Slashdot Mirror
What is the Best Way to Handle a GPL Violation?
DeadSea queries: "When you find that somebody is violating the GPL by distributing your code or a derivative of your code as a closed source product, how do you go about handling it? I have found two violations of the GPL for my Java Utilities, in the last month. The Free Software Foundation says that the copyright holder is the only person empowered to act. If you are the copyright holder, how do you communicate with the offenders? I know folks here must have dealt with this before: Linksys, SCO, Castle Technology, United Linux, and others. Personally, I would like to believe that with a little nudging (and without lawyers), I can resolve the things. As such, I would especially appreciate any example letters or other documents that might be effective."
I would suggest sending an informal e-mail asking if they understand that they're violating the GPL. If that doesn't resolve the problem, the next step might be e-mailing someone at the FSF for advice. If you really serious about it and the FSF can't help you, you may need to get some advice from a lawyer.
Of course, the Passive Aggressive way would be to simply decompile the byte code. Java decompilers are quite excellent at producing almost exactly the same source code as was there to begin with (minus comments). You could then put the GPL license at the top, post a copyright for the work they did. After that, send them a letter telling them that you assisted their efforts at becoming compliant with the GPL. You could even bill them with a consulting fee if you really wanted to get a funny reaction from them. Of course, if you did this, you would almost certainly need to find a good lawyer ahead of time.
What is the Best Way to Handle a GPL Violation?
Shoot on site!!
Not even the Godfather will be able to call him off.
Truely the funniest OT advice I've read in ages!
Quack, quack.
And we'll, uh... check out their websites... until they stop responding. That'll get their attention.
Get a lawyer. Asking for legal help on slashdot is about as dumb as asking us for medical advice. (It's possible that the advice might be good, but you could end up neutering yourself)
Call the company and ask for the contact information of their legal department.
Pay a lawyer a small fee to have him write a letter to the offending company suggesting that their GPL violation will result in litigation if they don't work with you to resolve the problem.
The offending company's legal department will probably ignore you if you address them directly, so it helps a lot to have a lawyer write the letter (and send it certified mail with return receipt - that always scares people)
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
a large case of GPL violation needs to be proven.
in court.
creating a huge stink.
preferably with a large corporation.
then perhaps other companies will think twice before copying GPL code.
Over at Wikipedia (which is distributed under the GNU-FDL), there's a page that lists other sites using Wikipedia's content.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
...if you intended to give away the code for free in the first place, why are you so concerned that someone is taking it and profiting off of it?
I think the Rap Dictionary would call that a case of "Playa' Hatin'"
#1 Send a threatening letter to users claiming a violation
#2 Demand $699 from the users
#3 ???
#4 PROFIT!
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
...but get a lawyer. They do this for a living. They're not all scum. Why, I bet you've got at least one lawyer friend. Pay them (yes, pay -- even if this is a friend) to write up a letter and send it to the violator.
DIY is great for things you enjoy doing. Writing letters to copyright infringers isn't fun for many people.
Just find any of their e-mail addresses that you can, and submit them to any porn mailing lists that you can find. It may not work, but it's fun to do.
Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
Forget handling the violation... What about finding the violation in the first place? If they strip all comments and change the execution order (with a script), how would you be able to know it was the same? It would seem approperiate to do a statistical analysis on the code to detect similarity... but does such a method even exist? However, before you can even do analysis on the binary you must gain access to the binary. With many products, unless they offer downloadable firmware or tftp/ftp/etc access, the firmware can be almost impossible to access. In this case, is there any way to even know without figuring out how to extract the information from the ROM? It could even be encrypted, only allowing a certain chipset to access it. (CSS for example) It would take a DMCA violating reverse engineering job to find this out, which could result in a counter-suit to any GPL violation you found. And they would most likely have more money.
You guys have no idea how the glimmer in your eyes can scare the average CEO, especially when holding a set of garden shears.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
n/t
Or in the first place did you intend to demand that changes be rolled back into your project?
Well, duh. If I gave something away for free and then someone uses it to make a profit and doesn't even bother to help you out in the way you've helped them, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Don't get me wrong, the BSD license has it's place, but if the main point is to keep the code free, what would you choose something that lets anyone take the code and make it non-free?
Not everybody misunderstands the thrust of the GPL. When I release code under the GPL, I do so for a very specific reason: I want to keep that code free. If I were to release something under the BSD license, it would likely only be because I don't much give a damn about that code anymore.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
He's more concerned that they are STEALING his work without obeying the terms of the license under which they accpted the work. When you use a work, expect to follow the license, other wise don't use the work. Not releasing the code is a violation of the GPL and thus IP theft. They didn't have to use his code. They could have written their own or used a BSD equivalent.
Thalasar
I have all the sympathy for people suffering from GPL violation, but I find this case ridiculous for several reasons:
1. Java can be trivially decompiled, so I don't see how this can be regarded as "closed source" with a straight face.
2. Your library does not look like rocket science to me.
That does not lower the formal legal bar, but come on, how many ways are there to do Base64 encoding and circular buffers? I don't know what exactly you think someone took from you, but this looks to me like one of the junk patent cases where someone gets a patent on something blindingly obvious, like using names in urls, and the tries to sue others.
If some non-trivial code of yours was stolen, then, by all means, sue the bastards. First, I would talk to them, then I would talk to my lawyer, and then I would tell my lawyer to sue them. If you don't want to do that, you can sign over your copyright to the Free Software Foundation, and they will do the enforcement for you. But please, don't make the whole free software movement look like SCO by trying to enforce rights on trivial pieces of source code.
Your library offers a Swing dialog box for entering passwords, for crying out loud! That's like "my first programming project", it's the hello world of Swing programming. My opinion: come back when they took something worthwhile from you. This way you only make yourself look bad and give SCO and Microsoft ammunition on why free software people are communists and morally corrupt people.
Whine about it on Slashdot.
My guess, if he didn't want to promote (through requirement) the open sharing of software he would have chosen a BSD-style license so others could do what they want with it. I don't think he's concerned that others profit from it - in fact I'm sure he'd encourage it. He's more concerned about being part of a movement where it is desired that information is to be freely shared.
My $.02
It would be nice if there where some endowed fund managed by, say, the FSF, that developers could turn to, but I don't see that happening. So, in my mind, public whipping is the only realistic alternative.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
a bullet to the kneecap?
eh, no, perhaps not..
Ah, a baseball bat to the kneecap..
Your pal, Tony S.
Write to the violaters (preferably after you have enough
evidence against them) and tell them it would be
a good idea to release the sources to the files in violation.
If they do nothing or tell you to bugger off, put
it up on your www site and and submit a story to
slashdot mentioning the companies by name. Watch
as their www servers burn up (don't forget to turn
yours off before it burns up though).
if you intended to give away the code for free in the first place, why are you so concerned that someone is taking it and profiting off of it?
What if you are mysql and you are selling commercial licenses for closed source software. (if people are distributing the source... then that's fine... but if anyone makes money without improving the project you should get a share so that the project still benefits)
thats the communistic aspect of the GPL.
good one.
This is what you should do.
~To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. -Yann Martel
The BSD license is a lot less restrictive. Just print a copyright notice somewhere, and all is well. I think it's less a matter of respect than it is of how easy it is to take BSD code, stick it in your product, and do absolutely nothing that benefits other people.
They're earning money off his hard work - why does being "generous" mean you have to make them money? You can release code as public domain, and let people do what they will, but that's fairly obviously not his aim - (and pardon me if I've got this wrong) - he wants to share with those willing to reciprocate the sharing.
Maybe do some reading on the aims and goals of the GPL, and try and see what they're getting at. (And I also hope I'm not stirring up a hornet's nest here - just two (for now) nice, diplomatic posts :)
Bifurcati
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
1. Call the phone. Talk to them on the phone and explain the oversight. Be polite and approach the situation purely as a problem solver with a helpful attitude. But take notes and pay close attention to how they response.
IF THAT FAILS,
2. Craft a letter. Be professional but firm.
IF THAT FAILS,
3. Get a lawyer. A good one but one that will take the case for a percentage of this company that you are about to own.
GPL does allow someone to take code and profit off of it, as long as they release the source code. Simple, right?
Placing the code under GPL helps to build the code for the benefit for all and is less restrictive than propriatary means. The companies using the code without agreeing to the GPL are in violation of copyright law, period.
If the companies in question do not agree to the GPL, than do not use the code.
You are blaming the victim here for "asking for it".
And yes, you did mean to stir up a hornets nest.
How did you find out they where using your code? That might help us help you.
First, make a call. Navigate your way to someone senior and offer to sell them a license to use your code as they see fit. After all, why shouldn't you make some money off your code too?
Follow up with a letter in which you inform them that you have determined that your software appears in their code without a license. Offer to sell them a license for some reasonable amount. Point out that you have also offered them use of the software under the GPL license if they prefer.
Direct your letter to their legal counsel if they have one. Otherwise, look for someone near the top. The head of the salesforce is generally a good bet; they're very vocal within the company and will tend to get the necessary folks to deal with you.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
But that is his point. If he gave it away free, why should someone else profit off it?
when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
You could charge them $699 for use of your code...
I have discovered a truly marvelous
It's the only way to be sure.
You just don't get it, do you?! The GPL guarantees that derivatives of a work will be shared with the public and those derivatives can be used as the basis for further derivatives. Freedom of information, dude! Share the knowledge!
Second, inform them that you are the author of the material that they are distributing, and that they have not fulfilled their obligations in order to obtain legal permission from you to distribute their changes to your code without making the source available, since the combined work (your code plus their changes) still contains your code and that code is still copyrighted by you and therefore still subject to your distribution requirements. They can comply with your copyright by removing every last line of code that you wrote or by releasing the source of their entire product. You can, at your option, also make alternative arrangements with them to grant them permission to distribute without the source in exchange for some compensation that you specify.
Doing it this way takes the focus off the fact that it's the "GPL", and it's viewed simply as a matter of straight copyright infringement, removing any possibility of potential discrimination against the GPL.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You are able to continue devlopment as before, since the code will still be GPL'd. You will have lost the right to sell your software under a license other than the GPL though.
