Munich Court Again Enforces GPL

BrianWCarver writes "Despite earlier concerns reported on Slashdot that the GPL might be particularly difficult to enforce in Germany, that country's courts now hold the distinction of having enforced it twice. The first enforcement came in 2004 when Harald Welte of the netfilter/iptables core team sought to enjoin Sitecom from distributing its WL-122 router, which used netfilter's GPL'd code, without also providing the source code and a copy of the GPL, as that license requires. The Munich Court granted Welte a preliminary injunction and then upheld that injunction (Court's decision in English pdf) and now Sitecom provides the source code from their website. Welte, who also now runs gpl-violations.org to track GPL violations, and who personally handed over warning letters at Cebit to companies not in compliance with the GPL, reported on his blog today that he has obtained a new preliminary injunction enforcing the GPL, this time against Fortinet for distributing their firewall products (FortiGate and FortiWiFi) that include GPL'd code while Fortinet refuses to release the source. Congratulations again to Welte and his attorneys!"

Comments

So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, people go around seeking license infringers and go after them legally when they don't follow it?

How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers? In both cases, they're intellectual property violations.

Are we only for the idea of intellectual property when it applies to GPL authors? I mean, why should I follow the GPL anyway? I'm told in one situation that copyright is flawed and evil, and in the next I'm told to follow GPL copyright.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Re:So, basically

[Krach42]

The RIAA suing filesharers == someone taking something prohibitive and making it free

GPL developers suing people who steal their code out of compliance == someone taking something free and making it prohibitive.

There's a fundamental difference in that those stealing GPL code are stealing from EVERYONE, not just from the author.

Re:So, basically

[rovingeyes]

How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers? In both cases, they're intellectual property violations.

First of all RIAA are pimps going around bullying people and collecting money. That being said the intellectual property is not that of RIAA but actual artists most of whom don't even hold rights to their own creation

On the other hand GPL software is a creation of group of hard working individuals with profit being the last intent. In my books its completely differet.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point. In both cases, they are violations of intellectual property.

Several upmodded posts in the past have stated that intellectual property is a flawed concept, as is copyright.

I just wanted to point out that the GPL is based on both the idea of intellectual property and copyright. Yet the RIAA is demonized for protecting that property while GPL authors are championed for it.

Again, devil's advocate. I think these are valid issues to raise.

Re:So, basically

[VoidPoint]

They're completely different. The RIAA and a GPL holder are using the same tools (the courts), but defending completely unrelated "products", so to speak.

Re:So, basically

[NichG]

In this case its the author of the code who's doing it. I'd be worried however if someone were pressing a case for a GPL violation without the author's consent, since even if someone chooses to license under the GPL they're also free to license under alternate schemes to select other groups at their whim.

Re:So, basically

[Tiger4]

"Information wants to be Free!"

Yes, Information wants to be free, but Information has a wife, kids, car payments and a mortgage, not to mention an ex- and lawyer's fees. Information has responsibilities and must charge reasonable rates to cover them.

Enforcement of the law is generally a good thing, even when the law is kinda stupid. Forces you to either live with it, or fix it.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

"someone taking something free and making it prohibitive."

Gee, you mean if I embed GPL'ed code in my application, ignore the GPL and copyright it people can go to jail for using the orginal GPL'd code I ripped off. Sweeet.

Re:So, basically

[klingens]

Welte doesn't do it against private citizens by threatening them to sue, extorting money for settlements. A typical filesharer doesn't sell the downloaded music for money either.

The first thing a filesharer sees from the RIAA is a C&D letter demanding money. Welte tells the infringing companies "We know you use GPLed code in your products you sell. Clean up your act or we will do more than just remind you about it.". At this time, there is no fine to pay if the company complies.

The company in question, Fortinet, ignored him and did what all scumbags do then: they tried to hide the GPL violations by obfuscation.

Re:So, basically

[Krach42]

I'm not arguing that one is illegal and the other isn't

I'm arguing why one is good and the other is bad.

This is a personal moral decision, not a legal statement.

The RIAA has every right in the legal world to sue these people, that doesn't make it "right".

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting a copywrite on GPL'd code after it's been released.

Re:So, basically

[Krach42]

No... prohibitive as in, you lose rights to the code.

Namely, if there's GPL code out there, you have access to the source code. Then someone takes your code, makes some modifications and does not release it GPL. Everyone has lost rights in this situation, as no one is now able to get the source code.

I'm not speaking of a legal prohibition against using it.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA suing filesharers == someone taking something prohibitive and making it free

So the RIAA makes music free by suing filesharers who where prohibiting it's access?

You should have said: The RIAA suing filesharers who are taking something prohibitive and making it free

At which point, I see where you're getting at, but I still disagree. They're still both cases of a copyright holder suing to protect a copyright.

I'm posting as an AC because taking the "wrong" side gets you modded down quick

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

If if they are stealing from EVERYONE, they are really not doing too much -- because EVERYONE doesn't need that much from the product to survive,

While at the same point, SOMEONE definately needs to survive from the content in his own work.

Fucking hippy commies...willing to kill the one to save the rest.

Re:So, basically

[MrLint]

This is also different in the fact that these people making routers are explicitly selling others property for their gain. Not to split leagal hairs here, but I find it more repulsive. Not to mention its a corporation stealing and making actual gains from it. and not in he case of the RIAA, making up vaporous losses to justify huge settlements.

Re:So, basically

[adavies42]

Why does this come up *every single fucking time* there's a story on GPL enforcement? Go ye and read stuff at gnu.org, the answer is obvious: the GPL is a *patch* on the copyright system that undermines copyright so long as copyright is enforced. If we got rid of copyright all together, we would have no need for the GPL, because we could reverse-engineer and modify code at our leisure.

Re:So, basically

[Krach42]

Exactly, this is what's getting me about all these GPL violators.

We're not asking for money, we're asking for a simple compliance. What the hell is wrong with you that you'd rather spend money paying lawyers to defend your belief that you can take GPL code and use it how you please, than not pay a lawyer, keep your money, and just comply.

Some of these GPL violators have to be idiots, or have idiot lawyers.

Re:So, basically

[rhizome]

In the RIAA's case, they have not provided a way to conduct the same behavior legally. You're conflating compliance with prohibition.

Re:So, basically

[kebes]

Most people who support the GPL view it as copyleft, not copyright. The GPL is a compromise for a non-ideal world. Basically it is exploiting the nature of current freedom-restricting legal structures (copyright) in order to guarantee freedoms that would otherwise be removed.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the GPL, since everyone would play nice and information would be free. In the real world, the GPL (and similar licenses) are a compromise that safeguard our freedoms.

Therein lies the difference. It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright, since the root ideology is very different in the two cases. If it were merely a legal issue, then it would be hypocritical to favor one over the other. However it is not merely legal: it is a matter of ethics and wanting the world to be a certain way. Put more simply: I can be favor of law and order and civilized society in general, but still be against certain laws in particular. This is not hypocritical.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

they provided a way to not release the source code?

So much for enforcing the spirit of the GPL.

Re:So, basically

[ron_ivi]

And not all of us disagree with the RIAA.

Personally, I see commercial music as not at all different from Microsoft software. Both are focused entirely on selling the largest volume through advertising and marketing. Neither are of much interest to me.

I wish the RIAA the greatest successes in stopping the music pirates - because this will create the opportunity for a Creative Commons licensed music industry in the exact same way Microsoft's absurd prices for commodities creates the Linux/MySQL opportunity..

Re:So, basically

[killjoe]

"How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers? In both cases, they're intellectual property violations."

He is not asking for money, he is simply asking them to comply with the GPL.

So yes both a IP violations but the method of enforcement is vastly different.

Re:So, basically

[Krach42]

Naw, I'd not say that myself. Although, I guess I did imply it.

Some people have the opinion that there should be no intellectual property law. That "information wants to be free". These people would happily feel morally justified for trading music, and complying with the GPL.

On the other hand, some people think everything they do should be kept a secret, or someone else will make money off of it also. So, they want to sue anyone who breaks their IP rights, and happily feel morally justified for using GPL code outside of compliance.

Both don't care for IP laws, it's obvious. Just the two have a different modivation. Here at slashdot, we're far closer to the first group than the second.

Of course, I can always break this down to speed laws, and marijuana use, too. People do it, despite it being against the law, they know it's against the law, and they still break it. But they don't personally *feel* like it should be against the law. So they fight that they shouldn't have to respect the law, because they don't agree with it.

Not how the world works. Personally, I respect IP law, I don't listen to music that I don't have a right to listen to, and neither do I share movies in the same way. My friends laugh at me for buying DVDs, and I laugh at them for sharing them.

Both of us feel good. I because I'm following the law, and them because they're not paying anything.

Re:So, basically

[DickBreath]

Every time there is an article related to either the GPL or the RIAA someone raises the same argument. And it should get the same answer...

The purpose of the GPL is to ensure freedom. If it wern't for the possibility that someone monopolist would take free code and use it to make obscene profits, while at the same time making that code incompatible with the free versions, most of the "open source" or "free software" work would probably have been Public Domain instead.

The reason RMS devised the GPL was as a great way to subvert the system to force freedom.

The RIAA on the other hand is an immoral, corrupt organization that keeps artists poor, charges obscene prices for music, while using those profits to lobby congress to get themselves infinite copyright against the intent in the US constitution, and stamp out any competing form of music distribution. I don't see any moral comparison at all.

Here is an excellent article that might inform you on the subject.
New Arguments Against P2P: The Phony Moral Debate


Are we only for the idea of intellectual property when it applies to GPL authors? I'm told in one situation that copyright is flawed and evil, and in the next I'm told to follow GPL copyright.

I am for the original intent of copyright and patents in the constitution. Not what they have been corrupted into by mega corporations. Again, the GPL wouldn't need to exist if it wern't for the misbehavior of corporations. Copyright in its present corrupted form is flawed and evil. You should follow the GPL because its purpose is to ensure freedom. Your freedom even. The GPL is to ensure YOUR freedom to use and study the code.

Re:So, basically

[El]

No, although we may disagree with their methods, the RIAA does have a right to go after people distributing copyrighted material without authorization, just like GPL developers have a right to go after people distributing GPL software without following the terms of the license. However, the RIAA does not have the right to go after people for downloading copyrighted material (unless they later redistribute it) just like GPL developers have no right to go after people who bought network equipment from companies that violate the GPL. I believe at least half the ./ crowd does have a consistent viewpoint on this, but I may be wrong.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting... so if the RIAA makes the average Britney Spears or Metallica song cost $20 (only one good song per album; and need to raise the prices to support lawyers), will we start seeing organizations like a FSF for music?

Re:So, basically

[hchaos]

The RIAA suing filesharers == someone taking something prohibitive and making it free

GPL developers suing people who steal their code out of compliance == someone taking something free and making it prohibitive.

There's a fundamental difference in that those stealing GPL code are stealing from EVERYONE, not just from the author.

If I break the window to your car, hotwire it, and then leave it in the middle of downtown so that anyone else can drive it, too, I'm taking something prohibitive and making it free, but that doesn't make it right. Using "free" and "prohibitive" really doesn't answer the underlying question of why one author's wishes should be respected, and another author's wishes should be ignored.

The only reasons that I know of why a thing should be free are because it has no value, because it costs nothing to produce, or because the owner chooses to give it away. Neither software nor music is worthless, and both cost money and time to produce. Therefore, neither one should be considered free without the consent of the copyright owner.

Furthermore, the GPL is not a case of taking something free and making it prohibitive. There is a cost to distributing the source code along with the binaries, so it's not free to use. Secondly, nothing that a company can do will prevent you from getting the code from another source, so there is no "stealing from EVERYONE".

The real issue with GPL violations is using copyrighted material to create a derivative work without permission from the copyright holders, which is quite distinct from theft. Theft requires depriving someone of something of value. In a loose sense, music file-sharing is theft, because there would normally be an exchange of money for the right to have a permanent copy of the music, and by downloading the music, you deprive the artist of the money that they should get from this transaction. For GPL'd software, there is an explicit statement that the author does not expect any money in exchange for the right to use the code, so no theft is possible.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers?

The GPL enforcers aren't abusive arseholes who run a cartel, sue businesses that haven't broken the law in order to discourage competition, and pay off politicians to retroactively, immorally extend copyright terms in order to make 70 zillion dollars a year instead of a measly 65 zillion dollars a year.

While I don't complain about the RIAA specifically targetting people infringing on their copyrights, I'm not going to cheer them on because I hate the bastards and want them to go out of business.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

In both cases, they are violations of intellectual property.

The very fact you use that propaganda term, a term deliberately designed to muddy the waters of copyright,patent,trademark and design law, and make people think the right to stop others distributing different copies of some information you also have is anything like a right to stop others taking something physical from you is telling. If I steal your apple, I gain an apple, you lose an apple. If I copy a program, I gain a copy, you still have your copy.

The fact an old boy network of powerful politicians, businessmen and lawyers chooses to call something "property" does not make it so.

I just wanted to point out that the GPL is based on both the idea of intellectual property and copyright.

Geez. I have to assume you have heard the FSF party line by now: "Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary". The point being the GPL only exists to make the best of a bad job. As an author of GPL software (posting anonymously because you did), I would be perfectly happy for you to "violate" the terms of the GPL.. provided you couild waive all right to enforce other copyrights against others now or in future. That is to say, I'd only take action against those who could take my right to pass on information away.

Note that I only object to you having any right to censor me - I do not want a right to claim I authored a particular composition! Plagiarism is still fraud in the complete absence of copyright law.

Re:So, basically

[FidelCatsro]

I do not harbour any grudge against the Artists who want to sell music , I do however despise the tactics that the RIAA use in prosecuting innocent civilians , well i call them inocent as most of the cases are settled out of court as the people can't afford to defend them-selves so we shall never know .
Being Pro GPL /anti RIAA does not mean we have to be anti-capitalists.

Re:So, basically

[Ithika]

Uh, wouldn't that *not* be moral relativism?

If all moralities are equally valid in their own context, then (according to the contexts, ie copyright law, RIAA and GPL)

o not sharing music is valid in the music world
o sharing software is valid in the software world

What is actually stated here is:

o not sharing music is *invalid* in the music world
o sharing software is valid in the software world

To rephrase the first statement to remove the double negative:

o sharing music is valid in the music world
o sharing software is valid in the software world
o therefore, sharing is valid in music *and* software

Which is (as far as the music and software industry is concerned) moral absolutism. Or have I got them confused again?

Re:So, basically

[General Wesc]

That being said the intellectual property is not that of RIAA but actual artists most of whom don't even hold rights to their own creation

So the RIAA doesn't own it, and the artists don't have rights to it? I guess it would make sense that it's essentially in the public domain then.

But let's analyse that claim:

(1) The artists have no rights to the music.
(2) Because the artists own the music, the RIAA doesn't own the music, so they have no rights to the music.
Therefore (3), neither of them have rights to the music.
(4) Nobody other than the RIAA or the artists have rights to the music.
Therefore, (5) Nobody has rights to the music.

(Note: Yes, I know RIAA != label, and public domain != no rights. That's unimportant here.)

So we're claiming the artist can own the music while not having the rights to it. Where did the rights go?

The normal claim would be that the rights were assigned to another body (or to the public domain) by the artist. But we just said the RIAA (the other body) doesn't have the rights. Why?

The answer most people arguing your position give is that it was essentially not a free choice. They had no choice if they wanted to make it big*. Something like that.

