Slashdot Mirror
Tracking GPL Violators
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week, open source developer Harald Welte made headlines when he personally served warning letters to 13 technology companies for alleged GPL violations. Now in a ZDNet interview, Welte explains the challenges behind tracking down these violators and how he persuades them to comply."
It isn't a duplicate in this case. It even references the article that you point out. This provides more information, it isn't the same.
The advertisement clause has been removed a looooong time ago, specially because everybody was more interested in the art of software design than the art of tracking possible violators.
bash$
I did a little snooping and found .-.-.-.
.-.-.
MorphOS Developer Connection Terms Of Use
1 Content copyright
Files and data you get access to within the MorphOS Developer Connection (MDC) may not be copied or spread in any way without prior written permission from Genesi Luxembourg S.à.r.l (Genesi). No part of this website may be copied. Forum entries may not be quoted or copied outside of this website unless you are the sole author of the entry you quote.
on the developers license for morhpos
So i would say if they are using GNU licensed code , like a GCC version for morphOS then they seem like a rather heavy violater
after doing some more reading i discoverd this
http://www.morphos.net/
morphos.net where many morphos developers are rather irate over lack of payment
Something odd going on in MorphOS land not doubt
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I think you should read the article.
If you can't be bothered here are some relevant points:
What gives you the legal right to pursue the GPL violations? Most of the violations we're seeing are happening in the embedded market. They are running the Linux kernel and I have copyright on parts of the Linux kernel. In the cases that went to court, it was me as an individual copyright holder [against the company in question].
Some people have criticised the GPL for being business-unfriendly, what do you think? I totally disagree.
And, for the BSD fans in this thread:
How do you think the GPL compares with other licenses? It's a philosophical question. The BSD licence allows you to integrate and modify without giving back modifications, while GPL expects you to give back modifications. These are two philosophies of how you develop software. Which you chose depends on the project, for example, if you have a new standard and want it to spread quickly, it's better to use the BSD licence, rather than the GPL.
You sir, seem to be more of a troll than he does (and quite possibly an insensitive clod too)
When in reality anyone can bypass that requirement simply by sticking the software in a library/DLL and late binding to it.
Not at all - you're mistaking it with the LGPL. GPL explicitly states that you *cannot* do this.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Ok :) There are two types of BSD license, one with the advertising clause and one without. The vast majority of BSD licensed code is under the no advertising clause license, because the advertising clause was rescinded by the Director of the Office of Technology Licensing of the University of California on July 22 1999.
All that the official BSD license requests you do these days is the following:
- Retain the copyright notice, disclaimer and list of conditions within the source code
- Include the copyright notice, disclaimer and list of conditions within the documentation if any.
- Not use the authors name, organisation name or names of contributors in any advertising without prior written permission
Note that clause 2 IS NOT the advertising clause, that origionally required you to include a certain statement within any advertising done for products which included the licensed code.FFTA:
Q: Why is it important to stop people from violating the GPL?
Welte: You can use all the code out there for free, but if you do modifications you have to give them back to the community -- it's a fairness thing. If we allowed violations to become common, the system would be out of equilibrium. This would result in fewer contributions and it would have a large negative impact on the motivation of developers.
Reflecting this argument back on the file-sharing issue does not work, incidentally. American (Pop) Idol proves, if nothing else, that there are a lot of people willing to do just about anything for a shot to record professionally. Artists make little from their album sales; they make shit-tons from touring. The lion's share of album sales goes to the record company, which then spends it on ads telling you you're depriving the artists when you download music.
The music industry is never going to collapse just because songs are traded online; they'll just turn the screws harder on the artists who get them paid. Disillusioning the small percentage of OSS advocates who actually code by allowing their ideology to be violated is an entirely different story.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Some of the command line tools from MS are based on BSD code. At least the FTP command (maybe others?) has the following string:
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California
Actually it was the Windows 95 IP stack if memory serves me correctly...
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Why is the parent marked as insightful when his first point is a blatant lie?
Despite his claims to the contrary, there is NOTHING in teh BSD license to stop hiom from relicensing his code and selling it commercially.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Free Speech != Free Beer. Or do you think redhat are GPL violators because they sell their distro?
You can charge anything you like for GPL software - sveasoft are in compliance with the GPL. Their source code is downloadable from their website for their customers (who are then theoretically free to pass it on).
In theory, you are correct. In practice, your point is meaningless. Nobody would pay, because the BSD license already gives everything a commercial developer would want. Nobody pays for what they already have.
