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.
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.
Actually, there is no question of damages but, rather a question of how much and to who?
I have a question of damages. Unless you are talking punitive, I can't see where any real damages have been incurred here. Who lost money because the source code wasn't released in a proper fashion?
Surley if the company is distributing GPL code under additional restrictive licensing agreements, the recipient can jsut(sic) ignore these and redistribute the code freely under the GPL? (Assuming he was very sure that this was the case.)
And assuming that the code was accessible in the first place. I thought the article was stating that OpenTV left out parts of the source code or refused to provide it at all.
Either way, if they do correct their blunder and provide the code, I think the FSF will stand down and consider it a victory. It would be nice for a case like this to get to court, however. Not because I get off on legal battles or anything, but because the GPL could exert itself much easier knowing that it has the legal precedent to do so.
I'm curious... how did a library that has a BSD-ish license reveal a GPL violation?
decent programmers who choose to give their work away should not be taken advantage of.
Sure they should, they gave it away!
Now those who license it under the GPL did NOT give it away and should have their license respected.
Back before my time the BSD license said you had to display the credits. Some little company (AT&T wasn't it) didn't want to play by the rules, I wonder how that turned out?
The old BSD license was very close to giving it away, much closer then the GPL, and courts ruled it was enforcable. I would be surprised if the GPL was any less valid.
I'd call those big questions of damages. How much damage might be found to be zero. That could be bad news for GPL.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
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.
Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
As a result, the GPL has proven itself to be an excellent source for back-office proprietary, offline tools that never see the light of day and are never intended for release to the public in any form. Then you don't have to provide source code, and lose nothing of your technological edge to your competitors.
While I admire the spirit of GNU, they're very impractical, and cause tremendous heartache among programmers that are generally in favor of their movement than not. Unfortunately, its primary target, the packaged software industry, is largely unscatched.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
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.
Derailed? No. Affected? Certainly.
The code that exists now can't be taken away, but the momentum can be stolen.
What if Dell were to sell hardware with DRM that would only run their modified, proprietary version of Linux. They would sell lots of these machines, because Linux is cool and useful and large companies have standing relationships with Dell. Companies that write and sell applications, particularly for business, will be targeting their code to run on Dell Linux, not Redhat. Linux code would have to be written to support either Linus's kernel or Dell's kernel; not both because Dell would want NDAs from developers.
The current momentum of increasing Linux support will be split into the free and proprietary streams. Free Linux would always have free gcc, emacs, X, and so on but the attention and money would go away. (Which I have no problem with.) Enough coders would be happy to program for the public domain to keep things going.
Nah, I'm just paranoid. But it's an amusing way to pass the time.
The GPL doesn't require source to be included, just available. Have you asked for it?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
This is all rather silly. Most likely, the violation was caused by a missunderstanding of the requirments of the GPL and ineffective communication, between the FSF and OpenTV and between buisness segments of OpenTV. If OpenTV openly adresses the issue, which they appear to be doing, then the issue is closed. The kingdom is at peace, and the knights can get back to programming.
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.
It sounds to me like people have tried to request it, but they have refused to give it. It is not a matter of not posting it online.
Exactly! Isn't this much of the point of the GPL? That users who buy software can do their own support (via the source code) but in this case the users are getting an end product so they have no need for the source code. If the code is buggy and the images are bad they'll complain to you to make them another picture but don't have the right to the source as they bought an image, not a program. The GPL attempts to keep non-proprietary code that way but doesn't restrict use of the resulting code itself.
This is why you have to release your own code if you release linked binaries. Just releasing the original code would not let them support the program as bugs in your code could be the cause.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
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.
A creator can license his code under the GPL and at the same time license it under different terms (read: for monetary compensation) to third parties. The damages incurred by people using his GPLed code in closed-source applications are the damages of the original creator not being able to license it under a commercial license for licensees, who don't want to be bound by the terms of the GPL.
No, that wouldn't be enough. That's saying that any commercial entity can just steal GPL code at will, and pay $1 if they're found out.
If the original authors are giving away the code for free, it's a bit hard to calculate compensatory damages. However, punitive damages should be assessed, so that companies don't get away with the act. Either they should be required to remove the offending code (incurring large delays in their product cycle from having to develop an alternative) with a smaller fine, or provide the modified sources with a bigger fine (so they don't think they can just delay open sourcing until sued).
I hope this is not the argument that is used in court, because I think it misrepresents the intent of the GPL. Claiming that everyone in the community was damaged because they didn't get the benefit of this software without paying for it sounds a lot like the viral GPL that Microsoft warned about.