But if the artist didn't freely choose to assign the rights to the RIAA, surely they still own the rights! Who would really buy the position that if I'm coerced to give away my rights to something that something goes into the public domain? They stay with the artist, darn it!

So either the artist has the rights, because they were coerced, or the RIAA has the rights because he freely assigned them to the RIAA.

Or there's no such thing as ownership of information or the right to restrict access to certain information. That's the other position, and one quite hard to defend while simultaneously telling me I can't share your credit card number or nudie photos of your girlfriend with my buddies. The right to privacy is a right to control the access to information. Same as copyright.

Sorry for the off-topic rant.

* Exactly what makes you think people have a right to 'make it big' is beyond me, as is why double-platinum indie artists don't disprove this claim.

Re:So, basically

[HardCase]

Stripped of the hype, the RIAA is attempting to enforce IP rights on behalf of its members.

In the case described by this article, a group of lawyers is attempting to enforce IP rights on behalf of its clients.

Sure, it's a huge oversimplification, but at least it's devoid of hyperbole!

-h-

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

One: In a free market, things are worth what people will pay for them. I could spend years painstakingly making a car out of matchsticks. My exorbitant time and effort costs would NOT mean that my idiotic matchstick car is worth more to anyone who just wants a car to drive down the shops. Similarly, artists can rant all they want about how much time and effort they put into some work.

Two: If you break a window of my car, take it downtown so anyone else can drive it, etc. - I don't have my car anymore. If you could take a magic COPY of my car and leave me still with my car, anyone (here - maybe americans are so brainwashed that they would act differently) would rightly consider me a complete asshole if I objected.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say I'm surprised at the other answers to your question. I think the correct answer is "not much". Both are examples of copyright being infringed. In both cases, financial damage is very difficult to prove. The difference, in the States anyway, is that the RIAA/MPAA have a little bit more cooperation from the government to enforce their copyright.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that their always got to be some smartass that trys to argure the opensource gpl'ers on the basis that they have blah blah blah to pay when it's not the place of jokers like this to make that choice. It the place of the people writing the code's choice to make. They say they want it gpl'ed so they do it and expect others who want to use their code comply with the gpl just like anybody who has copyrighted code expects thoughs who want to pay to use it comply with the terms of copyright.

If they don't want to give out the sourcecode that's required under the gpl then they shouldn't use it. If they want to charge for code then they shouldn't use code that's GPL'ed, Not whine about it after the fact. You know it's GPL you know your not supposed to sell it, You know your supposed to include the sources for any GPL code no matter what changes you made to it it's still GPL code.

So if your information has a wife kids bills mortgage and other bills to pay why use it?

Im sorry but that's the case here GPL'ed code was written it had specific rules to follow just like copywrite (Which i don't argue with it's a set of rules that peticular groups that make invent or create decide they want their creations to have applied to them just like GPL) and these companies come along take the code make some modifications and turn around and sell it which it as the GPL holder didn't seem to have a problem with. It was when the company like some other companies have done with GPL'ed programs didn't follow the GPL rules and release the sourcecode which they don't own and shouldn't have any write to keep let alone decide they don't have to comply with the rules of.

They used opensource code with rules governing that code so they are obligated to comply with thoughs rules just like anybody who uses copywrited material is obligated to follow the rules of copywrite.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't listen to music that I don't have a right to listen to

There's no such thing as music you don't have a right to listen to. There's music you don't have a right to copy. There's music you don't have a right to broadcast. But there is no music that you don't have the right to listen to. Copyright regulates copying and broadcasting, it does not regulate use.

Re:So, basically

[FidelCatsro]

The difrence is simple .
I create a piece of music and release it .

Case 1: Joe Schmoo Downloads , sends it to a couple of freinds,This while not totaly upstanding is no big deal really and may make me some more sales as his freind hear it and go "hey this rocks , im off to buy the CD"

Case 2: Joe schmoo Downloads it , releases it as Joe Schmoo sings "piece of music"
and makes money off it whilst not giving me credit.

Basicaly The people downloading the music are not making money off of my work and giving nothing in return, perhaps they will drum up some new sales for me (pirates who burn the CDs and then sell them deserve everything they have comming.)
The GPL violator on the other hand is taking my honest hard work and selling it whilst giving nothing back.
The GPL allows for comerical products based on the code , so-long as we abide by the rules of the copyleft and give back our changes.

The difrence is simply this ,Profiting off others work and giving nothing back compared to not paying.
Both are arguably wrong , but i would consider the prior far graver

Re:So, basically

[maxpublic]

Right or wrong, I love seeing the current IP laws being used against corporate infringers of the GPL. Yep, payback is sweet.

Max

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

They're still both cases of a copyright holder suing to protect a copyright.

They are still both cases of people going to court. They are still both cases of people talking to other people. They are still both cases of people doing things.

Just because you can find some similarity, it doesn't mean that it is hypocritical to judge them differently.

Imagine if you could get away with murder by pointing out that shooting somebody in self defence was just another instance of one person shooting another, and that you should be judged in the same manner.

Re:So, basically

[jusdisgi]

There are a couple of ways that this is different, and more acceptable, than the RIAA's enforcement tactics.

First, this type of action follows the time-honored tradition of only enforcing copyright violations where people are profiting from their infringement...the RIAA's suits against incomeless teenagers sharing music for free, while legally permissable, are looked at as extremely sleazy by the general public, because, well, they're extremely sleazy. They are also pretty much unprecedented in U.S. copyright history. The GPL enforcers are fighting businesses that are using code that's supposed to be freely available to sell products that are closed....much closer to the normal, accepted method.

Perhaps more importantly, lots of us around here have newer, more radical ideas about how intellectual property should be owned, distributed, and controlled. The GPL comes down on the "right" side of this from our perspective, because it uses copyright law (and yes, its enforcement) to protect this new model of distribution. The companies who aren't complying are subverting what we feel is the correct direction for software's future. The RIAA, by contrast, is doing everything in its power to protect the older, in our view obsolete, model.

And then there's the business model question from which that stems. The RIAA's members make their money by taking other people's work, packaging and distributing it, and selling it at flat per-recording rates. Technology has made that physical distribution unnecessary, and the market is subsequently rejecting the labels' role. So they break out all these lawsuits to force people to buy these effectively obsolete products. In contrast, the GPL and those who enforce it are hoping to make certain that this kind of forcable lock-in does not take place. So we like that.

And then there's the fact that the RIAA is one of the biggest historical assholes around...these guys tried to outlaw the player piano, they habitually underpay artists and overcharge customers, and they push crap music on our impressionable youth. By contrast, the GPL-partisans give the customers the product for free, help developers work together, empower device manufacturers, and help produce a quality product.

In short, this is a lot different. We don't have a problem with copyright law per se, just when it's used to further evil goals.

Re:So, basically

[timmyf2371]

And include it in proprietary products without any legal comeback to the original authors.

Re:So, basically

[BillyBlaze]

This is one of those instances where the collective opinion of a group ("RIAA bad, GPL good") is stupid, biased, and inconsisent, but if you look closer, you see several subgroups with somewhat more consistent logical opinions, and closer still, individuals with different, but each downright intelligent, opinions. In this case, the people who think the RIAA are in the wrong in enforcing their copyrights because copyrights are flawed and evil are probably not the same people who think enforcing the GPL is good. I'd guess people in favor of forcing compliance with the GPL acknowledge that the RIAA are at least within their rights. (I'm in this group, but I personally would qualify that last part by saying that they're protecting their copyrights in very stupid and even evil ways, including interfering with the government, working against fair use, and lying constantly. GPL enforcers are generally better-intentioned.)

I guess my point is, 'exposing' the hypocrisy of Slashdot as you have is just a very stupid way of trying to make everyone look stupid, and it's sad that arguments similar to yours get modded up so frequently.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Without copyright we'd have the BSD system, because you wouldn't have copyright to force the code open.

Re:So, basically

[FidelCatsro]

Two points
1:) are you sugesting Britney spears or metalica(since "and justice")have a single good song on these albums ;)
2:) meet the http://creativecommons.org/ , The Creative commons is your FSF for the Arts

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? The "proprietary" products (which I'll interpret to mean "binary only", as they couldn't be truly proprietary given proprietary rights over them would no longer exist after publication) would be infinitely replicable at effectively zero cost. They would be legitimately reverse-engineerable, too. I'd be quite happy to see how long binary-only could compete against open-source in a real free market (i.e. a market unrestricted by copyright or patent).

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have a point if there weren't companies making money off open-source since at least the 90s (Cygnus was profitable from the start in 1990).

Re:So, basically

[kidgenius]

From a company's perspective, they see themselve offering a good or service that is superior to that of their competitors. Let's ignore that they have used GPL code. They don't want their competitors to know how they did XYZ, so they are very much against releasing their stuff under the GPL. That's why they don't want to comply. But, as we all know, by using the GPL code, they need to comply with the terms of the GPL.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators - would you please stop modding this troll up as insightful? It has appeared in every single licensing-related story for months now. It was interesting the first time; now it's just annoying.

Re:So, basically

[gnasher719]

You are not playing "devil's advocate", you are just being plain silly. The difference is: The GPL authors sued to achieve the same status as if no copyright infringement had taken place. The infringer _did_ have the right to include GPL'd code into their product and sell it as long as the source code had been made available. After being sued and losing the case, all they are forced to do is what they should have done in the first place. Now if you download and burn a dozen CDs, and the RIAA sues you: You obviously had the right to go to a shop and buy this dozen CDs. The only difference would have been lets say $120-150 less in your pocket, and probably slightly better quality of your CDs. So if the RIAA forced you to pay the normal retail price for the CDs, that would be fine. However, you can be forced to pay excessive fines that are in absolutely no relation to the damage you have done. If the GPL author sued them for millions of dollars in damages, that would be on the same level as the RIAA. Not that it couldn't work: The damage when copying GPL'd software without permission (for example buy acting against the GPL) would be at least the amount of money for which you could buy a proprietary license to the code.

Re:So, basically

[adavies42]

But you could crack it open yourself at no legal risk, and do whatever you wanted with it--that's the whole point.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait. The parent is so confused about reality that he can't equate that copyright != patents, nor does he seem to understand why the GPL should be enforced. Puh-lease, get a clue.

Re:So, basically

[tgrigsby]

First of all RIAA are pimps going around bullying people and collecting money. That being said the intellectual property is not that of RIAA but actual artists most of whom don't even hold rights to their own creation

Ok, so if someone helped themselves to your car because he felt they had a God-given right to transportation, and you applied a baseball bat to his kneecaps and took your car back, you'd be a pimp and a bully?

Ok.

Re:So, basically

[Spock the Baptist]

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between a 13 year girl, and an Incorporated firm ran by several experienced adults with lawyers?

Re:So, basically

[Dun Malg]

If I break the window to your car, hotwire it, and then leave it in the middle of downtown so that anyone else can drive it, too, I'm taking something prohibitive and making it free, but that doesn't make it right.

Please, this tortured analogy comes up evry time. There are fundamental differences between real property and "intellectual" property. The two are not comparable. The former is diminished by sharing, while the latter is not. The former is covered by laws about real property while the latter is covered by (in this case) copyright law, which has no relation whatsoever to real property law. So leave your analogies about stolen cars, walking into my living room, and transferring money from my bank account to yours, because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Re:So, basically

[jusdisgi]

Geez. I have to assume you have heard the FSF party line by now: "Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".

That's not the way I've ever heard or read it. I've always read it just like that, but without the last sentence. Because that doesn't make any damned sense; why would the absence of copyright law make the GPL unnecessary? I can see how it would make it unenforceable, but it seems to me that in a world without copyright law companies would easily be able to take free (GPL) software and distribute it binary-only without releasing their changes or the source. Which is to say, the GPL would still be necessary if you want to accomplish its goals......it's just that the necessity would be unfulfillable, and it would simply be impossible to do the things that the GPL does. Well, without hired goons.

Why? Because copyright is a good thing. It just needs to be used for the right purposes. Enforcing the GPL is one of them.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there is always the commercial vs non-commercial thing.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could take a magic COPY of my car and leave me still with my car, anyone (here - maybe americans are so brainwashed that they would act differently) would rightly consider me a complete asshole if I objected.

Hey, I spent a lot of money tricking out my Honda Civic with a loud muffler and/or stereo, air wing on the trunk (of my front wheel drive car), and that "Type R" sticker I stuck on it. It's totally uncool for you to magically copy it!

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL developers suing people who steal their code out of compliance

Ah, so that's why I can't find Apache anywhere on the 'net anymore, because someone stole the code?

== someone taking something free and making it prohibitive

Even if someone violates the GPL for a piece of software, the GPL'd software is still available, it has not become prohibitive at all. The only effect of violating the GPL is that the changes made by the violator remain private, that's all, everything else remains the way it was.

What you say is FUD, FUD, FUD! You're no better than Microsoft marketing.

Re:So, basically

[The_Wilschon]

Fundamentally, government should be completely determined by the governed (ie Rousseau's Social Contract, which no, I haven't actually read, but the ideas therein were summed up in class). So the difference is simply this: we don't like it when the **AA does it. If enough people don't like it, then we should attempt to get a law passed to that effect. If we fail, then we can either determine that there was an insufficient number trying to pass the law, or the gov't is corrupt, in which case we form a militia (the purpose of the "Right to Bear Arms" amendment) and overthrow the government by force. That's the principle. In practice of course, things are a bit stickier than that.

Re:So, basically

[droyad]

What the parent misses is that GPL relies on Copyright to work. If there was no Copyright, then the owner of the code would not be able to restrict how the code is used. GPL restricts the use of the code so that it cannot be modified and distributed without distributing the source of the modifications.

If the author has no claim to the code under Copyright then the GPL has no legal standing.

Re:So, basically

[corblix]

It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright, since the root ideology is very different in the two cases.

That's a good point. One can support something, because one agrees with the underlying principles, and one can make use of something, simply because it is useful.

This idea works also in the opposite sense from the way you used it. Personally, I disagree with RMS on a number of points. However, I have released software under the GPL. Why would I use a license that is based on principles I disagree with? Because it is useful. The GPL nicely embodied the terms under which I wished to release this particular software package.

These notions of moral foundations vs. utility can form a pretty good framework for cooperation among people acting according to differing principles.

Re:So, basically

[alexo]

> How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers?
> In both cases, they're intellectual property violations.

Not even close, although it will take a bit to explain.

First, "Intellectual Property" is an oxymoron, a term used by those that wish to to make copyright, patent and trademark laws even more restrictive, for the purpose of drawing analogues between ideas and physical property and advocate ownership of ideas that would somehow make thought and expression restrictions palatable.

However, there are fundamental differences between these concepts. I could repeat the common scarcity and exclusivity arguments but instead I'll remind you that when your ancestors sat in their caves around the fire, eating barely cooked wooly mammoth meat - stories, songs and ideas how to make better hunting or farming tools were shared freely but not necessarily the actual tools.

When copyright and patent protection were devised, the purpose was to benefit society, by granting limited monopolies to allow the creators to recoup their investment before releasing the works into the public domain.

Unfortunately, laws can be bought and original intent can be circumvented (does a protection term of >100 years benefit society? how?). Therefore, one should not confuse legality with morality (this is actually not a new concept; read Sophocles for an example).

So here's the beef:

**AA and their ilk purchased legislation that allows them to rob society of what should rightfully belong to the public. Their excercising their rights under that legislation is legal, but not necessarily moral.

The GPL, on the other hand, is an effort to use the only legal means available to keep free things free. The law is imperfect but no other alternative exists.

