they actually do it. But, the fact of the matter is that they are only doing this after being called on the carpet by the FSF. They had no intention of doing this before. That means that they were intentionally or inadvertantly defrauding their customers and the original developers of the code. This then leads to the question of damages. Actually, there is no question of damages but, rather a question of how much and to who?
As a final note cases such as these serve as a warning to any other potentially unscrupulous individuals that may have considered stealing GPL code. Put simply, such a law suite will further legitimize the GPL from a legal perspective and ease future GPL enforcement efforts. Assuming the FSF wins, that is.
Note that Gillmor is reporting the FSF's claim of violation, not making it himself.
Thanks! I almost had to read the article this time...
I think what you'll see happen in this case is that it will be granted cert in the 14th circuit, but they will kill it with a pocket veto before it grandfathers in a relatively new concept like the GPL.
Banach-Tarski Overdrive
Isn't OpenTV The build it yourself for free open source TIVO project, and if so, isn't this like friendly fire, except not so friendly, and not so accidental.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
To quote the article at siliconvalley.com: Some people I respect say the GPL is a bad idea, period. They say it's too restrictive of programmers' rights, in the sense of forcing them to open what they've done to the world.
This is completly wrong! It does not restrict the right of programmers - it's more the opposite, it gives programmers the right to view technology and learn from it, and even more importantly - they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. What is this with forcing them to open what they have done to the world? It is not forcing anyone, it is just a license which the programmer choose to distribute his software under, or he choose not to, I can't see how that is forcing anything on anyone.
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
Dan Gillmor is adding to the GPL FUD with errors in this article. He says a number of times that " If you create software that is derived from software previously licensed under the GPL, you must release what you've written under the same license.". This is not exactly true, you are not forced to release what you have written and you don't have to share the code unless you release your changes. In the case of OpenTV, it sounds like they are releasing the code, but doing an in-house mod to GPL code does not require you to release what you've written. Errors like this in the mainstream media just muddy the issue and add to GPL detractors.
I've also seen some pretty convincing arguments that the GPL is on pretty solid legal ground. The GPL gives you the right to view the source -> modify it -> release it. In return for that right, you agree to the conditions of the license. Namely , that if/when you release your work, you use the GPL. IANAL, but this sounds like a simply contract you are agreeing to when you release your code.
After reading the article I get the impression that OpenTV is going to post the source code for the programs they use on the website, and the FSF will back off.
True, if it does go to court it will be the first big test of the GPL. However, I doubt it will go that far.
If this does go to a legal battle it could have much more consequences than just for the GPL and other open source licenses. It would seem to define what a valid electronic contract is. So if the GPL isn't valid as it is, what about other software EULAs, or even contracts that are signed electronically like online purchases.
Really bad timing, especially with the whole SCO things.
Free Software Foundation is threatening to file a lawsuit
Yeah, except that threatening to file a lawsuit is illegal. You can inform somebody that what they are doing is in violation of some contract, but you can't say that you will sue them if they don't do what you want.
Does anyone know of any statistics on how many developers actually get away with using Open Source Software (more specifically GPLed) code.
None. Because if they were in a statistic, it would mean somebody found out and so, they didn't get away with it. I'd bet most companies would lie even on an anonymous survey, someone might choose to raiding based on that survey.
People will answer truthfully to surveys only if they believe there are no directly harmful consequences. Try asking the questions "Do you burn music cds?" and "The government is planning a tax on blank CDs based on the number of people burning music cds. Do you burn music cds?" You'll get two wildly different answers.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Link, for all you other lazy bastards out there.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
How likely is it that the San Jose Mercury News would get slashdotted? Not very, I'd guess.
That aside, does anybody else think it would be a good idea to implement something on slashdot that checked every n minutes to see if a link was still responding, and if it wasn't, rendered page views with links to the google cached version instead?
I think this would be a great idea. It would keep smaller sites from getting hammered too badly, but would still keep pageviews going to the site, or at least a cached version of the site, so they still get the props. For bigger sites that can handle the increased load, it wouldn't change anything.
Sorry for being OT.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
Are there no moderators out there who would bother to compare the two products? MythTV is a software PVR while OpenTV is set-top box middleware amongst other things. Please look before you mod.
Well, I think giving them a full year to allow their customers access to the code is more than enough. I mean, after a year it's pretty hard to claim any excuses whatsoever.
Furthermore, this isn't a problem unique to free software. Had they used a commercial library without licensing it properly they'd be in just as much hot water. Simply do not use GPL software in a program you don't intend to distribute in accordance with the GPL.
# wc -l bsd.txt ; wc -l gpl.txt
39
340
i wonder which one is easier to understand, use, and just flat out makes more sense.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
For all the GPL violations that the FSF has ever gone to court/threaten to goto court, I have yet to see any damages.
Granted maybe its a good thing that when lawyer actually see what the GPL states, they fold like cheap suits.
BUT there should be costs to violate the GPL, if only as a deterrent. Otherwise people will try to get away with it and only come clean when FSF gets huffy and puffy and simply distribute the source code in question. Its like bank robbers stealing from a bank, getting caught, and only have to give back the money w/o penalties.
If the RIAA can get major damages out of college students for "sharing" mp3s with no business intent, then someone abusing GPL code should also be taken to the proverbial woodshed financially.
For those who worry that we will get "mercenary" lawsuits, offer to distribute all cash (minus reasonable expenses) to some worthy charity (other than the FSF).
All that being said...IF there are damage awards, how much do you ask for violating a free product's license. Your avg jury probably will simply say "The offending parties should post their code, but the original person didnt lose sales" and probably give squat.
I dont even presume to know a way to properly calculate damages, but I do think it shouldnt be discriminatory amongst popular projects like Linux kernel vs. little projects of the week. Hence the lil guys are even more likely to be screwed over. Maybe the % of GPL source code in the overall body of product source can be a factor, but also relevant functionality overall too.
Everyone lost.
We could have ALL (minus 1) had the benefit of this software for free.
The very first person would have to purchase it, but then could freely redistribute to the world.
