Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL Violators On The Prowl

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the neither-rain-nor-snow-nor-hail-nor-packetstorm dept.

ravenII writes "GPL Violations.org are looking after the GPL. Warning letters were personally handed over to companies at their CeBIT booths by Mr. Harald Welte, free software developer and founder of the gpl-violations.org project. It seems big boys like Motorola, Acer, AOpen, Micronet, Buffalo and Trendware seem to violate GPL. Please visit the site for more information on GPL enforcements and violators."

10 of 636 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ooohhh.. Leters! by tabkey12 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, actually if you looked at their site you would find that they have already had considerable success against companies such as Asus & Sitecom

    Remember kids, read before you post!

    --
    Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
  2. Seems to be working though. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA:

    Since more than one year, the gpl-violations.org project tries to bring vendors who use GPL licensed software in their products into license compliance. To achieve this goal, it uses a number of measures, ranging from warning letters over public documentation of GPL violations, up to legal proceedings. In this year, the project managed to conclude more than 25 amicable agreements, two preliminary injunctions and one court order.

    Sounds like some folks are paying attention to this guy.

  3. Mirror link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since it looks like GPL violator's website is down, here's a mirror:
    http://mirrordot.org/stories/c00f3d2fd6588c34ae25f f3409b0475e/index.html

  4. Re:No teeth by why-lurk · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, you would see that Harald Welte is a developer and copyright holder of netfilter, which is used in a number of commercial firewall products. He also has license to prosecute the copyrights of some other developers.

    So yes, he has standing to both warn and sue the companies he has given notice to (as well as the companies that have settled with gpl-violations.org).

    --kirby

  5. Re:Ooohhh.. Leters! by tabkey12 · · Score: 3, Informative

    BTW, Site is down: So to read the article, check out MirrorDot

    --
    Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
  6. Re:How can you enforce a non-contract? by mikeplokta · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the violator doesn't accept the GPL, nothing else gives them the right to use the code -- it's not public domain, it's licensed under a specific license. It's not a matter of contract law, it's copyright law, and no contract is required, any more than New Line Cinema needs to have a contract with you to stop you from selling a remixed version of The Fellowship Of The Ring.

  7. RTFA by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know this *is* slashdot and all, but according to the article, the group last year reached 25 amicable conclusions, 2 preliminary injunctions, and 1 court order. That would lead most *readers* of the article to conclude that in fact they do take people to court. That is the usual way that you get injunctions and court orders.

    Often companies start with warning letters too.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  8. Copyright does not need a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I were to sell copies of Star Trek DVDs that I made myself, Paramount would be all over me for violating their copyright. I have no contract with Paramount. That's the point - I have NO right to sell someone else's copyrighted material without permission. You must have permission to distribute ('publish') someone else's copyrighted material.

    That permission could be given by a contract. Or it could be given by a license, such as the GPL. When the author places his work under the GPL, he grants permission to copy to those who adhere to the terms of the GPL. If someone doesn't follow the terms, then they DON'T have permission to distribute the copyrighted materials. It's a simple case of copyright infringement.

    The GPL is far simpler than the usual EULA. The GPL makes no restriction on use, but most EULAs do. Most EULAs prohibit copying, but the GPL encourages it. The GPL is a license granting you permissions that you wouldn't otherwise have under copyright law. You don't have to accept the GPL, you just fall back on standard copyright law if you don't. No contract is needed.

  9. Re:Free != Freedom by SirTalon42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "If you create /new/ code, but it depends on a GPL item, then you can release your code under whatever license you see fit - open or closed source."

    Thats true /only/ under the LGPL. Only GPL code can link against GPL code. Anything can link against LGPL code, look at WineX (Cedega) and Wine, originally Wine was under the LGPL and WineX added extra closed code to it but then Wine changed their license to GPL and WineX had to fork.

  10. Re:How can you enforce a non-contract? by spitzak · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can't write such a license, as that would be a contract, because it specifies restrictions that are not required by copyright law.

    However you can write a GPL-like license that says "you must chew green gum while *redistributing* this software". Normally redistributing the code would violate copyright laws. However you have now stated that they may violate the copyright, *if* they chew green gum. But you have not said anything about redistributing it without chewing green gum, thus that is illegal because it is still a copyright violation.

    However if they just write software using your code they are not violating copyright law. Unless you get them to sign a contract saying they will chew the green gum (in which case they are violating contract law), you have no power over them.