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.
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:
:shrugs:. I've never even heard of OpenTV
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.
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.
...
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. :P
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 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.
# 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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My apologizes if this has already been posted: http://www.opentv.com/utilities/techdocs/download_ sdk.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."