Slashdot Mirror
Michigan Diagnostic Software Case Big Win for GPL
Pig Hogger writes "Many people claim that the validity of the GNU Public License has not been tested in court in the US. Well, it just had been, in Michigan, in a case that validated open-source car diagnostic software against the pretension of automakers who want to keep it secret. But don't take my word for it; read the story on GROKLAW." It's actually the Society of Automotive Engineers involved here; DrewTech (the developers in this case) nicely donated half of their settlement money to the SAE.
But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis. This makes it a sometimes long and arduous process to assert rights and/or prove infringement, but hopefully more precedent will help.
s p
r yos-pearpc.html
0 0501.html 0 0503.html 0 0504.html 0 0507.html
l e&id=348
1 78 y os.php
g _id=11116974
g _id=11125509
Since the provisions of the GPL have been upheld in a case in Germany as well, maybe PearPC will be able to more easily defend itself against CherryOS, which has blatantly taken GPL code, without release of source code or attribution, from PearPC and several other GPL projects:
eWeek has a general overview of the situation:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.a
Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter, shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on:
http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cher
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=artic
http://forums.pearpc.net/viewtopic.php?p=16178#16
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/
http://dhost.info/kourge/en/projects/frauds/cherr
Additionally, PearPC project authors are already asserting their rights under the GPL:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?ms
And a general compilation of some of the evidence so far against CherryOS:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?ms
I wondered what he was doing these days. Is Mimi still his secretary?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Unless I'm missing something, this ended in a settlement, not an in court win backed up by a judge.
Wouldn't simply compelling the defendant to release the code with the appropriate acknowledgements be more in line with the community spirit of the GPL? A monetary settlement seems unnecessarily punitive.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I wondered why it had gone extremely slow... by the way, the article poster has got it wrong. It's not a victory per se for the GPL as it never went to the finish, the two parties settled instead. However, it is possibly good news for those of us frustrated at companies tying up international standards with submarine patents and other IP trickeries... Microsoft watch out.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Well, the donated half the profits back to SAE (the defendant). Presumably the rest was for court costs/legal fees. If you read TFA, the lawyer for the plaintiff basically states this--the goal was not to win money, but to improve SAE's processes. There was no intent even from the plaintiff to punish.
And how would you propose to deter other companies from stealing GPL code, if their only risk was a little egg on their face and a slap on the wrist?
How would you offset the costs of determining if some code has been stolen, as well as the lawyer/court fees in order to prove it before a judge?
Freediag is stagnant because people have lost interest. If they want to implement new protocols within the 0BD II standard they should pick up Freediag and continue the development. Freediag is almost completely finished the portability portion of it's development. It compiles under most operating systems.
I guess Yay! for GPL being upheld in court. Yay! For independent an DIY auto repair folks. However, bummer for a project that really needs some new blood.
What could possibly go wrong?
AFAIK, copyright law does not provide for compelling someone to do anything... other than to pay damages and stop violating the author's copyright.
Besides that, why shouldn't the author's seek monetary damages??? It costs them money to go to court and to force the violator to quit infringing on their rights.
What is in the community spirit of the GPL is something that will help ensure that future violations do not occur. Playing hardball will help that happen. Being "nice" about it will not.
If you don't believe me, ask the RIAA.
Yes, the code was written under the GPL, yes the SAE did then take that code and start selling it as if they had written it and without the GPL, but it seems that the entire process was over whether the SAE owns their own regulations after the government steps in and turns them into Law.
The answer, as it was in the prior case cited, was "no".
It seems that the license of the software involved wasn't related to the case at all, other than as a "starting point" for the case to begin. If the code had been BSD-licensed, they wouldn't have been suing the SAE first. If nothing else, it simply indicates that you can issue a DMCA takedown notice for GPL'd code someone else is using without obeying the GPL license.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Without the threat of punitive damages, why would someone pay any attention to the GPL?
History is so yesterday!
As I read this, it's a copyright case only. One side (SAE) claimed rights to code that the other side (DrewTech) had released via GPL. It could have been something proprietary, and SAE would still have lost the case from what I understand.
It's like saying "Axemurderer convicted of killing author of GPL-released code" is a big win for the GPL. It wasn't part of the case, near as I can tell.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
There are more than 300,000 pages referring to "gnu public license", and that is just in Google. That is just with quotes, too! One of the links points to a good wikipedia article, as well.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I think the most interesting point in the article is that the developers won a $75K settlement and then turned right around and donated half of it back to the people from whom they won it. Now that's a class act!
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Or the plot for "Batman 6".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
By taking it, you deprive me of the oppoerunity to sell it to you. I have now been deprived the income I would have made from that sale.
Iow, you want the government to give you an equal opportunity to make all of the potential sales you can over somebody else's right to do what they want with their purchased property, their computer. Not only are you for affirmative action (ie equal opportunity) but also for taking away real, personal rights over physical property away in favor of virtual, potential rights over information. So in essence you are a neo-liberal libertarian.
Eric Grimm, lawyer for DrewTech: "..the only real ruling that has been made in the case is a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Paul Komives, permitting DrewTech to take the deposition of a third-party witness."
