Slashdot Mirror
Allnet GPL Infringement Settled Constructively
Elektroschock writes "LWN has coverage of a GPL dispute settled in a constructive manner. Allnet GmbH, German manufacturer and distributor of networking equipment, including switches, routers, NICs and wireless adapters, infringed the GNU Public License of netfilter/iptables. As part of the settlement Allnet GmbH will donate money to tax-exempt not-for-profit organizations, i.e. FSF Europe and FFII. Both organisations lobby for better copyright and patent legislation in Europe."
Wow... people resolving lawsuits....GPL related... and it's on slashdot.... I... I'm speechless... I want to make fun of somebody and talk about how sucky the world is... i..i... can't.....
No, no. I don't think you understand. This is /. CBG is never offtopic.
Some of us think that the GPL is a good thing.
Some of us also think that settling things in an amicable way outsdie of the court system can be a good thing.
If you had bothered to read the article you'd also have noticed the following;
"As part of the aggreement, Allnet will make a significant donation to two tax-exempt non-for-profit organizations established under german law"
A good thing. You see now?
How is (a violation of) IPTables valued? Since this was a "donation" under German law, I wonder if the amount is part of the public record. Can any Germans comment?
"We are very happy with the cooperative manner of Allnet in which this issue was resolved and an amicable agreement reached", notes Harald Welte, the Chairman of the Netfilter Core Team. It's really nice to get some good news instead of the average sco cr*p of the GPL being unconstitutional or viral. All this talk about how gpl is a difficult license because it's incompatible with other licenses, and people don't seem to grasp that it's only incompatible with licenses that have more RESTRICTIONS than the gpl, ie if your brand new license v 1.0 has other restrictions besides the ones the gpl accepts, it's quite natural that it will be incompatible. It's like saying, "hey this source is free for you to copy, reproduce but you may never show it to anyone", oh and gpl sucks becuase the fsf say's we're not compatible with their silly little license. Here we see the power of gpl and fsf. It's been said that the gpl is weak because it's never been tested in court. Well maybe there's a reason. Maybe becuase fsf and the open source movement is gaining momentum and companies are trying not to gain new enemies from potential customers. There are still some that do not realize that alienating customers might be bad for business, and that the gpl is a license to adhere to, just as any other license. Take KISS as an example with their way of handling the mplayer debacle, I for one am not going to support kiss-technology.com as long as they maintain their arrogant position. Vote with your wallets, support free software.
Why do certain companies not research beforehand, that what they are doing is illegal?
Why do people have to resort to things like this, before they complay with the terms of a license?
I know money is a strong factor, but should morals really go out the window?
A company should really research the terms of the license, of a product they are using, but perhaps they just hope that people won't notice...
After all, it is easy money, if no one finds out.
I've been taught that copyright infringement is really piracy, so these guys are pirates!
AAAAAARRRGH! Ye knows whats we does with pirates, don't ye? We keelhauls them, we do, matey!
More seriously, I'm dying to hear of one, just *one*, case of GPL infringement by a RIAA member organisation. Oh, the fun we'll have...
Its good to seea positive outcome come out from this. FSF doesnt have to waste money going to court. and Allnet continues to use the gpl code to further the penetration of open source work into the market. If Allnet did not settle they wouldve been crushed when common copyright law came down on them like a tonne of bricks.
It's really nice to get some good news instead of the average sco cr*p of the GPL being unconstitutional or viral.
All this talk about how gpl is a difficult license because it's incompatible with other licenses, and people don't seem to grasp that it's only incompatible with licenses that have more RESTRICTIONS than the gpl, ie if your brand new license v 1.0 has other restrictions besides the ones the gpl accepts, it's quite natural that it will be incompatible. It's like saying, "hey this source is free for you to copy, reproduce but you may never show it to anyone", oh and gpl sucks becuase the fsf say's we're not compatible with their silly little license. Here we see the power of gpl and fsf. It's been said that the gpl is weak because it's never been tested in court. Well maybe there's a reason. Maybe becuase fsf and the open source movement is gaining momentum and companies are trying not to gain new enemies from potential customers.
There are still some that do not realize that alienating customers might be bad for business, and that the gpl is a license to adhere to, just as any other license. Take KISS as an example with their way of handling the mplayer debacle, I for one am not going to support kiss-technology.com as long as they maintain their arrogant position.
Vote with your wallets, support free software. (Sorry for the repost, just hate bad formatting.)
Lawyers file lawsuit. Lawyers settle lawsuit, with defendant agreeing to donate money to lawyers. How is this constructive?
Rather than giving money to the FSF, why not give money to groups which write free software?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
FSF has said they will later publish some statistics from 'GPL compliance lab' like a number of GPL infringement cases they have so far settled out of courts. I guess there must be plenty of them already all over the world. For some unknown reason they have already given more GPL enforcement information in their _proprietary_ seminar tagged for hunders of bucks... free as in freedom, not as in...
That press release doesn't say anything about a lawsuit. It just says there was a settlement and that there was infringement. Presumably there was at least the threat of a lawsuit, but it doesn't say whether a suit was actually filed. Does anyone know? And yes, the FSF writes free software--perhaps you've heard of GCC, for example.
