Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement

darthcamaro writes "According to the SFLC, Verizon can be added to the list of companies infringing on the GPL. They filed a lawsuit in New York yesterday (pdf) alleging that the company is handing out routers using the GPL'd software 'BusyBox' without accompanying source code. Today the SFLC spoke to the media to lay out its case: 'The legal action against Verizon come as the fourth action that the SFLC has undertaken this year on behalf of BusyBox on GPL issues. The GPL is a reciprocal license that requires users of GPL-protected technology to make their source code available to end-users. To date, the SFLC has settled with one defendant out of court. Two actions, facing Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, are ongoing and Ravicher said he's optimistic about negotiations resulting in a resolution with each.'"

Comments

Is the router user-modifiable?

[Ed Avis]

Do the users have admin rights on the router to install a new version of busybox? If not, sending them the source code seems like a pointless formality, like a map to a country you are forbidden from visiting.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[DaleGlass]

Oh, bullshit.

You claim that Verizon, a huge company, which probably employs quite a few lawyers is unaware about the terms under which the code is distributed? Here's a hint: Every piece of software comes with a license. There are much nastier things out there than the GPL, and it'd be outright stupid for a large company to use anything without having a lawyer through the terms.

Now, if this makes them stop using GPL code, that's a perfectly good thing. I for one write GPL code for very good reasons and prefer it not to be used to infringement.

Re:They've got bigger problems - router is P.O.S.

[darkmeridian]

Do you think a new firmware issued by OSS source code hackers can address the problem? I mean, Verizon should be jumping on this possibility of reducing costs.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies don't want to give away trade secrets and they don't realize GPL software forces them to do so.

The cost of using proprietary third party software is counted in dollars.
The cost of using custom proprietary software is counted in man/hours.
The cost of using GPL software is counted in lines of code (the ones that changed and you have to distribute).

Honest companies will choose the cheapest solution and pay for it.

Dishonest companies will pirate proprietary software or violate the GPL.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[idontgno]

They're suing Verizon because Verizon is distributing the hardware boxes (and thus the embedded software).
Verizon could then turn around and sue the hardware manufacturer as well, but they themselves are still liable under coypright law.

I'm not sure if I buy that. At least, I don't think it's that simple. If I sell hardware with GPL firmware, and I don't do firmware support myself, I can't imagine that simply retailing the hardware incurs any kind of source code requirement.

I'm not considering whether Verizon can be sued--anybody can be sued for anything or nothing. I'm wondering whether Verizon should be sued. Whether Verizon is the right target.

Of course, those bets are off if they tailor the firmware themselves. See a comment later in the thread about that.

Also, the GPL is quite clear as to when you are allowed to post a link to a website, and when you have to ship the actual source with the product.

Really? I can't find it. Here are the conditions in the relevant version of the GPL, quoted directly from the Exhibit attached to SFLC's filing in this case:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

3 distinct "or" clauses. The "link to a website" case is "b)", where the "ship the actual source" is "a)". Neither has any kind of enforced conditions. So I can't see what you're talking about. Please, enlighten me.

No, I'm sure the real crux of the case is not that Verizon is a big evil corp making megabux fighting network neutrality while stealing Free Software's precious bodily fluids; I'd be willing to be there's actually a sane and reasonable cause of action, like Verizon is modifying Busybox beyond what Actiontec did and not sharing its mods like Actiontec did.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[bug1]

"Pfft. Which part of "integrated" didn't you understand?"

The part that means "get out of jail free"