By locking out the GPL we all lost use of this software, we also lost the ability to improve the software.
Anyone who wanted a feature that was not added lost out.
There is no chance of any court finding against the GPL. The GPL grants rights that you would not have without it. If the court decided that the GPL was unenforceable in this case, OpenTV would simply lose all rights to use the software. So there is no possibility that OpenTV will allow this to go to court. Remember that nobody forced this company to use GPLed software. They chose to do that; and the only basis on which they could choose to do that is under the terms that are very generously offered by the GPL.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Please curb your enthusiasm a little. It reads like a spam ad for Viagra right now.
One thing I truly and deeply loathe is being unable to easily use my browser's Back Button to leave a site. That, combined with the fact that their Web site uses images more than words to tell what they're about makes me think they're idiots. Screw your flashy animations and hypnotic music and scripting that borks my back button. I don't care if you have "Open" in your name -- U SUK!
BAD TROLL!
BAD BAD BAD!
It amazes me that everyone is gung-ho about suing over violations of the GPL while people are willing to burn SCO at the cross for upholding their legal right when their license has been violated.
Seriously, what is the difference? FUD against linux you say? What about the FUD the open tv costomers / potential investors are hearing right now?
I fail to see the difference between the two stories. Both entities (SCO & FSF) are just trying to maintain the integrity of their licenses. We should start a petition / web site to ban the FSF just as the community has done to SCO.
I try to donate every year to different charities like the EFF and others. I'm not wealthy so it usually amounts to ~$300/year. I've never dontated to the FSF, because it is unclear to me where my money is going. I will not give the FSF a dime until until they stop childish behavior such as this, and another reservation I have about donating to the FSF foundation is what projects are funded? Does the FSF fund any "open source" projects? Would projects that compete with GNU/ projects receive any funds?
I have no interest in donating to the FSF if my money is going to be spent telling people how to name their software projects or "educating" people on why the name open source is bad.
This is hard to prove, the RIAA makes crazy claims all the time. They don't get judgements that large.
It is much easier to just claim copyright violations and a fine.
Actual losses could be the total number of units sold minus the first person, as they could have all gotten the product legally.
Number of people who purchased an equivalent product.
A Business that had to license or develop an alternative product.
I think those are justified, but IANAL
AFAIK you only have to release the source code to your software if you release the binaries. This may seem like a pedantic point, but in fact it makes a profound difference for any business that wants to go the "service bureau" route. Suppose your business consists of processing digital image files that customers submit. If the software that does this is built from GPL'd components, you nevertheless do *not* need to release the source code as long as it runs only on your servers. If instead you release a consumer version of the software, that is the point at which you must release the source as well.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Now publishers and journalist have a new word for what happens to their IP as well as their web sites.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Violating the GPL puts you in violation of copyright. The $100,000 statutory damages thus apply.
Ah, but statutory damages are only available to copyright claimants who have *registered* their copyright claims prior to the alleged infringements. Otherwise, you can apply for registration after the fact and settle for actual damages (compensatory; profits) and injunction. Register those copyrights, boys.
You say that like it is a given. Until it is tested in court there is no guarantee that violating the GPL is a violation of copyright.
It depends on what you mean by "finding against." A court might construe the GPL to mean something other than what you think it does. There are *many* unresolved ambiguities concerning the GPL and predicting what it might mean and how it may operate under peculiar circumstances is sometimes *very* difficult.
Put your money where it'll make a difference; join the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
MythTV and OpenTV have absolutely no relation. OpenTV is a new and upcoming software platform for cable and satelitte boxes.
Basically, it's an entire embedded OS. Sort of like Symbian (only for set-top boxes)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
All that being said...IF there are damage awards, how much do you ask for violating a free product's license.
Well, The simplest place to start would be to determine how much money the offending party made off of the free code. If they didn't release their code to begin with, then it is likely because it is being released as some sort of commercial product and they feel like they have trade/tech secrets to protect. Just because the author didn't lose money, doesnt mean people should be allowed to violate the license to make money. I think a reasonable settlement would be for the OpenTV people to forfeit all of the money they have made using GPL code. Unfortunately for OpenTV, that would appear to be every dime they have made. You know what though, that is their fault.
Now, if it is a free product violating the GPL, then damages can be harder to assess, but I think this would be far less likely. Also, just because a license/contract hasn't been tested in court, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered legal until it is tested. If that were the case, there would be no point in even having such contracts/licenses because they would mean nothing.
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
I feel obligated to point out that violation of the GPL is not stealing... it is copyright/license infringement.
Slashdot discussions hold various examples of folks who refer to p2p copyrighted file sharing as "stealing". Some people (with whom I agree) then respond that this is not an example of stealing, it is an example of copyright infringement. This clarification is not intended to condone (or condemn) the sharing of copyrighted material; the point is to not sink to the same level of newspeak as the RIAA/MPAA which claims (for example) that not watching commercials is "stealing". The reason this is important is that it has everything to do with what legal analysis and remedies can and should be brought to bear on the matter.
When something has been stolen, there are clear answers to the questions (1) who has lost, and (2) how much. It is in the world of copyright infringement that these questions become enormously debatable.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Ya know, thats a pretty good idea! Something like a slashdot proxy server.. Certain sites wouldn't do well behind a proxy, but news stories and other similar types of posts would do well. It would work as you mention, but since there's no guarantee that Google will have the link yet, any article that gets posted to slashdot would automatically get stored, in case it needed to be accessed via proxy...
Probably be too expensive bandwidth-wise, but would definately be cool.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Assume for the moment that the SCO lawsuit has merit, in the sense that the Linux kernel contains SCO code. It seems undeniable that SCO made modifications to the Linux kernel, and then released it under the GPL with their code in it.
Maybe they didn't recognize their own code when they were looking at it, but that's their problem. They worked on it and then knowingly released it under the GPL, they owned the rights to it and were entitled to place it under the GPL. Hence no matter how it got there it's under the GPL now, and we can use it.
So SCO have no grounds to be threatening Linux vendors or end users the way they are. At most, assuming their claims are true, they should be able to get damages from whoever copied the code into the Linux kernel, and whoever failed to exercise due diligence within their own organization.