I'll try to give an example from the physical world but it may not be perfect since, as I said above, the dynamics are different.

Say I am an artist, I paint pretty decent art and I want as many people as possible to appreciate and enjoy it. So I take all my art, put it in the town square and invite people to freely take some. However, what would stop a person from grabbing all of it, locking it in his basement and charging people who want to view it?

Enter the GPL. It says in simple words that, under the present laws, you don't have any right to distribute the work. However, you can have this right, gratis, if you agree not to abuse it.

Re:So, basically

[Chris Burke]

why would the absence of copyright law make the GPL unnecessary?

Well, because the primary thing the GPL wants you as the user to be able to have is the ability to modify and share. Without copyright, you would always be able to modify any software you had a copy of, and you would be free to share that software -- with or without your modifications -- with anyone you chose. So without copyright the primary rights the GPL grants to you would be available all the time. The case we have here of a company taking free code and making it proprietary (i.e. taking away your rights) simply could not happen.

In this sense the statement that without copyright the GPL would not be needed is true.

Now, just because you would have the right to modify and distribute, say, Photoshop, doesn't mean you would have the source code to Photoshop. it would be perfectly legal to disassemble/decompile Photoshop and distribute the result, but that's not exactly the same thing. This is a big benefit of the GPL that you wouldn't get automatically without copyright. On the other hand, in the current situation we don't have the right to modify Photoshop at all. ;)

Now, not having copyright may not mean that we wouldn't have source code. First off, the whole proprietary model of selling individual copies that must therefore be protected would die overnight. Since decompiling, disassembly, and outright copying of blocks of code would be legal, there would be very little reason to try to prevent it by hiding your source code. In fact I think it wouldn't take long in a copyright-free world for people to expect source code so that they could more easily perform their completely legal modifications/redistributions.

That's just speculation, though. I'm in favor of copyright in its original limited form, and the GPL requirements for source work well with that. I think it's a positive thing. But on the other hand, if copyright went away entirely I don't think it would be that bad either, even (especially) from a free software perspective.

Re:So, basically

[Bradee-oh!]

There is a key difference - not between right and wrong, but between tactics.

The RIAA SHOULD stop copyright infringers just as FOSS groups SHOULD stop GPL violations.

But the RIAA collects coinicidental evidence for high volumes of people and, without nearly enough proof, accuses them all of breaking the law. Yes, alot of them are violators. But everytime you hear "RIAA sues another 200 people" in the headlines at least a handful of them are let off because the accusations were so outlandish compared to reality.

These GPL enforcements are neither broad nor hasteful. These people do their research. They take a suspected GPL violation. Research it until it is a LIKELY GPL violation. Research it until they have PROOF that it is a violation. They then contact the infringer and file for an injunction after fulfilling every RESPONSIBILITY that the ACCUSER should be required to fulfill.

Is copying and sharing music illegal? In most cases yes!
Should perpetrators be stopped? Yes!
Does the same apply to GPL violators? Yes!

It's not a question of legality or right vs. wrong. It's a question of ethics in the quest to stop the violations.

Maybe thats just my $.02, someone "correct" me if they have a different opinion.

Re:So, basically

[mopslik]

What the hell is wrong with you that you'd rather spend money paying lawyers to defend your belief that you can take GPL code and use it how you please, than not pay a lawyer, keep your money, and just comply.

Because some companies figure paying a lawyer $100K is worth it, when they can pull in $200K from their non-downloadable GPL-infringing product?

Just a guess, though.

Re:So, basically

[The Tyrant]

Without wishing to put words into others mouths, I do believe the intention of the authors of the GPL was to take a flawed system (IP/copyright law) and use it against itself. Effectively turning the prison into a protective cage.

Re:So, basically

[kz45]

Namely, if there's GPL code out there, you have access to the source code. Then someone takes your code, makes some modifications and does not release it GPL. Everyone has lost rights in this situation, as no one is now able to get the source code

This isn't true. The original GPLd code is still GPLd, you just don't get the changes.

Re:So, basically

[peg0cjs]

Actually, there is a difference in the interpretation of the meaning of "copyright" between GPL authors and RIAA. By definition, the term copyright means to provide the rights to copy a creative work.

The RIAA interprets this as they have exclusive ownership and said works and will restrict access to those works except to terms under which they are satisfied. The GPL authors interpret this to be the terms under which users may copy and distribute their work (as originally intended by the establishment of copyright). The biggest distinguishment is the resulting distribution of the work. GPL enforcement == larger dissemination of creative works, RIAA enforcement == more restricted dissemination.

The point of copyright is not to lock a work in a vault that everyone must pay to open. The point of copyright is to promote distribution of works in a way that is both fair to the author and to the general public. Ironically, the original application of copyright was to prevent corporate masters from abusing content producers by hording all the profits and unfairly restricting access to works. My, how far we've come in a few hundred years!

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, although we may disagree with their methods, the RIAA does have a right to go after people distributing copyrighted material without authorization"

No. They, maybe, are legally backed to do so; this not the same as to have a right, otherwise we could tell Sadam Hussein had a right to kill kurds, since his country law "legitimated" it.

Re:So, basically

[End11]

Whatever the lawyers are, I don't think they're "idiots"; let's remember that they're the ones getting rich here.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd guess people in favor of forcing compliance with the GPL acknowledge that the RIAA are at least within their rights"

You seem to forget not everything is your Blessed United States Of America. In Spain, for instance, is perfectly legal to share music as long as there's no direct monetary benefits involved and I think that's the proper way to go, so well, I am all in favor about forcing compliance with GPL acknowledgement and at the same time I don't think RIAA is within their rights (while I understand in the USA they are within their legal privileges)

Re:So, basically

[CodeBuster]

There may indeed be some hypocrisy among Slashdot members with regard to the issue of copyright, intellectual property rights, and licensing. However, for my part, I am not against the RIAA or the MPAA licensing their copyrighted works in any manner that they wish as long as the terms of the agreements are consistent with the applicable laws. The grievances that I and many others have against organizations (MPAA, RIAA, et al) stem from several sources. First, these organizations are engaged in aggressive attempt to undermine the balance of copyright by rewriting the copyright laws in their favor. They forget that the purpose of copyright is, as determined by our founding fathers in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

It is not, as the RIAA and MPAA would have us believe, to protect artists against those who would steal the fruits of their labor. Copyright is a contract which defines a balance of power between creators and the public to promote the common good. It does not exist to protect profits and revenues that are derived form coincidental past inefficiencies in production and distribution which brings me to my second point. These organizations also seek legislative protection against new technologies which threaten their entrenched business models when it is clear that no compelling reason exists for the Congress to override the overwhelming public interest in the beneficial economic process of creative destruction to artificially shelter, through legislative Fiat, the existing firms from the discipline of the marketplace. I am not against copyright, nor am I anti-business, but I feel that organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are acting in bad faith to the detriment of us all when they seek to beat the marketplace into submission with the cudgel of draconian, un-American, and unconstitutional legislation.

Re:So, basically

[El]

Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "legal right" instead of "right". Some people might argue that the RIAA do not have a "moral right" to go after unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. I don't beleive there is any such thing as absolute morality, but rather that all morality is contractual. In many cases this "contract" is implicit in our societal norms, which may change over time. But currently we have a social contract that says that creators of art deserve monetary compensation for their efforts. The artists in most cases have transferred their right to collect said compensation to the record companies, which have in turn transferred that right to the RIAA. Yes, the whole concept of a "copyright" is an aberration that has only been around for the last few hundred years, but I beleive there has always been resentment by creators of others who "borrowed" creative works and didn't give due credit. Yes, paying for stories and songs is also a relatively recent concept that might not be the norm 200 years from now. But at least for right now, it IS the norm.

Re:So, basically

[iCEBaLM]

Money.

GPL violators are trying to make money on other peoples work.

So far, music file swappers seemed to be doing the recording industry a service, their revenues are up.

Re:So, basically

[Travelsonic]

Yes, its "right" to steal music without compensating the artists, distributors, and other people involved in distributing it, but its not right to take GPL code and not release the source code to your program that uses the code.

"steal" music? Funny, I though that all the things in this discussion were copyright/IP/GPL violations? DO NOT mistaken this as justification, or as me saying this is o.k, but I wonder why correlation there is between violations and theft?

Re:So, basically

[sumdumass]

The difference is the people that come out of the wood work to protest it. I have often noticed that while there are a few people that actualy think the way you suggested, the moajority of them are tend to make thier statments about things that concern them the most.

It only appears to be the concenus when more people come out against a situation when it is presented one way and the oposite occured when presented another. I would bet that the majority of ./ers are against or for property theft but only make thier statments when the property theft effects somethign they care about. Not every one cars about the GPL or RIAA and starving artists that cannot buy another gold plated bar beside the swimming pool.

Now on the other hand, Those going after GPL violations arent suing for crap loads of money then offering to settle for a promise to not do it again and a fraction of the original amount. The GPL people aren't using shady laws to invade private networks and demand personal information about people when the intent of the law giving this power is even questionable about applying in the first place. The HATING RIAA because of thier tactics doesn't neccesarily endorse the property theft taking place either. I bet you wouldn't like me if i killed someone you knew because i suspected them of wanting to kill someoen else you knew. I think in some ways the spririt with RIAA doing the same stuff seems the same. I know that litteraly it is two different things but doing somethign underhanded and maybe breaking a few laws doesn't make you 'right" when you are trying to stop someone else form breaking a law.

This alone would cause people to come out for and against somethign more then others. and hence the reason you are confused. It basicaly is because those other people didn't make thier cases clear enough.

Re:So, basically

[kz45]

The purpose of the GPL is to ensure freedom. If it wern't for the possibility that someone monopolist would take free code and use it to make obscene profits, while at the same time making that code incompatible with the free versions, most of the "open source" or "free software" work would probably have been Public Domain instead.

I would like to ensure freedom..of the programmer. Which is why I choose to use the BSD license.

The reason RMS devised the GPL was as a great way to subvert the system to force freedom

hmm..forcing freedom...sounds like an oxymoron to me.

The RIAA on the other hand is an immoral, corrupt organization that keeps artists poor, charges obscene prices for music, while using those profits to lobby congress to get themselves infinite copyright against the intent in the US constitution, and stamp out any competing form of music distribution. I don't see any moral comparison at all.

while they do have shady practices (and I don't agree with some of the things that they are doing), I don't think they keep artists poor. Artists have the freedom to accept or not accept a recording contract with a major label.

Most artists choose the major label. They do this because they only have to focus on one thing: playing music. It's similar to the difference between having a steady job (being signed) (less responsibility, more of a regular income) and being self-employed (being independent) (a lot more responsiblity and less of a chance of making a profit).

After all, you aren't complaining about programmers getting screwed out of money when they build a program while working for a large company and get paid their regular hourly salary (as opposed to the actual profit on the software).

Sharing music on the Internet does not help in the defeat if the RIAA, it only helps to make them stronger. In the beginning, Independent artists make most of their money off of CD sales and T-shirts). Most small venues only pay a small amount of money which is not enough for a typical band to live off of. If CD sales are out of the picture due to sharing, an artist will be more likely to accept an offer from a major label. if there is a demand there will be a supply.

You should follow the GPL because its purpose is to ensure freedom. Your freedom even. The GPL is to ensure YOUR freedom to use and study the code

Unless there is a law against it, there will always be proprietary code. Even if there were no copyright laws, companies would most likely convert software to services and charge for the access (this is actually a good idea....no need to worry about copyright infringement). Some companies are doing this already (turbo tax comes to mind)..even though they have an actual software counter-part.

Re:So, basically

[neopara]

Rich != Smart

S-M-R-T!! I mean S-M-A-R-T.

Re:So, basically

[sumdumass]

That action in itself, alot of people do not have problems with.

The probelsm seem to crop up in the practices employed to reach thier final outcome. Some tactics are just underhanded enough to make an objection apear to disliek them for doing it. This often gets confused with supporting sharring files and music though.

Re:So, basically

[lasindi]

A typical filesharer doesn't sell the downloaded music for money either.

That's totally irrelevant. It's copyright infringement whether or not you sell it.

The first thing a filesharer sees from the RIAA is a C&D letter demanding money. Welte tells the infringing companies "We know you use GPLed code in your products you sell. Clean up your act or we will do more than just remind you about it.". At this time, there is no fine to pay if the company complies.

Sounds like your complaint with the RIAA is that they're simply too quick to demand money. Copyright infringement, whether it's against music or GPLed software, is wrong, and the law ought to be enforced. I would like to hear from the Slashdot community how they would like to see the RIAA enforce its copyrights without lawsuits instead of lambasting them for doing anything at all.

lasindi

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

you are spot on, its hypocracy. the gpl is effectively en efforcement of rights. the very things the gpl is supposed to be against.

the whole free software thing is a lost cause. programers need to eat.

Re:So, basically

[Xabraxas]

While at the same point, SOMEONE definately needs to survive from the content in his own work.

You make a common mistake believing that musicians actually make money off albums. Record companies make all the money and often drive their artists into poverty. You don't hear about them because they're not one of the ten bands/groups/whatever that you hear on the radio. This is actually a much more common occurrence than the reverse. It's funny that the music industry got along fine when records were used to promote live shows, instead of being the main source of revenue.

Re:So, basically

[jenkin sear]

A minor nit- it isn't Microsoft's absurd pricing, but their abysmally low quality that creates the opportunity.

$250 isn't much to pay for an OS. It's a lot to pay for a crappy, worm-ridden, virus puking cesspool, and that's where the opportunity comes from.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, software as a service is great, the software company get to line their pockets over and over again with subscriptions to the service, or pay per use. so we end up being fucked over even more by capitalist scum who don't give a shit about anyone else.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

$250 *IS* too much to pay for "just" an OS+a windowing system -- which is all you really get from Microsoft when you buy Windows. When you get it bundled from a vendor, usually they'll throw in more stuff like WinDVD or PowerDVD, but Microsoft can't get credit for that. And even if they could, WinDVD and PowerDVD those don't cost Dell or HP more than a couple extra dollars for those reduced-feature versions from intervideo and cyberlink anyway.

It's like if Red Hat charged $250 for just the Kernel and X.org; and then had the gall to charge extra for office suites.

You can get plenty of decent OS's for under $250 - even Solaris goes for $0 these days.

Re:So, basically

[God! Awful 2]

First of all RIAA are pimps going around bullying people and collecting money. That being said the intellectual property is not that of RIAA but actual artists most of whom don't even hold rights to their own creation

On the other hand GPL software is a creation of group of hard working individuals with profit being the last intent. In my books its completely differet.

I am always reading on /. that the GPL is not anti-business. But on the other hand, your comment nicely sums up what seems to be the prevaling attitude here. I.e. that rules ought to be applied selectively, depending on whether you are a big evil corporation that cares about profit, or a crusading who has "profit being the last intent".

Sorry, but that sounds anti-business to me.

-a

Re:So, basically

[God! Awful 2]

There is a key difference - not between right and wrong, but between tactics.

But the RIAA collects coinicidental evidence for high volumes of people and, without nearly enough proof, accuses them all of breaking the law.

On the other hand, the /. zeitgeist has been opposed consistently to any attempt by the RIAA to accurately monitor who is violating their copyrights. Any time they try to get an ISP to release the name of a subscriber, the /. community is in an uproar.

When the RIAA went after the P2P servicew, gnutella advocates bragged about how their algorithm was decentralized and anonymous so there would be no one to sue. There is a big focus on obfuscation. Why? Wait... wasn't obfuscation what Fortinet was accused of in the article?

