FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit

Umm, and by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 07:48 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Umm, and by Crispy+Critters · 2003-05-21 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
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.
Re:Umm, and by visualight · 2003-05-21 09:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

But... by Realistic_Dragon · 2003-05-21 07:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:But... by bazmonkey · 2003-05-21 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:But... by nuggz · 2003-05-21 08:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

How many developers get away with this? by TD_3G · 2003-05-21 07:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
...

Re:How many developers get away with this? by David_W · 2003-05-21 08:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I know of one company that gave itself away because of zlib vulnerabilties.....

I'm curious... how did a library that has a BSD-ish license reveal a GPL violation?
Re:How many developers get away with this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 08:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was once asked the best way to obsfusicate the 'readline' library for use in a proprietary project - I didn't feel inclined to supply an answer.

One of the worst offenders are Viglen Computers in the UK, who sell a network proxy/security/mail 'black box' that nmap reports runs on Linux, and the proxy appears to be Squid. The GPL is included in the webmin interface (well buried) but no source code is supplied on CD and there is no way to recover it from the box (without some pretty dedicated reverse engineering).
Re:How many developers get away with this? by MrResistor · 2003-05-21 08:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:How many developers get away with this? by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-05-21 08:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Try this little thought experiment; You're a (reasonably smart) software developer. You're paid to develop a portion of a proprietary software product. You find a function in a GPL'd program which does what you need. You do the copy/paste/globalsub dance and complete the project.
Then a bit later, you get called into a meeting with your manager and some junior coder dude from another part of your company.
"Hey dude, like, it kinda looks like, for your code, you like just copied the GPL'd stuff and substituted your own identifiers, man."
This brings up the common questions of:
If this was some "simple" piece of code, why didn't you just write it yourself? Are you incompetent or just an idiot?
If it was complex stuff, did you really think no one would notice your implementation was identical to the GPL'd one, or are you just an idiot?
Did you think your company could get away with this because you supposedly keep all your code secret (as if no one ever leaves your company, or there aren't any honorable, clued, and GPL-sympathetic people employed there) or are you just an idiot?
Believe me, it's not that much more comfortable to be "that coder dude" having to ask the questions like "did you really write this yourself?" and "Do we have the rights to ship this to our customers?" and "...ummm...BugTrak just reported a vulnerability in the GPL'd one, do we need to go back and check our implementation?" Been there, done that. It's no fun counting dots on the ceiling why the Legal guy explains that we can't ship the product as planned, or have to recall everything we've already shipped.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:How many developers get away with this? by arkhan_jg · 2003-05-21 10:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

This wouldn't be an inty box, would it?
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.

MythTV is a better product and it's OPEN SOURCE! by MrJerryNormandinSir · 2003-05-21 07:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Check out Mythtv! I built one! And MYTHTV is
fully open source! I love the GPL!

Looked like an odd place by EvilStein · 2003-05-21 07:53 · Score: 4, Funny

OpenTV uad an office in Mountain View for a while, right down the street from Netscape. I used to peek in the window on my way home but I never actually saw anyone IN there, just a bunch of TV screens showing various programming.
I always thought that it must have been a dot-com front for drugs or something.
Interesting to see that it's an actual company. :P

Too little too late. by FreeLinux · 2003-05-21 07:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Too little too late. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?
Re:Too little too late. by DustMagnet · 2003-05-21 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, there is no question of damages but, rather a question of how much and to who?
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!!
Re:Too little too late. by Mooncaller · 2003-05-21 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Too little too late. by cdrudge · 2003-05-21 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you would have taken the 10 seconds to skim the article, you would have found:

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.

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.
Re:Too little too late. by GlassHeart · 2003-05-21 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

damages awarded as zero, or $1, could go with an injunction against using GPLed code in the future, and that would be enough.
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).
Re:Too little too late. by ichimunki · 2003-05-21 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
Re:Too little too late. by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-05-21 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who lost money because the source code wasn't released in a proper fashion?

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.

Whew... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 07:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Note that Gillmor is reporting the FSF's claim of violation, not making it himself.

Thanks! I almost had to read the article this time...

Is the GPL forcing? No! by termos · 2003-05-21 07:56 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by KrispyKringle · 2003-05-21 08:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

"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."
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.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by The+Panther! · 2003-05-21 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by anshil · 2003-05-21 08:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Well I've done something similar if you are the sole author of a GPL code you do have of course the right to append any additions to the GPL license for your product, in example to weaken it.

I wrote a native java extention which was licensed under the GPL, however it used the SUN JVM. Which is corporate code. Impossible situation? No as the FSF has answered my request the solution is to put an extention to the GPL, like "As special exception the author BLALBA allows this software package to be linked against the sun java VM, without having to handover the code".

