Exploitation of Open Source VoIP

n8twj writes " With John 'Maddog' Hall pointing out that Open Source VoIP will be bigger than Linux ever has been. How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own? Recently, I have become aware that SysMaster has been redistrbuting a version of the Asterisk PBX written by Mark Spencer from Digium and many others. SysMaster claims that they wrote everything in-house, while they have surely done their own development, they are using Asterisk to power their product line without following the rules. In terms of full disclosure, my company also provides Asterisk-based solutions, however we have fully embraced Asterisk and gladly contribute back to the GPL."

Comments

Motive

[oniony]

Is this a serious question or an attempt to discredit a competitor?

Re:Motive

[JPriest]

Exactly, and where is the rule that says SysMaster must state on the front page thy use Asterisk PBX? Did you buy a product from SysMaster and have them refuse to distribute modified Asterisk source to you? If no then they didn't violate shit.

its simple

[Anonymous Coward]

When the company starts to gain financially at the expense of a competitor it will be sued by the competitor for breaching the GPL. The competitor will get backing in this from open source organizations.

It is a little absurd for us to all think that open sources licenses won't get abused to some extent. But, for every quality open source based product that tries to "rip off" the developers (if that can be considered possible in open source) there will be several following the rules who will be glad to keep them in check and sue them into oblivion.

Re:its simple

[mpe]

When the company starts to gain financially at the expense of a competitor it will be sued by the competitor for breaching the GPL

No the competitor has no standing to sue. Only the copyright holder can sue the infringing party.

ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be modded down, but .... When someone could potentially violate the GPL, they call for their head, but will vehnemently defend their right to download movies via p2p networks.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[mcc]

So it looks to me like "the /. crowd" has a general lack of moral outrage over people sharing copyrighted material for free without the person being shared with buying a license, but does have moral outrage over people taking copyrighted material, repackaging it, presenting it as their own work, and selling it to others for a profit in violation of license.

So... congratulations! You have demonstrated that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

Something analogous to gpl violations in the music world would be not file-sharing, but bootlegging-- people who bulk-fabricate copies of commercial CDs and then sell them-- a practice which I've yet to see anyone on slashdot defend.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[benjamindees]

The GPL promotes fair pricing and technological progress.

P2P piracy promotes fair pricing and technological progress.

Slashdot has a lot of cheap nerds.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the GPL is much more highly respected around this small planet than nearly all proprietary software licenses.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be why the Slashdot crowd was overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

I think you misread. The slashdot crowd was mostly against Bush, which is not the same as being for Kerry.

It's not clear how this relates to the discussion of slashdotters' attitudes about copyright violations, however.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[mcc]

I see absolutely no connection between your post and the one you are responding to. So you're trying to compare different two different ways in which a hypothetical shoplifter claims that an item they have just stolen was their legal property before they entered the store to the difference between possessing a copy of an intellectual property without purchasing a license and selling the intellectual property as another as your own? This analogy does not seem to connect at all.

Of course, I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft

That sounds like an excellent idea, since copyright infringement isn't the same as theft.

fundamentally moral positions don't need mental gymnastics to justify themselves. They tend to be self-evident.

As counterevidence to this strange statement I offer the last 7,000 years of human history, much of which concerns the side-effects of occasionally rather large divergences of opinion on what "fundamentally moral positions" should be.

But were this statement accurate, then wouldn't it follow that if something were a fundamentally moral position, it would be self-evident rather than requiring strained analogies?

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Zip In The Wire]

You are like my wife. She thinks one dollar bill is different from another, that money she earns at one place is different than money she earns at another.

Here is absolute proof that copyright violation isn't stealing in a legal sense, it's copyright violation. If it were stealing then the value of the items ($17 for a CD for example) would be the damages instead of $150,000 per violation.

If you give away someone else's copyrighted work for free when you don't have permission, you are hurting them just as much. The money you didn't pay them is your profit because now the money you would have spent on the item, you can spend on something else.

When you distribute such an item to many people, there are SOME potential sales lost. I'm only saying a small percentage of those people would have paid for the item but it still hurts the copyright holder the way the world is structured nowdays.

I happen to personally THINK that things have to change, and that free distribution must be accomodated but until it's proven that this doesn't hurt the copyright holder more than help him, you are hurting that person.

Things need to be restructured so that the original creator cannot sell away a certain percentage of the item. Right now it's the record companies who are becoming obsolete but they own most of this material outright. People justify copyright violation by telling themselves it's only the rich record companies they are hurting. If the artists had irrevocable percentages this justification would no longer be available.

Your idea of the world is very childish if you think that only cash has value.

