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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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