Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL Lawsuit May Not Settle

Posted by kdawson on from the maybe-a-day-in-court-after-all dept.

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.)

7 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is this really different from the RIAA or MPAA? by AusIV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This really makes using GPL'ed software a liability for any business. It just becomes too risky.

    Using GPL software without complying with the GPL is a liability for any business. As is using any proprietary software without complying with the license that comes with the software.

    Now, maybe this isn't a bad thing. If GPL'ed softwrae becomes to dangerous to use, there's always an ample supply of BSD- and MIT-licensed software. FreeBSD, for instance, might start getting more of the commercial backing that Linux has gotten.
    But what would compel a company to support FreeBSD when they could just take the code, use it for their own needs, and never make upstream contributions?
  2. Re:Is this really different from the RIAA or MPAA? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think distributing GPL software is bad for your business, try distributing pirate copies of Microsoft Windows with your product. You'll get to see just how "dangerous" a license can be.

    The fact is that infringing other people's copyrights is a bad business move. It does not matter at all what mechanism the rightsholders are using to protect their copyrights.

  3. Re:Oh yeah by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stick it to 'em. Make them pay for copyright violations and "loss of revenue". How about fining them for the costs of developing, testing, and maintaining the software themselves?
    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  4. The Meaning Of Compliance by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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."
    I must be living on a different planet from the lawyers. Here I was thinking that compliance means publishing the source code together with all the proprietary modifications, in a form that anybody can recreate the exact same software by recompiling it. In the warped mindset of a PHB, that means giving away the crown jewels for free. How is this not a deterrent for such deadbeat companies?
  5. Re:Is this really different from the RIAA or MPAA? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Using GPL software without complying with the GPL is a liability for any business. As is using any proprietary software without complying with the license that comes with the software.

    Using any licensed intellectual property without complying with the appropriate license is a liability for any business, and they know it. The difference here is that there is a perception in business that Open Source projects are operated by dirty hippies that don't have it "together" enough to do anything about it (nor the money, even if they did have it "together").

    This is why it's important for this suit to move forward with an objective of some type of damages and at least attorney fees. This will send the message to business that there are repercussions to ignoring or trying to circumvent Open Source licenses like the GPL.

    The only businesses that will be scared off from using Open Source because of this are dishonest businesses that shouldn't be allowed to use Open Source anyway

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  6. Re:hypocrite much? by bug_hunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because these guys were warned first that they were violating the GPL and did nothing until legal action was mentioned.
    SCO was more of the opinion "We'll tell you what you're violating in court" without giving Linux a chance pre-lawyers.

    --
    It's turtles all the way down.
  7. Re:Expenses by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who was harmed? That's a question a judge/jury would consider. If they were infringing on a patent or commercially licensed software, it would be easier to find a monetary value (and there is plenty of precedent)
    Imagine Microsoft wanted to use some code that is published under the GPL. It doesn't really make a difference, but we can imagine that Microsoft has money in the bank, and wouldn't do something obviously illegal.
    Microsoft has two choices: Use the code and follow the rules of the GPL license, or find the copyright holders and offer them money for a proprietary license. If they go the second route, unless the copyright holders for some reason refuse any business with Microsoft, there will be an agreement in the end where Microsoft will pay a certain amount to the copyright holders.

    If someone else just copies the code and then doesn't follow the rules of the GPL license, the fair market value determined by our Microsoft thought experiment would be the damages. That would likely be tripled for punitive reasons (otherwise a company could just steal anything, if they didn't get caught they'd be fine and if they got caught, they would only pay what they owed anyway).

    And there is real precedence, like Apple first paying for a proprietary license to CUPS and then buying the copyrights to CUPS.