-a

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really now diffrense, therefor I kind of stopped downloading porn from DC ;) ...

Nah ... but it's one of the main reasons I try to switch to "free" software only.

Re:So, basically

[bentcd]

The basic difference is that the GPL violators in question are commercial entities that directly profit from their activity, whileas the majority of file sharers in question are copying for their own personal use and are not directly profiting from it.
Which one you think is most evil depends a bit on where you stand on individual freedom vs state control and on capitalist vs consumer.
Most courts will tend to consider copyright violation done for commercial gain to be graver than copyright violations done for private use. In fact, in many countries (including Norway, which is mine), copyright doesn't usually protect against copying for personal use.

Re:So, basically

[lucason]

RIAA is free to go after infringers, but they just aren't doing a very good job doing it in an acceptable way. Suing 10-year-old kids and deceased webmasters isn't really a boost for their credibility. I don't mind RIAA defending their commercial rights, but I do object to them treading on personal liberties while doing so.

Besides there is a difference in defending the obligation to share and deffending the right to restrict.

Re:So, basically

[mpe]

But everytime you hear "RIAA sues another 200 people" in the headlines at least a handful of them are let off because the accusations were so outlandish compared to reality.

Really? IIRC the RIAA's tactics included offering reduced "damages" to have the case not come to court. How many of these cases have resulted in court injunctions or judgements?

Re:So, basically

[mpe]

Without wishing to put words into others mouths, I do believe the intention of the authors of the GPL was to take a flawed system (IP/copyright law) and use it against itself.

Or to use the laws in ways more consistent with their original intent. Considering that the GPL was invented in the US and the US Constitution explicitally states what "Intellectual Property" type laws should be used for.

Re:So, basically

[mpe]

Ironically, the original application of copyright was to prevent corporate masters from abusing content producers by hording all the profits and unfairly restricting access to works.

Actually the original application of copyright was to enable the state, to control what could and could not be printed. Both to prevent things being printed which the King didn't like and to protect clerics (who had more or less a monopoly on book publishing).

Re:So, basically

[mpe]

Gee, you mean if I embed GPL'ed code in my application, ignore the GPL and copyright it people can go to jail for using the orginal GPL'd code I ripped off.

Except that copyright law dosn't work that way. By distributing the GPL code you'd be enguaging in copyright infringement. Depending how you "embeded" the software your entire program might be a derived work of the GPL code.
Anyway most judges would take a rather dim view of a software pirate trying to sue other parties for software piracy.

Re:So, basically

[mpe]

Namely, if there's GPL code out there, you have access to the source code. Then someone takes your code, makes some modifications and does not release it GPL.

Remember that the GPL does not require that you "release" anything.

Everyone has lost rights in this situation, as no one is now able to get the source code.

The original code is still there. Making modifications is likely to create a "derived work". Thus if the modifying party distributes the modified version under any other terms than the GPL they are effectivly pirating someone else's software.

Re:So, basically

[mpe]

You make a common mistake believing that musicians actually make money off albums. Record companies make all the money and often drive their artists into poverty. You don't hear about them because they're not one of the ten bands/groups/whatever that you hear on the radio.

Even the "sucessful" ones appear to have a rather high rate of bankruptcy, insanity & suicide.

Re:So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of us feel good. I because I'm following the law, and them because they're not paying anything.

The difference here is that you're a big pussy.

Re:So, basically

[bbc]

"Just playing devil's advocate here."

To the contrary, you are either a complete idiot or too lazy to breathe.

Your question has been answered so often at Slashdot before, that I am not even going to bother repeating the answer. Just read the comments to previous Slashdot stories about going after GPL infringers. Not to mention that anyone with more than two braincells could come up with the answer themselves.

Re:So, basically

[kz45]

yup, software as a service is great, the software company get to line their pockets over and over again with subscriptions to the service, or pay per use. so we end up being fucked over even more by capitalist scum who don't give a shit about anyone else

blame it on software piracy. As a developer who would like to own his own business, this is the future and best choice. If you don't like it, you can go to another service. It's not like you don't have the freedom to do so.

Re:So, basically

[mutterc]

The difference is: one is pro-consumer, one is anti-consumer.

The GPL is intended to protect the efforts of the "community" from theft by corporations, and (more importantly) to prevent a commercial developer (or anyone else) from making a closed-source fork of open-source code.

If it were possible to make closed-source changes to GPL'ed code, then some company could release a version with features that the community (who developed the base) can't use to improve the base product, or fix when it breaks.

The RIAA, on the other hand, is trying to keep consumers from using their music without paying, to keep their profits up. (I personally am against music piracy. However, I do see some legitimate reasons for song-swapping, such as a (time-limited!) "try before you buy", or getting a copy for your MP3 player / car / etc. of a CD that won't let you rip it, etc.)

Also, look at the ultimate goals. The FSF is pushing for a world where all software is Free for you to use, change, and improve. The entertainment industry is pushing for a world where all entertainment is pay-per-view.

Re:So, basically

[rxmd]

Two: If you break a window of my car, take it downtown so anyone else can drive it, etc. - I don't have my car anymore. If you could take a magic COPY of my car and leave me still with my car, anyone (here - maybe americans are so brainwashed that they would act differently) would rightly consider me a complete asshole if I objected.

On the other hand, while you wouldn't complain, the car manufacturer probably would, and rightly so. Probably not even the Slashdot crowd would deny this, even more so if copying cars was substantially easier than designing and building them in the first place.

Of course, if this was the case, there would be Stallman-esque Free Car advocates claiming that All Cars Should Be Free and so on, and there would be a Free Car movement and everything, but then it would be a completely different world entirely. And as opposed to computer enthusiasts, given my personal experience with car enthusiasts I don't trust them nearly enough to have them design my car for me to copy under a Limited Warranty clause.

Re:So, basically

[Bradee-oh!]

Correction noted. s/sues/accuses

Re:So, basically

[DickBreath]

Sometimes force is required to maintain freedom. You are smart enough to understand this. The alternative, sometimes, is to just roll over.

I suppose the British could have just let the Nazi's have their island? Ooops, Godwin's law.

You obviously understand the difference betwen GPL and BSD. The GPL accomplishes a specific goal that the author using the GPL wishes. The author of the GPL software wishes to force certian conditions for the use of his software, those conditions being that you cannot bottle up the code into something secret.

The BSD also accomplishes certian goals for authors who use it. I am not dissing the BSD, and you should not have taken it that way.

mirror of pdf

[winkydink]

is here

The rest, you can find on your own. :)

Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1st

[WillAffleckUW]

before we break open the bottles of German champagne ...

Sveasoft

[bird603568]

I like their firmware, but will linksys please sue them. THey are clearly violating the GPL and GPL has won twice. I don't see how Sveasoft can win. They dont even supply sourcecode.

Re:Sveasoft

[digitalchinky]

They do supply source, but you have to pay for access - the scheme he has set up is valid, does not violate the GPL, only James does tend to be a little bit of a cry baby when his subscribers sell out and publish anyway. He cancels the account and bans the IP address of the offender (if he can figure it out, otherwise I think it's just a dart board approach with a list of random subscriber IP's) And he is (with proof) known to intimidate people with what amounts to threats of violence through email.

Not someone I would give money, but others do (for some odd reason)

Re:Sveasoft

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"They do supply source, but you have to pay for access - the scheme he has set up is valid, does not violate the GPL"...but then you go on to describe a situation that is *not* valid under the GPL: "does tend to be a little bit of a cry baby when his subscribers sell out and publish anyway". He can charge a fee to recover the cost of distribution, but he can't be adding additional conditions. If he is distributing binaries, then I have the right to the source code as a memeber of "any third party". I then have full GPL redistribution rights. James is in violation, and his scheme is *not* valid.

Re:Sveasoft

[Swift Kick]

Another idiot.

Please go read the GPL FAQ.

What is is doing might not be pleasing to you, but it certainly falls in the 'OK TO DO' category under the GPL.

Re:Sveasoft

[Anonymous Coward]

well, not exactly, the conditions are set when he sell its product (the firmware+support), and he can put whatever conditions he wants on that.

This emans that what is tied to the non-redistribution cause is the subscription to sveasoft and not the access to the source code once the binary is distributed.

well, I may have been not clear, but still, I agree that altough it is (probably) legal, it's not intelligent nor fair (esp. given his sympathic character)

Re:Sveasoft

[bird603568]

NOt only does he break the GPL he put "his own" work in there so he thinks he its ok. also you have to buy his "closed beta". Apperently, that makes it ok to charge put tags in it change the license, sent foul email, ipban people, and make a "new" firmware that has "no GPL code"

Re:Sveasoft

[bird603568]

Want real proof read this Slashdot link

Re:Sveasoft

[bap]

OpenWRT, at http://www.OpenWRT.org/, is better. And free. With source. And has about a zillion little precompiled packages you can install right off the net.

Re:Sveasoft

[bird603568]

or you could get a free tag free version from TheIndividual or get DD-WRT from the forum in his link. Version 6a is better than 7a(total shit), but DD-WRT v22 is the best.

Wait a second...

[selectspec]

Congratulations again to Welte and his attorneys!.

I'm all for GPL enforcement, but I'd just assume eat a copy of Windows XP before I'll congratulate an attorney.

Re:Wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you 'assume eat a copy of Windows XP'?

Re:Wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh, just you wait till you need one you troll you.

Re:Wait a second...

[Trogre]

...but I'd just assume eat a copy of Windows XP...

I think you mean you'd just as soon eat a copy of Windows XP

Re:Wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for GPL enforcement, but I'd just assume eat a copy of Windows XP before I'll congratulate an attorney.

I'll laugh when you get a wreck on the way home today and go crying to one to help you.

Re:Wait a second...

[Pxtl]

Just because someone needs a lawyer, doesn't mean they like lawyers. Actually, I'd think its the other way around - I'm sure many people who have needed a lawyer hate them _more_ than those who don't.

Re:Wait a second...

[selectspec]

hmm. I wonder how many years I've been writing that phrase incorrectly. Maybe eating these operating system install CDs is a bad idea...

Re:Wait a second...

[Xarius]

I am sure you meant "just as soon" :P

Re:Wait a second...

[What me a Coward]

Never assume anything! :D

Re:Wait a second...

[Jason Ford]

Ha. Well, we understood what you meant, for all intensive purposes.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Re:Wait a second...

[AceCaseOR]

I do know a few good attorneys.

A while back I had to bonk heads with my local school district because they were not living up to their obligations under my IEP (I have Asperger's Syndrome). We got an attorney who specalized in IEP law. While there essentially enough time left in my schooling at High School (I was a Senior) for the full knock-down-drag out fight to get them to live up to the agreement (and we did not necessarily have enough proof to convince the judge - the official minutes and reports of the previous meetings were kept by the school district), we did take them to court to get them to let us tape record the IEP meetings. We didn't win the suit, but that and some rallying at the School Board meeting got the policy changed (Previously, there was no policy, which the person in charge of the Special Needs division took to meen they did not have to let Parents and their Advocates tape record IEP meetings, the Board Meeting got the policy changed to Explictly permit parents to record IEP meetings).

Re:Wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone hates attourneys, until one shows up and saves your arse.

Re:Wait a second...

[HeliumHigh]

Na, it usually eats you first :D (XP that is... I don't mind being 0wn3d by the GPL)

Re:Wait a second...

[Alsee]

Here here!

-

Why?

[Danuvius]

Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1st

Why? You can always apply to immigrate. ;)

before we break open the bottles of German champagne ...

I don't believe such a thing exists. ;)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

the bottles of German champagne ...

I don't believe such a thing exists. ;)

I *know* that such a thing doesn't exist.

Champagne is in France, not Germany.

Re:Why?

[Danuvius]

I was going for subtlety and mysteriousness--but, ultimately, trying to make the same point.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most /. readers are American. Your way would have gone right over their heads. :o)

Re:Why?

[frost22]

Actually, there are a few decent German Champagnes out there. They are just not calling it "Champagne", because in Europe that term is restricted / protected for the products of the French Region of that name.

But if you see a better German "Sekt" (sparkling wine) with remarks like "Flaschengärung" or "methode champagnoise" or some such, its probably a German cellary's take on champagne.

Preliminary Injunctions are not enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Call us when a case goes to trial and the GPL is upheld.

Re:Preliminary Injunctions are not enforcement

[wzzrd]

Okay, well I'm calling your ass right the hell now :)
Here you can find a Slashdot story about a German court ruling upholding an older injunction in a similar matter.
Now I'm not an expert on German law, but this sure sounds like a proper upholding in a trial to me.

Re:Preliminary Injunctions are not enforcement

[morzel]

Call us when a case goes to trial and the GPL is upheld.

You didn't even have to read the article... It's right there in the summary:

The Munich Court granted Welte a preliminary injunction and then upheld that injunction (Court's decision in English pdf)

So not everyone reads the articles... You do read the summaries, I presume?

What i want to know...

[Zate]

is why Slashdot is so slow at posting articles. i read about this stuff this morning from linux.com over on the side bar there.

Re:hello

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the Internet is just down the hall. Best of luck.

Not the same at all

[Visaris]

He is not trying to extract insane amounts of money from them. He just wants them to comply and post the source code. It really isn't hard. It would be like the RIAA going to court to get people to share their mp3s.... You see where I'm going with this, right?

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[Krach42]

http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/blog/_archives/20 05/3/22/464220.html

DrewTech vs SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

DrewTech developed some GPL code, and SAE said that they owned it and refused to release the source, and were charging money for it.

SAE gave up on their claims of ownership and released the source.

I feel it's more of an issue of the SAE debating the origin of the code than actually contesting the GPL, though.

Re:hello

[Ithika]

You are new here...

False Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the correct analogy would be if the RIAA forced the infringers to pay for all the copies of music they downloaded at the standard retail price.

Re:False Analogy

[Red Alastor]

No, the correct anology would be the RIAA offering infringers to buy the CDs they downloaded or erase the mp3s from their hard disks.

I used to live in Munich!

[debilo]

Mod me up!!

Re:I used to live in Munich!

[coopex]

I have a tshirt from Munich!
Mod me up!

Re:I used to live in Munich!

[coopex]

To the mods who moderated offtopic or overrated: get a sense of humor.

To the mods who moderated funny: Thank you for not have sticks up your asses.

Reason /. is so slow

[doublem]

The story doesn't get posted on /. until someone is willing to trade sexual favors in exchange for getting their article published. As a result, there'll always be some lag time between when a story breaks and when it gets posted.

First, someone needs to notice it, and get emotionally involved.

Next, someone needs to care enough to trade sexual favors.

Then, someone actually has to shag one of the /. editors. (I hear this is the shortest step, and actually adds very little in terms of lag time)

Finally, the article gets posted for all the /. readers to enjoy.

Re:Reason /. is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

And duplicate stories come from DVDA.

It all makes sense now!

Re:Reason /. is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally... an explanation of how Roland Pipiquille has gotten so many articles published! ;-)

Cute "Dept" Tag

[adavies42]

I'm assuming "weg" is pronounced "vay" in German?

Re:Cute "Dept" Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming

You know what assuming does . . .

You must be new here.

Re:Cute "Dept" Tag

[ibpooks]

Weg is the German word for way. Thus, Way to go.

Re:Cute "Dept" Tag

[Sique]

'weg' is also the German word for 'away', thus also 'away to go' ;)

Re:Cute "Dept" Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's pronounced /veck/. However, it does mean "way".