In other words, many of us are quite consistently arguing that the GPL should be found to be valid in both this case and the SCO case, and that most of SCO's threats should be thrown out of court.
Now, as a secondary matter I think the claim that SCO code was copied into Linux is highly dubious. But even if the allegation were true, SCO's behavior would still be sleazy.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL
Bollocks!
1) There is nothing to stop you selling GPL'd software
2) If you're the copyright holder of the code you can do anything you like with it, including making proprietary derivatives
if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
Excuse me while I fall down at your feet and beg for your wisdom.
the packaged software industry, is largely unscatched
If you were that professional you would use real words rather than making up your own.
You think MythTV would run on one of those via boxes? that sure would be nifty.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
first power mac 7200/120 post!
(For the clue-impaired: the BSDL and the GPL have different goals, so comparing them strictly on a line-by-line basis makes about as much sense as comparing cat and vi.)
Theory 1: Legal department stamped the standard disclaimers and restrictions on the outgoing code, and never bothered to read the GPL or didn't know they needed to.
Theory 2: A PHB thought the GPL wasn't important or could be safely ignored.
Theory 3: The company was trying to get away with something.
Lacking evidence to the contrary, I'll do what Napoleon recommends, and assume incompetence instead of treachery.
Given that assumption, posting the code in accordance with the GPL without further fuss is just fine. Sort of a "We were going what?" Followed by "Our bad, let us take care of that ASAP."
Even if they were doing it on purpose, I'd say they get a pass on this one. "We caught you, we'll let it slide this time if you obey the rules from here on out." Like getting out of a speeding ticket because you say you didn;t see the 55 mph sign, and thought it was still a 65 zone.
Crucifying the company when they're trying to make amends is a waste of resources. Save the legal fees for a company that is violating the GPL and thumbs their nose at the FSF when they're caught.
Now, if these guys don't post the code in accordance with the GPL, I say the lawyers get a call.
There is a teacup. There is a storm in it.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
...shouldn't throw nitpicks.
Oh, and don't put commas after your conjugations; put them before them. If they occur in the start of a sentence, do not use any punctuation there.
You mean CONJUNCTIONS, not CONJUGATIONS, TOEFL-boy!
YOW!
You are correct, however, that grammar and usage are quite important; under the surface they arouse in your audience a strong yet subtle, almost unconscious impression of your intelligence.
What Would Jesus Do
(for a Klondike bar)?
I would like to join but I think the membership list will one day be used to hunt down communist sympathizers.
You either have to provide equivalent access to the source (offering the source online alongside the binaries is fine, as is including the source and binaries in one package), OR you have to provide a written offer valid for several years, I think 5, to provide the source upon demand for no more than the cost of media & shipping to anyone who asks.
If there was no written offer included, explaining the situation, adn there were no sources offered online, or anywhere else, then they were not complying with the license.
It's not new at all. It has been deployed for ages: Almost all stbs you encounter nowadays run the OpenTV middleware
i don't like style guides
There are *many* unresolved ambiguities concerning the GPL and predicting what it might mean and how it may operate under peculiar circumstances is sometimes *very* difficult.
Could you name a few of these ambiguities? Or are you just spewing FUD?
I've read the GPL a few times, and it seems very clear-cut to me.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
You have no problem with the attention and money going away?
The attention and money are what's helping Open Source beat the commercial software monopolies.
I would certainly have a problem with that going away.
+++ATH0
Well in case you didn't know according to Copywrite laws That would be very illegal. In fact Googles cache feature is very illegal. it takes control fo the users content away from the Author. if I post an article on my website and it gets slashdoted I then change that article in any way for correction or other information then that would then be the valid copy. however googles caching ability takes this away from my control. So why Would /. Do sothing like this and set them selves up for potential lawsuits.
Think before you Speak.
I for one would like to see this kind of thing settled and create a legal precident. Two questions I'd like to see answered are:
1. Is the GPL enforceable?
2. Can you award monetary damages for the unlicensed use of software that was being provided at no financial gain in the first place (i.e. what is the "harm" done?)
Interestingly enough though, even though companies don't want to end up in court and have a decision go against them, the FSF probably have more to lose. If a test case went against them they would be in deep trouble. This may be why they always settle out of court.
I sure wish SOMEONE would decide this thing once and for all.
My apologizes if this has already been posted: http://www.opentv.com/utilities/techdocs/download_ sdk.html
I see they actually have posted it now... opentv.com
sdk is here.
freetv has the announcement.
Intriguingly, the postlink sources have a makefile for linux even though OpenTV doesn't officially support linux. Hopefully they'll release their toolchain for linux RSN.
Get used to this: courts don't hear cases when the plaintiffs don't make every attempt possible to get the defendants to remedy. In this case, if OpenTV complies (even if late), ta-da: no case for FSF.
Free software has been around for a LONG time, and in many incarnations. Sure, much of it has been licensed under the GPL, but the BSD-derived licenses have been around for as long (if not longer), not to mention the classic Artistic license, and so on. Calling the GPL the core of the free software movement is a vast overstatement.
Consider, the BSD-derived operating systems (and by operating system, I mean the core and all the related tools) have been around for a LONG time, and have attracted a large number of developers. These developers have improved the BSD systems as a whole, and have contributed their changes back into the code base, despite there being no LEGAL requirement to do so. Granted, some companies have coopted BSD code, but who cares? In the end the BSDs have progressed just fine.
So, why is this? It's because, in the end, the core of the free software movement is about creativity, generosity, and a sense of community, and NOT because they feel that *have* to contribute their changes back to the community. . I would contend that the reason the Linux kernel has progressed so well has little to do with the license and everything to do with the spirit of the community. Heck, I suspect that if the Linux kernel had been licensed under the BSD license, or even the Artistic license, it would have done just as well. Why? Because people *want* to work on the kernel. They want to be part of that community, and to feel like they can contribute. In the end, the GPL serves as nothing more than a political statement about the views of that community.