It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement, and the settlement clearly showed that they were afraid of the GPL.
But it is not a judge ruling "yes, this license is valid and binding". Indeed, it's not a judge ruling anything.
why? use the DMCA to destroy the system. seems right to me.
"Ah, but code is infinitily copyable--by taking it, I'm not depriving someone else of their ability to use it. With due respect, this is irrelevant. The issue is whether you are using/taking someone else's property without permission."
You are confusing terms, though. You are using the word "stolen" which implies that you no longer have said item. "Unauthorized copying" more accurately describes the offense, not "stealing". Your examples show that you are confused as to the differences as well.
Making unauthorized copies is illegal. Some people also believe it is immoral. Using the term "stealing" to describe it is simply denying reality.
Also remember that the purpose of copyrights is NOT for the authors, but for the public. Copyright IS NOT a "right" of itself, but an artificial one given by the public for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean that people can decide for themselves to break that trust, but it does mean that you are dealing with something that is in an entirely different ballpark than stealing.
Engineering and the Ultimate
This case mentions that any work incorporated into law by reference can not maintain its copyright. It's happened before (the building code case mentioned) where an existing work became law, so the original authors could not charge others or claim infringement for printing (what was previously) their material. Now shouldn't the same logic apply to patents? If someone patents some algorithm that is incorporated into MPEG, and MPEG is legislated as the standard for HDTV, shouldn't that invalidate any patent claims over the algorithm the same way copyright is over-ridden? Or is this another way patents are different from copyrights?
I have now been deprived the income I would have made from that sale.
You wrongly assume that a developer interested in the functionality you are selling would buy it rather then code it themselves.
Just like in the music world; if people MUST pay to listen to something and thats the ONLY way to hear it, alot of people would just opt not to hear it. How is that a lost sale?
"radio stations would never need to pay license fees to music artists--by playing a song off a CD they own, they're not depriving anyone else of the ability to play the song"
Circular reasoning.
You might say that you have rights to your intellectual property. Other people disagree. Fortunately (for you), for now, the courts agree with you. Don't confuse that with a natural right.
I don't agree that depriving you of a potential sale is, in any way, theft. Would I be stealing from you if I told your potential customers that your software didn't work, and that they shouldn't buy it? Should I go to jail if I did that?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
If they settle, it's not a win, it's a settlement. Does not set a very useful precedent, however correct the settlement appears to be.
Until it is tried, adjudicated, and upheld, the original statement stands. At best, the GPL has been tested, but not proven.
Get your facts straight. This headline is deceptive and wrong.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
In fact, one might reasonably argue that copyright law should be altered to always allow personal use, in which case using copyright to protect against GPL infringement would be covered, while the RIAA suing their customers wouldn't. More to the point, almost all "fair use" falls into the category of "personal use", and most "personal use" has historically fallen under "fair use". The Audio Home Recording Act essentially set that as the standard when it came to infringement, so it isn't really as unreasonable as it sounds.
As for myself, I could go either way on the issue of personal use. However, I don't think that's what the RIAA suits are really about. I think that in those suits, copyright is essentially being used as a sledgehammer to stifle potential competition. By painting P2P in such a negative light, they reduce the effectiveness of P2P technology and the internet as a whole at allowing unsigned artists to be heard---something that the recording industry desperately wants to avoid, as it significantly weakens the relevance of their role as gatekeeper....
Sometimes coins have more than just two sides.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
From TFA...
PJ: Why did you donate back half of what you won under the settlement?
Eric: The reason for donation of half back is because the purpose of the lawsuit always has been to benefit and improve the SAE. It may have been necessary to drag them kicking and screaming up the learning curve, but my client has done so precisely because the organization needed the benefit of the learning experience.
The whole point is that DrewTech has been very generous to the SAE by donating 1/2 of the money back as a charitable contribution, to symbolize the educational benefit conferred on the organization (in particular, organization staff -- as distinct from the Membership, who mostly tend to "get" the GPL) through the mechanism of the lawsuit as a whole.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis.
Also: As I read it GPL wasn't strictly at issue here. The core issue was whether a standards organization can claim IP rights over the standard itself when that standard is embodied as code. Once that issue was clearly articulated both parties seemed to take the enforcability of the terms of the GPL as a given.
What is important here is that it was the terms of the GPL that allwed Drew Technologies to haul the SAE into court, claim damages from them, and get them to settle WITH a payment of damages.
The SAE had posted Drew Tech's code, claiming they owned the copyright because it was derivitive of the standard and demanding a "subscription fee" from both Drew Tech and from all other users of Drew Tech's GPLed code.
The GPL violation was the hook Drew Tech chose to file a takedown demand, drag the SAE into court, and demand damages for violation of THEIR copyrights - like any other GPL software provider. B-)
Even in the absense of an actual decision, this case shows that licensing your code under the GPL doesn't jepoardize your ability to haul offenders into court and claim (and get settlements for) damages for violating your license terms.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I thought that one of the important things to come out of the case was this:
:-) ])
The doctrine is now enshrined in 17 U.S.C. 102(b). The relevant section says:
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
A lot of people think that their ideas, procedures, processes, etc... are (or can be) protected by copyright. The answer here is - no. They can not be protected by copyright. These are protected by patents.
