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!!
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.
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
#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
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.
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
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
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.
when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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?
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!
Simple answer : post a link to their website on slashdot.
DrkBr
Those are the same parts of the world where virtually every other license is also "regarded very lightly." GPL is based on copyright, you know. Cultures which don't respect copyright won't respect the GPL, either.
Put identity in the browser.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Did you tell the Apache Foundation/the authors and/or the FSF? If you are not a user or author you have no rights. They do however and they should be made aware so they can act. It isnt enough to contact them and complain on /. if you get no response.
GPL viability as a licence is enhanced if abusers fear that if they do copy GPL code a few eyeballs among millions of users will catch them eventually.
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
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
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!
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
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
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
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.