Thus, I have to seriously question the idea that, if the GPL was defeated, this would "derail" the free software "movement". This so-called movement has been around for a long time, and will continue, whether or not the GPL is legally tenable.
The Free Software Foundation wants people to use GPLed software, and you don't entice people to use your software by crucifying organizations that make licensing mistakes. They don't want money, they want source code.
That's why the GPL has never been tested in court. There have been plenty of organizations that have violated the GPL at one time or another, but the FSF has simply waved their big stick around while whispering quietly that if the offender releases their source code they will be forgiven. This tactic has been wildly successful. Pretty much every major development house on the planet has some GPLed software that they redistribute, including companies like Apple, IBM, and even Microsoft.
If the FSF were in this gig for the money (or to punish commercial developers), then you would be right, but they aren't. When the goal is Free Software, then releasing the source code in question is good enough.
Now repeat after me.
...
;-)
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
In case anyone hasn't already been beaten over the head by this, the two licenses are very different and serve different circumstances and individuals. There is no right or wrong here, just two great licenses.
Summary:
GPL=Free software must remain always free.
BSD=Free software should be free even to not to be free.
Correct license? Whichever you prefer or suits your project better.
Other alternatives? Sure, but trolls don't care.
Quack, quack.
For all the GPL violations that the FSF has ever gone to court/threaten to goto court, I have yet to see any damages.
The FSF has NEVER gone to court over the GPL, and this is the first time I've ever even heard of them threatening to do so. Why would there be damages if a suit has never even been filed?
All that being said...IF there are damage awards, how much do you ask for violating a free product's license.
Selling price has absolutely no bearing on damages awarded in a copyright violation suit. If it did, there's no way the RIAA could have sued those college kids for such a ludicrous amount of money. IIRC, their amount was based on the $150,000 per violation that copyright law allows. It certainly wasn't based on the actual selling price per song.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I'd love to hear about even one of these.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
The GPL is the core of the Free Software movement. "Free" in this context doesn't mean "no price", it refers to "freedom". I would recommend reading, say, this to see what we're all talking about when we say "free".
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
One of the rights the GPL gives that never gets enough attention from people arguing like you is the freedom not to use it.
Don't like the license? Don't use it. Whats important is that the projects that are released under the GPL will be available for your children and your children's children to read and learn from, and maybe even develop.
That's freedom.
Quack, quack.
Am I the only one here who's absolutely sick of hearing about licensing this-licensing that? The GPL and FSF are just as bad as any proprietary software company, at least in attitude if not outright practice. The word "free" indicates to me "the freedom to do whatever the hell you want", but this is a far cry from the actuality of the FSF.
By all means, it is within reason and legal right for the FSF to enforce the guidelines of the GPL..but at the end of the day, bully tactics are still bully tactics, no matter who's doing the pushing. This kind of bureacratic pushing and shoving over licensing agreements is simply childish and counterproductive.
Before you toss the flames my way, just bear in mind that i'm stating a very simple point: Despite RMS and his ideals about software, there are multiple elements within the software world that are just as "evil" as proprietary software. This is one among many.
Sorry guys, I didn't mean to spew FUD. I am a supporter of the GPL. I would be happy to oblige you by pointing out a couple of ambiguities but that would really create some FUD, wouldn't it? One thing that you have to realize, though, is that a contract is not interpreted by a court in a vacuum. Rather, courts generally interpret contracts according to the circumstances under which they were made, and under which the dispute arose. In so doing, courts apply the laws of the state that govern the contract. (Generally, the laws of the several states differ.) [hint.] Now, I never meant to imply that the GPL is defectively ambiguous in any generally important regard. Still, the meaning and effect of the GPL will ultimately be determined over time by the courts, on a case-by-case basis and the results may vary in sometimes unexpected ways according to the facts and laws that govern each case.
Take note of how the war against Linux is waged.
It isn't on the desktop, it isn't in the codebase.
Microsoft isn't dumb enough to step into that arena with Linux.
They will however make sure to challenge every facet of Linux (and free software) in the courts.
Who do you think operating the control panel on the SCO case?
The way to make Linux beat Windows isn't in the debugger. It's in the law library. Microsoft can hire better lawyers than GNU can recruit programmers.
Is this a precident of things to come where the GPL is used as a wedge to harrass any company that uses any GPL product?
I take this into account given the precident that the Software Publisher's Association uses to force unscheduled software audits on unsuspecting companies.
Free, as in beer, code is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and not GPL!
Questioning wether the GPL is "enforcable" like this is just contributing to uncertainty.
Why on earth do we question it in the first place? It is based very solidly in copyright law, a field that is pretty much tried and tested by now.
If you take copyrighted code and distribute it without consent you are doing something illegal. The GPL is no different. Without that license, the user has no distribution rights.
You are the copyright owner for code you have written, that does not change by you licensing it out with the GPL. The case where a receiver of the code, uses it against in breach of the GPL-license is pretty much a open and shut case. If the GPL is found invalid, OpenTV would not have the rights to distribute the software at all.
The opposite, where the copyright holder tries to retract the rights to use the code (which is supposed to be irriversible except when the GPL is breached), is more interesting.
I suspect a lot of people were not around in the pre-FSF/GPL days. The various Universities with computers would share their software with each other, and pretty much anyone else who had a computer.
As soon as two machines could exchange files via UUCP, people and organizations were sharing software for no charge. There were even cases before any kind of communications based transfer were possible where, if you supplied the tape and shipping, you could get a vast array of software for that day.
Of course, back then even the software you paid the big-bucks for was distributed in source code. I was involved with one of the big players of the time when everyone realized there was a workable alternative to shipping source code to every customer and asking them to compile and install every software product. Customers would write their own patches and utilities based on the insights into commercial product code offered by the source distributions. I should add, though, that given the huge burden of building products (a large percentage of even a large mainframe's disk space was consumed for many hours building just one of the major products), customers were right at the head of the line insisting on binary software distribution. It also made support MUCH simpler since you didn't have to worry about what fun new features a specific customer had added to their copy of the product.