Four steps is too complicated
Step 1: Steal their underpants
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT!
That's only 3 steps.
Actually, as people are so quick to point out on Slashdot (especially in relation to music sharing), they are not stealing. They are infringing his copyright. I know it is a truly minor, pedantic thing to gripe about, but it's accurate.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
That link is already in the /. article?
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Are sites selling Linux, like cheapbytes or paypaldownload legal?
If you wish FSF to act on your behalf then you must assign copyright to FSF in order for them to proceed. I don't see any real downside if you need their help but follow the gently gently approach first to get it resolved.
I've sent emails, asking for the reasons why snippets of our source end up mysteriously in their commercial applications. In one case, a company (in Germany) came back stating that they happen to have the 5 same exact function names in their application, and byte-for-byte identical perror() strings to our application, but they insist they're not using any of our code, but claim that they did use it "for documentation purposes" when writing their application. That one is still open and pending, and we'll be doing protocol sniffs to see if theirs match ours. We have certain "fingerprints" in our protocol, which can only be done by using the source directly.
Another company I just found several days after the one above, seems to be using our code in a commercial BeOS project. They responded to my email, claiming that our code was used "as is" in their project, and then goes on to say "the use was re-configured to allow for easier additions". I don't see how they can claim both, in the same project. Either the code was used as-is (impossible, our code doesn't build on BeOS), or they modified it (and they must give us back the changes to those sources).
Another company directly took our code, removed all of our names from the project, replaced them with their own, slapped their own (non-GPL) license on it, and sold it to "partners" for quite a hefty fee. When we confronted them asking for an explanation, they basically told us to piss off. When we escalated, the CEO came back with, and I quote "If we end up in court, I will bankrupt these guys".
We also contacted this company's "partners", and asked them for the source to the changes they were also distributing. Every time we would contact these companies, the original company would threaten to sue us if we contacted their partners.
The FSF is involved in all of the cases. The investigations are still open, and pending.
Companies seem to think that because they have money, and most Free Software developers do not, that they can just slap us around left and right. The other point companies seem to try to "leverage" when they are clearly violating the GPL, is that the common myth that the "GPL Has Never Been Tested In Court(tm)", and since it has no basis, they can take whatever they want, and not give back. They seem to forget that the U.S. Copyright system backs up all of this code.
So what do we do? There are dozens upon dozens of cases where the GPL is clearly being violated; the MPlayer violation from KISS Technologies, the BusyBox Hall of Shame, and many more.
Are you actually sure that they did not accidentally hit the same characters on the keyboard? I mean, if these tidbits are source, then I would not build a well on it.
Still, if they include it in their source tree then they are in violation I guess. Now go on and put them together into a real program or library.
1. Assign copyright to the FSF
2. Sic Moglen on them
The only reason to refrain from doing this is if you wish to retain some proprietary interest in the code, for the purpose of perhaps producing a closed-source version of it. If that is your intent, I really don't give a flying fig what you do. If, however, you are pure of heart, you have absolutely nothing to lose by assigning the copyright to the FSF. You'll always be able to use, modify, and distribute the code, just as you can now. The only right you (might) lose would be the right to later create a proprietary version.
I cant suggest, you insensitive clod!
THAT'S WHAT I SAID!!!!1
I know folks here must have dealt with this before: Linksys, SCO, Castle Technology, United Linux, and others."
I wonder if FSF would aim their gun at KISS technology regarding thier GPL violation (MPlayer). I hope they will, and beat a crap out of Kiss' ass. It appears GPL is regarded very lightly in some part of the world, while it has presence in the US (except some part of Utah). If Kiss can get away with their GPL violation, others may follow. FSF shouldn't let this happen...
*clap clap*
This is definitely one of the best trolls I've seen in a while... I laughed so hard. Bravo, kudos, etc.
there really isn't any other explanation, is there? I mean come on... open-source coders release code and don't make a dime off it... Company comes along and profits off it... $$$ ---> company, ___ ----> OSS coders. Jealousy.
To write free software and not have this problem at all. It is the one that I use for my projects on sourceforge. In two words : BSD licence.
that is truly free software and you dont have to worry about things like this.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I just about wet myself laughing at this, /and I'm at work/!
You are so funny.
Or do you just suspect it is a violation? As many people said, Java byte code can be decompiled and compared to your code. If you did this and it matches, take the evidence to a lawyer who understands the GPL and take action. I suggest that if the offending company is selling the code as part of a closed source project that you ask for a percentage of those sales or at least that the company cease and desist from using your code.
Be very careful here because they can easily counter-sue you and overlawyer you if they are a bigger corporation. Your legal bills will run high and eventually you will have to settle out of court. Get a lawyer that does not get paid until you get paid and takes a small percentage of the settlement.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
So you believe in compelling people to do something that "benefits other people?" That's fine, but I can understand why some folks find this repugnant.
Not working.
You should first look to register your copyright. This costs $30 and is otherwise relatively simple. This gives you certain legal benefits in a potential litigation and serves as a deterence. You should start pouring over Title 17 so that you know the law. Don't be afraid to read it yourself -- copyright law is actually pretty accessible.
After that you should send them a letter stating that (1) your work is copyrighted and is not public domain (2) you offer a licence (the GPL) which is seeks certain forms of compensation in return for using your work. That compensation comes in the form of reciprical licencing to their derivitive copyrights. Provide them with a copy of the GPL. (3) State that they have made no attempt to comply with those terms. State the actions taken by them that violate the terms. State that they have not purchased or seceured any licence to use your copyrighted material in the manner they are using it. Don't be wishy-washy. Say things like "you are basing your business on piracy of my intellectual property". (4) State that as of this letter they are on notice that they are violating the law and that if they do not cease and desist then any willful and knowing infringment may be subject to increased penelties under the copyight law. (5) Remind them that damages for infringement include any profits attributable to the infringement.
If you feel like it, offer them a real licence to do what they are doing for an appropriate cost, say $2million or some other number you'd be happy with.
Don't be afraid to go talk to an IP lawyer. If you want to proceed beyond telling them to stop pirating your stuff, then this will be essential. Use the phone book. Make it clear to the people you talk to that you are interested in discussing retaining them on a contingency basis only, that your have registered your copyright, and that you believe a business is willfully pirating your code.
Argh, I hear this newspeak usage of `free' over and over and it never makes sense.
`make it non-free' makes it sound like somehow you lost some freedom. But none of your freedoms has changed: there is nothing that you could do before that you can't do know
You don't have access to the other persons changes, but you never had that access to begin with.
The only sense that free applies is if you somehow imagined that code has a consciousness and the person who modified your code has caged that code up so it no longer can roam freely. This is a such a warped use of the word `free'.
This of course isn't your fault, it is the FSF. I just wish they would drop the doublespeak and state it plainly:
GPL code is not `free' by any normal definition of free (beer or freedom). It is simply code that is for sale, but not for money: the price of use is sharing changes you make to it.
In fact they use many of the same techniques that ruthless companies use. The official FSF policy on LGPL is really interesting: if there is significant competition in an area, they recommend first lowering the price of the code by issuing it under LGPL so companies don't have to give up any writes to use. Once competition is driven out, the license can be changed to GPL and they can reap the benefits.
1) Get a lawyer
2) force them to release your own source code.
3) find out it's the same code you have in your HD, so you just ended with another copy
4) profit ( for the lawyer )
They cannot make changes and sell those changes in binary-only form. They have to either provide direct source code (usually an extra CD) or access to the source code. (FTP site for example) Other than those stipulations, you could charge $10,000,000 for it, if you so chose. Most companies that sell GPL products (without extra modifications not so covered by the GPL) give benefit for purchase by offering support, or access to high-speed dedicated servers, etc.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It's not a GPL violation unless their code is integrated, on an object level, with the licensed code.
Mac OSX can ship with GPL'd code, for example, and not have to open up Quartz.
--Dan
"Stop using my code or I will crush you, see you driven before me and hear the lamentations of your women"
Hypocrites we may be, but at least we're hypocrites who can spell.
The GPL does not guarantee that the world can receive your project "Freely". It only guarantees that your project itself will be Free.
In order to guarantee that Freedom for your software, it is necessary to sometimes fight for it. Fighting for it usually means battling legal challenges to your rights as copyright owner. These fights will cost you money.
Freedom is not free. It is not even cheap.
I have been pwned because my
I know that small claims court in NY does not require a lawyer to file a complaint, and the awards are limited to $3000. Something like this might work for you.
There is no such thing as a GPL violation. The GPL violates the US constitution, Federal Copyright Law, and is unenforceable due the the inequitable conduct of IBM before the US patent office.
Yours sincerely
D. McBride
P.S.
I have a great deal for Linux users. Please send a SASE and $699 for details.
If I were you, I would have slashdotted them instead of slashdotting myself, but I'm a vindictive bastard, not a masochist
You can't take the sky from me...
1) Notify the violator, by email.
2) Notify the violator again, in person.
3) Notify the violator yet again, in person, along with a few friends of your family.
4) Notify the violator again still, by means of a note along stapled to a horse's head in their bed.
5) ??? [censored for violence]
6) Profit!
Provide information in plain English as to what part of the code the violation occurs in, what might have caused it, and how it may be possibly prevented in the future.
If it's possible to take immediate recovery steps, offer to do so.
Offer to inform the developers of their mistake or oversight, and to them provide a detailed technical description of the violation and the steps leading to it, but don't make this last step mandatory. Privacy matters.
Oh... what's that... GPL violation? I thought it said GPF. I have no idea what to do about a GPL violation.
Tar, Feathers, and Pitchforks, baby.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
I had a dispute with a company that was screwing me over, and I called and called, and told them the specific laws they were violating and that the law entitled me to $1000 damages for each violation (there were two violations). It was like talking to a wall. They knew that the cost of taking them to court was more than the cost of paying the ransom they were demanding from me.
Then I had a lawyer call them. They rolled over.
The reason? I had an airtight case against them, and the fact that a lawyer was calling them meant I was WILLING to go to court, although I never actually had to. They'd lose badly in court, so they settled.
