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."
a precedent is being set and hopefully can be used by the masses here soon.
So much for SCO saying the GPL has no weight in court :-)
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.
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!
Scenario: I write program which builds on GPLed code. But I choose to distribute my program as a binary patch. The end user needs to get the GPLed code/binary from somewhere else, then he applies the binary patch and gets my functionality. Is my code bounded by GPL or not? I would claim that it does not, but feel free to cntradict me and make me understand more about GPL.
I'm curious, is this the first time a court has acted to enforce the GPL as legally binding?
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
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?
This is great news. Hopefully it will scare more companies into compliance. I'm sure that there are a lot of companies using code from open source projects in their products, and I bet that there are more than a few in violation of the GPL.
What I still don't undestand is why some true geek doesn't purposedly inflinges the GPL, is sent to court and hires the lousiest lawyer he can find. Repeat a hunded times (since the lawyer is so bad you can have them cheaply).
Now you have a greatly tested in court Licence!
Why some rich dotcommer doesn't does this a contribution to the community?
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
I've never understood how/why the GPL would be "struck down" in court; a concern that seems to appear quite frequently. If I want to release my code under a license that says you must do 50 jumping jacks before you can modify/compile/install/distribute it, why can't I? And why wouldn't I be able to enforce it if someone violated that (as absurd as that may seem)?
Who doesn't like free music?
It's perfectly possible for people to think that the RIAA is abusive while still respecting copyright without being hypocritical. If you weren't far more interested in waving a Slashthink flag than actually reading and analyzing posts you'd realize that. You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.
As someone who is considering writing software under the GPL I hope to see it upheld in court around the world.
/. readers, please hope with me that the GPL wins out it Germany and around the globe.
Also while this case is in Germany and the US often does its own thing, there is something to be said about how the world can influence the US. The US and its citizens like to think they are the ones calling the shots, but the simple fact is that America is influenced by trends around the globe.
So
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? 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.
"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.
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)
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
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?
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.
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'.
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)
http://www.sitecom.com/driversmanuals.php?grp_id=6 &prod_id=237&search=1
It's not clear if this is the original unmodified code, or if it truely corresponds to what they are shipping. It's also not apparant when this was added to their site... maybe have been in response to the injunction.
If anyone from sitecom is reading this, your website's fancy navigation system makes it almost impossible to copy-n-paste a URL to refer someone to a specific page on your site. Also, the search does not work in Mozilla/linux with the Sun JRE. Why not just use standard links and entry boxes?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I'm a bit surprised that Harald dodged the question in the article...
Nice, and it's always good to remind the media that there's no restriction on selling open source in this manner. But.... That wasn't the question. Why now, brown cow? Why is there a sudden enforcement flurry now?
This is exactly the sort of non-answer that raises my hackles when listening to politicians. It especially bothers me when it's "one of us," a member of the open source community. I can't imagine why Welte would be dodging the question, so I can only assume he's very worried about giving the wrong impression.
--Somebody infect me with a
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
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.
it always amuses me that that argument of financial sense only applies to alternate energy devices. Just about very single other consumer product out there doesn't have that distinction. You get it primarily because it's valuable to you, you think it's a good idea, you want to lead by example, you want to do your part to get the show on the road.. Do we add to the nations energy supply by getting new bass boats, 35 inch plasma tv's, new gaming consoles, that marvelous new living room furniture? does it make "financial sense" to get a new TV when you already got one that works? No one ever questions that, they just do it, don't they? What is the energy "payback" time for that 35 inch TV? Oh ya, that's right, never That kind of stuff just costs "energy".
Everyone is in serious arrears if all their purchases were forced to have a "payback" in terms of dollars.
Following the same line of reasoning, no one should "invest" in the linux desktop,because it's not already well established in 99.995 of the dwesktops out there. No one should have ever bought a personal computer, because they weren't "cost effective" and not "there" yet back in the day. Let "the other guy" do it, this "them" or the equally dubious "the business people" or "the government". Ya, lets let "them" do it,while we all sit back and wait, and keep doing nothing other than being consumers and complaining about it.
I'm pretty poor, as in wicked poor, offical US sub poverty level. I still managed to put my money where my mouth is with computers and with alternate eneergy, because in the long run we NEED to. Both. Simple as that.
As to cost effective, granted, PV is not as cheap as coal, but it works, it's scalable starting at any reasonable budget (say one grand for a nice starter system, less than a gaming machine for sure)), and it's here now, not some pie in the sky future time. Wind chargers in particular are highly favorable with coal now, almost a dead even split there. The past two years running, planet-wide more wind-watts have gone online than nat gas derived watts, primarily in europe and the rest of the world, although they are catching on fast in the US now.
Me, I don't wait for this "they" guy to do what I can do NOW. I DON'T have access to some magic back yard fusion reactor, but I DO have some solar and a wind genny. As to ethanol, nothing stopping you, do it yourself, all kinza people have done it, I made some legal back in the 70s, you need some forms and add a chemical to it via the BATF to do it *legally* , as it's booze and they regulate it. Suit yourself on that picky detail, IANAL. Easy as snot to make ethanol, I ran a chainsaw and two motorcycles off of what I made way back then. I built a methane digester before,too, again, small scale, junk parts, easy, made burnable gas. Took me a little under 1/2 hour to build one.
Financing. I can tell you how a lot of people are getting FREE (more or less) alternative energy. Say you got like x-thousands of dollars to build a new home. Call it 100 grand just for conversational purposes. Now, what you do is look for land that is still cool to put it on but like one mile from the nearest telephone pole. You'll get a wicked deal on the land, probably save a coupla thousand an acre just because it's one mile extra away from the "grid tied"- place. The money you save on the land cost for the home you put directly into alternative energy from day one, and a ton of lenders out there will gladly let you tie it in to your 20 year mortgage if you want to go that way, some bioggess, too, like GMAC. You get the same exact home, just now you got a real nice alternate energy system, and more land than what you could have gotten for the same money just a mile away. That's one idea, there's more.
That's one way. On another thread the other day(low head hydro article) some guy chimed in his friend makes an additional 600$ a month selling extra juice back to the grid from his small wind genny efforts. So not only is it affordable, you can profit from it.