*pop* goes the brain

[doublem]

But, but, I thought Lawyers were BAD.

Here they did something GOOD.

*head explodes*

Re:*pop* goes the brain

[El]

Lawyers are a necessary evil. "They" have lawyers, therefore "we" must have lawyers too, to defend ourselves. Of course, politics is dominated by lawyers, the rules are all slanted to make it impossible to accomplish anything without a lawyer get a percentage. (Tryed making out a Living Will without paying a lawyer?)

Re:*pop* goes the brain

[Anonymous Coward]

its because....

*American* lawyers are BAD

Re:*pop* goes the brain

[FidelCatsro]

Lawyers are a little like Knives .
You can spread your bread with one or You can stab someone .
In other words lawyers are total Tools
Unfortunatly ,unlike other Tools these Tools are in it for the money and where-as the knife more often that not is spreading the bread , the lawyer is more likely to be stabing someone for some cash ,Metaphoricaly speaking..I think

Re:*pop* goes the brain

[_Sprocket_]

But, but, I thought Lawyers were BAD.

Here they did something GOOD.

From the C|Net article:

And Welte said he wasn't happy with the response to the letters he delivered to company representatives at CeBit.

"Most of them failed to create any form of reaction on behalf of the companies. It's very sad to see that in most cases nobody would even start to listen to you unless you sent it via a lawyer," Welte said.

Huh.

Re:*pop* goes the brain

[delire]

" Lawyers are a little like Knives . You can spread your bread with one or You can stab someone ."

Didn't the director of the Spanish SGAE (Music Copyright Cartel) also say that?

In fact I think it was:

Mp3's are like a knife (...)

Re:*pop* goes the brain

[Anonymous Coward]

parody

I live in Munich!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me up too!!

Re:I live in Munich!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me up three

I've been to Munich!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me up, too!!

Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business

[gbulmash]

I'm not sure about the particular GPL'ed projects in question, but I know that a number of GPL'ed projects offer a GPL license and a Commercial license.

If you don't mind releasing source and contributing changes/improvements back to the community, you can use the code for free. But, if you want to create a closed-source/proprietary project, you can buy a license that allows it. MySQL does this.

The GPL does not create an anti-business environment in and of itself. It merely a licensing option that can be part of a portfolio of licensing options developers make available to those who want to use their code.

- Greg

Re:Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business

[lakeland]

Yah, some software I'm looking at (http://www.open-dent.com/) does this too. Personally I don't like it very much, and I think it discourages a community developing around the software. But, their code, their call and all that.

Re:Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business

[cpghost]

MySQL does this.

As well as Trolltech (the outfit behind Qt).

This is perfectly legitimate. If you want to develop a closed source project, you can either negotiate with the copyright owner to get a separate commercial licence... or avoid GPLed code altogether (and use [, support, and create more] BSD-licensed code).

The rules are known in advance. If I started developing software using GPL code, I should know what I'm doing. It's as simple as that.

Companies who think they could get away with using GPL-ed code, without having to comply with the license terms they accepted, ought to get slapped, just like any other willful copyright infringer.

Re:Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business

[Anonymous Coward]

That only works if you have control of the copyright, so it's not necessarily an alternative.

Re:Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business

[jbolden]

I think the companies that do this don't want a community developing the software they want a community of users and enhancers to the software. MySQL and QT being good examples.

GPL, what is there to test?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone steals your GPL code, you sue them for *copyright infringement*. The only defense against that is if they can show they had a license to use your code. They are forced to show the GPL to save their ass, and then you nail them on the fact that they're not following the terms of the license they're pretending to use for their defense. What can go wrong?

Re:hello

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the internets is down the hall. The Internet is in the other wing.

I ate a brought from Munich!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Me up too!!

No.

[Danuvius]

It is not. I am thus perplexed. ;)

Interpretation

[tobiasly]

Funny how the FUDmeisters at C|Net translate the exact same story:

Shadow over open source
German court ruling halts shipments of one company's Linux wares; license spat could soon hit U.S
http://news.com.com/Linux+programmer+wins+legal+vi ctory/2100-7344_3-5671209.html?tag=nefd.lede

Re:Interpretation

[baafie]

By that analogy, consider the following fictional article:

Shadow over Microsoft product usage

German court ruling halts shipments of Sitecoms distribution of Microsoft Windows; Microsoft claiming a license violation. End users are outraged over attempts to limit sharing of Microsoft products..

Re:Interpretation

[PinkX]

Your analogy has no point at all, since Microsoft Windows is not to be shared, by its license.

Re:Interpretation

[baafie]

That's exactly my point.

Re:Interpretation

[What me a Coward]

That's a dull point if you ask me :P

Re:Interpretation

[quigonn]

No. Linux is not to be shared, either, at least not without source.

Free != free

[EmbeddedJanitor]

GPL and FSF's stance is "software shall be free". This is very different to saying "you're free to use it in any way". For that you need a differnt licence, maybe BSD.

As has been discussed many times, GPL is a "viral" licence that "infects" anything it is joined to. Bolt GPL onto other code and it must be, or become, GPL too.

What is interesting/confusing is that there are exceptions specified in the GPL FAQ (not that you have to consider this binding since it is not part of the GPL). For instance, it is OK to build GPL code with a Microsoft (or other proprietary) compiler and link in proprietary Microsoft libraries that ship with the compiler (eg. the C-library stuff). This makes for some interesting loopholes. If I bundled up a compiler with MyLib (my secret stuff), could I use it with GPL and keep my stuff non-GPL?

Re:Free != free

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually there are no restrictions on *use*, only on *distribution*. You can link all you want to and keep your stuff as secret as you want. You just can't distribute it linked.

Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[Danuvius]

Though, to my shame, I have never been there. :-(

Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[BadDoggie]

I'd mod you down if I could. It's "Munich" or "München" but not "Münich".

Yes, I live here (in MUC -- the city, not the airport). I'm not from here. See some of my earlier posts or the "journal".

Anyway, German courts are really screwy. A decision in one court does not necessarily influence another court at the same, higher or even lower level. Just because the high court in the state of Sachsen finds A, B and C, it doesn't mean that the Bavarian high court is bound to accept that as precedent.

Precedent don't mean dick here. Not even when the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, similar to SCOTUS) hands down a decision. It's kind of freaky, really.

woof.

Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[morzel]

I'd mod you down if I could. It's "Munich" or "München" but not "Münich".

A bit off-topic but can't you use "Muenchen" as well?

Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[greenrd]

This is what got me worried today about the proposed EU software patents directive. Those who are for the directive, keep saying that the highly contentious phrase "technical effect" doesn't need to be defined, because it's already covered by a body of existing case law. But how useful is that in countries like Germany, where precedent doesn't dictate legal decisions?

Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[Tom]

Parent isn't entirely true.

Precedent doesn't have legally binding character as it does in the UK and (partially) in the US. However, a lot of case law does exist and it is meaningful.

The main difference is that a single decision, or even two, doesn't mean much. But after a while, it becomes more and more unlikely that a court would go a different way. Especially the higher courts, where your appeals would go, have a strong tendency to reinforce their own previous decisions.

IANAL, but my job that requires that I almost am.

Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[-brazil-]

Anyway, German courts are really screwy. A decision in one court does not necessarily influence another court at the same, higher or even lower level. Just because the high court in the state of Sachsen finds A, B and C, it doesn't mean that the Bavarian high court is bound to accept that as precedent.

Actually, I find this reasonable and the opposite screwy. If case law is binding, a single bad decision by an incompetent or even corrupt judge can fuck up lots of other cases.

Precedent don't mean dick here. Not even when the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, similar to SCOTUS) hands down a decision.

This is a highly misleading statement. Decisions of the Bundesverfassungsgericht are binding for the case in question, and since you can only appeal to it over questions of the conformance of laws and directives to the constitution, its decision are, in practice, binding for other cases as well since the laws or directives that it finds unconstitutional must be changed.

Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich

[menace3society]

You know, I was just thinking that's one of the things about the German legal system that they got right. All this bullshit about "precedent" just means that, above and beyond the civil codes, you also have to read up on every case that ever happened to make sure it doesn't set a "precedent" (which can still be over-turned, like Brown vs. Board of Education), and then wonder about how far-reaching the precedent is. The notion of precedent as a legal concept more or less originates in England, and only has any worth if the legislature doesn't do its job and pass laws to cover new scenarios as they develop. It shouldn't be up to the courts to re-write^H^H^H^H^^Hinterpret standing legislation.

And this to the trolls that cry wolf

[qortra]

At least for my part, I believe that all IP should be default BSD license style. In other words, I believe the government should leave people alone with respect to IP. So, if you can keep your IP secret, then you can exclusively use that IP. Otherwise, it's simply free. Somebody who believes as I do might try to make a license (acknowledged by the Government) that provides that the code will never be subject to petty restrictions. This way, more of the world's IP can be free as we believe it ought to be.

The GPL was designed to be such a license. People cry out when the GPL gets violated not because the IP has been violated, but because the IP has become less free.

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[WillAffleckUW]

DrewTech developed some GPL code, and SAE said that they owned it and refused to release the source, and were charging money for it.

SAE gave up on their claims of ownership and released the source.

But did this involve an actual penalty or ruling from the court or was it settled ex parte (and thus not belonging to the body of US law)?

And also, was this a district court, state supreme court, federal court (e.g. 7th), or federal appeals court?

Eternal Preliminary Injunction

[RedLaggedTeut]

For a company, not being allowed to sell a product is one of the worst things that can happen.

Suing a company into following the GPL is tricky, since the company at any time could try to just say "Hey, look we just forgot to put the source code online, here is it". On the other hand, if they choose not to follow the GPL, there is no way to force them to do so except threatening to sue them for damages(!=following GPL) and getting an injunction.

Re:Eternal Preliminary Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, "we just forgot to put the source code online" is just an acknowledgement of guilt.
You either have to give the source with the
product, or give a *written* offer to give it.

Re:This is How Open Source Damages Business

[ThomaMelas]

Would it be the same if the company had stolen code from say MS and lost?

Re:nice try

[wzzrd]

It will, as soon as SCO vs. IBM is finally going to be ruled in. But then again, that trial is going to take slightly longer than oblivion. Beter make another cup of coffee if you want to sit that one out.

Work For Hire ?

[Tiger4]

Interesting.

Let us say Company A hires Developer B to come up with some data manipulation software, WidgetWare, for use inside Company A. If it works out, perhaps it will be repackaged and marketed.

Developer B immediately realizes WidgetWare is very similar to an abandoned GPL'd project from 3 years ago. Developer B, without Company A's knowledge, grabs the GPL'd code, makes lots of updates, then hands it over to Company A. Naturally the source is included, as it would be in a work for hire situation AND a GPL one.

Company A likes WidegetWare, so proceeds to re-market WidgetWare (perhaps as part of another, larger SuperWidgetWare2005 package) to the general public as proprietary code. No source included.

Who, if anyone, is at fault here?
Who, if anyone, should do something?

Does Company A get itself sued, and have its legitimate proprietary code exposed, over the GPL being entrained in the released code?

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Krach42]

Company B complied with the GPL, by making modifications and supplying source code to those who recieve the product.

Company A is not complying, because they're releasing the code against the terms of the GPL.

Assuming Company B was in compliance of the GPL, they would have had to disclose to Company A that the code was licensed under the GPL, and then recommend that Company A read up one what the GPL means.

Functionally, it's difficult to prove that Company B didn't notify Company A of the GPL origins of the code, and Company A would admit that they were aware of the GPL origins as soon as they denied to release the source code, upon being presented with the information that they are out of compliance with the GPL.

So, when person XY contacts company A and says, "Your product violates my IP rights, under the GPL, you need to comply, and release the source code."

If Company A says, "No, it's our code." They're immediately out of compliance.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Tiger4]

The way I was seeing this was more like this:

Developer B is OK with the GPL, if only technically. But is lax, perhaps negligent, by not explicitly telling Company A that encumbered software was included in the delivery. That would be true for any licensing. The fact that is it GPL just raises the stakes a bit.

Company A, in turn, is negligent for not asking explicitly about what licensing is included in the delivery from B. Then, by packaging legitimate proprietary information with GPL code, Company A put itself at risk when it was marketed. Though a part of that liability could be alid off to Developer B, still A has duty to be sure it is doing the right thing when it does anything.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation is not that different than what would exist if developer B used work product from a prior employer in this new product.

Company A is pretty much screwed. It can open source it's product, it can keep it closed source but rewrite the gpl portions, and it can potentially sue the developer. But it can't be forced to open source it's code since it can withdraw it's product until it's gpl code free.

Cases like this occur with proprietary software and it's not unique to the gpl world.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Swift Kick]

As with most Slashdot monkeys, you jumped the gun on this.

I believe the poster was referring to a hypothetical situation where DEVELOPER (not Company B) took a presumably extinct GPL project and modified it on his own as a way to lessen the amount of actual work he'd have to perform, as opposed to 'reinvent the wheel', if you will.

I also believe that the poster is implying in his scenario that Developer B did *not* inform Company A of his use of the GPL'ed code, but simply turned it to Company A as any developer-for-hire would do.

In no part of his post he states that Developer B turned over the source code to Company A as a way to insure his compliance with the GPL; he did it simply because it was part of his contract with Company A, and *it just so happened it also cleared him of GPL abuse* in the process.

This then brings the questions:

1) Is Company A in violation of the GPL if they were completely unaware of Developer B's use of GPL code?

2) If they were indeed unaware, and market this code, are they under any obligation to make the sourcecode freely available to any of their users?

3) If someone comes after them because of this, shouldn't the developer be the one to get crucified for this perceived violation of the GPL?

For all intents and purposes, I'd say that if person XY contacted the company and said "Your product violates my IP rights, under the GPL, you need to comply, and release the source code" is also *not entitled* to a copy of it, unless he's willing to pay for it. The GPL does state that you can ask people to pay for GPL code if they do so request, but what they do with it after you give it to them is up to them.

I suggest you go check this url out, as I'm almost 100% sure you've never laid eyes on it:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ml

So, in short, you haven't responded to his hypothetical scenario and remain a idiotic GPL zealot.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Chirs]

1) Yes they are. The wrinkle is that only the copyright holders of the original code can actually sue them for breach of copyright.

2) Yes they are, under the terms of the GPL. Either that or they reach some arrangement to buy back the product from all those to whom it was distributed.

3) Depends on the circumstances. What were the terms of A's contract with developer B? Did it specify licensing terms? If no terms were specified (explicitly or implicitly) than I don't think developer B did anything wrong. Rather, A was negligent in setting up the contract and is wholly responsible.

With regards to paying for a copy, I think you miss the point. The original author says "you are distributing a derived work based on my GPL-licensed code but are not abiding by the GPL". At that point they can go after you for copyright violation. There is no payment involved. All they have to do is show that you are not abiding by the terms of the GPL.

Where the payment comes in is in the case of the final customer. There's nothing stopping you from charging for a work licensed under the GPL, provided you follow it's terms. A product derived from GPL'd code must either a) be accompanied with the source, b) be accompanied with a written offer, valid for at least 3 years, on how to get the source code *for no more than the cost of distributing it*, or c) a noncommercial distribution may simply pass on the information *it* received as to how to obtain the source if it got the derived work in binary form.

Chris

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Krach42]

If you're distributing the binary of a derivative of a GPL work, without distributing the source code, then you're in violation of the GPL.

It's pretty simple like that.

Of course, most GPL authors don't go and sue people immediately for money before asking them to simply comply with the GPL.