Call a damn lawyer.
Do you want to go around threatening people? Then continue to use the GPL. On the other hand, if it's just not worth your time to police your users' behaviors, then stick with a freer unrestricted license.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I see this all the time (and cringe), so here's a short list of what to not do:
1. Don't complain about it on Slashdot (not saying the poster is). We see this all the time here. The offender probably isn't reading, and frankly doesn't care.
2. Don't email them or use a web contact form. This has no legal ramifications, and the person reading it will probably just delete it thinking you're a loon.
Now, for what to do. IANAL, etc.
1. Send a certified letter to their corporate legal counsel if you can find out who it is, otherwise an officer of the corporation. Outline what is infringing, and explain why you own it. For your first letter, no threats, just tell them (not ask: tell) to deal with the infringement within 30 days or so and to inform you when they've done so. Their options are to remove the code or GPL their product.
2. If that doesn't work, hire an attorney. He'll send a nastier letter.
My guess is that for 95% of the cases out there, the first letter will solve the problem. For another 4%, the attorney's letter will. You'd better be willing to go the distance for the other 1%. Note that the attorney may take it on contingency if the other party has enough money to make it worth his while.
Do you have ESP?
A young girl like you shouldn't touch it with her bare hands!
It's possible that the advice might be good, but you could end up neutering yourself
But this is slashdot, so that dosn't really matter.
What, you mean SCO tried something like this??? Beats me!!
DrkBr
a pitchfork to the groin since a pitchfork in the rear doesn't seem to be a good enough incentive.
How have you determined that they are violating the GPL?
If you simply know that they have incorporated your code into their software, but you have not acquired a copy of their software (perhaps by purchasing it), you have no rights to their source under the GPL.
Many companies allow you to download the source directly from their website, but really, they don't have to do this. The minimum requirement of the GPL is to provide the source along with the binaries. Providing the source independently is often more convenient for the vendor (and is certainly part of being a good citizen), but it is not actually necessary...
Just be careful you don't start making threats, to later find out that these folks are *in fact* complying with the GPL.
Good luck!
Look at the libraries he's complaining about:
They're ALL projects you'd likely find in an "Introduction to Computer Programming in 14 Hours" guidebook.
I'd be willing to be that they DID write their own, but since the code is almost blindingly obvious, it came out the same.
Theres nothing here to get in a fuss about. his "work" amounts to almost nothing.
Simple answer : post a link to their website on slashdot.
DrkBr
this is the reason developes might be interested in pre-paid legal. Its around 30 bucks a month, and any time you need a lawyer, you get the first consultation/letter/contract review/etc done for free by a reputable firm in your area. If this guy had pre-paid service, he could get the official certified lawyer letter he needs at no cost. If he then needed to sue the infringing company, he can choose to hire the firm that drafted the letter, and they will already be familiar with the case. Not to mention, you can use it for any legal dispute, not just code, so its a good all around thing. Also, people sell pre-paid legal for a living, but I dont, otherwise youd see some kinda of referrer tag in this URL: Pre-Paid Legal. Im just offering a suggestion.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
You know, this begs an interesting question: is there a set of techniques open-source developers can use to make it easier to detect stolen code? So far, there have been a couple mentioned here:
- ASCII strings
- Function names in non-stripped binaries
- printf-patterns
These seem pretty easy to get around, though. Are there others, more systematic ones that are more robust, such as a sort of a soft fingerprint or watermark in the code?Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
IANAL, but I've read the GPL a number of times, and there's nothing in there that says if you use GPL code in one little part of your project that you must distribute all of your sources under GPL. For compiled versions specifically, it says that if you distribute your product you must include the GPL license and provide a way for getting the source to the GPLed portion. If you just used com.ostermiller.util in your project you don't have to share everything. You just have to state that some portions are under GPL and give people a way to contact you.
I'm wondering if the submitter actually asked any of the alleged violators for the sources to com.ostermiller.util. Maybe they'd be happy to share them. Just because you can't go to their site and click on "Download Sources" doesn't mean they're violating the GPL.
my blog
GPL is fine, but my personal perference is Apache or BSD license. One that simply says, "give me credit".
I remember back when the first version of client/server doom was done by a Russian fellow named Sergey Malkovkin, a.k.a. Fly. He decided not to release the source at the time, and was harassed for this omission by a #doomworld regular whom shall remain nameless (since I cannot recall his nick). Anyway, aside from flaming Fly in the irc channel, this vigilante also took the liberty of hijacking the #csdoom (was that the name? I forget) channel which Fly had set up for game matchmaking purposes. The vigilante set up a bot, with ops, which then kicked everyone immediately after they attemtped to join the channel. I for one was rather irate, as I was trying to enjoy a few matches myself. Another channel was set up. Fly retaliated by hardcoding the next csdoom release to block the vigilante's ip. When he finally relented and released the source, there was some interesting controversy in the Doom community when that little bit of ip-blocking code was discovered.
1. Remove the illegal code.
2. Fire the person who introduced it.
3. Pretend the entire event never happened.
Oh, you're talking about someone else violating the copyright on *your* code...
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
You didn't read it very well. It's Section 2b, which states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
This section is why anti-GPL folks like to refer to the GPL as a viral license. If you include GPL code in your work, then your entire work must be licensed under the GPL.
Be sure not to be at all hostal. The may not know they are doing it. one internal porgramer may be passing your work off as there own or they outsourced to some place that is the offender.
YOu can see his stuff listed on OSDL. He is the world pre-emintent GPL defence attorney. For the sake of all GPL developers everywhere - you CANNOT LET THIS TRANSGRESSION STAND. The GPL must be defended it is our lifeblood and the cornerstone of our existence.
In reference to your first point, is it your contention that nobody can be in violation of GPLed Java source code? It seems to me, no matter how trivial it is to decompile the binary, a company is in violation of the GPL if they don't release the source code themselves.
It is sad though that you have to suffer any discrimination for using the GPL.
McBride and Microsoft (the 2 main anti-gpl propagandists) should be strung up for this.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Under current copyright law, your place as a user of a work is not to question the author's motives for enforcing his copyright; your place is to comply with the license. The author's motives are the author's business, not yours.
Your rambling about how licensing ought to be done is no more relevant than RMS's assertions that all proprietary licenses are wrong.
In 1991, a crack development unit was sent to prison by a software patent court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Linux Expo underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as coders of fortune. If someone rips off your code, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the C-Team.
If in order to obtain my permision, I insist that the entire publication be published in at least three different languages, any potential person who might want to put my story in a larger book is free to ignore my requirement, but then they do not have permission to publish my work within theirs, even though it may comprise only a small part of the entire work.
The amount that can be legally copied without requiring permission depends upon the purpose of the derived work. If it is for personal use, the amount can be quite high (often even extending to the entire work), but if it is for redistribution or some other commercial endeavor, you can't copy anything.
Further, copyright does not protect ideas, so it needs to be pretty obvious that actual copying of content occurred before copyright infringement charges can be successfully laid.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Hey! How come an SCO lawyer is asking advice on how to prosecute their case on slash dot? Oh, never mind, I think I answered my own question.
By making it known, on a high profile website, what software is currently being used in violation of the GPL, the open-source community must now see to it that these violations desist.
If we do not, this will set a social precedent that will let underhanded companies know they are free to violate the Gnu General Public License with your program at the very least, if not most programs where the copyright isn't owned by FSF.
It appears the problem of defending copyrights of free software is that there is little risk to the offender. Copyrights of GPL software generate little, if any, profits. Without profits to accumulate, there can be no "war chest" of capital available to defend against infringements.
Perhaps the best solution is to partner with someone who has the necessary resources. The most obvious partner is an attorney that is willing to defend your rights in a contingency fee basis. But, what about partnering with someone who has a mutual befefit from a successful defense, like the Free Software Foundation? Perhaps they, or someone else would have the resources to pay for a defense in return for a share of the proceeds.
- Did you copyright your code properly? If not, then bend over and take it as a learning experience.
- How did you identify that YOUR copyrighted code was used in their products? Be careful that you have rock-solid proof before making those claims, or you could face a sizeable counter-suit.
- Did you take any steps to secure your code prior to your "release?" If not, you'll have NO chance of convincing a court that any "trade secrets" were stolen by the company, including any "trade secrets" regarding your particular implementations.
In short, I looked at your utilities and to be blunt, you present no new algorithms nor methods of processing which would indicate an original work worthy of a legal copyright. It might be original to you, even "created" from scratch using algorithms and principles from textbooks or other tutorials, but I don't see it rising to the level of being original works in the legal sense.My suggestion: write this off to a learning experience, and in the future takes steps to legally copyright and protect any works you consider valuable. And by valuable, I mean anything you consider worth the time, money and effort of legally protecting.
Simply saying something is licensed is worthless unless you take steps to enforce that license from the get-go.
Welcome to the real world.
But it's not a C ontract, it's a L icense.
Infuriate left and right
No, companies rightfully think that because the GPL has yet to be tested in court, there's no case history, and they'll be able to drag it out in the courts forever...that they can walk all over you.
The only answer is to dot your i's, cross your t's- give the offender all reasonable chances to comply. If they don't do it in a timely manner, SUE.
Let me repeat that.
SUE.
Why? First off, chances are most of these companies really can't afford a legal battle either. If you file papers- I'd bet a lot of companies would simply recognize you're serious, and cave in. You negotiate for your legal fees and force compliance on them, and you're done. If not, and you have what most people feel is a solid case, you'll have the whole Open Source community behind you, because we'll realize just how important your case is. The FSF assists your lawyer(they specifically state they'll assist- they just can't pursue on their own), we help you pay for your lawyer with a legal fund through donations(I'd donate!), and so on.
Not to mention, it's a lot easier to ask a judge for access to the company's source code than it is to go through all sorts of hoops to prove it. Show the trail of breadcrumbs leading up to the door, and the judge won't have much of a problem letting you open the door to see if there's a mouse nibbling on a cracker behind it.
So we loose some market share because people think we're evil bad guys who go around suing(this is why it's important to give people a chance). Who gives a fuck about market share? We're in this for the CONCEPT. Loosing some market share is better than the open-source concept becoming a joke("why should I open-source my stuff, if someone's just going to rip it off tomorrow, and I'll have no recourse against them?")