It is costing ~$16K to litigate each case, but the loser pays. And Welte is pretty confident.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
The major flaw in the BSD liscences is that it does not protect the code from proprietary and commercial intrest such as Microsoft, who want to take the code, create proprietary version of it, and sell that code when they have no right too.
You seem to be making the assumption that the BSD license should be more like the GPL, when it fact it was designed to be its own unique thing and done rather well for itself and code released under it. Nothing about the BSD license says that a company cannot take BSD licensed code and use it however they want, including in a proprietary, commercial product. Part of the intent of the BSD license was to let persons/groups/etc do just that!
You also go with the "nyeh, we need protection for those who do not want or ask for it". If someone wanted to restrict the ability of a company to release their code, they would release it under a license
The GPL is a "Share and enjoy" style of license and persons who release code under it know what they are doing (or shouldn't be releasing code) while BSD is simply a "give credit where credit is due" style of license.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Is there a e-mail address where we can anonymously send information on suspected violations??
Gorkman
Cadence OrCAD uses pspice, a derivative work of Spice. Because because wasn't licensed under a free software license (it was BSD), they have no obligation to support the community.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It's right in the GPL FAQ
If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until his release before doing so.
If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
"Robin [H]ood" was seen as, and it always portrayed as, a hero in stories including him. Why is the modern 'Robin Hood' suddenly the villain?
Because we're not talking about the same thing. If fact, if you look at the hostorical (well, obviously fictional) Robin Hood, and step back for a moment: what was he an outlaw from? He was cast outside a brutal, feudal system run by parasitic thugs that used violence to make slaves of the local peasants. "Stealing" the product of those peasants, from whom it was stolen, not purchased, is a lot different than stealing movies and music and given it teenagers too lazy to mow lawns so they can afford to pay for their own witless entertainment.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Several points here.
First, the community is free to take and modify our software under the GPL.
Second, we accept patches and changes to the software but under condition that the copyright is transferred to us. If the authors do not want to do this, that's fine. If they agree, we take over the work and maintain it and it becomes part of the "official" package.
Lastly, this situation is extremely rare. The community mainly consists of users, some who provide feedback on problems, a very few who provide error reports and possibly fixes, and a tiny number who actually contribute. Assigning copyright to us has never been an issue.
What violation is there here?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Harald Welte mostly operates within german legislation. He even said in the interview, that he goes after resellers rather than the OEMs, because the resellers are within german law.
And in german civil law, the loser pays. Or to be more exact: At the beginning of the process the demands of both parties are put on file (this is the so called Streitwert, the value of the suit), and at the end the resulting awarded damages are compared with the initial demands. The money you have to pay is depending on how much of your own demands got awared to you, and how much you have to pay to the other party. The cost of the suit is determined from the Streitwert (and the cost involves also the payments to the lawyers of both sides), and you pay the cost relatively to your payment to the other side.
This makes it rather risky to pull an SCO in a german court. If any SCO demands 1 billion Euros in a german court, the Streitwert will be at 1 billion Euros. And if SCO in the end gets awarded 10 Mio Euros, SCO would get 1% of the initial demand, so SCO had to pay 99% of the cost of the lawsuit. (In fact it's a little more complicated, this is Germany after all.)
But back to Harald Welte. He doesn't claim financial damage, so the Streitwert is rather low. He normally starts with an injunction requesting the other party to comply to the GPL and release the code in question or to stop infringing on his Urheberrecht (his Author's right to iptables/netfilter code according to the Berne convention), which amounts to stop selling the software or firmware.
A reseller then has to stop selling the product in question, because resellers almost never do have the source code. But they then can either sue the OEM for damages because of lost business or try to get the source code from the OEM and then open it to the public (or at least to the own customers). According to the GPL this heals the infringment. In the end it's the most easy thing for a reseller to press his OEM for the source code than to stop selling a product and even try to get all already sold stock back and destroy it. Only the company Sitecom tried to strike down the Injunction in question and lost in court, which uphelt the injunction. This was a 100% win for Harald, so 100% of the cost of this suit was paid for by Sitecom.
I write a program from scratch. I place it under the GPL and sell binaries. Can I refuse to supply source?
Sounds like this is allowed. You are allowed to do anything you want to the source, including not distributing any new copies. The fact that you "stopped distributing new copies" before even a single one was distributed seems to fit. You certainly have not violated the GPL, as it is your copyright and it is impossible to violate your own copyright, and the GPL only grants extra methods of violating a copyright.
Of course it will be quickly pointed out that you really didn't GPL your code. If you continue to say it is GPL after a reasonable demonstration that it is not, perhaps you are liable for false advertising?