Good Luck.

Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also a problem for other people, not just the original author, and they have a right to complain about unfair competition. If you and I produce a similar kind of widget or service, and you beat me in the market by breaking the rules, I should have and do have the right to take the issue to the media and to court.

I agree but...

[Noksagt]

it takes no time at all to contact the copyright holder in most cases. It is also better if they fight their own battles, especially in court. It would benefit both the copyright holder and you if you team up to handle the violation. You can share legal expenses, public relations duties, etc.

Re:lobby your government officials

[Otter]

In fact, I suggest that FSF and others lobby the government to have open source licenses registeres with an agency. Any software released under a registered license will have that license protected by the government. The simple establishment of the rules should scare most out of eploitation.

Yeah, I propose calling it "copyright" and setting up a US Copyright Office to enforce it.

Mob action not needed, return to normal trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Digium also sells non-GPL'd copies of the work in question, they have a strong economic incentive to force these guys to either pay up for their non-GPL license or go GPL.

Put out your torches, save them for another day.

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL

Easy - just keep backups. That way, if somebody steals your code, you still have it.

Oh... wait. Did you mean copyright infringement and not theft? When the RIAA and MPAA start talking about those nasty thieves, people are quick to point out that copyright infringement is not theft.

Double-standards stink. When somebody infringes upon the GPL, it's not theft, so don't exaggerate your grievance or accuse the other party of crimes they didn't commit. It just makes you look like a whiny liar and doesn't help your case.

USCO --does not enforce--.

[SuperBanana]

It is astounding given how much attention copyright gets here on slashdot that people still Don't Get It.

Yeah, I propose calling it "copyright" and setting up a US Copyright Office to enforce it.

The USCO does not enforce copyright. It registers copyrights.

There are no US Copyright Office boogeymen in black who run around arresting people either. If I steal your work, it is entirely your responsibility, in civil court (not criminal) to sue me and recover damages.

Further, copyrighting your code with the GPL license DOES NOT entitle you to expect the Free Software Foundation to go around suing people for you. They'll politely give you some suggestions on who to talk to and maybe a little basic advice, but that's it.

So many people don't get it- they whine about their code being stolen, but then don't do anything about it. As a result, corporations are fearless in violating the GPL license as has been proven again and again. The GPL license, as a result, is quickly becoming irrelevant.

When SCO claims Linus and others stole code, Linus and others need to sue them for liable(or slander, I forget). When Linksys fails to follow the GPL and steals code, the people who wrote the code need to immediately send them a cease and desist, and if they fail to comply, sue them to FORCE them to cease.

In this case, the Asterix developers need to pay a lawyer to file suit against the offending company, seek evidence by court order (if they are using GPL code, it'll be very easy to prove once you're in the door with a court search order), and if they find evidence, hammer them into the ground.

This is in bold because people need to wake up and get a clue. YOU NEED TO START BACKING UP THE GPL WITH LAWSUITS OR IT WILL BECOME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND UNENFORCEABLE.

Re:just curious

[TheRaven64]

There are three possibilities when using Open Source software (for the rest of this comment, assume I'm talking about BSD/MIT licensed code, where all three are permitted).

1. Just use it. Don't make any changes. This is very cheap and easy to do, but offers little capability for a company to differentiate its product from the competitors.
2. Use it, modify it, keep the modifications secret. This makes it very easy to differentiate your product. The disadvantage is that you are forced to maintain a fork. Any security fixes, new features etc. from the main trunk must be merged into your branch at your expense. Since you are not contributing your changes, it is possible (and quite likely) that at some point changes will be introduced that break some of your modifications. You will need to work out these problems in your own branch, which may be difficult (read: expensive).
3. Use it, modify it, give the modifications back. This is relatively cheap, since you do not need to maintain your own fork. On the other hand, it makes it harder for you to differentiate your product. By timing your code releases with your product launches, however, it is possible that you can keep a head start on competitors.

Sometimes, case 3 is not possible. Apple, for example, release all of their changes to GCC (as required by license) but do not always have them accepted back into the main trunk. Examples of this include support for Objective-C++ which has been present in the Apple tree for a while, but not in the GNU tree. Recent changes in the Apple tree have allowed the changes to be imported, so GCC 4.0 should support Objective-C++.

In general, option 3 is best if you are using an open source project that is not your core business - Apple lose no commercial advantage by allowing other people access to their compiler, and maintaining a complete fork of GCC would be far more expensive.

Option 2 may be better if it is your core business, since you can maintain a commercial advantage by not releasing code (or by releasing it late, when you have a new feature that distinguishes your code from the others).