All it will take is a few lawsuits, and everyone else chasing down violators will have ammunition and WON'T have to sue...but our "nice guy" methodology isn't going to play, because we have no teeth to back up our "please comply" requests.
Please help metamoderate.
It is sad, yes... but a single win in favor of a copyright author whose distribution policy happens to be the GPL, even without the GPL being brought into it (except as a description of the terms necessary for compliance with copyright), will still amount to a solid win in favor of the GPL.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Sue M$ for 10 billion dollars that funded SCO to spread FUD
Agreed, dont bring up the GPL.
If you do, the first thing they worry about is the swarm of flies that accompanies most open source / free software developers. Even with best intentions, it is really hard for them to offer you something decent when they cant hear themselves thinking above all that buzzing.
If you do mention GPL, make sure you justify it with "...and I do shower daily too!". At the very least, bring a bottle of insect repelant along when you go and talk business with them
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
Headshot, castration by kitcken knife, spork lobotomy, manure immersal suffocation, tiger mauling, or the good old CowboyNeal intestinal yank ... all of these should prove sufficient for dealing with people who've committed GPL violations.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
And then the oral. . . ummmmm, arguments. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. All along.
KFG
I ever so recently had to deal with a copyright AND trademark issue. First, find a lawyer who understand the GPL. Then have their office send a cease and desist order as the owner of the material being distributed. If they fail to respond, take legal action in a federal court.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I wonder how many people whose source code has been stolen download music from P2P networks.
+5 Insightful.
What about quoting a literary work for news, commentary or parody? Are there any circumstances where a certain amount is allowed even for some commercial endeavors?
...its the only way to be sure.
I'm sure we'd all love to jump on the board with this kid but exactly none of his things he's released are worth attaching a license to. They're trivial little things that have been done a million times by a million different people.
.name naming convension.
Putting a license on that stuff is as rediculous as the patent for the
As a guide to fighting a license violation this is a decent topic. But as far as this kid having a case, that's laughable.
It's called "Public Domain" kid. Use it. Save the GPL and other licenses for things that are actually worth something. Right now it just looks like he's getting experience as a patent lawyer. Or maybe he's just feeding his ego by putting "copyright" on everything and got a little too full of himself.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
those are tiny excerpts of the work. which is legal under copyright law.
but if the New York Times decides to plublish your entire short story, thats different then a few sentances properly quoted.
The real question, which I haven't seen clearly articulated in this discussion, comes in two parts:
1) what do you want to achieve
2) what makes you think you have any way of compelling these alleged violators to grant you what you want in number 1?
These are the basics of entering into any kind of negotiation, but you haven't framed them at all. It so happens that many lawyers are trained to analyze situations of this kind and give advice. Which makes it all the sillier that you want to resolve this without lawyers. "I have a leak in my faucet. I don't know how to fix it, but I don't want to call a plumber." But I digress.
If you are the typical idealist who reads slashdot and *still* thinks it is a source of useful information, than the answer to question (1) is probably something like "Force them to release the source for their changes." One has to wonder WHY you care. Do you think they've made changes that will truly benefit the community? Or are you just trying to be a pain in the ass to anyone who doesn't want to play by your rules? (This is my ball, and I'm taking it home...)
Here's a clue: the world ain't fair. People lie, cheat, steal, murder, and do all sorts of awful things to other people who don't deserve it. In the grand scheme of things, is your library really worth fighting an epic battle over? Does it really hurt you to have people take your code without following the GPL? Why don't you just take it as a compliment that someone would find your code worth stealing, and move on? Don't you have anything better to do with your energy?
After all, even if these guys did steal your code, your code is still available and open to everyone else. The people who didn't get the source from these violators can still get the source from you, off the web. Are the "victims" really any worse off than they were before?
Anyhow, even *if* you conclude after careful thought, that your answer to (1) is a worthwhile goal, what makes you think you have any leverage to compel the violators to do what you want? After all, releasing the source is a pretty damn easy thing to do. Perhaps they don't understand their obligations, in which case you have to spend your valuable time educating the ignorant. Keep in mind that one has to be pretty willful to be a software engineer and ignorant of the GPL. And most people don't like comparative strangers showing up on their doorstep to "teach." When a Jehovah's Witness shows up on my doorstep wanting to teach me about his faith, I usually just close the door. Folks who do this kind of thing face a lot of disappointment. They are willing to put up with this, because think they are doing it for God, who will reward their suffering. If you worship RMS, perhaps you feel the same way.
Another possibility is that they don't want to release the code, either because it is risky to their business (no one would pay us if they saw they could get the same thing for free..., or trade secrets, or what not). In which case you have to make your solution more attractive to them. How? What's in it for them? The chance to walk in the righteous path of GNU? What possible ways can you persuade them to change their mind?
A third possibility is that they are malicious bastards who stole your code just to make you mad. In which case getting yourself in a tizzy will just entertain them more.
The ideal of Free Software depends on users and writers of software behaving with a certain integrity. It is difficult to force people to behave well unless they are already so inclined.
Before you go to much effort, be sure that the effort really will pay off.
As the copyright holder, YOU can negotiate terms for the use of your code. If you're dead set against anyone using it commerically, let them know and don't let them use your code (but overall the community will suffer).
If you think you should be paid for your work, and its a commercial product, ask them for fair compensation.
Keep in mind, though, that there are several reasons not to make ludicris requests:
a) it hurts the community overall - by working out a deal with the company/violator directly, you can potentially work out terms that you're both happy with. Ultimately this makes Open Source look more [financially] viable in the corporate realm.
b) you have the power to contribute back to the community 2-fold - one with your code; and 2 with a financial contribution to the organization of your choice (FSF, etc) based on some kind of negotiation with the violator (like I mentioned in a above); compromise by allowing them to keep their derivative work closed source (and simultaneously preserving their business model), but ask that they contribute X% of the profits to the FSF, or yourself, or whatever you deem appropriate [within reason of course, the more companies that are successful with open source business models, the better].
c) don't ask them to open their source!!! Before modding this post as flamebait because it contains a controversial statement, hear me out... Most companies DON'T have a product if they are forced to open their source code. Some do, however, it makes it much more difficult to do from a business sense, and it makes Linux very incredulous in the eyes of investors / Venture capitalists, etc.
HOWEVER - business models DO exist that are helping the linux community AND succeeding commercially. A good example is Tivo. They've created a successful consumer product and they haven't released the sourcecode - BUT the community saw something useful in Tivo and thus FreeVO and MythTV, etc. were created to fill the non-commercial niche. In addition, they help the OS community by allowing hacks while still trying to maintain business income (and food on the tables of their programmers/IT staff).
We can't have it both ways, guys! We can't on one hand piss and moan about the lack of IT jobs, while simultaneously demanding total financial compensation for our community contributions. The bottom line is that we have to work with what we have and strike a balance with the corporate Linux companies.
The linux community is searching for the elusive "business model" - I'll tell you what it is: It's compromise. It's allowing a business to use your code and make a profit in exchange for providing yourself and the business/GPL violator with a reasonable symbiotic relationship. "Clone" applications will surface immediately to fill the market of people that aren't willing to pay for the product (insert Tivo / FreeVo example here). The businesses can market their products to the general society and make money; and they can help the Open-Source community develop a "free" (for those with the tech know-how) equivalent.
d) Everyone PROFITs!
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
All n00b5 please step into my office to speak with my lawyer.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
If you prevously labeled your work as "free software", could the above commercial offer cause problems of being charged with attempting to profit from misleading advertisement, which might in some way hinder ones standing to sue for copyright infringement?
Maybe it's better to not bring up either of the terms "GPL" or "Free Software"...
Since dueling and drawing and quartering are illegal.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
If you own the copyright, it's your right to profit from it or to give it away, however you see fit.
If you call it free and still choose to also profit from it with alternative non-free arrangements with someone else, what business is that to anyone else? You can't sue someone for charging for something that they told you was free when you yourself didn't have to pay for it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Then how do we get people to start taking it seriously if we never mention what it is?
Actually, I think we're past the point where we need to keep "hiding" what the GPL is. It is a license, pure and simple, just like any other license. It has terms and conditions, just like any other license. It has obligations to those that use software under it, just like any other license.
This "but don't mention the term GPL" is getting a little ridiculous. If IBM can take it seriously, so can any other company.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
old man: "Well, at least it gets you out in the sun..."
Roman: "You're wierd."
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
... nor the choice of the license should not be questioned here. The author has chosen whatever license that pleases him/her most, and if I want to use their code I respect the license terms of THEIR choice. Or, of course, I can choose not to use their code at all.
This is the principle of these license thingie, and, as such, is irrelevant of the choice of license. Please do not start "which is more suitable for this purpose" kind of frame, as it is irrelevant. Though many say that one can do whatever they want to the code released under BSD license, that's not true.
For example, if you take my BSD-licensed code, remove the "disclaimer" terms, and redistribute with or without fees, that's a clear violation of license terms (and I'm in a potential risk of being sued by somebody who doesn't know that the original work of mine has disclaimer terms) so I'll have to bite you.
I happen to prefer BSD license over the GPL when I release codes that are only personally developed by myself (for my own reason), by the way, so please understand that I'm not attacking you based on your bias towards BSD license. Let me repeat again: If someone disrespects the licensing terms (be it GPL or BSD license or proprietary), that's bad because he's violating these terms.
Yes, I , in fact, stole the following code from your very complex tab to whitespace "utility"
" ");
//sToChange is the string containing tabs to be converted to whitespace
sConverted=sToChange.replaceAll("\t",
No way I could come up with something as complex as that!! And to wrap it in a class that takes command line arguments!?!? Sheer genius!!
I wanted to say "... nor the choice of the license shoud be questioned here".
If you feel like it, offer them a real licence to do what they are doing for an appropriate cost, say $2million or some other number you'd be happy with.
You want to be careful here when choosing the figure to set.