Tangibles => copyrights
Intanigbles => patents
(I don't know about anyone else, but I do get a lot of questions on this when friends/relatives/and other stranger persons ask me about copyrights. And no, IANAL! I just like to read about the law. [Surprised my own lawyer by how much I knew about the law.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
really - whether this was a settlement or a judgement, it really has nothing to do with "testing" the GPL.
1. some people (Drew) wrote some software that complied to (implemented) a standard.
2. the standard is copyrighted by someone else, the SAE (the issue of whether they can copyright or charge royalties on something that's part of the law I think is a side issue).
3. SAE tried to claim ownership of the copyright of the software, claiming it was a "deriviative work" of the standard.
4. they were unsuccessful in doing so, the core reason being because copyright only covers a particular composition of text, not the "ideas, procedures, processes, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries," that may be described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" within it. if I write a book explaining how to turn lead into gold, you can't copy the sentences and paragraphs I wrote. but you can certainly write your own book explaining the same procedure. this is a long-standing principle, and no new legal ground was broken here - no precedents.
5. Drew was confirmed as the legal copyright owners of their software, not the SAE, which was what the case was about.
6. Drew (had) happened to release the code under the GPL. This is an expression of how they wish to excercise their copyrights. But nothing about the GPL was tested or decided. Only that Drew owns the copyright, which allows them to release it under GPL, and SAE cannot prevent them from doing that because SAE does not own the copyright because it is not a derivative of SAE's copyrighted work.
the validity and terms of the GPL never entered into it. talk about a "victory for the GPL" is nonsense.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
The OP's argument, that because the GPL rests on copyright law, the music industry's use of copyright law is right, is absurd. Copyright law was made to curtail the rights of publishers, and protect the rights of consumers. Now that we are all publishers and consumers, it can change to fit the new model. The fact remains that re-publishing for profit is different than sharing, even if said 'sharing' can amount to thousands of copies. Printing presses, phonograms, VCR's, and file sharing all threatend the established industry, and all resulted in larger markets for the content in question.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I see you still don't 'get' it regarding the GPL. So let one of those freaks you refer to attempt to enlighten you.
When those GPL'd libraries are linked in, staticly or dynamicly at runtime, you are still making use of code that bears a GPL license. If your code that wants to use that GPL licensed code as part of its functionality isn't GPL also, then the linking is, and properly so, a violation of the GPL and illegal by copyright law.
There is no 'slightly pregnant' here. If you want to use GPL'd code, then your code must be likewise GPL'd or under an approved similar license. End of discussion.
Gawd I wish some dummy would actually let this get to where the judge renders his/her opinion for public record and let the precedent actually be set instead of saveing a few on attorneys fees with a settlement when they realise that tweaking the GPL tigers tail is going to get them eaten.
You're right about one thing, these decisions really are quite obvious. Oh, and go learn how to spell license too. There are in fact several ways, but yours is not among them in my dictionary.
--
Cheers, gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yes.
Sure, but does any of the pages contain a hint that a "GNU Public Licence" actually exists?
I know what the GNU General Public License is. Follow the link in my sig, and you'll see that I've used it myself for years. The article, however, talks about a "GNU Public License".
In fact, if one really thinks about it, patents are probably the most anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-progress part of our Constitution. They are the equivalent of economic terrorism - patent liability can strike any business, anywhere, with devastating effect.
While I can sympathize with this sentiment, there are a couple of case I can relate to where the cease and desist orders were simply ignored.
The most recent case occured maybe 7 or 8 years ago now, in the broadcast industry, where we all got a letter from some shyster outfit demanding royalties of many thousands per year for using their patented technology in the government mandated Emergency Alert System that was put in place to replace the outgrown and outmoded EBS system that had been in place since the 70's or so.
We all made very pointed phone calls to our senators and reps, to the people who sold us the stuff, and to the commission, stateing point blank that we were damned if we were going to pay this annual fee to anyone when to comply with the new rules cost us 5 to 15 thousand for new gear in the first place, and non-compliance was not an option if we wanted to keep our license. We used words that weren't very civilized in many of those conversations.
It must have done some good because none of us that I know of ever got a 3rd letter demanding we pay up. Most of us got a second, even snottier letter, about 30 days after the first. It took 3 friggin years, and there wasn't any publicity at all, but eventually the USTPO reviewed the patent and "found it wanting due to prior art".
We came to the conclusion the legal sharks had overheard a dinner conversation in a greasy spoon someplace, made notes on a napkin, and went flying to the USTPO to patent it, 2 years after it was a fait acompli in the industry by government edict.
Like I said before, we need a National Bill Shakespear Day.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or(br> (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
So, any copying I do, for my own personal use, is ok. This includes downloading music. This seemingly does not include uploading music. See here for more.
The fact that ISP can't get subscriber information from ISP's for file sharers might not make it legal, but it sure does make it easy to get away with.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
So, any copying I do, for my own personal use, is ok.
How did you get that recording? Was the person who gave it to you allowed to do so?
You still need to have a license for the recording before you copied it.