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."
So much for SCO saying the GPL has no weight in court :-)
A preliminary injunction does not set a precidence the way a trial and decision by the court would. However, it does bode well because it says the court (or at least the judge) felt the plaintif's case had merit.
Cheers
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that even if the GPL gets struck down somehow, that would likely mean that everything draconian and evil about EULAs would get struck down too. Although I suppose there is a difference, namely that the GPL is really granting you the right to copy stuff, where EULAs are generally removing stuff. Hmm, maybe that means we can keep the power of the GPL and lose the power of EULAs... Sound good to anyone else?
Slashdot:
"The MPAA is evil for sending pirates to jail! Their attempts to go after copyright infringement is 'abusive' and just like the 'War on Drugs.' The RIAA is 'greedy' for legally pursuing people who are violating their copyright."
Two articles later...
"Here's another article about evil companies violating the copyright of the GPL. We must enforce the GPL and punish those who infringe its copyright. GPL violaters are evil, and the copyright of the GPL must be respected."
Answer: Is your work a derivative of the GPLed code or not? Derivative works must also be GPLed. I'm inclined to think that the situation you describe would be a pretty clear example of a derivative work.
See what I've been reading.
I understand why the GPL needs to be used now, so Microsoft can't just take all our innovation, repackage it and sell it with advertising.
Sure, why not? They'd just have to distribute the source code as well.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
and probably wouldn't hurt to be said again: The GPL is a DISTRIBUTION license, not a "usage" license. You are free to do whatever you want, just when you redistribute the binaries must you then also provide the source. There.
By contrast, this appears to be a reasonable civil action, taken only after attempts at negotiation have failed.
You're trolling, but I want to point out the difference between the two copyright violations.
It's already legal for them to download and use the linux kernel and netfilter code as much as they want. They can modify it and never tell a soul.
What they're doing, however, is trying to resell the modified code in binary form without giving back the changes. That's like making copies of CDs and selling them for $2. I don't think that the majority of the slashdot users (or the editors whoever the hell it is you're characterizing here) would support that practice.
Hands in my pocket
1. The GPL is not a part of any war against Microsoft; it is one of tools which maintains the Free Software Club.
2. Microsoft can stay for as long as they like, as long as the Free Software Club gets to stay too. On the other hand the members of the Free Software Club won't shed tears if Microsoft passes.
3. Free Software is not anti-capitalist.
4. Capitalism has not got us where we are. Lots of things, including the influence of capitalism, have got us where we are.
5. Microsoft is not a danger. Rather, proprietary software is distateful.
6. Pooling of labour is not ineffient. Capitalism depends on it; have you heard of "companies"?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
going after someone who infringes on GPL IP is ok, but going after people who download music and movies is not ok.
You're making a spurious comparison. The former violation involves a corporation using the copyrighted material to sell a product and earn profits, while implicitly (or explicitly, in the case of SCO) claiming the copyrighted material as their own. The latter involves individuals making unauthorized copies for personal use, or at worst making those unauthorized copies available to others for free.
The former is much more blatant than the latter. They should be considered separate crimes, with seperate sentences and/or penalties.
This space left intentionally blank.
Let me share something about most country's copyright laws with you folks, since many seem to be mistaken.
1. I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may use it under any circumstances without my express permission.
2. I decided to grant that permission by taking the text of the GPL and distributing my code under that license. But from the standpoint of the law, there is no such thing as "the" GPL. My code simply has a license that grants rights and places restrictions. That others choose to also use this or similar wording is of no consequence.
3. If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person using the code is now a copyright violator! They are using MY code without MY permission.
Insofar as the GPL is unenforceable, all EULAs are unenforceable (because that's all the GPL is: a software license like any other). In such a case, all rights would most likely revert to the original creators. In situations where multiple people had a hand in creating something, things get trickier as do derivative works situations. But I think you get the point.
The truth of the matter is that the GPL will never be declared unenforceable; A creator has the right to license his or her works in any way he or she pleases, unless such a method is expressly forbidden in copyright law.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Actually the GPL does not govern use at all. It is assumed that you obtained the copy legally. If you didn't, it is the fault of the distributor who made the illegal copy, not the person using it.
