Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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.
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)
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..
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.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
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?
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
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.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
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.
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.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
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.
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)
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.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
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