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.

Comments

Umm, and

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

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. :shrugs:. I've never even heard of OpenTV

Is the GPL forcing? No!

[termos]

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.

Re:You can't threaten a lawsuit.

[no_code_charlie]

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.

Re:This really is getting old ...

[ctid]

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.

Subtle but important correction

[sacrilicious]

[The GPL] 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.

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.

Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how

[no_code_charlie]

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.

Re:This really is getting old ...

[portnoy]

This is another example of a company that is willing to cooperate, but has had a few snags in their plans. They've said they're going to post the code online (which they don't have to do) so lets see if they do.

Indeed. A quick google search of "opentv gpl" finds that developers have been requesting the source code since March of 2001, to no avail. At some point, it begins to look less and less like a misunderstanding and more and more like a willful violation.

Re:Everyone loses

[mindstrm]

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.

OpenTV SDK 3.0 GNU Code

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologizes if this has already been posted: http://www.opentv.com/utilities/techdocs/download_ sdk.html

source has been released

[yanowitz]

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.

Re:Everyone loses

[rubinson]

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.

Re:Everyone loses

[Adrian Lopez]

Please don't confuse things in an attempt to make them clearer. The obligation to distribute sources to any third party only applies to folks who distribute binaries to modified programs without also providing the sources. Specifically:

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 [emphasis added]:

* 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.)

So, if you provide sources along with the binaries, your obligation to the public has ended. If you do not then you're obligated to provide sources for at least three years after distributing each binary.