There are two distinct types of people in this world:
Those who look at GPL code, and those that look at MS Windows code. Both camps do their very best never to see the other's.
Think of it as a capital shift from the Bad Lawyers to the Good Lawyers, that in the process establishes a legal precedent for future GPL cases.
Not all lawyers are bad, ya know...
Tal
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Damn kids these days, they just don't know how to start a proper flamewar...
This sig is intentionally left blank
I've grepped the source code for Linux, BSD and a few other terms. The word Linux does appear a few times but after checking through it's nothing too bad AFAIR. I've also grepped for "BUGBUG" - which appears to be MS' way of denoting bugs ;).
Not really had much time to do any more in-depth checking. One interesting thing - they have chmod (etc) utilities in their tools directory.
In most countries, you would be well within your "fair dealing" rights to quote an excerpt so small. Therefore, you have most probably not violated anyone's copyright. Since your statutory rights are inalienable, and the GPL makes no attempt to detract from them, the only thing you possibly could be charged with is wasting police time, or behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
actually, you didn't even have to read the article for that tidbit: it's up there with the story!
Ah! But it isn't a quote until they publish the source, with attribution.
Gotcha.
KFG
Huh? Troll! It is a German company and Netfilter was the owner of the code as part of the Linux Kernel. Not your IP was infringed.
Compare it to American best practise: SCO vs. Linux. We own your code blabla, requesting billions,media fuzz...
even if they didnt authorize its release, the fact that it is released still allows you to quote it under fair use laws.
My point was netfilter is not owned by the EU, how come they are the only ones that benifit from the settlement, shouldn't it be someone who does work in all countrys? If linksys violated GPL code then was asked to put money in a company only working in the US how would you take it? I don't have all the facts here as to what the EU companys do thats why I asked "what am i missing" in hopes someone informed would reply.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
The link to Allnet is wrong in a way which suggests that it's spam. The correct link is http://www.allnet.de/.
I guess they asked every netfilter developer if they agreed with this settlement, and they did.
blah
You don't do that. Don't talk about settled cases. Do act like SCO. Copyright infringements are not discussed in the public. We don't need a enforcement directive, we just need good code and persons who respect licenses.
I'd be much happier if companies were forced to release good, unhindered specs/APIs... I don't care if you didn't give out your specific implementation, fine... whatever... but give me the means to create my own implementation that can function the same as theirs. Is that soo much to ask?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Netfilter was one party, All* the other party.
The agreed on a settlement, All* could hav donated to the Red Cross or whatever.
Netfilter's Harald Welte is a German, All* Gmbh is a German company and they chose two orgs that are tax exempted.
It is private law. US/EU/ ecc. is not affected by this. Not your rights were infrigend but the rights of netfilter.
"asked to put money in a company only working in the US"
-- >these are NGOs, off-topic.
For example, there was a copy of the GPL in the box with the last projector I bought (a Panasonic PT-AE200E). One of the features of this projector is projecting digital photos straight off an SD card, and it appears that the slideshow software used was released under the GPL. I wonder how long it will be before we see copies of the GPL arriving with new microwave ovens?
I don't know, man. Not sure what language you're using but I've heard that C# programs are easy to decompile.
What, you mean that bit at the top of the /. page isn't the article?
K, thanks that cleared things up a bit.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I don't see them amking any restrictions on telling people what you learnt at the seminar. On what basis do you call it "proprietary"? Having to pay for something does not make it proprietary.
But it isn't just their customers who get those rights. Under 3(b) of the GPL any third party can ask for "a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code". And I imagine that it will be more code than netfilter/iptables too due to the viral (ahem) nature of the GPL.
Paying big bucks (euros in this case) makes one immune from GPL infringment claims. What the shame ...
BUGBUG: 7097
BSD: 493
Linux: 6
Some are matches in binary files. BUGBUG might be for bugs that have been fixed already. BSD appears mostly as "BSD does this..." comments. Linux appears in #defines.
_proprietary_ seminar?
So Columbia Law School charges for its seminars. The idea is that the hot shot lawyers who want to attend pay big bucks to attend the seminar. I am sure that if you are a law student, you can attend for free if you ask the organizer politely.
I have to admit, when companies act like this in the face of adversity it makes me want to buy their stuff.
But did they release the code? Donations be damned, the GPL says (paraphrasing here): "Do what ye will, but show me the code you distribute, me hardys!"
Otherwise they continue to violate, right?
If ($distribution > 0 && $source < 0)
if ($money > $cha-ching)
violate = 0
else
violate = 1
fi
fi
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
In contract law (of which licensing law is just a part), at least in the US, breaches of contract are generally presumed to be completely solved by the payment of damages (money). Forcing someone to behave in accordance with the contract terms is called specific performance. The remedy of specific performance is usually limited to a very narrow class of cases (the classic example is a contract for the sale of land), Anytime you can get specific performance of a contract, it is a FANTASTIC result.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Once and for all wake the fuck up. It's NOT a GPL infringement/violation. It's COPYRIGHT infringement/violation.
I can't believe people are still submitting news posts to slashdot like that. Scroll up and re-read the post.