Anyway, to get back to the my main point. GPL came along well after the tradition of free software had been established. I do not see it as essential to maintaining the free sharing of software. There ARE forces at work that will reduce this practice, but I don't believe GPL hinders those efforts, they being software patent madness and the US Department of "Homeland Security". (should I add that even in the days of the Soviet Union, Soviet computer people were both contributing and consuming free software. I am sure GPL had no impact what so ever there)
The GPL is the core of the Free Software movement.
:)
No, it isn't. My whole premise is that the free software "movement" (as in, the process of providing software for others to modify, use, or abuse as they see fit) would probably be chugging along just as well if the GPL never existed. Why? Because what drives the "movement" is its spirit, NOT its license! This contrasts with the article which claims (wrongly, IMHO) that this "movement" will somehow "derail" if the GPL is defeated. Bull, I say! It will be just fine, no matter what Stallman would have you believe. After all, if you believed this ridiculous premise, the BSD-derived OSs shouldn't exist, not to mention Apache and a host of other non-GPL-licensed software projects.
Incidentally, I happen to believe that the BSD license provides MORE freedom than the GPL, in that it doesn't mandate what the end user can and cannot do with the code (ie, they are "free" to do more things under the BSD license than the GPL). But this is, of course, a philosophical argument that no one will win.
Why wasn't I told of this?? I'm all for the FBL (Free Beer Licence). mmmmmm.....beer
When working on OpenTV projects, we used to joke that it was anything but open. These guys make you pay for everything and their standard is so closed it is not funny. I believe the 'open' in their name indicates that their OS will run on different set-top boxes (ie STBs made by different manufacturers) but the truth is that this a non-trivial affair.
I remember much cursing and swearing during OpenTV projects. Doesn't surprise me that they are involved in some shifty deal. Details wise, I'd love to learn more about what is being alleged.
Don't get me started on interactive television either...
I keep hearing claims that the GPL is paramount to open-source software development. Why is this?
Will open-source developers stop writing software if they're not forced to release all their derivative code? Have any significant contributions to the free software community been made entirely as part of a requirement of the GPL?
Now I'm all for the GPL's rule; I think that it's only fair that if you take from the community, you have to give back. Although I like the sound of this, I'm not convinced that it actually results in any positive change.
It may seem unfair if a company like OpenTV (or potentially Microsoft) uses GPL code without contributing back, but does GNU/Linux suffer from it? What happens if it turns out that the GPL doesn't hold up in court and every company starts using GPL code without doing their due diligence? Will all the projects on SourceForge just fold up and die?
While I can understand the open source developers feeling exploited, I don't think it would be the end of free software as we know it.
Yes, it is. Nowadays, "Free Software" means pretty much what the FSF suggests it means. It's not a term you can "re-apply" any more, because the FSF definition is established. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different kettle of fish, or a "philosophical argument that no one will win", as you so eloquently put it. But I don't think it's terribly productive in 2003 do be debating the meaning of "Free Software".
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
The company I work for uses GPL in their products ALL THE TIME.
If you stupid fucks are dumb enough to give away your work, then fuck ya!
I would contend that the reason the Linux kernel has progressed so well has little to do with the license and everything to do with the spirit of the community.
I would contend that the GPL has quite a lot to do with the spirit of the community. It is much easier to be generous when you can be sure that your generosity will not be turned against you.
Yes, it is. Nowadays, "Free Software" means pretty much what the FSF suggests it means. It's not a term you can "re-apply" any more, because the FSF definition is established.
:)
Ahh yes, that's actually a very good point. Perhaps I should have said "open source" rather than "free". At least, I think that's what I should have said... I'm so confused. *sigh*
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different kettle of fish, or a "philosophical argument that no one will win", as you so eloquently put it. But I don't think it's terribly productive in 2003 do be debating the meaning of "Free Software".
I couldn't agree more...
I would contend that the GPL has quite a lot to do with the spirit of the community. It is much easier to be generous when you can be sure that your generosity will not be turned against you.
I suspect the developers of Apache and its related tools, not to mention Perl, Python, and the various BSD-derived OSs might disagree with you.
You can look these registrations up on the U.S. Copyright Office web site, http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
I saw only 19 registrations, but most of the "biggies" (GNU C, Emacs, GNU tar, diff, make, m4, etc.) are covered. These are existing registrations. There are potentially serious consequences for infringing these - even with no "actual" damages. Plus FSF could register more of their copyrights any time they wanted.
This looks pretty serious to me. I don't see why there's any doubt about FSF's ability to enforce this. My guess is that they'd rather settle it without having to spend any real money. Even with volunteer lawyers, lawsuits can cost a lot.
The guy in the paper needed somthing to write about. This will quietly settle and it will not be big news.
...is that it goes to trial and the judge rules in favor of the FSF but then assesses damages to be negligible. Sure, OpenTV would have to comply with the GPL thereafter, but I don't think anyone here cares about the OpenTV source specifically so much as the precedent it would set: that violating the GPL has no negative consequences, and the worst that can happen if you do is that you'll have to start following it later.
If companies realized that, there would be no deterrent to breaking the GPL, and mass disobediance could follow. And, as the RIAA can tell you, you can't sue everyone for copyright infringement.
It is my understanding that if something is explicitly marked as copyrighted, then damages are not limited to sale prioce of the product. It's only the basic implicit copyright that every written document inherits that can collect no damages.
Infuriate left and right
illegally copying IP *is* theft. Make no bones about that.
now watch me get modded to oblivion as a troll whilst I listen to the music that I have stolen.
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
I disagree. The BSDs had a huge headstart and even taking into account the lawsuits they were not making significant progress. My personal belief is that the BSD license was too permissive. There were commercial derivative works (eg, BSDI) that took a lot and contributed relatively little. The problem is that people are generous but companies are not. Companies are greedy. The GPL forces companies to be generous by using the threat of lawsuits. The GPL was a catalyst that made the "free software movement" explode from a hobbyist plaything into a market force.
