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 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.
...
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.
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.
What would be the "right" ruling? I'd be happy to see one that says that clickwrap and eulas are not enforcable, that no contract was created by the act of clicking your mouse over a group of pixels that say "I agree". What about others?
This appears to be, in essence, the same position as that of Gillmor (and of myself), that certainly it is a programmer's right to release the code however he wants, and, to some extent, we should be thankful that the code has been released at all. As Gillmor puts it, "Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place."
However, the arguments against using the GPL (as opposed to saying it is somehow immoral or Bad) are perfectly valid; if you are not making money off of keeping your code secret, and you are going to release the code anyway, does it hurt you to allow others to make their code, which is derived from your code, secret?
For many programmers, I suspect, the GPL is more intended as a means of preventing someone from selling their hard work. Perfectly valid, but other licenses can accomplish this more directly, while at the same time not creating such restrictions on other programmers who would like to use your code, say, with other open code which is not and cannot be converted to GPL.
Picture a hypothetical situation (derived from a real one I experienced) where package derived from two open sourced applications violates the GPL because one is GPL and the other is a commercial/proprietary license which also states that works derived from its code cannot be licensed under another license. In other words, trying to incorporate code from two open, and nearly identical, "viral" licenses violates both.
In this situation, the coder is prevented from doing something for no profit, simply to benefit the greater community in the original spirit of the GPL but hindered by the license itself.
Surely the GPL is a double-edged sword, and not a miracle cure for all situations.
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.
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.
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.
If some code doesn't have the GPL and just has standard copyright applied to it, you don't get to use it at all. You can't copy it. You can't change it and use the changed stuff you have made. You can't do anything with it. Apply the GPL and others get the right to copy, change, re-use and a whole host of other rights. It makes no sense to talk about the GPL as "restrictive", unless you compare it with some other arrangement (ie not standard copyright). So the GPL imposes a restriction as compared to (say) BSD licences, but so what? What is relevant is what you would have without a licence (nothing) versus what the originator grants you by applying the GPL (considerably more than nothing). You can't sensibly say that some other programmer should have applied (eg) BSD to some code so as not to "restrict" users. If you like BSD, you apply it to your code.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Yeah -- more specifically, "everyone" is misleading as well, isn't it?
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).
So, if I write XYZ including GPL'd source, I have to make source available to anyone I make binaries available to. So, if that's a single customer contract, they get the source when I deliver on the contract, along with the binaries, docs, etc. If that's anyone willing to pay a sticker price, they get the source when they buy the box (binaries, docs, etc.). But I *don't* need to post the source on a website or anything unless I post the binaries on a website, right??
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
No, it's not a restriction at all. No-one forces you to make a derivative work. If you don't like the licence the original author used, you can do a clean room reimplementation - something I personally have had to do a number of times.
Yes, sonny, we know. Most of us here are; I have been for eighteen years. It doesn't give you the right to steal other people's work.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I had access to the OpenTV development kit at a previous place of employment, and never saw any sign of source, or an offer to supply source, for the GNU-derived tools. We did consider making a request for source, but never got round to it.
The FSF is open and honest about the specifics of the violation. It's not difficult to find out exactly what code is being used by the violator. The FSF is also very respectful, taking every opportunity to resolve the conflict without having to even threaten a lawsuit.
SCO, on the other hand, is very secretive, giving absolutely no evidence to support their vague allegations. They persue drastic legal measures before even giving the option of a more peaceful resolution, and in the process disparage the entire open source developer community, which until the beginning of this action they claimed to be a part of.
One kid asks if he can borrow some of you lunch money, another threatens to beat you up if you don't give it to them. What's the difference? Both of them just want some milk with their sandwich.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
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.
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 problem with this approach is that if you stop defending it then it's possible that no one will take it sersiously and everyone will freely be able to steal GPL'ed code. Then you'll end up with a lot of closed source code that none of us can use.
Time makes more converts than reason