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 :-)
"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."
While you have a good point, you need to bear in mind that the two cases are not exactly identical.
The RIAA/MPAA are considered unreasonable because their reactions are percieved as disproportionate. Illegally uploading one music file to the internet does *not* cause hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage, but that's what the RIAA will sue you for. Also, none of the people the RIAA/MPAA are suing are infringing copyright for commercial gain, unlike in this case.
While unauthorised file sharing is a crime, comparing it to stealing GPL'd code is a bit like claiming that stealing cookies should get the same punishment as rape or murder. Yes, I know that happens in parts of the USA, and rest assured, the rest of the world doesn't know whether to laugh or cry...
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.
The difference between the two and why, in my opinion, there is this dicotemy is that the MPAA article is about sending someone to jail, where the GPL article is about forcing a company to comply with the copyright.
Personally, the person caught recording the movie should be, at a minimum, subject to a fine, maybe jail if it wasn't a first offense. The real problem I have is that big business has made it so a single person (that is not making a profit, and that is a big part of my opinion) can be prosecuted and sent to jail. While a corporation (that is making a profit) is only subjected to potential fines from a civil trial. If one person can go to jail for copyright violations (I don't think that is a just punishment) then the leader(s) of a company violating copyright sould also be sent to jail.
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
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
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.