If you choose a figure like $2,000,000, it's very likely that you'll have to pursue the company in court to recover this amount of money. The company would be gambling their lawyer fees on a court case (maybe $10,000) against what they feel is a 50% chance of paying nothing more. Paying a lawyer $10,000 for a 50% chance of not having to pay $2,000,000 is good odds, and most companies will take this 'bet'. Do YOU have $10,000 to fight them in court?
On the other hand, if you set the figure at a more modest $10,000 to $20,000, the company would be much more likely to pay up without contest if you can prove your assertions. The gamble here is much worse for the company: $10,000 in lawyer fees for a day in court for a 50% chance of not having to pay $20,000 is poor odds. Instead, the company would decide that the amount of money involved isn't worth pursuing in court, and they may hand over that amount more readily (but their lawyers might ask you to sign a release).
There's also the customers of the copyright violators. Do the original copyright violators indemnify their customers against copyright infringement lawsuits? If not, which is likely, you may be able to pursue the customers as well for a similar amount of money.
After all, if SCO can get away with actions similar to this for so long when 99% to 100% of the code they are 'licensing' isn't even theirs, then your chances are good if you use the legal system to your advantage.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Ok, first is to bring it to thier attention - perhaps the higher ups didn't know, perhaps they always intended to rewrite that bit before release but it got overlooked. They may be very apologetic and simply remove the code.
If you want to make money out of it, offer them an alternative licence for a small fee, after you have discussed it with them (you don't want to come off as programmer mafia).
If however they are not apologetic and won't remove the code you need to explain the options to them (assuming it is provable that it is your code).
Thier options are..
1. Accept that they are using your code with permission under the GPL, but are not complying with the terms of the GPL, in which case thier permission is revoked, and;
2. Accept that they are using your code without permission, and are then in clear breach of copyright.
Those are the only two ways they can be using your code if you did not otherwise licence it to them. In either way they instantly lose the battle (presuming they don't find a loophole in the GPL).
Just be gentlemanly about it, don't get on your high horse. Remember that they are using your code, take that as a compliment; just don't let them take you for granted.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Check this out - we are http://www.convea.com, a very small company and I've spent years on building the sites, the docs, the apps and everything else that goes into building a company.
These f*sckers - http://www.ingenux.com/onevision wont even return calls or pull our website content, applications and service offerings. They basically ripped our site and software and renamed it, offering it as theirs.
Nice eh? Been asking them since November to take it down.
We've also been getting ripped off all over the place. It's very sad that people can do this, the biggest offenders have been operating out of barbados and other shady places, and we can do little to track them down and stop it.
Makes me sick it does, especially when its hard enough scraping a living as it is, but hearing about people landing $150,000 deals is just a bad joke.
If you file papers- I'd bet a lot of companies would simply recognize you're serious, and cave in.
Especially when one of the papers that you file is an injunction or restraining order prohibiting that company from distributing the allegedly infringing software.
Wikipedia says:
"An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that prohibits ("enjoins" or "restrains") a party from continuing to do an illegal activity. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal contempt of court and may have to pay damages or sanctions for failing to follow the court's order."
Injunctions are wonderful things. These are used all the time by companies to stop other companies doing harmful things. The injunction can be the weapons of choice against GPL violators.
If your lawyer threatens the company with an injunction prohibiting the company from distributing the matter until the matter is settled, they must listen to you. If they do not, get a temporary injunction prohibiting the distribution of the offending code.
Discalimer: IANAL.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
You reveal the root of your contempt, and it's resulting ridicule right here:
1. Java can be trivially decompiled, so I don't see how this can be regarded as "closed source" with a straight face.
It's obvious that you don't understand or have forgoten software freedom and have a very bad elitist atitude. The point of the GPL is that the others can read and understand code that you write or modify. The GPL demands distribution in HUMAN READABLE form, complete with all of the original notes. While you might think yourself above the need for comments, that's beside the point. The GPL does not require you to pander, it simply asks you to pass on what you recieved. Stripping information is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the GPL.
Your second insult should be aimed at the violators:
2. Your library does not look like rocket science to me.
If it was so easy, why was the code appropriated? When the company appropriated the code, why did they bother to strip information from it? Someone so uber-leet as yourself would never sink so low, would you? Real men like might not mind putting in long hours reinventing the wheel, but I do. When you use someone else's code, the least you can do is honor the license it's under.
Your final comments are the most insulting of all:
you only make yourself look bad and give SCO and Microsoft ammunition on why free software people are communists and morally corrupt people.
What a stupid blast. Just try reverse engineering something from Microsoft and distributing it. The answer you get will be most unreasonable. It's surprising indeed that someone from Germany would call someone a Communist, especially someone who would so fiercly advocates software freedom.
What could be more helpful to closed source than to convince free software writers to keep quiet about GPL violations? The losers obviously can't keep up. If we are silent and just let people have their way when our code is "stolen" we might as well take orders about software development straight from Redmond. It would be better to hand over your copright to anyone else.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Agreed.
If you call it free and still choose to also profit from it...
And how is this different from false advertising? Aren't there legal penalties for a store advertising a book for $10, and then demanding $20 from customers? A store might lose its ability to sell their stock of that book for over $10 under some circumstances (maybe even if they own the copyright to the book?). Could the same happen if you advertise a product (software) as free?
You don't have access to the other persons changes, but you never had that access to begin with.
Certainly I have access to their changes. That's one of the requirements of the GPL. That's the whole *point*.
Look, if I'm going to give away my code, I might just want to ensure that I'm able to get access to any improvements to that code. That's what the GPL is for. It ensures that the code not only remains free to everybody, but that changes to that code also remain free to everybody.
If someone doesn't want to share and share alike, then they can use someone else's code or just roll their own instead. Basically, if I'm going to be generous enough to stick my code out there for anyone to use, then I'm going to stick a requirement on it to make whoever uses it do the same. This is what keeps that code "free", the requirement that changes to it must stay freely available as well.
Under the BSD license, someone can take this free code, change it, and sell it without keeping it freely available. After they've taken it, they are under no obligation to keep the modified code free. Like I said, this makes sense sometimes. If I don't care about some piece of code anymore, then BSD it is. But if I want to ensure that the code remains freely available and improvements are also available, then GPL makes sense.
In fact they use many of the same techniques that ruthless companies use. The official FSF policy on LGPL is really interesting: if there is significant competition in an area, they recommend first lowering the price of the code by issuing it under LGPL so companies don't have to give up any writes to use. Once competition is driven out, the license can be changed to GPL and they can reap the benefits.
Now you're just trolling. While I think that the the LGPL has problems, I fail to see how it has any of the implications that you seem to think it does. One of the main problems in the LGPL is the confusion regarding "linking", but other than that, I'd say it serves a valid purpose. It allows people to release a library of functionality and ensure that the changes to the library remain free while allowing non-free projects to use the functionality as well.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You may think it ridiculous to cater to such a view, but I've learned from experience that the best way to win an argument with someone is to create the appearance that you are coming at it from their own side. You don't begin by stating something that you disagree with, of course, but you start with certain facts that you are certain you would both be reconciled to agree on (in this particular case, the fact to start with would be the validity of copyright law) Once your opponent starts agreeing with the facts you present, it gets psychologically more difficult for them to disagree later without making themselves look like a fool.
And remember, regardless of whether or not the GPL is mentioned by name, a win is still a victory for the GPL. And once we have one, we will not ever have to hide the term "GPL" again.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
But do not people and coporations pay taxes?
THey do have a benefit since BSD was tax payer funded and better dam deserve a chance to use the code.
I find it hypocritical that RMS claims BSd is not free because you need the banner. Ever write a research paper?
Just give credit to where its due.
http://saveie6.com/
You need to make the legal system work for you. The best part is that you don't need money to make it work. Find the best possible IP litigator you can and offer him or her the case for a high contingency fee. A contingency fee is an agreement where the lawyer takes a specified percentage of any damages award from a case.
If you are not worried about the money, you can offer the lawyer 100% of the damages if you want.
Make greed work for you!
Of West-Coast -Choppers
"Everything you see is protected by copyright laws -- VIOLATORS WILL BE BEATEN TO DEATH"
Sounds good to me , GPL violations solved
Make them appear in public with Stallman's hat and smock.
Do NOT tell them they must now releaes all their source code to the public.
If that's what you want them to do, then say so. Don't pussyfoot around. You can't force them to release anything that is whole-cloth theirs, but you anything that's a clear derivative of yours, their legal choice is to release the source, or face a judge.
The first letter should be business like, and reasonably noncombative. If you'd be happy to just have them release the source code (on an ongoing basis), then let them know that, if they do so, you'll chaulk it up to a misunderstanding and let it be.Also let them know what if they force you to spend much more time onthe issue that you'll be charging just for your time. Remember that this is consulting rates, so $100/hour isn't even starting to get unreasonable.
It's probably worth mentioning that if lawyers start logging time, the price goes much higher much faster.
Send the message to the best contact you have at the company. If you can find their legal eagles, then CC the message to them.
I'd also CC a copy to a reasonably disinterested third party who would know to log the message for posterity. The FSF might be a good bet.
If they're distributing your code and/or documentation on the net , and they're clearly non-responsive, then you can also send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP. (The law is there. You may hate it for other reasons, but it's a tool for you to use like any other).
Remember to stand firm on your rights. If they're using your code, you have the right to tell them to stop. If you're seriously pissed at them, you can simply tell them to stop distributing your code. If they refuse to stop, you can go to a judge and get an injunction against them (It would be in the context of suing them for copyright invringement).
If you want to get paid for the work that they've stolen, then decide how much you want per copy and ask them for it. Worst case is that they'll tell yo to drop dead and you'll be forced to go to court to get the money from them. Note: you can get more money if your copyright is filed... the sooner the better. Until the copyright is filed, the most you can get out of them is 'damages'.. which will (probably) top out at the actual price they are charging for the code. Once you filee, then the cap is the greater of actual damages and $30,000+ per copy. That $30L+ can be a pretty sturdy barganing tool.
Note: IANAL If in doubt, talk to a real lawyer. There seem to be a number of reasonably good ones at groklaw. Perhaps one of them lives in your area.
