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."
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?
I remind you of SCO's IBM/Linux copyright infringement claims, I remind you you of the validity problems of the GPL.
:-)
Don't forget Netfilter.org 'owned Allnet'
The settlement example shows how it is done in 'real business'. No media dirt, no false accusations, no 3 billion$ infringement lawsuits.
I wonder if the donation is tax deductable.
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.
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.
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
You seem to misunderstand the GPL. The GPL is not only incompatible with licenses which have *more* restrictions than the GPL; it is incompatible with licenses which have *different* restrictions.
For example, the following license is GPL-incompatible, but it is vastly more free:
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
IANAL, but this is how I understand it works:
The GPL hasn't been tested in court because whenever a company asks their lawyers exactly what the GPL says, they realise that there are two choices (if they actually did use the GPL'd source):
- say the GPL is invalid, which if you win reduces it to a copyright infringement lawsuit, since the GPL is the only thing that allows you to use GPL'd code, and having it declared invalid means you lose all rights to use that code. (Courts really frown on copyright infringement, and this would become a very costly lawsuit to win.)
- say the GPL is valid, and settle.
In other words, the best thing you can do is maintain the status quo (sort of) by settling. Actually going to court makes you lose, even if you win, which is why no one has ever gone to court over it. Not even SCO.
You can say a lot of things about the FSF and the GPL, but you've got to admit it's pretty darn clever.
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.
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.
I have to admit, when companies act like this in the face of adversity it makes me want to buy their stuff.
I'm just worried the FSF and FFII are going to be sued under racketeering laws now...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
I have to say, I agree and defend him.
What his licence says is that you cannot place his code under a licence which would forbid it being placed into closed-source applications.
I don't see how this is less free than the GPL. You can do anything you like (basically) except forbid people from placing your derivate in a closed source application. If that is what he wants to allow, good luck to him. Remember, the GPL is not the be-all and end-all (particularily the GPL v2 isn't, for a start we already know the GPL v3 won't be GPL v2-compatable, so why should the rest of the world have to make their licences GPL v2-compatable?)
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
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?)
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*