Slashdot Mirror
How To Fight International OSS License Violations?
sirshannon asks: "Frans Bouma's LLBLGen is a free, open source code generator that he licensed under the BSD license so that anyone could use it in any way, as long as they gave him some credit. Now Codease has released a product that apparently uses his code for 90% of the functionality but doesn't bother to attribute it to him. Frans lives in The Netherlands, Codease is in Singapore. What is the correct way to pursue this?"
Buy a plane ticket and pack a baseball bat. wuss
vigilante justice.
oh sorry, I thought you said SCO
Now wash your hands.
Jeebus, is it that hard to figure out?
Posted @ 3/3/2004 12:11 PM
:)
As a last resort I yesterday asked them why they didn't simply obey the license terms and suddenly they were willing to do so. I've mailed what I wanted them to do (adding a single line to the about box, as stated in the license) however haven't heared since. I'll try mailing them later today again.
Looks like they may have changed their minds. Might want to hold off on the witch hunt... then again why they are so much fun.
You're probably trolling, but my radar is off today.
Considering that, to date, the BSD license is the only one of the two that has been tested in a court of law, I don't really understand your point.
(I'm referring to the AT&T/USL code settlement of the 90s.)
I suspect this guy's entire problem is that he's using the old advertising-clause BSD license, and Codease probably assumed when he said 'BSD' he meant 'modern BSD.' Were it a modern BSD license, they could use his code without attribution.
Since they've since started to acquiesce to his demands, I suspect they may have finally read his license and realized their mistake.
How could he magically demand money under the (L)GPL anymore than he could under a BSD2 license, the topic doesn't state this, but it's not under the old style BSD advertising clause license, nor the MIT style BSD license, this is the 2 clause BSD license (which I've never seen anyone use, but that's besides the point) and at this moment they're not obeying all cluases of the license, specifically the attribution cluase.
"2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
Copyright violation is copyright violation, whether it is music, software, or source code.
Actually, I think you are trolling. Most licenses have not been "tested" in a court of law, and they don't need to be "tested" to be perfectly good. In fact, a license that has never been disputed is probably stronger than one that has been challenged in court. I don't see too many people saying that Microsoft's EULA is unenforceable, because it clearly is. That license imposes many more restrictions on end-users than the GPL or any free software license does, so it would be much more vulnerable. Yet nobody challenged it so far.
Besides, the AT&T case had nothing to do with the BSD license and everything to do with the fact that AT&T failed to properly register its copyrights (a procedure that's no longer necessary).
I don't care about BSD but as the title says OSS in general:
Just threat it like a regular copyright violation case:
1 - mail them
2 - if it don't work publicize, mail FSF (if that's the case)
3 - hire a lawyer in that country or an international lawyer company
If your code is under GPL, FSF may provide you some legal help, but if it's BSD or an unkown licence you're probably sol.
I've seen BSD violations myself, then I looked around for the BSD community in my country to tell them about it, but no signal of such community.
As I didn't care very much about the violator (it was non-profit) or the original author (not a friendly guy in the first place), I let that untouched.
Come on, you (BSD developers) want your name publicized (no matter what else is done with the code). How much community motivation (outside of the BSD developers field) has that cause?
No, it isn't a downside at all, because they're not following the BSD licence terms. If they were, they *wouldn't* be able to "grab your work and act as if they spent 3 months programming". The only reason you're "losing out" is because the other party hasn't followed the rules - it's got nothing to do with the licence itself (assuming you knew the implications of released something under it in the first place).
*Exactly* the same thing could happen with GPLed code (and has - Linksys).
I don't see too many people saying that Microsoft's EULA is unenforceable, because it clearly is.
I don't know how often you've been reading slashdot but I see a lot of people complaining if EULA is enforceable because it's at least a strange contract: you pay for a product, take it to your home or whatever, and after that you agree with a contract.
Their argument is: when you buy a copy and take it out of the store, our relation with the owner is over.
He agreed to sell you that copy and you got the product. No contracts signed, no contracts to be reclaimed, it's now your copy and you can do whatever you want with it (under the general law of course).
Actually, I think you are trolling. Most licenses have not been "tested" in a court of law, and they don't need to be "tested" to be perfectly good.
You're awfully quick to jump on the *trolling* bandwagon there. It's true that licenses don't always need to be tested to be fine. Most licenses are very similar to things the court has dealt with before and hence there is no need to 'test' them. Also, well worded licenses can be good. But that doesn't mean that having a license be 'tested' isn't better.
In fact, a license that has never been disputed is probably stronger than one that has been challenged in court.
Now THAT's some conclusion! Care to give some reason why that statement isn't just a shovelfull from the dung pile?
I don't see too many people saying that Microsoft's EULA is unenforceable, because it clearly is.
And here we see your ignorance. Shrink wrap EULA's are probably one of the most grey areas of the law. No, one's never been challenged yet, but none have been enforced yet either. And EULA's are broken A LOT. Many people think that EULA's are not valid at all.
This is about the WORST example to attempt to prove your point that you could have chosen! And here is proof that you picked a bad example
http://lwn.net/2000/features/ncm-dvd.php3
And the DeCSS guy won by the way. Twice.
The goal of the EULA is to give MS total control - so it's drafted to give the user as few rights as possible, making sure that grey areas will fall in MS's favour if a court case arises, and be completely unreadable to the layman. The EULA is so different to the GPL & BSD that they would share very little in terms of enforcement.