My only evidence I can suggest for this is the huge influx of BSD developers into Linux when BSD was clearly superior. I'll agree the problem is not black and white: there were contributing factors like the lawsuit and the core developer politics. But it doesn't explain why there is STILL a vast number of Linux developers. So all I can do is draw from my own experience; given a choice I will always contribute to a GPL project instead of a BSD project simply because I have absolutely no faith in the BSD license to deliver "returns". I don't believe that we can expect companies to play fair. This is why I'll stick with projects like Linux that are predominately GPLd; we need to beat companies with a big stick if we're to get any returns.
I suspect the developers of Apache and its related tools, not to mention Perl, Python, and the various BSD-derived OSs might disagree with you.
Why? People are generous even when they expect no one else will be, but there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that they are more generous when they have some assurance that their generosity will be reciprocated. You only have to read some of the writings of people who write free software to see that many of them are motivated by the ideal of freedom that the GPL protects.
I'm sure most corporations would change their tune quick smart when threatened with becoming special friends with Bubba.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I think you bring up vaild points. Of course, here at /. you'll be labelled a satanist or somesuch and decided it would be better to post that AC; but I can appreciate you sort of putting your neck out to say something unpleasant.
This is the current view of thousands and thousands of programmers and probably 99% (yes these are guesses) of proprietary software distributors and creators. The GPL has TONS of "legal loopholes" making it an impossibility for many companies, simply because of the ambiguity of the rhetoric, which leads to fears that have NOT been answered satisfactorily (i.e. in US court). The FSF needs to get one of these cases into court and hash through it, no matter what the outcome. Unfortunately, I think the FSF may have the same fears that said companies have; afraid they're going to lose. So instead they throw their weight around via the same barking litigators every time until the infringer submits and concedes. Seems kinda suspicious that they haven't made sure that it's gotten to court yet.
Oh, and what loopholes?
Consider this: I use Evolution and GTK, and port it to win32 calling it RevolutionE or something. I give you all the licenses and copyright notices and don't distribute the sources online or in the products shrink-wrapped box-set. It's fine because I gave you the GPL which lets you know you can request the sources from me. Go ahead. Request them. I'll mail the sources when I get around to it, like in say three years (the same arbitrary time the GPL states the offer needs to be good for). Law suit? Go ahead, I'll keep you spinning for quite a while, let's say three years, and right before we go to court everyone who has ever requested the source will get a nice letter in the mail apologizing for the delay, with a copy of all the source on audio tape, paper copy, take your choice.
I've just (for all intents and purposes) hijacked the GPL source code for three years, and made a lot of money selling RevolutionE.
put the what in the where?
...so all the bugs in it could get fixed.
The only "free" is the one King Richard provides.
He calls it GNU/Linux, so it MUST be.
One question. How long have you been a sheep?
Now substitute RIAA for FSF and see what you come out with.
Also, regarding the word "theft," I feel compelled to throw the dictionary at you:
Notice the phrase "taking and removing." This does not happen when a copy is made.
GPL grants exceptions to copyright, which the government says is on all creative material by default. If you don't "agree" to the GPL, you end up with normal copyright, so you can do less with the software (ie you cannot redistribute it at all). For this reason it is irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with it. This is the big difference between the GPL and most EULAs and the reason GPL might be legal while EULA is illegal.
The view is that you should assumme a box of software is copyrighted. The GPL is then like a gift certificate you find in the box that says you can do a few more things than you expected. It does not matter if you find that gift certificate or not. If you don't find the gift certificate you would assumme you cannot copy the code at all, and therefore you would not break the GPL. You cannot break the GPL without also breaking US copyright laws.
Now if the government repealed copyright, so that all things you aquire are copyable unless you sign some sort of NDA when you aquire it, then the GPL would have to be rewritten to be a contract, and it would be the same as a EULA. But for now it is different.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freetv/
From the README:
FreeTV GCC Toolchain
This is the source code for the FreeTV GCC Toolchain. This tool was originally known as the OpenTV SDK, made by OpenTV Inc. This toolchain produces code meant to be run using on the OpenTV Virtual Machine, common in TV set-top boxes.
The reasons for the FreeTV project are
1. To make a Linux port of this software and
2. To make it reasonably easy to get the source code for these tools.
Sadly, OpenTV Inc. has a certain way of making it extremely difficult, and sometimes expensive, to get a copy of the source code to these GPL licensed programs. Since I have managed to get access to this source code, I wish to make it TRULY free software and therefore the FreeTV project was created at SourceForge.
The OpenTV Toolchain was based on the gcc compiler, as well as the programs binutils, gdb and make. These are all well known development tools for anyone familiar with the free software movement. However, the versions in question, that OpenTV has based their work on, is best described as antique. For example, the version of gcc used is 2.60, which was released in 1994.
Therefore, a third goal, albeit not as important as the first ones, is to bring the work of OpenTV up-to-date, and to maintain the patches needed to use the OpenTV pieces of software with modern versions of gcc, binutils, gdb and make. This shall first and foremost be done on the Linux platform. Should there be time, resources and people with the necessary skills, other platforms will be considered.
Please note,
A README file usually contains some kind of build instructions, installation instructions and other vital information. This README will, eventually, adhere to that concept. However, the software has not, as of yet, been compiled by anyone outside the OpenTV corporation and so this information is yet, actually, to be gathered.
In cleartext; I got my hands on this source code. It was not easy. I want to get it out there as fast as possible to help others in my situation. That's why this README is more of an explanation of why this project exists at all, than information on the technical details. As the project matures, that will change, of course.
I have, for a few days, fought my way through all these files, fixing things here and there. I wanted to get a brief idea of what I'm talking about. However, I have not compiled these sources (yet) and I may have done strange things here and there. Please, if there is anything you want to point my attention to, contact me.
Unless otherwise stated, all this software is licensed under the GPL, which you find in the same directory as this README, in the file COPYING.
This guy is obviously -1 Troll, just look at his anti free software website!
Looking at the FSF Projects I don't see any mention of a "Free Software Defense Fund" or similar project? I haven't been able to find any non-FSF project like this either. It seems that something like this is really needed.
