Slashdot Mirror
Injunction to Enforce GPL
Harald Welte writes "The netfilter/iptables project has just been granted a preliminary injunction against a GPL infringing WLAN AP Vendor. The project is trying to fight against the increasing number of products sold in violation of the GPL. Following a number of out-of-court settlements, this is the first case where a company refused to sign a letter to cease and desist. So we took the logical next step and applied for a preliminary injunction. The court reviewed the case and confirmed that Sitecom is in fact in violation of the GPL license terms."
Well, this certainly has the potential to become a really big deal for tHe FOSS community, one way or the other.
For the legally inclined, there's another discussion about this going on over at Groklaw.
Um...I wish that were true, but this injunction was brought in Munich, which has very little impact on cases currently pending in the United States.
;)
SCO has behaved very differently in Germany, from what I've read--and apparently for good reason.
where sco already has been made a bitch by the courts. it's not in the US, which i think is where people want something like this to happen
vodka, straight up, thank you!
No. Wrong country. German cases don't serve as precedents for American ones.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
The GPL is something that GIVES you rights. The GPL is a license to copy and use software that's copyrighted. If the GPL is invalid, you're in violation of copyright law.
AccountKiller
And? What part of the difference between "spend a year in jail" and "give us the source code and maybe pay some fine" you have problems understanding?
Paul B.
I doubt that this case will cause repercussions against the MS campaign against the GPL as "viral." On the contrary, I suspect this will be misused by MS to further its attack on the GPL as "viral." The simplistic MS argument will me, "See, this company used GPL software, and all it got in return it was to be sued and hit with a preliminary injunction!"
According to the press release:
(emphasis added) I'm not sure companies and PHBs who (superficially) read about this case (and particularly how it is spun) will be confident that "there is no legal risk of using GPL licensed
software in commercial products." Indeed, to be honest, there is of course a risk if one uses GPL licensed software without complying with the license. We need and want there to be such a risk. However, it is a point that may get lost in the spinning and propaganda.
The fact that Mr. Welte felt it was necessary to address the issue speak volumes.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
If by "we", you mean "Linux users and developers", then you are certainly correct. Do you think that IBM contributes heavily to Linux because they get warm fuzzies from it, or because they're acting in their best interest to build a solid infrastructure that they can package for their clients?
Much Linux development has been driven by individuals "scratching an itch". Another huge portion has been driven by for-profit entities who want to use it to make more money. In that sense, you're right. Capitalism has definitely helped Linux to rise to its current position.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Actually there is no evidence at all, that within a capitalistic state that there is a more efficient development model for the long term then this. Emphasis long term.
To explain a bit, open development work, like you can see in open source has been the standard for improving our technical abilities for centuries now. Think science and engineering, and this has shown up till now always to be the most effective way. Thus what all these companies are doing with there closed development models is kind of like a big experiment. Personally they can go try what they like, but they shouldn't complain if they lose out against other more commonly used methods then, they took the risk afterall.
Quickshot
I just went to their site, and under the support link for the infringing product, they had this under the downloads section:
WL-122 Wireless Broadband router 100g+
Firmware Source code GPL
Note that these downloads are completely unnecessary unless you plan to do programming to alter the code.
Did they just add this? or was there more to it than just having source available?
No, it is not a technicality. Without copyright laws, there is no GPL. Period, end of story. You oppose copyright, you oppose the entire basis of the GPL.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Knowing about GPL and actualy reading it is 2 different things.
/. them
site doing an overview of GPL
GPL license (not that i've read it)
Both google cache so we don't
No. Whereas EULAs impose restrictions on what you can and can't do with the code once you have it, the GPL places restrictions on what you are allowed to do if you decide to redistribute the code. The GPL states early on that you are not obliged to accept it since you haven't signed anything.
See this.
The GPL doesn't need tested, it's simple just copyright law . . .
Actually, the GPL does need to be tested if you want legal certainty that it is enforceable. The GPL is a license, not a copyright (that's what the "L" in GPL stands for). Licenses are contractual, and contracts are not merely enforceable on their own self-expressed authority. Contracts can be held unenforceable on a number of grounds -- lack of consent (i.e., you can't contractually bind a party that didn't actually enter the contract), lack of consideration (i.e., a contract requires that both sides give something up), violation of public policy (i.e., you can't enforce a contract that would require a party to commit an unlawful act), etc. Further, the GPL is an unusual license (in fact a unique license), so existing legal precedents do not provide a lot of predictive value. The fact that the GPL has not yet been fully adjudicated and found to be enforceable has been the source of considerable controversy.
It seems that they do make the source code available on their website (www.sitecom.com).
When you choose "products => wireless networks => wl-122 => drivers" you can download the source code of the firmware.
So maybe they are complying now?
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
Because you dont normally go to jail for *civil* offenses, its kindof hard. Inviting the RIAA to sue you generally doesnt get the emotional response of having the government jail you over something trivial.
So casual civil disobedience is still the best method.
The GPL is a LICENSE and is not copyright, copyright != license
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Just what exactly gives you the right to use the software?
Lawful posession.
Like if you lawfully buy a pack of gum -- or are given one for free -- you can use it. There's nothing magical about creative works.
It's the same thing. Just like how the owner of a book (as opposed to the holder of the copyright pertaining to the work embodied within the book) has the right to read it by virtue of his ownership of it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You're being far to quick to dismiss a major point here. The "draconian and evil" parts of EULAs tend to be the bits that attempt to remove one's rights. Compare this to the GPL which leaves all rights intact and, in fact, provides you with additional rights as long as you adhere to certain obligations.