NoteL if you really don't think you are willig to drag these people thru court, then you can always assign your copyright to the FSF (or assign them the right to enforce it). At that point the FSF can start wailing on them with authority.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I would understand it being called a 'GPL violation' if the companies had called you, informed you they were using your source under the rights granted them by the GPL and would abide by the GPL license, then only partially complied to it. But even then that could be considered a copyright violation as well as improper compliance with the GPL.
So don't even mention the GPL. They are violating your copyrights. Any half-decent legal department will understand this regardless of their familiarity with the GPL. And if they don't I'm sure the courts will.
Liberty.
You are not going to solve this problem by being nice.
You are going to have to take her behind the barn and tie her hands to a post and pull down her pants and then give her a nice spanking. Not just any old spanking will do - you need to focus on catching her attention. This requires a very special spanking.
After the spanking of course - cums the oral sex!
having been a lurker here for over six years now, that actually would be good advice for many, before this has the chance to grow to a second generation. (coming RSN)
>Don't get me wrong, the BSD license has it's place, but if >the main point is to keep the code free, what would you >choose something that lets anyone take the code and make >it non-free?
Absolutely. There are different kinds of freedom. The ability to incorporate code into a commercial project without fear of litigation is a huge freedom for those of us that live in the real world.
Personally, when I write open source code (especially utility classes), I prefer BSD-style licenses. Hell, use it however you want if you like it. If you don't like it, change it! If you think it's worth something, sell it. If you can't release your source code, I don't care. I don't want to come after you, I just don't want you to sue me if it breaks. That's true freedom - The ability to share ideas and not involve the lawyers.
The GPL has its place, but doesn't do well with utility functions and libraries. That's why the LGPL, BSD, and a host of other licenses are still around.
My advice to the author of this article: Consider your options. Does the code in question really belong under the GPL? Does it's being under the GPL prevent your intended audience from using it? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you feel these companies are preventing you from accomplishing that? The answer to those questions will lead you to either
1) re-license the code
-or-
2) threaten to sue the bastards (but be sure to follow through)
By all rights, you can probably do either... just make sure you're doing the right thing.
Ignore this man. Clearly the only way to respond to GPL violations is to neuter yourself.
No, that's what the LGPL is for. The GPL is something different.
The GPL takes that attitude and tries to extend it even to code which is in no sense an improvement to your code, but simply incorporates your code in something larger. If somebody uses your FTP library in a banking application, the LGPL would still force them to report changes to the FTP library back to you. The GPL, on the other hand, would force them to license the entire banking application under the GPL, and give its source away for free. This can no longer be considered to be in the service of merely keeping your FTP library "free". The LGPL would have been enough for that.
Send them a bill for $250000 - You can always donate to a charity if they pay you.
If they want to play hard. there still is the Copyright as per the Berne convention, which they are infringing.
Basicly the GPL waives any payment if the follow the rules. Otherwise they are mean criminals, just like all the other software and music pirates out there.
SCO!?..I pity the fools!
This is a marketing stategy that would make any MBA proud.
The same can be said for arguing on the internet.
Grandparent (if you read it) was not implying anything about the GPL that isn't true - he was making an abstract point about the aesthetic undesirability of spending money to ensure that FS/OS projects remain that way.
Parent was flame-breathing (didn't the all caps tip you off?)
GET IT STRAIGHT!
Not meaning to troll, I find it interesting that slashdotters are against RIAA for trying to defend their copyright claims for pirated music, but support somebody claiming that the copyright on their source code was violated.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
there's nothing in there that says if you use GPL code in one little part of your project that you must distribute all of your sources under GPL
If they have integrated the code into a larger peice of code then the whole body of code is a derivative work. That entire derivative work may only be distributed under the GPL as a whole or not at all. (I am intentionally glossing over the issue of exactly when GPL does and does not kick in.)
You cannot simply provide the GPL portion of the source. You'd be guilty of copyright infringent.
I'm wondering if the submitter actually asked any of the alleged violators for the sources to com.ostermiller.util. Maybe they'd be happy to share them.
It doesn't matter. The GPL requires either (A) that the source code ALREADY be included, or (B) that a valid offer for the source code ALREADY be included. (There is a third option (C), but that one also requires someone else's offer for the source code to ALREADY be included, but this option does not appear to apply in this case.)
Carefully note that every option requires they have ALREADY given the source or a written offer for the source. If they have not ALREADY done that then they are ALREADY guilty of copyright infringment. Releasing the source now does not change the fact that they have already broken the law and are still liable for a fortune in cash damages for that previous infringment.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Two other GPL violations are made by Realmedia (http://www.247realmedia.com/), a company selling a popular web ads ring through their OpenAdStream product.
:
OpenAdStream's core is an Apache module called mod_oas.so . The module includes modified versions of GNU Rx and GNU GDBM. But
- The module is commercial and closed source.
- There is no copy of the GPL licence anywhere with the product.
- There is even no credit to the authors of GNU Rx and GNU GDBM anywhere. Full copyrights are for Realmedia.
Evidences of the inclusion of GNU Rx and GNU GDBM are obvious, just grep for them to see the GNU copyright in the binary.
I contacted them multiple ways, with no answer ever.
{{.sig}}
If the copyright holder of some GPLed code does a deal with the company, does that release the company from their obligation under GPL to release their source code?
I would suggest that you behave like a decent person and therefore do not use the GPL for a library.
Unless ofcourse you are asking advice how to operate a vacetomy on yourself....
Bot Assisted Blogging
Suppose a codeshop in India violates the GPL. What then ? And I don't dare mention other countries...
Of course. The person who holds copyright to the software has the right to license it however he or she likes to whomever he or she likes.
MySQL does this. You can use it under the GPL, or you can buy a commercial license from them and use it under that license instead.
Game... blouses.
Why? Because this company did not agree to / utilize the GPL. They have no obligations under the GPL. They have not violated the GPL. As a matter of fact I'm having a hard time thinking of any case in which someone would actually "violate the GPL". (Lets see how many idiots have already stopped reading and jump straight to flaming me.)
What this is, is a case of copyright infringment. They reproduced and distributed many copies of someone else's work without a licence to do so. As you said, the GPL is just another licence, but in this case the company wasn't using the GPL. They were unlicenced.
There's no need to mention the GPL at all, you can simply sue them for cash. Lots and lots of cash. The GPL is only relevant if you feel like offering them generous settlement terms.
Me, I'm greedy. If someone infringed my GPL code I'd rather have them hand me a multi-million dollar check than have them open source their project. I think that would far more effective at getting people to take the GPL seriously then if I merely settled for belated GPL compliance.
I admit I don't relish the prospect of having to actually fight someone through a full court battle to do so.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
1. Understand this: You don't have the money to win a lawsuit. You are poor programmer.
2. If you can't do #1, contact FSF and make offer to transfer copyrights to them. FSF wants to own copyrights to all code of their own projects so that they can sue. If they swallow the bite, next thing is that you inform fsf about copyright violations.
3. Transfer your copyrights to SCO! (see #2)
5. Have you seen any western movie where hero gets justice done by lawsuit? Would you know the name Bin Laden if he had sued US of A? I guess not.
Make anonymous calls to:
- BSA/Microsoft anonymously and thell them that your enemy company has unlicenced copies of MS software,
- FBI and thell that the CEO is terrorist, drug dealer etc.
- RIAA and tell that there is gigs of illeageal mp3:s on the firms hd:s.
-
So what? Most Slashdot readers have no need for their peckers anyway.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Sorry, but for such trivial items, we are talking about fair use rather than copyright violation. Just like I can quote a paragraph without permission of the author, I should be able to copy a small section of the code that someone decided to let me read.
In some places, the law could be different now. Just look at SCO and errno.h. But it really shouldn't be. GPL is for significant projects like gcc. I really shudder when someone thinks of patenting, copyrighting, trademarking or applying any kind of IP to a Base64 implementation.
Some forms of this might also be considered "bait and switch", which possibly could be illegal is certain kinds of situations.
The company can still use the free version, but they must comply with the GPL.
But it's not a "free" version if it cost them money to comply. They might have to pay for source code rights to whatever code is being demanded for distribution "compliance". If it's not really free, than could that be considered false advertising of some form? What are the penalties for false advertising?
"Some forms of this might also be considered 'bait and switch', which possibly could be illegal is certain kinds of situations."
Err...no. You see, they're still free to comply with the GPL OR they may negotiate a different license/contract.
I don't think that these util classes can be used in anything that will be given away or sold because the Java Runtime Libraries are not GPL. In fact, I wonder if anyone other than the author can use them *at all*. Otherwise I could demand that the author produce the GPL'd source of the Java Runtime libraries. For example, I just looked and saw one of his classes uses java.util.ResourceBundle. So where's the GPL'd source for java/util/ResourceBundle.java? This lack of GPL'd class libraries is the driving force behind the Classpath project. It is also the reason why most Java Open Source projects are LGPL.
But then where's the (supposedly advertised for purposes of this hypothetical situation) "free" (using non-Stallmanesque definitions since this is probably how the FTC interprets the language) product?
It's not simple. You assume that a random lawyer has more experience dealing with GPL violations then some of the slashdotters. It is probably not true.
Your advice is similar to "ask a sales clerk" in response to "what wireless card is better for Linux on G5 laptop?". He is asking for personal experience, not for legal advice.
Not to mention that lawyers cost money and are not necessarily necessary, as there are many ways to deal with the violation informally.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
At my previous employers we evaluated the Sledgehammer NAS from Maximum Throughput, which is Dell server running a modified (heavily tuned) linux kernel. They appear to make no attempt to adhere to the GPL, ie distributing their code.
What they've done is impressive if you compare it to a stock kernel running on the same box, but how do you go about checking whether what they are doing is legal? I found it difficult to find a way of raising the issue without pissing off my boss, suppliers, etc & appearing like a Open Source Zealot.
I know I am opening a can of worms here, but please bear with me.
This thread seems to highlight the major problem with the whole OpenSource ethos... In the real world, people rip you off left, right, and center. So the only way to protect your IP is not to give away for free. If you release your source code under the GPL, be prepared for other people to use as the "basis" of their code. Either leaving unchanged in their software, or replicating the functionailty.