Or something similar like that, however note that you can only "modify" the gpl for your needs if your the sole author, or all others agree. And well you do not depend on other GPL code (libraries) from other authors.

--

--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by ctid · 2003-05-21 08:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

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
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by arkanes · 2003-05-21 08:30 · Score: 2, Informative

The GPL allows dual licensing under other licenses that guarantee at least the rights the GPL provides - so if your hypothetical other license is "GPL compatible" - there's a list of them on the FSF website - then you can link code under said license with GPL code with no worries. If it's the OTHER license that says you can't link it with code licensed under any other license - well, thats not the GPLs fault :P
Also, re: choosing the GPL - I do it for a couple reasons. One is that I'm proud of my work and I want to see what other people do with it. Another is that I don't want anyone else directly making money off my code - supporting it yes, but making it better and selling that, no.
All that said, I also prefer to use the LGPL (at least for libraries), because while I want MY work to be maintained, I don't care if you call my code from yours.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by MrResistor · 2003-05-21 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by Simon+Brooke · 2003-05-21 09:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

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.

Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.

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.
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by mateub · 2003-05-21 09:46 · Score: 2, Informative

"The Panther!" wrote: 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. Ironic that you appear not to read much either. Here is a whole page on the details of how you can sell GPL software. You will be interested to discover that the FSF encourages you to sell your GPL'd software. I'm sure what you mean is "nobody will pay." But a crack software engineer like you is no doubt providing manuals & support, and I'm sure your customers will be glad to pay for that. Yes, derivative works have to be GPL. But if you only change 20-lines, why do you think you should be paid for the whole app? No author will let me slap a new cover on her book with my name & charge for that, either. enjoy your reading, Matt

--
"And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
Re:Is the GPL forcing? No! by jmorris42 · 2003-05-21 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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

Inaccuracies are adding to GPL FUD by naarok · 2003-05-21 07:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Not a big deal by knightinshiningarmor · 2003-05-21 07:57 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:potentially much more important than OSS by Distan · 2003-05-21 08:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Re:In case... -- a slashcode feature request by awb131 · 2003-05-21 08:08 · Score: 2

How likely is it that the San Jose Mercury News would get slashdotted? Not very, I'd guess.

That aside, does anybody else think it would be a good idea to implement something on slashdot that checked every n minutes to see if a link was still responding, and if it wasn't, rendered page views with links to the google cached version instead?

I think this would be a great idea. It would keep smaller sites from getting hammered too badly, but would still keep pageviews going to the site, or at least a cached version of the site, so they still get the props. For bigger sites that can handle the increased load, it wouldn't change anything.

Sorry for being OT.

--
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple

Re:You can't threaten a lawsuit. by no_code_charlie · 2003-05-21 08:11 · Score: 4, Informative

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 ... by Jimithing+DMB · 2003-05-21 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now lets get into the article itself. 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.

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.

once and for all, the diff between bsd and gpl by Triumph+The+Insult+C · 2003-05-21 08:12 · Score: 3, Funny

# wc -l bsd.txt ; wc -l gpl.txt
39
340

i wonder which one is easier to understand, use, and just flat out makes more sense.

--
vodka, straight up, thank you!

Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how mu by cmehta1 · 2003-05-21 08:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:This really is getting old ... by ctid · 2003-05-21 08:15 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Subtle but important correction by sacrilicious · 2003-05-21 08:25 · Score: 5, Informative

[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.

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.

Re:Subtle but important correction by hpulley · 2003-05-21 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

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???

Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how by no_code_charlie · 2003-05-21 08:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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 ... by no_code_charlie · 2003-05-21 08:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how by TotallyUseless · 2003-05-21 08:39 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

stealing by sacrilicious · 2003-05-21 08:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

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.

Re:Dollar loss- Hard to prove by paule9984673 · 2003-05-21 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually the damage would be as follows:

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.

Re:Different from SCO lawsuit? by quantaman · 2003-05-21 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously, what is the difference?

For one SCO is deliberatly making this as big a FUD campaign as possible against Linux. Also SCO isn't disclosing the infringing code (possibly because there isn't any), this lawsuit is specifically aimed at damaging Linux as much as possible so that SCO can possibly get bought up or supported by microsoft. If the FSF didn't disclose what code they felt was infringing, turned to have a strong relationship with a competitor of OpenTV and dragged the preceedings out as long as possible ensuring maximum damage to OpenTV's reputation then I would agree and would be against the FSF. But right now these are two drastically different lawsuits and situations with very little in common other than the phrase "licensing violations".