Contrary to what many commercial software vendors would have you think, a copyright only restricts the ability to make copies, not use them.
That's also why you do not need to accept the terms of the GPL to use any GPLed software.
After reading the posting, I have to ask that question. Propretary commercial licenses assume you must (and will) follow the outlines of the license. Why do some commercial entities assume that the GPL is invalid? Why does it have to be tested in court? I've said this before... an EULA you don't agree with is still an EULA, and you should agree (and follow) the guidelines. You don't see other popular licenses being "tested in court". Everyone just assumes they stick... so it's about time for people to take the GPL seriously and realize, it too, sticks.
FLR
My fear isn't that it will be struck down, my fear is that some judge will say that's no damages for violating GPL. Often only monetary damages are considered and a judge might say there's no lost profit, so no damages.
Is this likely? I have no idea. At least one judge here believed that damage was happening, so I feel better now.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Recall that they must include ALL of the source code, including any new portions of code that they have added, and not just what they originally borrowed from the GPL licensed code. I have not looked through the code, but it would be interesting to see if they are in fact releasing ALL of the code. They might just be releasing part of the source and hoping that either nobody will be willing or nobody will be able to figure out that something is missing.
Actually, I rather liked being able to say to people, "The GPL has never been tested in court because nobody has ever dared. They know they will lose, because the terms of the GPL are so clearly defined, and since they grant additional rights on top of existing copyright law, disobeying the terms of the license means all you're granted is what copyright law grants you."
It's terribly simple, and the fact that nobody wants to test the GPL in court makes it seem even more bullet-proof. Of course, I'm happy that now case law will begin to set precidence for the GPL, but I kinda liked being able to say "people are afraid to test the GPL in court." :)
Jason.
That's why every company hit with a C&D letter in the USA (There've been a few of those) has moved into compliance. Deciding to open your own code base gives you a lot more flexibility than having some judge TELL you what to open.
And since the GPL is more permissive than any other EULA, any software company that tried to get the GPL invalidated in court would really be cutting their own throats too. That'd most likely invalidate their EULAs too.
Oh, but I'm not a lawyer. I've just seen every episode of "Ally MacBeal." Twice.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Of course the arrogance of this vendor probably stemmed from those who were saying the GPL has never been proven in court. Proof, once again, that you should never get legal advice from someone who is not your lawyer. Even if it's from a lawyer who was quoted in a paper, it's still not legal advice. However, I've always felt that 'never proven in court' would make pretty shoddy legal advice. It's basically a way to avoid the question being asked. I doubt a judge would think you were acting in good faith if you took legal 'advice' like that to mean you can violate the licence with impunity. Then again, IANAL either.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
And, firewood, you are absolutely correct.
GNU GPL states exactely that -- that NOTHING has compelled you to agree with the GPL.
If you didn't, then you are allowed to use the software.
But, and the GPL is clear on this point, NOTHING else gives you permission to redistribute.
Certainly Copyright restricts you. The GPL specifically allows this, under some conditions. Since you don't have this right, the GPL grants it to you.
No, you don't have to agree to the GPL. No, you don't have to even READ the GPL. But, if you don't, your rights are governed by the prevailing law (in this caase, Copyright). You don't have that, and the punishment can be quite severe.
What is the "value" associated with an infringement? Depends. If it is a product like a security router, and DEPENDS on the GPL software... could be as high as MULTIPLES of all profit.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
German corporations enjoy free speech in Germany as well -- this is not the issue. The German legal system just doesn't believe in waiting years before addressing what is an obvious wrong. Contrast this with the judge in the SCO case who decided to let SCO keep spitting out their FUD until the IBM case is solved, thereby giving SCO a free hand to continue to damage RedHat's reputation for what could be just about forever. German courts happen to think that if you want to say bad things about the way other people do business, you should be able to prove it right away, not five years later. This is sort of along the lines that free speech does not cover me calling up your boss and telling him that you, say, have intercourse with sheep.
The simple fact is that Germany's legal system is superior in this respect, as in quite a number of others. Or to put it the other way around: The American legal system is hopelessly stuck in the 18th century, and even though Germany is not in the 21st century where everybody should be, it is at least in the 20th century.
Sometimes, 200 years and a bit of common sense can make all the difference.