If you want people to have the ability to use your software in there one software, I feel a better way is to release compiled binaries, and say "Hey - you can use this for $0, but just put an aknowledgement in your about or program credits.. if you want the source code send me an email and we can discuss why you feel you need access to the code..."
As a developer I am certainly gratefull for people who release the packages for $0 and don't require any royalty payments; and yes.. I have looked and code released under the GPL to figure out how similer problems were solved. However, due to the fact that I have bills to pay and beer to drink.. I find it difficult in understanding why _anyone_ would give away their IP for nothing.
The fact that people use your code and you don't even get a "thank you" highlights the major failings with the whole OpenSource/GPL issue.
My $0.02
TheLogster
No, its not pedantic. Its important to call things by its name, and not by some propaganda-term like "theft" (which implies the victim hasn't the work anymore) or "piracy" (which implies that copyright-infringement is a violent robbery at sea involving murder)
--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Carefully note that every option requires they have ALREADY given the source or a written offer for the source. If they have not ALREADY done that then they are ALREADY guilty of copyright infringment. Releasing the source now does not change the fact that they have already broken the law and are still liable for a fortune in cash damages for that previous infringment.
This is true. However, it might be wise to lay off the demands a little. You're much more likely to avoid a costly legal battle if you sound reasonable, and saying "oh, by the way, you're thieving scum and you must pay major-league damages EVEN IF you start following the license requirements" is not going to encourage any company to start following the license requirements.
>To use your analogy: it's $10 for the paperback edition and $20 for the hardback
Some forms of this might also be considered "bait and switch", which possibly could be illegal is certain kinds of situations.
No problem... just copy the shops and describe your work as costing "from $0.00"!
If you take that interpretation, then there aren't many software companies around that aren't practicing bait and switch.
Whatever you do, make sure that you can produce the code, and make it accessable. I don't doubt your honesty, but you should be able to point out to them in exactly what files the offending code resides. For all you know, the company might not even have knowledge that it's there, and given the recent crap with SCO, they are likely to be very distrustful unless you can specify exactly what the code is.
Aside from that, if it does come to court, you should make sure your lawyer is competent to demonstrate that just because a few lines are different doesn't mean that it wasn't copied and then "tweaked" for purposes of legality. A decent lawyer should be able to demonstrate to the judge the different ways of accomplishing the same complex task, overall coding style, etc. And failing a decent lawyer, you may find yourself needing to explain it to said indecent lawyer.
I would, above all else, urge you not to waste time. Send them a friendly email, and make it clear that you expect a response within a reasonable amount of time, and failing that response, or if you should get a dismissive response, your next communication with them should be through a lawyer, on your lawyers letter head, through good old fashioned US Mail.
Pre-emptively, you might gather any and all access logs available to you. Then see if you can find out what IP range the company owns. If you can demonstrate that one of their employees accessed it, that will give you a more direct link. You could always try subpoening the home IPs of the "authors" of this code, but that will be hella hard and take a lot of time.
Best of luck to you!
Then he'd relate the time he got tired of hearing how hard it was to become a lawyer, so he went out and passed the bar exam on the first try. Never attended a single day of law school.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
No, that site is offline since yesterday!
Nuke it from orbit, man. It's the only way to be sure.
No lawyers.
;)
Mail (not e-mail) the CEO of the company, let hinm/her know what the situation is - there are good chances that they are not aware of the issue.
A few mails back and forth should be able to resolve the situation, if they are reasonable and you are reasonable. Would you, for example, accept that they pay you to obtain a source-license to your code? If you are the sole author of the code, such a license is perfectly legal - you can dual-license your code, like TrollTech does with QT for example.
Don't assume that they are assholes. They can be reasonable. But, of course, there is a chance that they are in fact assholes and refuse to take you seriously.
In that case, I assume that you ask this forum because you cannot afford a lawyer...
Meet with the CEO in person, if possible. Otherwise make a private phone call from a phone booth. Make it very clear to the person that you know who he/she is, you know where they live, they have taken something from you that you own, and you cannot afford a lawyer to settle it.
You should not make direct threats, of course - this will get you in trouble in court. But you can let them know the above facts, and let them know that justice will be done. Sooner or later.
This will not get you money, it will probably not stop them from using your code, but it will give them some well deserved uneasy sleep, and maybe it will make you feel better
Being an asshole to an asshole is not necessarily unfair.
Just be sure not to actually make direct threats that will land you in jail. Also, of course, don't be stupid enough to actually follow up on your indirect threats.
It's possible that the advice might be good, but you could end up neutering yourself
or worse
However, it might be wise to lay off the demands a little.
Read it again. There wasn't a single demand in there. I stated the fact that they have already commited copyright infringment, I stated the fact that it is not within their power to undo that infringment, and I stated the fact that copyright infringment carries major legal and financial liabilities.
Those aren't demands. That is merely pointing out the fact that the company has a problem and that they need to deal with you. They aren't going to waste time taking to you, much less doing anything, unless they see a liability risk.
They want to eliminate that liability risk. You'd rather not try to drag them through court. Now you can negotiate a settlement. You can sign away your right to sue them for a bajillion dollars freeing the company from liability and they can belatedly comply with the GPL.
Yes, they have the advantage of an army of lawyers, but you have to realize that you are in a position of power as well. You are the copyright holder, they have "stolen" your work without permission, they are guilty of infringment, they could lose a fortune if you choose to take it to court. And don't forget, that means you could potentially get paid a fortune. According to the law YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THAT MONEY. By settling it's really you who is giving up a lot, they are merely giving up something they had no right to in the first place.
Even if all you want is belated GPL compliance, you still need to recognize what you are offering them in exchange. They won't do anything unless you have something they want. You have the power to sign away a big fat lawsuit and massive liability. You need to realize that, and you need to make sure they realize that.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I don't have any information, but aren't closed-source Linuxes like Lindows and Xandros violating the GPL in several places?
And accept it as the cost of choosing to be an impoverished hippy rather than a corporate drone.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I believe the FSF will only take on cases where you've assigned copyruigth to them. I'm not sure if they will give advice however.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
or maybe release your community work into the real PUBLIC DOMAIN.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
If a nicely worded letter notifying them of the violation doesnt help, then have them killed.
After an example is made of a few, then most of the others will fall in line.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Also, the first advice given here was to contact the FSF. This is infinitely better idea than paying yourself broke on a random jerk who doesn't know a slightest thing about GPL.
Bomb the living bejeepers out of those forces.
http://www.kmfdm.net/angsttl.html
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Just that general public (pun not intended) equates GPL with PD because from the consumer point they are equal. Suck is life.
1. Call the phone. Talk to them on the phone and explain the oversight. Be polite and approach the situation purely as a problem solver with a helpful attitude. But take notes and pay close attention to how they response.
IF THAT FAILS,
2. Craft a letter. Be professional but firm.
IF THAT FAILS,
3. Get a lawyer. A good one but one that will take the case for a percentage of this company that you are about to own.
I agree with your assessment, you should try and handle it outside of the legal system first. But if it comes down to it, and you can't afford a lawyer, you could also try contacting a university to see if some law student wants some practice. Maybe the professor would be willing to "take your case" as a class project or something.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Several people have raised the issue with them since they sold to Looksmart.
They won't answer the call to publish the code however, and even went so far as removing it from Sourceforge.
In short, if there is no pain this practice will continue to grow.
Don't be naive. If you are serious, you should establish a relationship with a lawyer immediately, then discuss your "little nudging" with him/her.
I applaud your desire to resolve this out of court, but you need to establish a strong trail of documentation of your discovery and attempts to resolve the problem without resorting to legal action. A lawyer is the person who should keep that trail for you.
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
Certainly I have access to their changes. That's one of the requirements of the GPL. That's the whole *point*.
No you don't. The GPL requires them to give the source code of their changes only to people to whom they distribute the code either directly or indirectly (i.e. if one of their customers distributes the code). If they choose to distribute the code for a fee, you can get access to the source by either buying a copy or persuading one of their customers to distribute it to you.
You may think that's harsh and it is in many circumstances, but lets say I distribute a base64 encoding library and somebody else wraps it up in a MIME encryption suite it doesn't seem quite as bad.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
> What are the damages you claim when you give away your software for free?
Punitive damages, for using your code without your permission to use it in the way they did.
Virg
Wow, a reasonable response on slashdot? Thank you.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Given the fact that we are not making any improvements/changes to the code, it's not part of a "product" in any way and it's certainly not something we'd release, and that our use of the libraries are a minor part of a script that has a very specific use to us, would we still be considered in "violation of the GPL"?
I am by no means and expert on the GPL, but I wouldn't think this would come close to being a violation. However, if the author has a problem with it, let me know and we'll stop using the code.
The Southern Datacomm company (credit card processor software) www.protobase.com distributes GNU Awk (GAWK) in binary only (MS DOS / Windows command line compiled binary)with their Protobase software product. There is nary a hint of the GPL text, nor the FSF anywhere on the CDROMs they distribute. They have been advised of this and basically said "F*** OFF we don't care it's freeware so sue us".
I believe that the FSF has been notified multiple times of this and has not acted upon it either.
There is apparently a widespread myth that the FSF is giving out free legal services to GPL copyright holders. Nonsense! If the FSF owns a copyright, they -can- sue; but they have made no promise to protect any copyright assigned to them, and generally speaking do not have the capability to do so. The FSF is on the order of six people, including four programmers. They're not IBM. They don't have a legal task force. Eben Moglen is probably not licensed to practice in your state, assuming you're even American, and he's a full-time professor of law, -not- a full-time lawyer for FSF, so I don't know that he would even have the capacity to represent them in a lawsuit they -needed- to fight, let alone every petty copyright case thrown them. He hasn't represented them in a suit so far.
> I know that the best thing to do is to call a lawyer, but I find it quite unsettling to think that when I'm creating something and giving it away to the world for free, I would need to pay a price to protect my work?
