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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Because a lot of us believe that SCO has no actual basis in fact. First: their complaint is vague, and does not discuss the merits. It pretty much says, "It would impossible for Linux to be this good unless they ripped us off." (Read it. It's on SCO's homepage.) Second: they didn't follow procedures they would have if they had any basis in fact, such as filing for an injunction. Third: they have taken procedures-- such as filing in state court instead of federal-- to avoid disclosing facts.
These lead me (and probably others) to the conclusion that they are doing a lot of chest-beating and posturing, and their allegations likely have no basis in fact. They're trying to spread FUD and dissuade people from using Linux, taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people don't understand the issues (and indeed, shouldn't need to). They're doing a lot of posturing, likely on behalf of MS.
I haven't read the FSF's letter (I don't know where to find it), but they historically have been very up-front about specific issues, and have worked to a resolution. This isn't them trying to spread FUD. Some FUD may happen, but the FSF isn't pushing it.
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 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)
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.
When somebody takes another's life it might be due to murder, or manslaughter, or euthenasia, or state sanctioned execution. The legal differences between the 4 are huge.
When somebody takes another's money it might be due to theft, or robbery, or fraud, or embezzlement. The legal differences between the 4 are huge.
So when you claim that copyright infringement is the same thing as theft I think you're just ignorant. You can rant and rave all you like but the law doesn't agree with you.
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
Define "deserved."
Hint: "Whatever the fine folks at the RIAA think they deserve" is not a good working definition. At what point do you ask yourself if, say, the Andrews Sisters have been well and fully compensated for contributing "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" to society? After 50 years? Seventy? Setting aside the issue of whether the last surviving Andrews sister actually gets even pennies on the dollar at this stage, at what point do you ask whether society is paying too much? When do you ask whether our society is, in fact, being ripped off, fleeced, and cheated of its rightful heritage by greedy, self-interested, amoral business interests, rather than the reverse?
How do you measure the creative works lost to us because our copyright laws prevent their publication? How many more Shakespeare in Love stories are unheard and unwritten because the lock on Jay Gatsby has yet to expire? What brilliant works of fiction about the making of Citizen Kane die with their would-be authors in copyright limbo? For what good purpose would you deny the people the same right to Steinbeck as they have to Shakespeare?
Copying the RIAA's IP is most certainly illegal, under our existing copyright laws... but if that's the extent of your thoughts on the issue, I suggest thinking about it a bit more.