;-)
As for the lack of the GPL court case, read Eben Moglens (very good, short) essay Enforcing the GNU GPL.
Also remember that as of W32-XP, you're relationship with MS is not over once you leave the shop - you register either by phone or online when you install the system. The registration number you send to MS is a unique ID for your computer which is generated from a combination of various hardware serial numbers. Every time you use MS Windows Update, a list of all programs (by all vendors) that you have installed on your system is sent to MS. Two backdoor accounts have been found in MS IIS, both have "NSA" in the username. (and those are just the proven sneaky activities of MS software.) Your relationship with the shopkeeper is over - but your relationship with MS is just beginning
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The GPL imposes more restrictions and you could argue that the violations were more serious and caused actual damages.
How? If they fully complied with the license a GPL author would also not see one extra penny. The code that needs to be released is *public*, i.e. it's not attributed *to* the original author and hence it's fishy if it can even be considered some form of payment.
Also, another alternative might have been that they would not touch the GPL code at all, in which case GPL author also gets no extra penny.
It might be a little easier to prove damages with the GPL, but I think you're reaching.
Not exactly - the University counter-sued AT&T
because they violated the BSD licence in some
files they have taken from BSD to SYSV.
In the end, AT&T had to retain the original
licence, and agreed to licence a few of the
UNIX(R) files to BSD under a BSD-alike licence.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
1) Send them an email. (done?) ...Done
2) Send more emails, make phone calls. (done?)
3) Complain on Slashdot.
4) Send postal mail.
5) Litigate.
Here's some contact info from their whois.
Codease.com contact:
Gary, Zheng sales@invenmanager.com
200 Jalan Sultan
#20-03 Textile Centre
Sg, Sg 199018
SG
90467520
Invenmanager.com contact:
CAMSOLUTION
Sales, Sales sales@invenmanager.com
21B St Michaels Road
Singapore, Singapore
SG
65-63960575
I'm Frans Bouma and I wrote LLBLGen and I deliberately chose the BSD license because I don't care if someone could use the code for their own product and sell it or whatever. The core of this issue is indeed that they didn't follow the rules of the license I released the code under. This is what hurts: your work is not acknowledged.
.NET code, because MS wants you to use a different style, ala Java). So all kinds of weird prefixed names are preserved in the compiled version of CodeAse and which makes the CodeAse code easily comparable with the compiled version of LLBLGen 1.x and the sourcecode.
/. :)
What's annoying is that even when you release the code under a very non-strict license (BSD2 has 2 simple rules, 1 applies to the binary version of the work) people think they can even ignore that single, simple rule. This isn't the first time this happens with the code though, although this time it is so extremely obvious (.NET has nice decompilers so you can peek into the code very easily). It's so obvious because their code is non-hungarian coding style and my code in LLBLGen is written in hungarian coding style (which is uncommon in
I admit, with the GPL it wouldn't have been any different: people are still able to rip the code and use it as if it is theirs, however with the GPL you have one difference: if the license violation gets out when it is a GPL violation, there are more people who will know this because the FSF / GPL movement will make sure everybody knows it. But I'm glad someone mailed
The latest news is that there is no news: I haven't heard back from them, after they (him?) said it was acceptable to follow the BSD license after all and after I then replied that it would be ok if they added a Based on LLBLGen 1.x Copyright Solutions Design line to the about box.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
You really need to talk to the FSF, because they will have the resources and the knowledge to help you.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
It's about not obeying the license. I want my code being acknowledged as the code the application of CodeAse is build on, a very large portion of the code is mine, it is licensed under a simple license so all they have to do is follow indeed the line you quoted :)
:) I released the source so others could modify it to meet their requirements, and if they distributed it in binary form, the BSD license would ensure the binary form would show the copyright notice... (in an ideal world that is ;))
I chose this BSD variant because it was restrictive enough so people who would build a new tool based on it would have to produce the copyright but still would be able to sell it eventually.
If it was about money, I shouldn't have had it released as sourcecode in the first place, I think.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
It's BSD, Frans meant for it to be usable by others.
It's GPL but not assigned to the FSF, you'll never get any help.
I wager that open source developers, when combined under the banners of all open source licenses, become one of the largest special interest groups in the technological community.
As a SIG we wield considerable power; consider the power such groups hold in the United States Congress. Consider - would you want your name to villified online for stealing code when it is common to search the Internet for an applicant's name now? What about those companies that practice peer interviews prior to hiring?
Companies are likely to want to minimize their legal exposure as well. If your boss or shareholders know that someone has stolen code and that a controversy surrounds that code, there is a good chance the code thief will suffer from a lost job.
But these things can only happen if we act in concert; as a unified group that is capable of taking action and responsible for the actions it takes. Someone here posted that vigilante justice was the answer and in a way it is. The rule of governments are held only because the entire population does not rise up against them. Mob rule. In our situation we'll find little help for the common developer whose license has been violated... except from ourselves.
Slashdot, kuro5hin, Groklaw... these are three shining examples of what we can do as a community.
My reality check bounced.
If you don't want people to profit from your work, don't release it as BSD.
That's not the issue. The issue is they didn't follow the terms of his license, which has nothing to do with profit (the GPL's terms have nothing to with profit also for that matter).
If you are so vain that you are willing to spend thousands of dollars to sue to have your name placed on something, have fun.
He wrote it in the first place, so why shouldn't he deserve some recognition?
CodeAse has updated the tool so it now shows the correct copyright in the about box and in the documentation. :)
Thanks for all the support!
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.