You have to pay for locks on your doors as well. That's the price you pay, unless you don't want to prevent your work's misuse. Besides, if this is a big company, you could always tell them you don't want any money, but you do want them to cover the legal costs you incurred notifying them. Virtually every company will agree to that, if you don't want other money.
Virg
$699 was the limited-time "amesty" price.
Yes, Yes, get a lawyer. He likely has more experience neutering people.
Do us all a favor and use the MIT license or something similar. The GPL has nothing to do with freedom. Roderick Long speaks the truth when he explains that selling someone else's work without their permission is NOT a violation of their rights. Instead he describes it as "tacky".
--Brian
No you don't. The GPL requires them to give the source code of their changes only to people to whom they distribute the code either directly or indirectly (i.e. if one of their customers distributes the code). If they choose to distribute the code for a fee, you can get access to the source by either buying a copy or persuading one of their customers to distribute it to you.
Agreed, but irrelevant. If they're distributing their software, then the code (or access to it) must go along with it. If they're not distributing their software and using it in-house only, then who cares, really?
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I define free (as do millions of others) as being a state in which each individual has maximum choice.
As do I. However, I think that maximum choice is more easily obtained by keeping the code freely available and up to date instead of allowing everyone to take the code and make it theirs without sharing. If the code is required to be free, then that allows more choice for others wanting to use code that is out there. By disallowing people to take the code and make it theirs, as the BSD license does, the GPL ensures the maximum amount of choice for everybody, IMO.
But you're essentially right. I'm not concerned with your choice to take someone else's code without contributing back to that code. I'm concerned with everybody's choices in code that is actually available for them to choose from. The GPL is the best way to go about that. The BSD license is about choice for someone to do what they want, regardless of what's best for others.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
This is a marketing stategy that would make any MBA proud.
Bah. I hope you can see the difference between thinking that using the GPL/LGPL is a good idea and blindly agreeing with anything Richard Stallman has to say.
I consider Stallman to be an extremist, personally. He's had a lot of good ideas, but he's had a lot of bad ones too.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Uh. This sort of seems cut and dry, no?
You get a lawyer and have them work on your behalf to sue the offending party and acquire your appropriate compensation.
This is a stupid "ask slashdot".. Has it really come down to this?! This was about as inane as "I broke my arm. What should I do?"
Stop being a fucking pussy, and get a lawyer. Sue their ass into oblivion. You want to show people the GPL is not the same as Public Domain? That's the way you do it. Get yourself a piece of the $ while you're at it. Do yourself, the public, and the open source/free software communities some GOOD.
If you can prove it, get a lawyer, and take them on. Don't be a moron.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
OTOH, Java shouldn't be used for a host of other reasons.
I prescribe fire, and lots of it!
Off the hook fscking funny!
I'm sure there's some sort of union for pooling defense but I can't remember the details.
I do know that if one member gets attacked then the other aid them.
With the number of OSS projects out there even if each member contributed a minimal amount as insurance against thier code it would worthwhile.
I think I might be getting confused with a legal service from the GNU or something?
A blog I run for the wealth
Such a "meta-contract" is invalid under the basic principles of contract law. It wouldn't stand up in court.
Send them a bill in the mail. Along with the name and telephone number for your lawyer. :)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I went to the original posters website to look at the libraries in question, and they appear to be trivial little code snippets. Here are some examples:
1. Lanuching a browser window
2. Creating a password dialog box
3. Base64 encoding of text
I find it hard to believe that any commercial company would expose themselves to liability by stealing pieces of code that any code monkey worth their salt can write in less than a day. It is more likely that they happened to develop the similiar libraries in parallel. Since these tasks are so trivial (and examples of them appear in many places, both in print and on the web), I can see how two programmers would code up these tasks in the same way. In fact, given how widespread the implementation of, say, Base64 encoding is, I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster's libraries are nearly identical to a previous implementation of the libraries.
It would be akin to someone trying to copyright a musical chord and then suing everyone for trying to use it in their music!
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
If I catch you sodomizing my cattle again, I won't bother dragging you down to the sheriff's. I'll simply shoot you right there on the site.
That one has been repeated here over and over and over.
....
...., you simply refrain from using the aditional rights I waived you in the license. And you are ok. But if you infringe the terms of the license, then you are violating my copyright in the work in case. And you are open to prosecution, civil and criminal both.
GPL is a license.
when I give you some software, I have the copyright, meaning you can only use it, and do some "fair use" stuff with it... nothing more.
GPL is saying, ok, you can do some other things with the software, e.g., freely copy and distribute verbatim copies, modify it (things copyright law does not allow you to do) and I promise you can't be prosecuted for doing these otherwise illegal things (here's the catch) if and only if you also do
Now, if you don't want to do
Easy, huh?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
And leave a severed horse head in the CEO's bed.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
IMHO he should not be able to do that, and could not do with GPL code.
It's the only way to be safe.
Oh man. I spit coffee all over my monitors. Thanks. I never have mod points when I want 'em.
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
First talk to your lawyer. He or she will help you with the details.
If you don't have, and don't want to have a lawyer, then first you should put them on notice. Identify the code that you believe they have misappropriated, and the product or place where they are publishing it without your permission. Ask them to respond with their agreement to comply, and send your notice to the company CEO by certified mail.
You can file a lawsuit for damages. Statutory damages are about $500 per work. If you register your copyrighted code with the copyright office of the library of congress then you'll also be able to collect reasonable lawyer's fees should you prevail.
If the company fails to respond, or fails to agree to respect your rights then you can also file a lawsuit to get a permanent injunction barring them from violating your rights, and possibly for triple damages.
If you had a lawyer, you could also make him available for another mutually agreeable negotiated license, but negotiating that yourself it is very easy to fall to charges of extortion. The only real solution for doing this without a lawyer is to set up standard commercial licensing terms, and direct their attention to it.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
If what you want is for the code to be released, and that's what is in the license, and that's the only thing that will stop you from pursuing a lawsuit, then they can either mollify your injured pride (release the source code) or going in front of a judge and risking paying fines that could well be high multiples of what they got paid for the infringing software.
It may not be force, but it is the next best thing.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The copyright holder is the only person who has any rights here. Not the receiver of the code. This should be obvious in cases where the receiver voluntarily downloaded the code with no actions or agreements by the producer. Otherwise you would be liable for data that anybody downloaded from your site!
Actually the receiver has even less rights than that. Technically they are a contributory infringer on the original copyright. They are not allowed to use the code at all, or they are violating the original author's copyright.
I suppose if there was a signed contract between the GPL violator and the receiver of the code, the receiver could sue because they cannot use the product they received until the original author stops violating the GPL and delivers a new version that does not violate the GPL. This could be stronger than what the copyright holder can do, since it would force the violator to deliver something (either source or a non-GPL version), while the violator can satisfy the copyright holder by just ceasing delivery of anything. However I think this is unlikely, it would be like a reader of the New York Times being able to sue the Times for copyright violation of an unrelated third party.
you're overlooking "commonlaw copyright" which, in the U.S., basically gives you copyright on any of your work that exists in a viewable format (as i recall "viewable" is flexible enough to include data on a disk; the point is that the material isn't just floating around in your head but that you've put it down somewhere).
the trick is that you need to prove the date, which is what the other posts about mailing it to yourself or getting it notarized are about. that's also why you see the "& copy ; " notices at the bottom of corporate web pages --a notice that the material is copyrighted and when the copyright took effect).
you also need to prove that it's yours.
there are some legal specifics to help with the proof but, as i recall, the copyright notice should have
and, of course, it needs to be visible.
it's a little difficult, now, for him to establish his code was first by mailing himself a copy or even registering it officially. if it came to court, he'd have to look for other proof that he wrote it before they did. if he doesn't have a heap of that kind of evidence, he's right to hope it'll stay out of court. however unlikely it seems, if he has no proof whatsoever then he could even lose his copyright to the other company entirely (and they could sue HIM for GPL-ing "their" code).
no, i'm not a lawyer but i play one on slashdot.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
Read the USA copyright law http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf ... you can just file a legal action in the proper federal court. AFAIK, you have to register the copyrights first, and damages can be limited if you register late, but you can get the offender to stop the infringement and pay your legal fees no matter how late you register things.
NOTE: there are forms you can fill out to get a break on the filing fees if you are truly impoverished.
"If you are the copyright holder, how do you communicate with the offenders?"
Through a letter to their CEO, first, letting them know they have infringed, politely requesting that they cease and desist the infringement. Then via letters from your lawyer to theirs, probably.
Getting a temporary injunction is tricky - you are usually asked to post a bond in case the other guy prevails, and it can be hefty. However, the judge can require the infringing party destroy (or hand over to the court) all develo9pment copies, finished works, copies, etc. and pull them from distribution channels.
Note that such issues are very country-specific.
According to German law, for instance, no formal 'registration' is necessary. ANY evidence that somebody is the author of a work is valid in court.
I disagree with the initial poster about the informal email. I recommend a written letter be sent (and don't forget to send it asking for a receipt that it has arrived). If you are serious about it, informal emails can be a waste of time (in the sense that you mostly will have to write a letter afterwards anyway).
However, they can be a way to create a more productive atmosphere, preparing the ground for resolving the conflict - while a more formal letter is already on its way.
Kick Darl McBride in the nuts, my not help, but hey, always fun :-D
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
Nobody ever takes into consideration the cost of getting a lawyer. This is why geeks aren't in management.
Do a cost-benefits analysis on getting a lawyer. If it costs more to hire one than you hope to get in return then don't hire one.
If I were shorted $1000 on some freelance work, I would try to work it out with the company. Maybe even their legal dept. I sure wouldn't hire a lawyer to try to recoup $1k.
If this guy just wants the satisfaction of someone playing well nicely, hiring someone that will charge him by the hour isn't necessarily a good move. Sure his chances may be better with a lawyer but his chances aren't exactly zero without one.
t
You would be well served by deciding what you want out of this - If you are looking for the proper attribution of your code, and proper compliance with the GPL, then a letter from you, followed by a 'nudge' from an attorney (I don't think that you can avoid that) would be my priceless advice
If you are looking for damages (which I suspect that you are not) then you are pushing on a rope