Let me put this in the most generalized terms. Company B has the possibility that they complied (and since it's so hard to prove that they didn't, then they can easily dodge the blame in court) And simply including the AUTHORs and COPYRIGHT file from the project may be argued as sufficiently complying with the GPL.

Company A on the other hand is violating under all conditions: Distributing a binary GPL derivative without source. Their actions on compliance upon learning that their code is GPL determines their intent, and the actions that the author should take to reconcile the matter.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[Sique]

3) Depends on the circumstances. What were the terms of A's contract with developer B? Did it specify licensing terms? If no terms were specified (explicitly or implicitly) than I don't think developer B did anything wrong. Rather, A was negligent in setting up the contract and is wholly responsible.

About every contract I know of assures that the selling party has the right to sell the work/object/priviledge/whatever that is subject of the contract. So there surely is a clause somewhere in every software contract where the seller (developer) declares that he owns the copyrights to the work he sells or has at least for the parts he doesn't own the copyright the license to sell a copy.
And even if not: If the developer in question didn't put a GPL copy in his (derivative) work, he is not in compliance with the GPL. And if Company A looks at the source code it is getting, it surely notices that the software is under GPL.

So if the seller in question doesn't have the complete copyrights to the work he is selling, and he doesn't tell the buyer, he has at least committed culpa in contrahendo, so the buyer can at least withdraw from the contract, because the contract is void as such. And the buyer can claim damages too.

So for the developer, it runs badly: He didn't comply with the GPL, so he lost the right to distribute his derivative work. Thus he sold something he didn't have the right to, so he caused financial damage to the buyer and the copyright holder.

Luckily Company A ran afoul the GPL, not another software license. If Company A stops distributing the (in fact) GPLed software, it already has complied with the GPL and stopped the infringment. And the customers who bought the GPLed product are entitled by the GPL (section 4) to further use the derivative work even though Company A didn't comply with the GPL.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[jbolden]

It makes a huge difference whether Developer B tells Company A the code is GPLed. By passing th code to A he is implicitly claiming rights. Claiming to hold rights to something you know you don't is a criminal violation of copyright law not just civil. So B is potentially in deep shit. Now what's interesting here is that B's desire to escape criminal and civil liability probably makes him a witness ofr XY, that is he will attempt to prove that the code came from XY and that A was aware of it.

In either case though XY has rights and can sue A for damages. Whether you can force release of source code or not the courts have never decided on and probably would decide no. But they would likely award XY some damages.

Now if XY were succesful in proving that B had not informed them then its likely XY would not get the damages from A but would have to go after B. A could also go after B for the cost of replacing the code or relicensing it from XY.

Re:Work For Hire ?

[mutterc]

Does Company A get itself sued, and have its legitimate proprietary code exposed...

FYI, publishing of the source is not necessary. The company can withdraw that version of SuperWidgetWare2005 from the market, then release a new version that does not contain any GPLed code.

The GPL will not be able to force anyone to reveal any source code. There's always the option of ceasing to distribute the infringing product.

I got drunk in Munich!

[MisanthropicProgram]

Mod me up too!

Attorneys not good or bad, but amoral.

[Morgaine]

Please note, amoral (without morals), not immoral (with bad morals).

In other words, they'll defend the worst torturing serial killer with the same aplomb and indifference as they'll defend the most innocent child. It's in the nature of the profession, to do their utmost for their clients with total clarity and detachment.

It sounds good, but unfortunately, this is also why they prosecute 11-year olds and grannies on behalf of the RIAA.

If you're looking for morals and socially beneficial conduct, attorneys and their related legal brethren would not be the best place to start looking. An attorney with a personal agenda to do good (or bad) would be a corrupt attorney, unable to perform his legal duties fairly.

mmm... Yes!!

[smartsaga]

The college I work for is about to buy some stuff from Fortinet... I wonder if they will give us a discount for this... ^_^

Your GPLed rights are belong to us... get it?

Have a good one!!!

Small companies beware! Large ones...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nice that gpl-violations.org is enforcing the GPL when small companies have decided to blow off it's requirements. But shouldn't it apply equally regardless of the size of the company? Why does large companies get to redistribute GPL applications while stripping off providing a copy of the GPL?

Re:So, basically... Would be interesting indeed...

[davidsyes]

to find in the near future that microsoft (lower-casing/deprecation of their name intentional/perpetual with me...) is using more than just BSD/FreeBSD code in their warez.

Would it be offensive to mshaft and RIAA acolytes for disguntled employees to dissolve their IP/NDA duties in the face of clear theft of GPL code?

Even more interesting would be if some disgruntled employees who leak it do it such a manner that it survives the sure-to-follow "inadmissible evidence due to illegal seizure and release of information in this case your honor" here in the US. Pliant, weak, feckless judges would probably spend the better part of 15 years before gettiing around to punishing (painfully punishing, that is, not just a tickle on the frenulum or feather on the cossix) mshaft for such infringements in the US,
or in countries where ms can pay off governments to pressure or replace judges.

So, do any of you out there have proof that lurking, buried deep in ms code is stolen/masked/encrypted/bynarized GPL code?

It's München you umbs

[Krach42]

If you knew German you'd know that ;)

MOD SIBLINGS UP! Re:I used to live in Munich!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been to Krautland.

Re:This is How Open Source Damages Business

[Dareth]

Quoting the grandparent...

SCO is right. The GPL is FUNDAMENTALLY about attacking and destroying companies and their employees. Amazingly enough many people still fall for the GPL "freedom" lie.

GPL is a form of copyright, or rather a license to use some copyrighted code. If you do want to abide by the GPL you can write your own code, even if it does the exact same thing as code that is under the GPL license. Software patents on the other hand would prevent you from doing anything even remotely similar to the original code, if there even is code that implements the ideas of the patent!

Which one is more restricting?

Like Open Source

[Lifewish]

Open source software can aid Brazil in developing its IT infrastructure and training its citizens. Or it can be used by the Chinese government to spy on *its* citizens. Open source is developed according to aesthetic, not moral, judgements. Lawyers work the same way - a beautifully prepared case is still beautiful if it defends Adolf Hitler.

Re:Like Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers work the same way - a beautifully prepared case is still beautiful if it defends Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, just like the parent said, amoral, not immoral. The morality (or otherwise) is judged by others.

How the technical merits of the case are judged is a completely separate issue though.

You're quite right that very often they are determined by aesthetics, which in itself is quite an indictment of the legal profession. A better standard MO would have been logic, but that tends to be frowned on as it doesn't allow for arguments held together by emotive ligands that are logically void.

Re:This is How Open Source Damages Business

[hawkeye_82]

Of course not. It would simply be that Microsoft would have sued the company's pants off, and still wouldnt be satisfied with it.

You cant really expect to steal source code and then put it out as your own. This is why GPL v3 promises to be much better.Take GPL'ed source code, if you want, but pay for it with money or with more source code.

Besides, I still dont get how this would destroy a company. I mean, just because the company put their source code back into the community does not mean they have to stop selling it.

Soft on violators?

[Michael Woodhams]

I'm surprised that the violating companies have got off so lightly - publish the source and keep going as you were.

If it were my GPLed code, I think I'd tell during negotiations (well, demands) prior to legal action that if they publish the source now, they can continue, but if I have to take them to court, they'll be forever forbidden from using the code. (The GPL explicitly allows this strategy.)

Re:Soft on violators?

[Anonymous Coward]

they'll be forever forbidden from using the code

Instead, how about [pinky]ONE MILLION DOLLARS![/pinky]

But seriously, I'd rather have the cash.

Re:Soft on violators?

[MAdMaxOr]

> (The GPL explicitly allows this strategy.)

Can someone post the relevant snippet of the GPL? My cursory scan did not find it.

Re:Soft on violators?

[nuggz]

(The GPL explicitly allows this strategy.)

Where? I don't see any ban on use at all. In fact the GPL states that use of the code is not covered.

I don't see a perpetual ban on distribution either. Only that you may distribute it if you accept the terms of the license.
I think that means when you accept the license terms you may distribute it. I don't see how past behaviour is a factor.

Re:Soft on violators?

[Michael Woodhams]

" 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

OK, it is less explicit than I remembered. Your rights are terminated once you've violated the GPL. They do not automatically become restored if you belatedly come back into compliance.

I've read how the FSF has used this threat as a big stick to wave at companies not in compliance.

Re:Soft on violators?

[Michael Woodhams]

OK, I've found a reference to this strategy being used.

Re:Soft on violators?

[nuggz]

They do not automatically become restored if you belatedly come back into compliance.

As long as you abide by the terms of the license you have permission.

Re:Soft on violators?

[jbolden]

I don't know about German courts but US courts have consistently held that each copy carries its own license. So getting another copy from a valid source (i.e. someone who had been in compliance) would renew rights under the GPL. The cleanflix case is the most clear example of this.

Note the FSF website says the opposite. They don't site any case law for this and I think they are hoping that this is not the case for software which doesn't carry a per unit cost. But all they are doing is hoping IMHO

Re:So, basically -- an attorney responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, if one distributes a single ABBA song to 200 people than the record producers have lost at max the profit on those 200 songs (one could claim that not all of those 200 people would have paid for the song and therefore the actual damage is less). The RIAA, however, uses a statute that they bought and paid for to sue said distributor for thousands of dollars more than the actual damage they suffered. Most people consider that bad.

If a company is distributing an infringing product and one sues seeking an injunciton and seeking no damages then .... well you can see the difference.

Re:nice try

[Unit3]

haha I love how you classify a "real" court as being a "US one". I mean, never mind that the US legal system is the worldwide example of "what not to do", and has no bearing whatsoever on any country that is *not* the US (ie, the majority of the world population, and these days, the places where most of the OSS development is taking place).

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you have german champagne, prepare to be sued for another kind of IP ;)

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

WILLINGLY.

But often in ignorance of the realities of the situation. Most of them are clueless.

wrong in protecting their property,

In neither case is it real "property", but anyway, as a GPL software author, I will only enforce copyright privilege against those who enforce it against others. I have no quarrel with those who don't try and stop me passing on information (this is different to claiming to author the information, which I believe should remain fraudulent when copyright law is abolished. That way, people still know to go to the right person for NEW information patterns, but people won't be paid over and over again for the same old information patterns)

I only use copyright law to undermine the social control inherent in restricting the flow of information. This is little different to resistance fighters grabbing a gun and turning it on their oppressors, which is the right thing to do if your oppressors aren't going to be eliminated by peaceful means (ghandi succeeded against the british only because the british were basically reasonable and not particularly evil, this is not true of the *AA)

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Those artists whom you claim have no rights to their property WILLINGLY SIGNED THEIR CONTRACTS. WILLINGLY.

Two things:

1. If you want to make a living with music you have no choice but to sign those contracts due to the RIAA cartel behaviour. They have the music industry sewn up.

2. A legal clerk, authorised to do things like correct spelling mistakes, changed the law to automatically award copyrights to the labels instead of the musicians. In many cases, the contract won't have included copyright attribution because the label didn't need it.

Funnily enough, that legal clerk, soon after making that change to the law, resigned and got an extremely well paying job with a record label. No corruption there, no way...

And people are trying to equate these sleazeballs with people giving away the software they write? There is simply no comparison.

Copyright infringement vs. breech of contract

[cpghost]

IANAL, but this is basically the way to go. The GPL (or another license) is the ONLY hole through the copyright-wall, so to speak. Without license, you are infringing copyright.

BUT if you don't follow the license terms on the letter, does that automatically mean that you are infringing copyright? You may be violationg some kind of contract (user agreement, license agreement), which is something completely different.

Violating terms of an agreement or a license doesn't automatically voide that contract, unless specified verbatim in that same contract or license. Even if it is specified, local laws may not always endorse this. There's also the concept of salvation clauses, which is often part of contracts, but not always.

Anyway... depending on the legislation and country you're being sued, copyright infrigement may or may not be a criminal offense, while contract violation is almost always just a civil liability. That's a very important difference, not only regarding the potential penalties you may be facing.

But again, IANAL (any Lawyer on Slashdot to comment?).

München in Bavarian?

[cpghost]

If you knew German you'd know that ;)

Uhh... but Munich is in Bavaria. You may know a bit of German, yet be totally helpless when confronted with that strange bavarian dialect! :-)

A propos bavarian dialect: does anyone know of a bavarian "translation" of the (german translation of the) GPL?

Re:München in Bavarian?

[Krach42]

Oh, I lived there for about a month. I also have a good friend who's actually from München, and speaks dialect very well (or is that German horribly?)

Sometimes he'll post something on our guild forums, and I'll say, "Can someone translate that to German for me?"

Re:Sorry...

[symbolic]

I don't see this analogy as being even close to accurate. Do you think an artist walks into a studio all by him/herself and magically pops out a CD in a few days? It doesn't happen. Whether you like the RIAA or not, there are many people involved in the production and distribution of a single CD. Since all of the entities involved are are paid for their services, record companies quite obviously can't just give it away. It costs real money to produce the music that many people see fit to steal.

Second, I take issue with the notion that the music is not the property of the RIAA. As much as it might suck that this is how it ends up, the artists know full well what who will own the finished product. Nobody holds a gun to their head to make them sign a contract. It's not a big deal to the artists, because they're all after the same thing - the miniscule chance that they'll hit it big. Cry me a river.

Nothing will fundamentally change until either the consumers wise up and stop buying (and stealing), or the artists wise up and realize that their are other ways to distribute what they produce to those who want to buy it.

c|net changed the story?

[captwheeler]

You can see a reference to the "Shadow over open source" in the comments section, but the story doesn't say it. No copy in google cache or the wayback machine.

Damn pro-business GPL haters

[hellfire]

I guess I've not been paying attention to all the posts in other threads that are so anti-GPL, but I had no idea there were so many asses out there who believe GPL is anti business.

Let me be clear... the GPL is anti-bad business. GPL is pro-good business and pro consumer. And remember businesses are consumers too, the bad businesses are primarily the huge bureaucratic companies which turn out buggy lame software that doesn't always do what you expect it to do.

Now let me define what is bad business. Bad business consists of companies who do their best to create software libraries and intellectual property manifests with the sole purpose of maybe, possibly, making money. That information is sealed and protected so that in order to get at it, you have to pay someone for it.

This is based on the idea that companies have make something tangible to make money. Proprietary software is tangible enough to make money from the masses because they often buy it as tangible.

Big businesses build up this repetoire of "intellectual property" and sit on it for years. It's okay to benefit from a good idea, but copywrite laws these days take it too far. Copywritable material now has an age of 90 years, it used to be 20! Current copywrite laws therefore allow companies like disney to sit on their repetoire and continue to make money off it and don't encourage them to make new material. These businesses are not sensitive to consumer wants and needs, and stifle competition because having huge amounts of Intellectual property that no one else can ever touch is an unfair competitive advantage.

Customers who use GPL are forced to be more creative, because everyone has access to the same software! Consumers win because companies have to be more competitive. Microsoft can sit on their ass right now and say "You want an office package? Great, here's our package for $600 a person. What, you don't want to pay that price? Lick my ass n00b, you can't do shit without my software, we 0wnz j00r ass!"

Here's another way to look at it. Before the internet, most networks were proprietary. Closed off and not communicating with each other. Companies had their own networks, colleges has theirs, and some of them even tried to create VANs (value added networks) to perform EDI (electronic data interchange). Most of those attempts were novel but they sucked. When the internet came out, everyone was suddenly connected. Now EDI is easy, because as long as your computer is on the internet, I can build something that communicates with you seamlessly.