It's more likely that M$ will put people up to this kind of thing to generate as much FUD as possible before Paladium ends software choice forever. They don't care if they win or lose. All M$ has to do is keep demand for non Paladium hardware low for a year or so and the chip makers will shut down the lines. This "viral, lose your natures" FUD is to convince big dumb companies to buy one more wave of M$ PCs. That will tie up the supply chain for two or three years. Then, everything will be over and EULAs won't matter anymore.
Microsoft will make some more noise about the invalidity of of the GPL, but it's tangential as outlined above. We might expect the M$ sophists to call the GPL's conditional release policy a requirement of postive and costly action and other blither one step above the name calling of the last few years. They will do this as they bring aid and comfort to the firms they put up to GPL violations. They will be able to find firms like they can use, poorly planned businesses teetering on bankruptcy are susceptable to M$ promises of cash. But again, it does not matter. Microsoft's big picture strategy is a hardware lock down. If they get thay, they have won.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Enough of this lawsuit abuse. The FSF is running rampant in the china shop of Justice. The line must be drawn NOW!
Is this the future of open source? I mean all this talk of lawyers all the time is getting old already. I think that we should stand up for ourselves and our rights, it just seems to me that the best way for microsoft or anyone else to beat us is to kill us with lawyers all the time. I think we need a landmark case right now! We need to settle all the issues now. Or it could be the issues will never go away. Is this what microsoft wants?
GPL is a borked License anyway.
Microsoft asks for money, GPL begs for code.
Which is worse? Hint: It at least one works.
I thought the GPL states that if you distribute under the GPL, you forego any patent claims. Or to put it differently, if you have patent claims on parst of the code, you cannot distribute it under the GPL.
The license on that link states that the code is distributed under the GPL, but any OpenTV patents used in their modified parts of the code are not transferred. So presumably, they could sue you if you create a derivative, because you don't have a patent license. That's forbidden by the GPL.
Would that be a good reason to contribute code to the kernel?
It would buy a couple of nice sports cars and...
...which one is dead?
The FSF is stalinist for God's sake!
They don't represent freedom, NAY they represent tyranny! Stallman rules that place with an iron fist. Board of Directors! Hah! more like the "Supreme Soviet" in Stalin's USSR!
I've read the GPL a few times, and it seems very clear-cut to me.
In that case your just a FUD spreading liar yourself.
What's interesting about your claim in a thread that centers on the GNU General Public License is how you are simultaneously misrepresenting two authorities you appeal to. Neither the FSF nor U.S. Copyright law consider copyright infringement to be theft.
And it's not surprising you would make such a mistake, considering you are arguing in terms of "IP" or intellectual property. It's important to understand that copyright law is not the same as patent law, trademark law, and other laws commonly discussed as "IP" and therefore it doesn't help anyone to think of them as a cohesive whole.
Digital Citizen
Doesn't the GPL have a patent clause, which the linked to license violates?
.
Not only that, but they have some stupid javascript code that prevents you from copying text from that page in an intuitive manner. Also, they explicitly state that the GPL does not license anyone to use any patents in the code, which is wrong.
Paste from their Download spiel: [All emphasis mine]
To the extent that you, or your licensees under the GPL, make any modifications to, or derive (through reverse engineering or otherwise) other software products and/or functionality from, the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities ("Modifications and/or Derivatives"), neither OpenTV nor the GPL licenses you , implicitly or otherwise, under any OpenTV patents that cover the Modifications and/or Derivatives , whether alone or in combination with the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities.
From the GPL:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that re-distributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Any time I hear someone saying "why on earth do we question it?" what they're really saying is "it's time to stop disagreeing, and everyone toe the party line."
Look, disagreement and examination of principles is always good, regardless of the subject matter, and regardless of whether you agree with the prevailing viewpoint. Even as someone who has written and unleashed GPL code on the world, someone who has a vested interest in the GPL being legal and valid, I encourage everyone to discuss it. If the GPL is held to be invalid, I want to know so I can change my license to better protect it. If it's held to be valid, then it is strengthened by having had its opposition disproved.
The legal arguments have not been made in a court yet. Until they do, we're all just blowing smoke anyway, but I like to hear what people think.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
It says in the article that if you don't like the GPL, then don't use its code in your software. Fair enough.
But what if less moral programmers (probably on a small scale) use GPL code in their proprietary software? Is there any way to tell if they have done this? How about searching through binary programs for a certain pattern or something?
I'll bet there are more violations to the GPL than anyone knows about.
Some people I respect say the GPL is a bad idea, period. They say it's too restrictive of programmers' rights, in the sense of forcing them to open what they've done to the world. Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place. Then put different licensing terms on what you've done
that shut's up pretty much any criticism of the GPL i've ever read.
if the sites slashdot links to get slashdoted, how come slashdot itself never gets slashdoted??
Someone reverse-engineers the device in question and posts the source code on the Internet.
.....}
If OpenTV complain about this, then the respondent could claim that such reverse engineering constituted "reasonable force" to persuade them to release the source - which the GPL clearly requires them to do, so reasonable force is in order.
{side note: Is there a guncc? It'd come out with many ifs and gotos, rather than neat structures
If the GPL is found not legally enforceable, then this could set a precedent and make the MS EULA equally unenforceable. If there is precedent for other software licences, then this stands in favour of the GPL.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The GPL places no restrictions on the use or distribution of a product. Copyright law places restrictions on the redistribution. Nothing restricts your use of the code.
If you were standing on the sidewalk and two boxes flew out of a car and hit you, one Windows, the other Linux, copyright law would let you do anything with those packages short of redistributing copies of the software.
That is... you can open the boxes, use the software, erase the software, and sell the boxes with the software in them. You can create backup copies, install it on all of your machines, reverse engineer the code, de-compile, disassemble or whatever you want. You can even write critical articles about the software you found.
Except.....
Microsoft wants you to believe that you're legally bound to not do most of that stuff because you opened the box... and that through some miracle of law, disregarding, disagreeing or otherwise ignoring the licence takes away all your rights to use the software. Infact, they want you to belive that agreeing with the license also takes away most of those rights.
