Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL Successfully Defended in German Court

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the penguin-shoots-penguins-scores dept.

Philip Bailey writes "The GPL Violations Project, based in Germany, have won (subject to appeal) a court case against D-Link, who had allegedly distributed parts of the Linux kernel in a product in a way which contravened the GPL. D-Link had claimed that the GPL was not 'legally binding' but have now agreed to cease and desist, and refrain from distributing the infringing product, a network attached storage device. Expenses, including legal expenses, were received by the plaintiffs; they did not request any damages, consistent with their policy. They have previously won a number of out of court settlements against other companies. Slashdot has previously mentioned the GPL Violations Project."

8 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Legally binding? by Cheapy · · Score: 3, Informative

    So is it now legally binding in Germany?

    What does this say about propietry software's licenses?

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    1. Re:Legally binding? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      So is it now legally binding in Germany?

      IANAGL, but as far as I know, the Ius Commune based legal system in Germany doesn't require a court decision setting precedence before a legal contract or new law is binding, nor does one court have to support earlier decisions by other courts.
      All the precedent does is make it easier to fight similar cases, as one can draw on the experiences of the earlier case.
    2. Re:Legally binding? by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Informative

      The difference is that an EULA is a forced contract you have to sign after purchasing the product and before using it that restricts rights you usually have while the GPL is simply a written version of the terms the copyright holder has set for copying the software. The GPL is the condition under which the copyright holder is willing to make concessions to you while an EULA is an attempt to extend the powers of the copyright holder beyond those granted by law.

      And AFAIK EULAs aren't considered valid under German law.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Legally binding? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 5, Informative


      The GPL is NOT legally binding. It never has been, and it never claimed to be.

      Copyright law is legally binding. If you want to distribute copies of software (Be it Microsoft's or Richard's or Linus's) you need permission from the copyright holder. You're quite welcome to completely ignore the GPL, but in that case you have no permission to distribute copies of the software and doing so becomes copyright violation.

      It's really simple.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  2. The same D-Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's interesting. I recently purchased a range of Gigabit network cards. An Intel Pro/1000, an Blekin and a D-Link. The D-Link box contained a printed copy of the GPL. So they clearly do consider the GPL binding, otherwise why would they have bothered? This is the first time I have ever seen a printed GPL included with a product.

    I havn't checked the driver CDs in the Intel & Belkin cards yet to see if they have Linux drivers on them. While I'm at it, also shame on Intel for not mentioning Linux on the box; Novell & Windows logos are there, but nothing for Linux (The Belkin & D-Link boxes do not mention any OS compatability at all)

  3. Re:Strange.... by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Informative

    They didn't want to. Yes, distributing source would make them GPL compliant. They refused to, so they were forced to stop distributing the product.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  4. Re:Strange.... by chgros · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know were you got this idea but it is wrong.
    He got it from here:
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncomp atibleLibs

  5. Re:GPL vs EULA by ClamIAm · · Score: 3, Informative
    I don't know much about the GPL-Violations group, but if they didn't write any of the code then (at least in the US), they wouldn't have standing to enforce the GPL.

    Hey, I have an idea. Instead of posting something that draws on no actual facts, you could take two minutes and read their homepage:

    The founder, Harald Welte ... [discovered] companies violating the GPL in software he wrote for the netfilter/iptables project.

    ...

    Over time, some other Linux kernel developers have transferred their rights in a fiduciary license agreement to enable [enforcement of] the GPL in cases where [no code was written by Welte].