I believe I once read in an article that innovation is increased when you unbundle functions of a system. For example, if IBM owned the internet, and you had to pay a fee to use it, this would stifle innovation because not everyone would be able to or want to pay the fee. Think about the internet vs phone networks. Phone networks have features like call waiting and call blocking and voice mail and caller ID. However, phone networks can only be used for phone calls (without DSL of course). The internet is simply build on a protocol of information transfer from point a to point b, but it has unlimited uses. You can take phone calls over the internet now, and not use the phone network at all. what's even greater is that if you have 5 ISPs to chose from, you can take your VoIP to any of those ISPs and use it seamlessly, because each ISP implements a standard internet connection. They compete on service!

I'm getting off topic but it all has to do with competition. Competition has been lacking in the last several decades, because people think it's okay for big companies to hold big power. The GPL is simply taking current overly controlling law and turning it against itself by guarenteeing that information released under it is free.

Re:Damn pro-business GPL haters

[hacksoncode]

So you're saying it's anti-business, right?

Re:Damn pro-business GPL haters

[kz45]

and stifle competition because having huge amounts of Intellectual property that no one else can ever touch is an unfair competitive advantage.

if I created something you want, but can't have it because you don't know how it works is not an unfair competitive advantage. It's simply a competitive advantage. Competitive advantages are used in business all the time, which in turn creates more innnovation (companies strive to create something better than their competition, which leads to innovation happening at an extremly fast rate).

GNU software actually slows innovation. The same code is re-used over and over and new software ideas and products aren't created. I don't think I can even name a revolutionary innovative product that came out of the open source community. Linux was copied from the original unix, Gnome/KDE take ideas from microsoft windows, open/star office take ideas from microsoft office, .... (and the list goes on).

It seems, for now, the open source community seems to be good at mimicking closed source programs (and some..not so well).

Customers who use GPL are forced to be more creative....

how are customers forced to be more creative?

Consumers win because companies have to be more competitive

consumers win because they get free software. Programmers lose because it makes the job of "programmer" almost worthless. It's a lot easier to piece together bits of code that you didn't write than to actually write it yourself.

Microsoft can sit on their ass right now and say "You want an office package? Great, here's our package for $600 a person. What, you don't want to pay that price? Lick my ass n00b, you can't do shit without my software, we 0wnz j00r ass!"

you can't do anything...except use another software package. You are not forced to use microsoft products (example: open office/star office, linux). Microsoft might have a monopoly, but they started somewhere. Consumers bought and used their products in the beginning to give them that power.

Here's another way to look at it. Before the internet, most networks were proprietary. Closed off and not communicating with each other. Companies had their own networks, colleges has theirs, and some of them even tried to create VANs (value added networks) to perform EDI (electronic data interchange). Most of those attempts were novel but they sucked. When the internet came out, everyone was suddenly connected. Now EDI is easy, because as long as your computer is on the internet, I can build something that communicates with you seamlessly

and how did the Internet get this way? through big company support. Without profitability, the Internet would still be a small proprietary network.

Competition has been lacking in the last several decades, because people think it's okay for big companies to hold big power. The GPL is simply taking current overly controlling law and turning it against itself by guarenteeing that information released under it is free.

what the fuck are you talking about? Take a look at the billions of software and service companies on the Internet today (including a countless number of linux distributions) and then tell me if there is "no competition". Just because the world isn't using linux, does not mean there isn't any competition.

Who says it's different?

[Omega]

How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers? In both cases, they're intellectual property violations.

Who is saying it's different? I don't have anything against the RIAA suing copyright violators. That's HOW you protect copyright. Same with the GPL, FSF and other attorneys need to sue violators who steal GPL code. There is no difference.

OTOH, Digital Restrictions Management is NOT how you enforce copyright. The principal of first sale is at work here and DRM TAKES AWAY consumers' rights. But going after individual violators in the courts is fair game. Otherwise, how are you supposed to protect your copyright?

I'm told in one situation that copyright is flawed and evil...

Copyright is certainly flawed. 90 years + the life of the author is TOO LONG. It should be closer to patents' lifespan.

Offtopic: German Champagne

[Sique]

Germans have no right to call their champagne "champagne", according to the Contracts of Versailles (1918), which effectively ended World War I in the West. German champagne thus is called "Sekt" (from 'vine sec' = 'dry wine').

Re:Offtopic: German Champagne

[Anonymous Coward]

as said in other posts, this has nothing to do with versailles but with the european union granting only the "champagne" region in france the right to call it that. you could find a lot of german champagne in stores 10 years ago!

Re:Offtopic: German Champagne

[Sique]

As a german I can say: No. Definitely. The renaming from "Champagner" to "Sekt" took place 1918. As far as I remember back all german champagne brands were named "Sekt". From the cheapest up to the most expensive. Some vineyards were selling Sekt which was fermented using the "méthode champagnoise", and it said so on the bottle, but you didn't find any german champagne calling itself "Champagne" for at least 85 years.

I grew up in East Germany (which wasn't in any way related to the European Community, being member of the Warsaw Contract). And even there no single bottle of champagne was named "Champagner". There was the Krim champagne, which calls itself 'Krimskoye Shampanskoye', but the Krim peninsula was russian anyway (and is ukrainian today).

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[Krach42]

I don't know... I just know that people point to this case and say that the GPL was tested in US courts and won.

I read some of the summaries, and I don't think the SAE ever objected to the terms of the GPL, they just didn't agree on the ownership of the source code.

Were they right, they would have owned the code, and Drewtech would never had had a right to make the code GPL.

I am also curious ..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. on which grounds did Welte filed the original suit - he must have purchases Fortinet's product(s), then requested the sources and didn't receive them. If that's so it would've been reasonable to find any traces of this activity in its blog .. but there's none, so I wonder if what he did is actually legal. Anyone ?

Re:I am also curious ..

[Sique]

Harald Welte is Urheber (copyright owner for english-american people) of netfilter/iptables. So he has all the rights to tell Fortinet to comply with whatever license he put on netfilter/iptables, if they are using it.

Re:I am also curious ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is flawed. If I was robbed and I suspect that some guy did it, this does not give me a right to break into his apartment to gather the evidence.

Same here - if he suspects that some company uses his GPL'ed code, he MUST first buy the violating product (thus obliging the company to fulfil GPL), then request the sources and complain after that.

He can't just waltz in and for the sources. It does not work that way and any competent defence lawyer would be to use this to his advantage.

Besides, Fortinet does not use iptables/netfilter, it was initrd. Next time RTFA before commenting.

Re:I am also curious ..

[moeffju]

So, he's also one of the copyright owners of initrd.
RTFA.

Re:I am also curious ..

[Anonymous Coward]

if he suspects that some company uses his GPL'ed code, he MUST first buy the violating product (thus obliging the company to fulfil GPL), then request the sources and complain after that

Bullshit. You don't have to purchase anything.

He can't just waltz in and for the sources.

Why not? It's done with proprietary code all the time. Company A suspects Company B is using their code. They have the burden of proof, and they go to a judge. If they can convince a judge that they're being harmed, and that they're likely to win the case on its' merits, they get a preliminary injunction.

It does not work that way and any competent defence lawyer would be to use this to his advantage.

Again, bullshit. For someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, you sure make some ridiculous assertions.

Re:I am also curious ..

[God! Awful 2]

So, he's also one of the copyright owners of initrd.

Which is kind of ironic, actually. Since Welte didn't write initrd - he just bought the copyright from someone else's. In a way, it makes him like the SCO of the free software world.

(Of course he didn't actually "buy" the copyright with real money. I guess he bought it with magic smoke, or whatever it is that fuels the economy of the free software world.)

-a

Re:I am also curious ..

[moeffju]

One of the initrd coders didn't want to go to court himself, so he transferred his copyright to Welte. That's the same thing as many free software programmers signing over their copyrights to the FSF - nothing SCO-like about it.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us first see write something useful and then we'll see if you would be willing to give it away by licensing it exclusively under GPL.

You'd be amazed how easily people's moral changes when money come into the picture.

I disagree

[TFloore]

It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright

Sure it is.

You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.

If you don't support this right, then the RIAA is wrong, and so are the people that try to enforce the GPL.

If you do support this right, then the RIAA is right, and so are the GPL enforcers.

Oh, and if you think "information would be free" in your ideal world... then you *don't* support the right of the author/artist to control his creation. And therefore you lost any moral high ground.

I'm not arguing against the GPL. I support it. I am saying, you need to figure out your morals and ethics, and stop being contradictory. You either force people to your worldview, or you give them a choice.

And you seem to be arguing for force. That's a dangerous road.

Re:I disagree

[sd_diamond]

You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.

So then it's hypocritical to support the existence of U.S. law enforcement, and not support the existence of brutal police states. After all, either you support a government's right to control how its laws are enforced, or you don't.

As I understand it, the issue that most have with the RIAA's (and MPAA's) enforcement of copyrights is not so much the basic principle, but the tactics used.

Re:I disagree

[droyad]

As I pointed out in another point, you are correct. Copyright gives control of the creation to the author, who then may release it under GPL which controls how an end user may use the creation.

Without Copyright the GPL would be unenforcable because without Copyright the author would have no right to demand specific restrictions.

One of the restrictions that the GPL puts on creations (above do-what-ever-you-want) is that modifications also have to be made public.

GPL depends on copyright. You can support copyright but not the GPL, BUT you cannot support GPL and not copyright.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

So then it's hypocritical to support the existence of U.S. law enforcement, and not support the existence of brutal police states.

An interesting analogy, considering that the former appears to want to be one of the latter.

Re:I disagree

[kebes]

You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.

Some people support copyright because they think that artists deserve to control their creations however they want. It would be hypocritical for *those people* to favor one copyright license over another.

Some other people support GPL because they think that information should be free, and that costless, effortless reproduction should not be illegal. These people thus support laws that encourage these freedoms (such as GPL copyright) but do not support laws that restrict these freedoms (such as conventional copyright, DMCA, etc.). For *these people* it is not hypocritical to be in favor of some copyrights but not others. These people have decided that the "information should be free" moral principle is more important than the "author should control work" principle. That's a moral choice, and is not self-contradictory. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it hypocritical or inconsistent.

You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.

For the record, you are assigning a binary state, but in the real-world, ethics are more complicated. A person can decide that "a creator has right to control their creation... as long as it doesn't involve hurting anyone else." In ethics, we can place as many qualifiers and caveats as we want. This is not hypocritical, it is how ethics work in the real-world. Similarly, someone can believe that "a creator has the right to control their creation... as long as no one gets hurt, and as long as no one is prevented from creating non-commercial copies for themselves and friends." This is their world-view, and is not inconsistent. You may not agree with it (that's your choice), but it isn't hypocritical.

Oh, and if you think "information would be free" in your ideal world... then you *don't* support the right of the author/artist to control his creation. And therefore you lost any moral high ground.

As I insinuated before, ethics involve establishing a hierarchy of principles. Some trump others. "Artists have the right to be compensated for their work" is trumped by "Killing is bad." The argument in copyright, in a certain sense, is between the people who feel "artists should have control of distribution of their work" trumps "information should be free" ... and the people who place these two principles in the other order. It's not immediately obvious which one is more important, and that's why the debate exists. There is no moral high ground. Just opinions.

And you seem to be arguing for force. That's a dangerous road.

Democratic laws are, by definition, an agreement by the people to have the government use force to ensure a certain rule is followed (the rule may be pragmatic and/or ethical). So the question is merely what rules are sufficiently important that we should mandate the government to enforce. There is a strong case that can be made for copyright being put back into it's pre-18th century status: every man for himself. We can have moral opinions on whether copyright is good or bad, but should we really be asking the government to punish people that don't comply with this moral principle? People can cheat on their spouses, and it is immoral, but not punished criminally (at least where I live).

You either force people to your worldview, or you give them a choice.

No, we (as a society) get to choose which ethical opinions should be enforced, and which should merely be suggestions. We enforce the "do not kill" thing, but merely suggest the "do not cheat on spouse" thing. It's okay for a society to force people on some issues but not others. If you force everything, it becomes totallitarian... if you force nothing, it becomes anarchy. Neither is desirable.

In any case, the point of my post was to address the oft-spouted criticism that the GPL is hypocritical (not to defend the GPL per se). I support the GPL for a variety of reasons (some ethical, some pragmatic), but that is another debate entirely.

Yes johnny. Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, the RIAA is not a bunch of pimps going around bullying people and collecting money."

Well, I'd argue that in a loose sense, they are pimps, and the artists are the whores.

But lets push that aside.

The RIAA people are billing people for $2-4K.

The GPL people want the source code released to the public.

That's pretty neutral language and shows very accurately the difference between the two.

Re:nice try

[Anonymous Coward]

you wish. as do many of us.

Re: We're not asking for money

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not asking for money

Yeah, right.


Infringing companies often request a grace period during which they can sell already produced and noncompliant products, Welte said. "This is acceptable to us, but in that case, we insist on some kind of donation," he said.


(quoted from here)

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[CrankyFool]

Not to mention we need the Germans to make some good Champagne.

I think beer might be more appropriate. And marzipan.

actually

[N3wsByt3]

The GPL allows you to copy and use it, *without* the necessity of providing source or anything whatsoever, as long as it's used indoors.

I'm perfectly happy to do the same for RIAA'ed music. :-)

I've heard of Munich!

[Anonymous Coward]

... Is this a new type of Frst Posts?

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

His point might be unpopular but it does not make it any less valid.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

"His point might be unpopular but it does not make it any less valid."

No, of course not. His point is not invalid because it's unpopular but because it is *in fact* invalid.

Re:nice try

[Lehk228]

plznofeedingtrollskthxbye

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[WillAffleckUW]

I think beer might be more appropriate. And marzipan.

I like the marzipan from France and Spain more.

But I agree on a good smooth German beer, like you can get at the Essen Haus in Madison, WI ...

SCO, basically

[tepples]

because this will create the opportunity for a Creative Commons licensed music industry

The space of distinct computer programs is extremely large. However, the space of legally distinct musical works is much smaller. Once a commons of Free music springs up, watch the incumbent music publishers sue prominent members of the commons, claiming that they subconsciously copied copyrighted music.

Free software in a copyright-less world

[tepples]

If there was no Copyright

Then any college student could lawfully decompile source code, hand-assign variable names, and release the result to the public.

Re:Free software in a copyright-less world

[droyad]

What the parent misses is that GPL relies on Copyright to work. If there was no Copyright, then the owner of the code would not be able to restrict how the code is used. GPL restricts the use of the code so that it cannot be modified and distributed without distributing the source of the modifications.

If the author has no claim to the code under Copyright then the GPL has no legal standing.

Then any college student could lawfully decompile source code, hand-assign variable names, and release the result to the public.

I'm not sure if your comment is in favour or against copyright.

It is against, and you support the above action, then think about how a company/artist/writer can survive without copyright. They will write it once, sell it and from there on it would be legal to make free copies of it leaving the author with no reward for their hard work.

So what ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question remains - how he got the firmware in first place and whether or not he violated firmware distribution license by doing that. If he did (which is very likely) - tough nuts, he we'll counter-suit in no time.

Re:So what ?

[tepples]

The question remains - how he got the firmware in first place and whether or not he violated firmware distribution license by doing that. If he did (which is very likely) - tough nuts, he we'll counter-suit in no time.

Does Germany have a counterpart to the "unclean hands doctrine"?

Not taking sides

[tepples]

I'm not sure if your comment is in favour or against copyright.