Microsoft also believes that it is the duty of the legal system to enforce a business model based on these strange notions.
The GPL says it can't stop you from doing any of that... but it can allow you to redistribute the code (modified or otherwise) under a set of conditions. If you redistribute GPL'd software and you disagree with, disregard or ignore the GPL, you're simply in violation of copyright law.
They're both licenses, but nobody's really sure why or how MS's are binding.
Look at the evidence this way: Every Single Time the FSF has approached a company about violating the GPL or the LGPL, the company has capitulated. The empirical evidence would lead me to believe that most corporate attorneys are the ones who are scared to death of the GPL. Therefore, the only logical conclusion that I think we can infer is that the GPL is so enforceable no one wants to challenge it in court!
OR . . . one might also 'logically infer" that 'every single time' the FSF approached a company about violating the GPL or LGPL the alleged violation was so clear-cut that the company attorneys advised capitulationg. (Another possibility is that compliance w/ FSF demands was deemed cheaper than litigation.) But this doesn't mean that all future alleged vioaltions will be similarly clear, or that a future alleged violator won't find it worthwhile to challenge to FSF on some yet-unforseen legal theory. (Not that this would be a bad thing - one way or another, the GPL will only be strengthened by legal challenges.)
It's not enough just to read the GPL; you have to imagine how it would apply and operate under a virtually infinite variety of circumstances. (Granted the set of plausible circumstances is large but not infinite.) Let me put this concept into computer tech/coder terms. Suppose you build this bitchin' OS; you test it on your hardware and it seems to work perfectly w/ no bugs. Then, someone else tests it on a different machine and it crashes. Does that mean the program is broke? The answer depends on what one means by "broke." It hardly matters what you call it because no matter what you call it you're going to need to modify to make it work on the new/different hardware. Likewise, over time, do not be surprised to learn that the GPL, too, needs some tweaking and that the need therefor was exposed through litigation. (Even the FSF knows this and has specifically provided for future revisions.) (In the above analogy, the OS is the license agreement and the hardware is the set of circumstances upon which the license agreement oeprates.) Hope that helps.
OR... one might avoid inferences altoghether and simply take Eben Moglen's word for it that the GPL is absolutely solid. He is, after all, General Counsel for the FSF, and as such enforces the GPL on a regular basis.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
This only applies if you don't provide the source at the time that you provide the binaries. If you do that, you're off the hook (even if the person you gave the source to throws it away - they might be unable to give the software to someone else, but you are off the hook).
I remember when I first ordered a Debian CD from LSL - they had the GPL-required "will provide source" written offer written around the edge of the CD.
OOOOOO, scary. I'm impressed by Mr. Moglen. He impressess and scares the heck out of me. Now, if he could only do the same for SCO/M$. Btw, what does "absolutely solid" mean? Does it mean, like, "its way cool, I like it" ?
Btw, what does "absolutely solid" mean? Does it mean, like, "its way cool, I like it" ?
Perhaps you should read the link I provided? The answer is there, but I'll summarize it for you: It means that the GPL has never been tested in court because it doesn't need to be. If you violate the GPL you are fucked, and every single IP lawyer that has been in that position has recognized that basic truth. That's why every single one of them has chosen to cooperate rather than fight.
When it comes down to it, the fact that the GPL has never been tested in court is a testament to its LACK of ambiguity. If there were any loopholes in the GPL at all, someone would have tested them by now.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
"If you violate the GPL, you are fucked"? Who's gonna fuck you? The FSF? You mean, like the way FSF is fucking SCO? Wow, that's one heck of a fucking. Doh! Look, the original issue here wasn't what happens when you violate the GPL but, rather, was whether there were any significant ambiguities in the GPL such that the existence of a "violation" would be clear in all cases. That one may be "fucked" in the case of an actual violation does not speak to this issue. (I concede that it is possible to violate the GPL.) ----- "If there were any loopholes in the GPL at all, someone would have tested them by now." What the hell do you think SCO is doing *right now*? Granted, SCO is not rasing the GPL as a claim in their litigation against IBM, but that's not what a GPL violator would do (IBM will raise GPL as defense). Instead, they release their own IP under their general GPL'd linux distribution and go on to act like the GPL doesn't matter: sue IBM, threaten linux users, etc. Your 'lack of violator' argument as proof of the non-ambiguity of the GPL fails by SCO's mere existence. Moreoever, an argument to the effect that the GPL is unambiguous in most common cases does not support the proposition that the GPL is absolutely unabiguous and bullet-proof in all cases. (I forget what the formal name for this fallacy is, but it is a fallacy.)
I know that's the origional issue, and according to Eben Moglen, a professor of law and general counsel for the FSF who actually enforces the GPL on a regular basis, there are no ambiguities in the GPL. After giving it some thought, I've decided to take his word for it over yours.
I never said there weren't violators, if that were true Mr Moglen wouldn't have anything to say about enforcing the GPL, would he? I just repeated his claim that when violators are confronted with the facts and the language of the GPL they have, without exception, realized that there was no way they could win if the issue went to court. I also repeated Mr. Moglen's beleif, and I think he knows better than either of us, that if there were a weakness in the GPL it would have been tested in court. It's not like the GPL is new or anything, it's been around for at least 15 years, and in that time not a single person has had the balls to test it in court. That certainly seems like substantial evidence of it's lack of ambiguity to me.
The SCO situation, however, has nothing to do with the GPL, and even if it did the FSF would have no business pressing the issue since the FSF doesn't hold the copyrights to Linux. The only reason for IBM to raise the GPL as a defense would be to show the possibility that it was in fact SCO that stole the code from Linux, or perhaps that it was there before IBM was ever involved in Linux. Even then, the fact that it is the GPL, and not say BSD or QPL or Artistic license, is totally irrelevant. The only relevance is that it is an open source license, and thus the code was available to anyone who wanted to take a look at it.
The only way the language of the GPL would be truely relevant is if SCO went after another Linux distro and could be shown to have knowingly distributed their code under the GPL. In that case it would hardly be a demonstration of weakness of the GPL itself, but rather a demonstration of it's strength.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.