Furthermore, the GPL is not an EULA. Even if some Windows install scripts / apps treat it as one. Take a look at the GPL again - it only comes in to play once you begin to distribute GPL code or derivitives (to include binaries). Compare this to the average EULA which requires agreement before you even get to use the application in question.
Striking down the GPL would have little to do with EULAs specifically. But it could wreck havok with licensing in general. Compared to that, a EULA is minor.
If you legally download the source code to that GPL program (and by the terms of the GPL, the organization that provided you with the program must also provide you with the source code) then you can use that source code. You can read it. Print it out. Edit the source code and recompile. Intermix that GPL code with other code you have the rights to, compile, and use.
What you cannot do is redistribute any modification of that original GPL program without also distributing the source code including all of your modifications. This is the case because the GPL is a LICENSE that grants you permission to redistribute. This is a right you would not ordinarily have for any copyrighted work that you legally own. For example, just because you purchased a book legally does not mean you can make up galley proofs of that book, print them, bind them, and start selling them on a street corner. In fact, you cannot, because you do not own the copyright.
Similarly, you do not own the copyright of that GPL program that you downloaded (and its attendant source code). However, in the case of the GPL you have a license (the GPL) that allows you to redistribute the program (and even charge for it) as long as you distribute the corresponding source code with modifications. That is the quid pro quo: the GPL has granted you rights you did not have under copyright, and in return has asked you to make your contributions available.
If you want to redistribute (exercise rights granted by the GPL) without making contributions available (satisfying the terms of the GPL) then you are not in compliance and you will be slapped.
Just ask Sitecom.
-renard
That means that "BSD gives you more rights over original copyright than GPL". GPL has no taken away anything that you had under plain old copyright.
>> That's because the German legal system has the will to stand up to SCO.
> And the US doesn't? How so?
Germany put a gag order on SCO, prohibiting them from spouting massively unsubstantiated statements about their IP rights until they're proven in court.
The US has done no such thing, and doesn't really have any legal basis for doing so... corporations have free speech rights here.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
As in this case, for example, dealing with hidden collusion between prosecution and defendents in order to set a precedent while allowing a lesser penalty.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
I hate to say it, but you're completely wrong. Copyright licenses are emphatically not contracts. They do not require consent or consideration and are completely unilateral. (You still can't grant people the right to do something that is otherwise illegal, e.g. I can't grant you the right to make a copy of my novel and then stipulate that if you make a copy, you must find the President and beat him with it.)
Let's say I write a novel. Under U.S. law I automatically have copyright on it. If you buy a copy of my novel, you then have the usual rights afforded by copyright law. You can read it, tear it up, throw it away, paint it blue, sell it to someone, etc. I can't revoke any of those rights, but I can grant you additional ones, and I can do so on a case-by-case basis. If I felt like it, I could grant you the right to make three copies and share them with your friends. You could not refuse this right (although you could simply choose not to exercise it), I don't need anyone's permission to grant it to you (or to stipulate that if you take advantage of that right, you must do something else as well). And I also don't need to give you anything in exchange. But I could also stipulate that if you make more than three copies, then your right to share those copies is revoked.
As long as the stipulations don't require you to do anything illegal, they're perfectly valid. I don't have any obligations if I grant you this right; I can grant or revoke the right at will. That is a power reserved to me by copyright law.
The GPL is not a contract. It says nothing about using the work; all it says is that if you redistribute copies of the work, you must provide the source code. Without the GPL (i.e. under default copyright law), you wouldn't have any right to distribute the work at all. The GPL says, "You can distribute the work, but only if you adhere to these rules" (all of which are legal). Remember, on its own, copyright only affects your ability to copy and distribute copies (modified, derivative, or otherwise) of a work. It has nothing to do with what else you can do with the work once you have it in your legal possession.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
To put it more simply, the only way someone could distribute software in violation of GPL and have it hold up in court is to get the court to both agree that:
1. GPL is a valid licence, and
2. all those terms in the GPL do not apply to you
The worst thing for you to do is prove that GPL is not a valid license because then our only option is copyright law. With GPL held up as a valid license, you still have the alternative of having a set of steps you must follow to be allowed to legally distribute your modifications.
This hasn't gone to a trial, and it doesn't look like it will. Sitecom almost immediately added a download that appears to bring them into compliance with the GPL to their Drivers and Manuals Page. Of course we'll have to wait for the copyright holders to look it over and decide whether it's legit or not before we can be certain...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Actually, the "copyright" of continental Europe is totally different from the one common in Great Britain and the USA. In Europe, there is no such thing as "copyright": it's "author right", which means that the author has an exclusive, non-transferrable right to decide how his work is being used, e.g. by giving out usage permissions or licenses, whereas the US-american copyright is transferrable.
/. readers know, the ideas of the continental European idea of author right is in total opposition of the idea of US-american law. That can be especially seen in things like the DMCA, where fair-use is being prohibited by simply forbidding the user to make copies even for fair-use.
Another fundamental difference is that the idea of "copyright" is directly from the owners of the first printing presses: they had the first printing presses, thus they had all the power about what is being printed and what not. Then, in the 17th century, European philosophers reconsidered this totally unfair relation between the author, the copier and the user, and decided to transfer a fair share right of rights to each of the 3 parties: first, the author gets the exclusive right about his work as soon as it is created, second, the user gets a fair-use right that he is allowed to use it the way he wants, including the permission to create a limited number of copies for personal use, and that also includes usage of these copies through family members, friends, etc.
And as most
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
It's hard to tell where an idea originally came from.
Claus
Currently SCO is in court, and from all appearances they are going to get reamed by the government on this one.
The government is not the ones who have SCO in court. In the Microsoft reference it was the DOJ who took them to court.
Your point make no sense.
Bzzzt, nope.
This contains manuals, and DRIVERS.
No source there...
David