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.
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!
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.
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.
hmm... interesting. none of the links posted seem to work.
What are you talking about? Sure, you can theaten to file a civil lawsuit (unless it part of some otherwise unlawful conduct, e.g., antitrust conspiracy). Maybe what you're thinking about is threatening to report criminal conduct *unless* the alleged perpetrator does as you say (e.g., pay you money). That would be extortion and it is illegal.
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
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.
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.
Actually you are very wrong. There is no law against threatening a civil law suit. What you cannot do is threaten some other tortuous behavior in lieu of a suit. Criminal law specifics are a bit different. But that has no bearing in this case.
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!
Eh? Such a threat is best phrased as follows: "You used my software without respecting the terms of the license. Either release the source per the contract, or I will sue your ass into the middle of next week."
You can't threaten violence ("release the source or I'll break your kneecaps") or use blackmail ("release the source or I'll put these incriminating photographs into the public domain")--in short, you can't threaten to do anything illegal. You can't ask the other party to do something illegal to avoid being sued, either. You can most assuredly threaten a lawsuit. The cease-and-desist letter is one of the most common (and more formal) methods by which one can threaten another party with a lawsuit.
You may be thinking of barratry--which is a definite no-no. It involves persistent incitement of (frivolous) litigation*, and it does not apply here.
*another definition of barratry involves certain illegal acts by the master of a ship--but that's not important to this discussion. ;)
~Idarubicin
You have to either provide equivalent access to the source to everyone you distribute to.. so posting online alongside the binaries covers this, as does putting them both in the same package or distribution media. In this case, when you stop distributing one, you can stop distributing the other, and have no furtehr obligation (providing equal access to the source online is the same thing effectively as providing the source in a single package with the binaries)
OR You can provide a written offer valid for so many years to provide the soruce to anyone who asks.
Now, that language is a bit confusing, but I interpret "anyone who asks" as meaning that written offer is trasnferrable. I can't refuse to give your buddy teh source if you gave him your offer. It's still an OFFER TO PROVIDE THE SOURCE... meaning: when someone wants to USE that offer, they can provide me with teh written offer, I will provide them with the source, and my obligation is finished.
The best solution, I think, is to provide the source, always, with the binaries you distribute. That ends your obligation under the GPL. You are in no way required to give that source to everyone else on the planet.
My apologizes if this has already been posted: http://www.opentv.com/utilities/techdocs/download_ sdk.html
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.
I think you missed the "statutory damages" provision of copyright law.
I thought you were only on the hook to provide source to whoever you distributed binaries to -- not *everyone* (unless, of course, you are giving away the binaries).
This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL. When you release a binary under the GPL, you are obligated to provide the source code to "any valid third party." The term "any valid third party" indicates anyone who has received a copy of the binary -- whether it came directly from you or not. In effect, you do need to be prepared to distribute source to anyone who requests it (although, technically, I believe that you could require proof of possession). (Also, posting the source publicly (e.g., on a website or ftp server) doesn't necessarily absolve you of your obligation. You still need to provide the sources to anyone who requests them (e.g., if someone doesn't have internet access, you can provide the sources on disk).
The GPL faq is very useful in answering these types of questions.
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.
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
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."