--
I stole this Sig

Re:Everyone loses by yaphadam097 · 2003-05-21 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Everyone lost. We could have ALL (minus 1) had the benefit of this software for free. The very first person would have to purchase it, but then could freely redistribute to the world.

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.

...we also lost the ability to improve the software. Anyone who wanted a feature that was not added lost out.

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.

Am I feeding the troll? by Pentagram · 2003-05-21 08:54 · Score: 4, Funny

it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL

Bollocks!

1) There is nothing to stop you selling GPL'd software

2) If you're the copyright holder of the code you can do anything you like with it, including making proprietary derivatives

if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.

Excuse me while I fall down at your feet and beg for your wisdom.

the packaged software industry, is largely unscatched

If you were that professional you would use real words rather than making up your own.

Re:You can't threaten a lawsuit. by Idarubicin · 2003-05-21 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

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

Re:This really is getting old ... by portnoy · 2003-05-21 08:58 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Xentax · 2003-05-21 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Doing plenty in plenty of time. by Kyller · 2003-05-21 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Your analogies are as bad as a chicken that walks funny.

Re:Everyone loses by mindstrm · 2003-05-21 09:16 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Not exactly. by Ben+Hutchings · 2003-05-21 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

OpenTV SDK 3.0 GNU Code by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-21 09:24 · Score: 3, Informative

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

source has been released by yanowitz · 2003-05-21 09:24 · Score: 5, Informative

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:source has been released by Edmund+Blackadder · 2003-05-21 09:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Wow that was fast. I bet even the BSA lawyers are jealous of FSF's ruthless efficiency. :)

Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... movement" by Abcd1234 · 2003-05-21 09:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how by Jason+Earl · 2003-05-21 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

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.

Re:Different from SCO lawsuit? by Piquan · 2003-05-21 09:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Different from SCO lawsuit? by MrResistor · 2003-05-21 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Everyone loses by rubinson · 2003-05-21 09:55 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

It is time to stop questioning the GPL like this by GauteL · 2003-05-21 10:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Here Here... I second that by m11533 · 2003-05-21 10:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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)

Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme by Abcd1234 · 2003-05-21 10:10 · Score: 2, 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. :)

Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme by ctid · 2003-05-21 10:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

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

From OpenTV's Website by dreamword · 2003-05-21 10:30 · Score: 2, Informative

They have downloadable binaries of the GPL'd software here, posted along with a copy of the GPL. As for source, the page says:

OpenTV will also provide any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the source code for OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities on a medium customarily used for software interchange in exchange for our cost of physically performing such source distribution, provided the request is received no later than 3 years after OpenTV has distributed the OpenTV Distributed GNU Utilities to you. To request a copy of the source code for a particular OpenTV Distributed GNU Utility, please send a written request, including contact, billing and shipping information to: ...

Which appears to comply with part 3(b) of the GPL:

(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.

So it seems that they've fixed it, the CD they send in response to requests doesn't contain all the code it needs to contain, or there's some other GPL'd code not included in the SDK distribution. Any other ideas on how they might not be in compliance?

FSF has registered 19 copyrights by dilute · 2003-05-21 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Not so by A+nonymous+Coward · 2003-05-21 11:44 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:Bah, the GPL is not the "core of the ... moveme by nathanh · 2003-05-21 11:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

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.

Re:yes, it *is* stealing by nathanh · 2003-05-21 14:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Despite your protestations to the contrary, unlawfully copying somebody else's intellectual property is depriving them of deserved reward. Calling it anything other than theft or stealing...

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.

It's time to understand more detail. by jbn-o · 2003-05-21 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

illegally copying IP *is* theft. Make no bones about that.

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

Re:yes, it *is* stealing by ScottForbes · 2003-05-21 15:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Despite your protestations to the contrary, unlawfully copying somebody else's intellectual property is depriving them of deserved reward.

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.

Re:Everyone loses by Adrian+Lopez · 2003-05-21 16:47 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."

Re:yes, it *is* stealing by WNight · 2003-05-21 17:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Others have adequately covered the legal distinction between theft and copyright infringement. I'll deal with the practical aspect.

What's valid IP? Is it theft if I watch you selling ice to eskimos and I start importing the same product? In any rational way, no. But with the new business-model patents you could own that IP and by your standard it would be theft. Bullshit.

Intellectual Property is a misnomer. It's a government granted monopoly to help fund research. You can violate the monopoly but you can't steal ideas (really, look it up in a dictionary - words have actual meanings and you can't go around changing them just to help your case). Not only can't ideas be owned (laws aren't always enforceable) but if you copy what someone else made you aren't stealing it from them, you're copying it. They still have the original.

Further, may you develop a festering wound for being a karma troll.

79 of 426 comments (clear)