The response to how a lack of copyright would affect copyleft wasn't intended to advocate for or against the existence of copyright.

They will write it once, sell it and from there on it would be legal to make free copies of it leaving the author with no reward for their hard work.

How did authors survive for the roughly 5,500 years of civilization before author's copyright was invented in 1710? In a future world without copyright as we know it, it might prove useful to look to the past for inspiration of business models for the future:

• Street Performer Protocol: Author publishes new work only if (s)he collects enough donations from the previous work.
• Live performance: Performer uses exclusive rights to land to charge for the ability to view a public performance of a work.
• Museum: Visual artist uses exclusive rights to land to charge for the ability to view a public display of a work.
• Short-term copyright: Copyright continues to exist, but its duration is limited to some term significantly less than one human lifetime.

Re:So, basically... Would be interesting indeed...

[sumdumass]

I'm sure this is nitpicking but a bsd license allows you to tale the code and do whatever as long as the credit is giving in the code. It doesn't require any distrobution or contribution back to the comunity like the GPL does. Microsoft does have BSD code in thier products or they did at one time. Microsoft even contreibuted some code to bsd at one time too.

Now it would be interesting if some of said code was actualy GPL code and being passed off as ?BSD code or original work. I don't even think microsoft would have enough balls to claim it is thier own code because it would be presented as evedence and brought into public discusion. This might be one reason why microsoft backed SCO (silently). It is a way to test the waters of what they could possibly get away with if anythign ever did go down.

They claimed they wrote it themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about Fortinet, is I have heard their people claim that they wrote their own complete OS for it. In something like 3 years. That's much worse than refusing to release source.

And the group of us looking at it were astounded, absolutely astounded I tell you, at how hard they had worked to make it look like Linux. And then how they had worked even more to make it look like Linux disguised to look like something else.

As some one of us pointed out: so they rolled their own TCP/IP stack, and we're supposed to depend on it? And what are the chances they got their SSH right? Heck, I felt *much* better about the product when I figured it was based on Linux, rather than some untested, unproven, botchup.

Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody holds a gun to their head to make them sign a contract."

Of course not literally.

But what is their choice if they wish to become popular?

Re:Well....

[symbolic]

It's the one pays for doing so...and it's a free choice. I have to wonder about an artist's motivation if their first priority is focused on becoming popular.

Re:c|net changed the story? CNET:only the headline

[Shankland]

I'm the author of the story in question; I wrote it but not the front-page headline wording. When I saw the wording on the site, I requested a change, and we changed it to the current one, "Open source flexes muscle."

Re:Interpretation--story author replies

[Shankland]

As the CNET News.com FUDmeister who wrote the story in question, I recommend you also look at the story headline, Linux programmer wins legal victory, which I don't think raises too much FUD around open-source programmers. Nor does the text of the story itself, in my opinion. You had a legitimate gripe with the initial "shadow" wording you quote (which is a sort of uberheadline, not the story headline proper). I didn't write it and didn't agree with it; as soon as I noticed it we changed it. Any time you have a problem with or suggested changes for a story I write, I welcome direct feedback by e-mailing me directly; my byline on the story is a mailto hyperlink. --Stephen Shankland

Re:Interpretation--story author replies

[LibrePensador]

Thank you for your integrity. It is rarer these days to find people that make corrections like you did and alert enough to answer on Slashdot.

It is refreshing to see this, even if it is unfortunate that the first headline was put in place and it may point to a need to review editorial workflow so that it doesn't happen in the future.

We need more guys like Welte

[LibrePensador]

Without his tenacity and know-how, companies will walk all over us. If you think he isn't deserving of these words, consider that he had to spend 40 hours to discover that Fortinet has indeed violating the GPL. Those assholes were using encryption to obfuscate their use of GPL code.

"Without access to the underlying source code, Welte often has to work hard to find out if GPL software is used in a product. In Fortinet's case, the use of GPL software was unusually difficult to verify, because the company had encrypted it, Welte said. It took 40 hours of work to ferret out the information, he said."

And finally, the just reward.

"The court said Fortinet would have to pay a fine of five to 250,000 euros and that employees would face up to 6 months imprisonment for violation of the injunction. In addition, the company is responsible for Welte's legal fees. "

I can't wait to see more of these cases here in the US so that we can slowly build a nice stack of precedents that will serve to solidify even further the legal standing of the GPL.

Re:We need more guys like Welte

[3247]

"The court said Fortinet would have to pay a fine of five to 250,000 euros and that employees would face up to 6 months imprisonment for violation of the injunction.

The fine is only for future violations, i.e. if they continue to distribute the product. Also, the exact amount is decided by a court on a case-by-case basis and it is very unlikely that the court will fine them with the maximum amount or imprison the CEOs, even for the most blatant and gross violations of the injunction.

In addition, the company is responsible for Welte's legal fees."

This is because Germany has a loser-pays-all-legal-expenses system and not a you-can-sue-me-if-you-like-but-it-will-cost-you-mo re-than-you-can-win system.

Re:We need more guys like Welte

[mpe]

Without his tenacity and know-how, companies will walk all over us. If you think he isn't deserving of these words, consider that he had to spend 40 hours to discover that Fortinet has indeed violating the GPL. Those assholes were using encryption to obfuscate their use of GPL code.

Thus implying that this wasn't "accidental piracy". Using such obfuscation points very much to their knowing full well that they were enguaging in "commercial software piracy".

Re:We need more guys like Welte

[mpe]

Also, the exact amount is decided by a court on a case-by-case basis and it is very unlikely that the court will fine them with the maximum amount or imprison the CEOs, even for the most blatant and gross violations of the injunction.

Depends how the judge is feeling on the day. German judges might not be so "corporate friendly" as US judges.

Some interesting differences.

[jbn-o]

I know that a number of GPL'ed projects offer a GPL license and a Commercial license.

You know of a number of GPL'ed projects which distribute under the GPL or a proprietary license. The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a commercial license because business is done under this license. GPL-covered works are distributed for a fee. The GPL is in no way anti-business. Ironically, I've pointed out some significant ways in which the open source movement fails to speak to business interests as well as free software speaks to all computer users (the open source definition ignores any requirement for private derivatives, for instance).

But, if you want to create a closed-source/proprietary project [...]

The free software movement does not want to be confused with the open source movement and the open source movement works hard to distance themselves from freedom talk. Please reconsider trying to conflate the real and important differences between the two movements. The open source movement deserves far less credit than it receives with regard to the GNU GPL, considering they had nothing to do with writing it, building a community around it, and that the open source movement doesn't frame anything in terms of software freedom. Their work in bringing people to freedom is to be commended, but I think when associating a movement with the license (particularly in an article focusing on the license itself), it's important that we give credit to the FSF and associate it with the free software movement.

Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Decisions by Calif. Supreme court arent binding on NY Supreme court either

Missing

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed that the code was the indviduals and that a contract existed that said so and that the code would be released under GPL to company.

The company then tried to deny that the contract existed and initially that the contract was null and void.

After a bit of discussion, they relented and said that it was fine.

Fortinet actively tried to hide the violation

[Strolls]

The summary misses out one point which is particularly important in this case:

"This violation by Fortinet is especially egregious since the vendor not only violated the GPL, but actively tried to hide that violation," said Harald Welte, Linux Kernel developer and founder of the gpl-violations.org project.

(I read this in the mailing-list post about this yesterday)

Don't forget that lawyers.

[Kjella]

...also defend the guilty. Where the "reasonable doubt" is nothing but an illusion carefully crafted by a cunning lawyer, or a technicality that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It is his job as the defendant to do so.

To be amoral means you do not consider the morality of what you're doing, not that it is not there. To pull the comparison very far, if a leader of a nazi concentration camp said "I didn't care one way or the other, I was just following orders" is that amoral or immoral?

In order to perform his legal duties, he may have to do immoral acts. The question is simply if this makes him an immoral person or not. It is his job not to evaluate morality. Is that enough? Both the justice system and those who evaluate morality seem to disagree. Indifference alone is not a defense.

He may claim that his part is part of a greater system to serve justice and morality. Justice is well served by having someone to represent the facts and the client's side of the story fairly and present other possible scenarios.

It is quite another to decieve and undermine the justice process, to misrepresent facts and lie by omission. One is moral, the other is not despite being in the client's best interest. If you do not serve justice and morality neither directly nor indirectly, what is then your defense?

More often than not the reality is somewhere inbetween. Your lawyer should not become your judge, but he should also not be your accomplice. It is within that ambiguity lawyers operate. Is it really so strange that people question their morals?

Kjella

Re:Don't forget that lawyers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that lawyers also defend the guilty. ... It is his job as the defendant to do so.

That's what the post said. A "correctly working" lawyer is amoral, ie. does not let morals affect the quality of his work, eg. he does not defend a serial killer any less well when he personally believes or even knows him to be guilty.

To be amoral means you do not consider the morality of what you're doing, not that it is not there. To pull the comparison very far, if a leader of a nazi concentration camp said "I didn't care one way or the other, I was just following orders" is that amoral or immoral?

Correct, on the 1st sentence. As the post said. :-)

On the 2nd, you're bringing in our personal value judgements about the actions carried out in concentration camps, and we of course consider even the mere presence of officers or any worker there as immoral in the extreme.

However, that doesn't affect the distinction between amoral and immoral one iota: if any action is performed without the agent being in any way affected by moral codes or judgements, then it is an amoral action --- it might as well be carried out by a non-sentient automaton. In fact, it seems likely that lawyers, judges, etc will be replaced by automata in due course, since it's the only real way to ensure impartiality.

Looks like both programmers and lawyers will be unemployed. :-)

Welte does more bad than good

[nietsch]

From the news.com.com.com.com article:

Therefore, Fortinet is surprised that Mr. Welte pursued a preliminary injunction against Fortinet in Germany and believes that this is an unnecessary action," the company said. "Fortinet is continuing its efforts to expeditiously resolve this matter with Mr. Welte."

The same thing happened with sitecom, they were willing to comply, but that takes more than the 4 weeks mr welte set as an utlimatum.

Mr Welte is giving a clear message: don't use linux unless you know precisely what you are doing". As most Managers do not know what they are doing, this will scare them away from using linux.

(the news.comcommer article also states that initrd is the point of contentention, shouldn't that be netfilter/iptables?)

There is No Such Ting as German Champagne...

[Larsing]

...just as there is no such thing as a GM Ford.
End Of Story.

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[tommck]

It can't be properly called Champagne unless it's made in the Champagne region of France. Everything else is called "Sparkling Wine".

Here's a link that describes it briefly

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[bbc]

"we need some US court rulings 1st"

Who is this mysterious "we" you speak of? And why do they need some US court rulings first?

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[bbc]

"It can't be properly called Champagne unless it's made in the Champagne region of France."

Who is going to stop me?

Re:Interpretation--story author replies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, only 2 comments throughout your entire Slashdot history, who just happen to be to this story only.

Welcome to Slashdot, "Stephen".

Re:Interpretation--story author replies

[tobiasly]

Thanks Stephen for the clarification, I really didn't think it was you who wrote the front page headline, which is why I directed that comment at C|Net in general and not you specifically. I agree that the story itself (and the headline you did write) are good coverage, but the original front-page headline and summary were, if not FUD, then at least sensationalistic.

Re:So, basically, you're a complete idiot.

[jusdisgi]

You are so unbelievably full of shit it's outrageous. Obviously, you (and whatever mods called this informative) have absolutely no understanding of the GPL or what it tries to do. I'll go ahead and take it all apart for you.

Well, because the primary thing the GPL wants you as the user to be able to have is the ability to modify and share. Without copyright, you would always be able to modify any software you had a copy of, and you would be free to share that software -- with or without your modifications -- with anyone you chose. So without copyright the primary rights the GPL grants to you would be available all the time. The case we have here of a company taking free code and making it proprietary (i.e. taking away your rights) simply could not happen.

Ridiculous. You can't just up and modify programs for which you lack the source code. You can try and decompile and reverse-engineer, but you're not going to have the code. It's not the same. These companies that are getting sued for their GPL infringements are perfect examples. They had the code, then they packaged it and distributed it in a way that "took away your rights." It can happen. Your very first sentence is flawed; the GPL's goal is the perpetual free availability of the licensed work....which is the source code.

Now, just because you would have the right to modify and distribute, say, Photoshop, doesn't mean you would have the source code to Photoshop. it would be perfectly legal to disassemble/decompile Photoshop and distribute the result, but that's not exactly the same thing. This is a big benefit of the GPL that you wouldn't get automatically without copyright. On the other hand, in the current situation we don't have the right to modify Photoshop at all. ;)

Now just what the hell are you talking about? First, you completely admit that the situation for a piece of code-unavailable software in a copyrightless world would not be the same as the situation for a GPL'd program today. So, in other words, you completely contradict everything you've said up to this point, and agreed with what I said in the first place. And then you come right back and say, "but that's great, because now we can't modify the proprietary software." This requires a level of cognitive dissonance that I'm not sure I can get my head around right now.

Now, not having copyright may not mean that we wouldn't have source code. First off, the whole proprietary model of selling individual copies that must therefore be protected would die overnight. Since decompiling, disassembly, and outright copying of blocks of code would be legal, there would be very little reason to try to prevent it by hiding your source code. In fact I think it wouldn't take long in a copyright-free world for people to expect source code so that they could more easily perform their completely legal modifications/redistributions.

You obviously have never decompiled or disassembled a piece of software with the intent of modifying it. Let me clue you in; on a project of any significant complexity, this is non-trivial and does not typically produce any kind of results without serious effort on the part of the hacker. It's just not the same, and that's that. Saying the GPL would be unnecessary because you could decompile software is like saying blueprints for a skyscraper are unnecessary, because you can just dismantle the skyscraper and write down what all you take off. It's silly to act like that's the same as having the blueprints.

That's just speculation, though. I'm in favor of copyright in its original limited form, and the GPL requirements for source work well with that. I think it's a positive thing. But on the other hand, if copyright went away entirely I don't think it would be that bad either, even (especially) from a free software perspective.

If all you want is software anarchy, you'll get it. In your hypothetical no-copyright world, everything for which the source code w

Re:c|net changed the story? CNET:only the headline

[captwheeler]

Interesting. I always thought of c|net as more like a newspaper; publish and never change. I didn't think this change was a bad thing, just surprising.

Retention policies will probably become a big issue in the near future, as people's expectations are broken. I can see it now: The NY Times "paper of record" changes its story online and somebody is outraged... that should be fun.

Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s

[tommck]

in casual conversation? Just annoying know-it-alls like me :)

If you tried to sell something called Champagne, I would say that it would be the WTO. They've already successfully stopped people from doing similar things with the names of Cheese.

These names have been controlled for hundreds of years and are part of the value of the wines.

Anyway, I think we've swung far enough off-topic :)

Unfair focus on own project(s)?

[HunterZ]

I was checking out Mr. Welte's website, and noticed something interesting: Many of the documented cases on the site are of his enforcing compliance with the GPL for netfilter/iptables. This is interesting because the site also mentions that he is chairman of that project.

I'm interested to know how serious he is about stopping GPL violations made against other projects/products.

Re:Unfair focus on own project(s)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welte cannot enforce copyright on code that he doesn't hold copyright on.

"Fortinet in the News" webpage

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely none of this is mentioned in the fortinet.com website's "Fortinet in the News" pages.

Thinking this must have been an oversight, I did a search for GPL on the fortinet.com website.
This returns no matches, but instead it offers to search for GPL in its Attack and Virus encyclopedias.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?