Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Allnet GPL Infringement Settled Constructively

Posted by simoniker on from the that's-the-way-to-do-it dept.

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."

11 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Whoopdefuckingdo by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. Re:Cold Spine Shiver by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:How is GPL code valued in damages? by azzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if the donation is tax deductable.

  4. Makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Makes you wonder... by __aaveti3199 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the GPL is perceived by some "free as in beer". The lack of a profit motive for those GPLing their work might make some companies think that they can reuse GPL code without fear of legal let or hindrance. For some GPL may be confused with other less restrictive software licenses that basically allow you to do what you like with the code. Even if this had got to court and the GPL stood up, it would probably have had little impact on the attitude US courts took in the future.

  5. Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Constructive? by cperciva · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:It's nice with good news for a change by cperciva · · Score: 4, Insightful
    people don't seem to grasp that [the GPL is] only incompatible with licenses that have more RESTRICTIONS than the gpl

    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:

    Anti-msikvwebasdoiju public license:
    1. You may do anything you want with works distributed under this license, except for including them in a software project called "msikvwebasdoiju".

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
  8. Re:It's nice with good news for a change by jsebrech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:What am I missing here. by Elektroschock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. TBH by WillAtMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have to admit, when companies act like this in the face of adversity it makes me want to buy their stuff.