I think the more relevant point is that by using other people's work as the basis of their software they entered into a contract which said that others could do the same. They have an obligation under that contract to make their work available for others to learn from, adapt, and improve upon.
The intention of the GPL is not, IMO, to allow consumers to have access to other people's work for free. "Free as in beer" access to software is a natural consequence of the GPL that we sometimes benefit from. It is not a requirement nor is it the intent.
That's the relevent point! Take that one to court but leave the first part about everyone getting it for free (As in beer) out.
Who lost money? How about the programmers OpenTV would have otherwise had to pay by the hour to produce proprietary code for their systems? The programmers who chose to give out their code under the GPL expected that code to be shared and shared alike, not hoarded by OpenTV. In all likelihood, had they wanted to facilitate OpenTV's private interests they would have asked to get paid for their services. It's not like the consideration these programmers are asking for is all that expensive or complicated.
I do not have a signature
Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
It's a good thing you're a programmer, because you suck at being a lawyer.
In absolutely no way does the GPL restrict your ability to sell software. Just because you aren't smart enough to come up with a way to make money off GPL software doesn't mean there isn't one.
As for the rest, well, if you don't distribute your code then the license is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it. If it's so impractical, why use it at all? If the only value you see in the Open Source community is your ability to leach from it, you make me sick.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It works like this. The act of not releasing the source code (a GPL violation) incurs the simple penalty of no longer having a license to make and distribute copies of that GPL licensed code. That's all. But then it get's sticky.
The act of making and distributing copies of the GPL licensed code without a license to do so (a Copyright violation) incurs potentially huge penalties, which varies on a case by case basis, but can include a requirement to destroy all illigitimate copies, and monitary damages three times whatever profit was made by selling the illigitimate copies. Furthermore, Copyright law is well established, fairly universal, and backed by huge companies with deep pockets and mean bulldog lawyers like Disney, the MPAA and the RIAA.
The violator could be required to recall and destroy all copies (or devices including copies) of the illegally published software (and refund money to their now-pissed-off customers), as well as turning over all profits derived from the illegally published software, as well as paying twice as much again in punatitive damages. That's before reimbursing the copyright holders for the cost of lost sales (which I think you are presuming would have a low value, because it's given away for free) and such. In other words, you can't claim free license to publish someone elses writings even if they couldn't make any money publishing it themselves.
For most businesses, it simply spells game over which is why every business which finds itself in the position of having to explain a GPL violation quickly comes to it's senses (whatever the cost) and adheres to their obligations. The alternative is unthinkable.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
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.
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.
It seems to me that if the GPL were weakened by a court decision, that same decision would also weaken copyrights generally and eula's specifically. Which brings to mind and interesting possible scenario:
The lawyers at MS, realizing that the GPL is about to put on trial, initially rejoice but then realize that their own eula is also in danger. Bill Gates donates a billion dollars to the FSF legal fund as a "gesture of goodwill".
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
I've got one of them myself, and having poked around the command line while repairing it (with an inty engineer on the other end of the phone) it's a *BSD box, rather than a linux box.
And yes, apparently it is running an unmodified squid, so they don't need to provide the source code for that. I believe it's also running apache, but again, I've been told it's unmodified.
If I was to hazard a guess, their custom stuff is in the webpages running on apache, and possibly custom squid modules. Either way, they don't need to release their code under the GPL any more than I need to release my PHP scripts under the GPL, as they are not altering the programs themselves.
Of course, you could always speak to inty as they are more likely to be able to help you than viglen, who are only resellers...
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
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)
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.
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
> He can be sure that other programmers won't use his app in proprietary
> applications, but he has nothing to defend himself against companies
> like RedHat distributing his "music" in ways that make the RIAA look
> like a generous patron by comparison.
Wrong model. If not for the GPL RedHat would have probably turned into another BSDI. I.E. taken freely available software and turned it into a closed product to sell to the corporate world instead of becoming the major evangelising force in the boardroom.
But because of the GPL and their belief in it, they serve a valuable purpose in the Free Software ecosystem instead of acting as a simple parasite.
> BSD says "I can't make money off this, maybe you can". GPL says
> "I can't make money off this, neither can you."
Again this is just wrong regarding the GPL. The GPL is saying "I am sharing this code on the condition that you are obligated to return the favor." The GPL author expects to be paid with bug fixes and general assistance building and maintaining the codebase.
Democrat delenda est