GPL Lawsuit May Not Settle

A number of readers wrote in to inform us that contrary to earlier indications, it's no sure thing that the lawsuit alleging GPL violation by Monsoon Multimedia will get settled out of court. Linux.com now reports that the SFLC's legal director Daniel Ravicher has stressed that no agreement has been reached: "Simply coming into compliance now is not sufficient to settle the matter, because that would mean anyone can violate the license until caught, because the only punishment would be to come into compliance." (Linux.com and Slashdot are both part of Sourceforge, Inc.)

Comments

Excuse me, but this is bunk...

[Svartalf]

It is NO damned different if you use a Proprietary Licensed product within your embedded device-
if you fail to abide by the terms of the license grant for the protected Work(s) you are using, you
can expect to get your ass sued at some point if it is found out that you're doing it.

It doesn't matter if it's GPLed.
It doesn't matter if it's MIT/X11 licensed.
It doesn't matter if from Microsoft under an EULA or one of the Shared Source licenses.

If you breach the terms of the licensing, you're guilty of breaking at least a civil contract if not
outright Patent or Copyright infringement- PERIOD.

There's no 'intricacies' involved with OSS in the first place- they're simpler licenses to follow.

I'd be leery of dealing with anyone selling proprietary anything these days because of those 'intricacies'
that are ALWAYS present with most proprietary products.

Name of the game: Don't Cheat. Don't Get Greedy. Abide by the license terms, whatever they might be.

Re:Damages?

[hedwards]

It is correct information. As soon as a person in the US creates a copyrightable work, it is immediately copyright to that person. The exception being if it is a work for hire. The issue of who has the copyright is set permanently at that moment.

The registration of a copyright is not required for a work to be copyright, it just has to be registered prior to filing suit. Doing so early on is a good idea as it makes it easier to defend in court, but it is definitely not compulsory to do so.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc Has plenty of relevant information. As well as:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Re:Is this really different from the RIAA or MPAA?

[McDutchie]

Using GPL software without complying with the GPL is a liability for any business.

More correctly, distributing GPL software without complying with the GPL is a liability for any business. The GPL only covers distribution, not use. Everyone is perfectly free to use GPL'ed software without any restrictions whatsoever.

Re:Copyright notice and Creative Commons licenses?

[75th Trombone]

Nice non sequitur. Creative Commons licenses are not software licenses at all .

Re:Wrong on two counts...

[PCM2]

Second, the requirement to register your work was removed almost thirty years ago.

I'm not sure about that. If you mean that the Copyright Act of 1976 (which was 30 years ago) removed some old requirements for copyright (like putting the circle-C on the work) then you're right ... but my understanding was that there were still additional benefits to actual registration where it came to the damages you could claim in court. That is, you can certainly still WIN a copyright case without registering, but my understanding (and again I could be wrong) was that, even though you've won, you are limited in terms of what compensation you can claim if you have not registered.

Re:Expenses

[budgenator]

Title 17 Chapter 5
  504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
(a) In General. Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either
(1) the copyright owners actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).
(c) Statutory Damages.
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. ... US code title 17.504 LII / Legal Information Institute

One of those HAVA gizmos are selling for $129.95 and up so with a penalty of $750 to as much as $30,0000.00 the damages could be rather devestating for Monsoon Multimedia, Inc' business plan, each one sold could cost them $621.00; the law is pretty specific about telling the court what the monitary damages are.

Re:Oh yeah

[mattpalmer1086]

Wrong. GPL has nothing whatsoever to do with "non copyrighted material". It applies to copyrighted material - you seem to be confusing GPL works with public domain material, which is already free for everyone, and needs no license in the first place.

Copyright material is covered by copyright law, as you say. You cannot copy copyright material without permission - i.e. a license - from the copyright owner. The GPL is a license to copy, subject to various restrictions. Without it, copyright law says you can not make copies. Only with the license are you allowed to do this.

Copyright Law (can't make copies of copyrighted material without license) + GPL (a license to make copies of copyrighted material). The GPL is a copyright license, built on top of copyright law.

Geddit?

Simply not enough?

[gentlemen_loser]

The Free Software Foundation considers a GPL violation cured when the offending entity comes into compliance. Given that the software was free to begin with, I am not sure that its a good idea to pursue additional penalties (especially monetarily). Use of GPLed projects (like Linux) is popular in many corporations and is frequently allowed to fly below the radar by most management and legal departments. If the penalty for a violations stops being compliance and starts being gold digging, management, legal departments, and people in general will shy away from the GPL like a plague.

Re:Oh yeah

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, find a lawyer in your jurisdiction and hire him.

Registration is a pre-condition for litigation. Furthermore, registration prior to violation is a pre-condition for statutory damages.

hawk, esq.