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."
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.
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...
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
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.
Weeelll.... It's not GPL, but RIAA members Warner Music appear to be using the linkware MojoFAQ without the required link on Enya.com (view the source, Luke).
So whilst it's not a GPL violation, it could well be THEFT*
Puts 'em in the scuppers with a hosepipe on 'em!
*(c) RIAA
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.
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?
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
Where did you get this information. I've checked out the article and reading between the lines, Allnet will stop using the netfilter code and hence stop infringement. Nowhere did it state that source code was being released under the GNU GPL.
Not saying you're wrong, I'd just like a link.
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.