Liberty.
We should get some coders to create some good open source DRM. You know they wouldn't resist :)
They sure as hell aren't ever seeing the code.
Sure they can. Anyone you sell the product to is going to have a copy of the executable code. You are gambling that no one ever looks at it. And yes, there are people who can read executable code. It's just assembly language - just another programming language. I admit I'm rather rusty in assembly language, but some people are quite fluent in it.
Pretty much every slashdot story about a GPL violation and settlement was in one way or another first detected by checking the executable code. In some cases it's very easy. Sometimes there are blatant strings that match. In some cases the output is matchable. In some cases the presense of a bug or other distinctive behavious is a dead give-away. And ultimately someone could just check the machine code.
You don't even need to be able to read the machine code to check it. Each different brand of compiler puts it's own "fingerprint" an any code it compiles. You can check that fingerprint to identify the compiler, then compiler the GPL code with that compiler, then you can simply check for an exact match between portions of the two executables.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
As ordinary consumer devices become more computerised, we will likely see more GPL code embedded in such devices as it's cheaper than developing from scratch for the manufacturer. What I'd worry about is whether we will see the GPL included in cases where it is not externally obvious that the device contains GPL code (e.g. what about a digital media player that contains a GPL'ed codec - how would you know?)
The donations were *in addition* to future compliance with the GPL. Now that the settlement has been reached, the only part of the GPL they are still violating is the part that says the GPL notice needs to be included with the product, not that they can fix that after the fact..
Luke-Jr
Real men program with toggle switches.
I don't see the issue. Do you worry about the FCC notices? Links to BSA standards? The license says that is what you do, they do it.
As to the Q you put here, the *developers* know!
Only customers who get the product need to be given the source.
The your customer gives someone else the product, the code has to be given to them *by that customer*
On the subject of GPL disregard:
When questioned about SCO bundling GPL programs, Blake Stowell said:
"Our issue is with the enforceability of the GPL".
-
When software is released with a GPL license, the author(s) still retains the copyright, but is granting specific terms under which the copyrighted work may be used without consulting the author.
If Mr. Stowell and SCO do not believe that the terms of license are valid, then the agreement of the license is nullified, and use of the work without other permission from the author is breaking copyright law.
Under these special circumstances, I believe that the authors of the GPL software in question should get clarification, and ask SCO for a written agreement to the terms of the GPL, or else demand a halt to the software use, and possibly payment for any infringement.
A license is not a contract.
There is no negotiation with a license, there is with a contract. If the GPL was contractally agreed to, then the code CAN be forced to be opened, since they did not act as the contract requires. As the GPL is a license, failing to obey the license means you have no allowance to use the code, but it does not force you into an action other than
1) Pay damages (possibly)
2) Stop issuing the code you have no right to
This whole article is about a situation where they (initially) didn't do it (follow the terms of the GPL).
In case you didn't notice, a projector is computer hardware. Your dvd player is computer hardware too.
Now, when companies start including the GPL with hatracks and dishware, then you will know that Stallman has conquered the world.
The seminar material is freely available on the web.
Not all places offer space to hold seminars for free. Hell, most churches don't do it, most american legions don't, and I don't know a single KoC hall that does it, unless it's a favor for someone important.
So spit out your hunnerd and share with the world... I'm sure the FSF has GPL'd their seminars.
-Chris
A lot better. I use it almost all the time.
When pico gets mouse support, highlighting, bracket match, regex search/replace, and multiple buffers, let me know.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Well, I know Allnet pretty well, their founder and boss went to school with me, their headquarter is only one km away and they sponsored lots of our local (larger) lan-parties.
:-) So why don't take advantage of this nasty mistake and make big news which are not really easy to make otherwise for a medium-sized network-equpiment-distributor?
So I guess Wuffis techies did the usual: bought asian equipment, did some minor rework and labeled the box Allnet. And as usual those asians don't really care bout the gpl at all and don't really inform their european customers about those minor glitches.
And here comes Wuffis powerfull point: He knows good PR when cornered by it
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
yeah - usually, the article are published somewhere else, and slashdot merely borrows the juiciest bits for their page.
When I bought one of these FlashTrax things I was suprirsed to see in the 'about box' that it ran on linux. A query about getting the source came back with a 'our software engineering partners are considering releasing parts of the code as source', and nothing more ...
Who needs to be contacted/go to action about this?
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
I don't see the problem.
And I can't live without ^W/^/ and indent mode.
It's just uncivilized without them!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
KDE Vs Gnome
Emacs Vs Vi
MP3 Vs Ogg
and every geek's current favorite
SCO Vs The entire universe
btw I side with Linux, Linux, America, Conservative, Everyone, KDE, Vi, MP3 and The entire universe.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
A German world conpiracy, a takeover of the internet backbone
Considering that country's history, it might not be all that unreasonable of an accusation.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
With 3(a) you are only obliged to give source to the people you give binaries to. However Allnet did not accompany the binary code with the source code, and so 3(b) applies: I am "any third party", so if I ask, they must give me the source code. I agree if they had accompanied their binaries with the source at the time, then 3(a) would have applied, but they didn't.