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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

mirror of pdf

[winkydink]

is here

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

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...

[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: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.

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.

Cute "Dept" Tag

[adavies42]

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

*pop* goes the brain

[doublem]

But, but, I thought Lawyers were BAD.

Here they did something GOOD.

*head explodes*

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.

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: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.

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: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?

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?

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.

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?

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: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.

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?

[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: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).

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: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.

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 used to live in Munich!

[coopex]

I have a tshirt from Munich!
Mod me up!

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.

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.

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