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:Is the router user-modifiable?

[morgan_greywolf]

Hmmm...you bring up an interesting point. If busybox were GPL 3, would Verizon then be forced to give users admin rights to the router?

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[LiquidCoooled]

Sounds like the archos 605.
It apparantly runs Linux but uses executables signed with their private key and people haven't yet cracked it open.

Shame really because they are nice.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[MozeeToby]

My college roomate had a router that accidently used GPL code and so had to release it. He was able to find some open source code online that gave the router functionality about an order of magnitude better than what origanally came installed.

He did have to open it up and manually clear the flash chip which housed to the OS, but it wasn't anything someone reasonably confident couldn't do with a bit of research.

    Basically, if you care enough to know that the code is available, you should be competent enough to do what you want to with it.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[micheas]

You can do tftp firmware upgrades to the router much like the Linux based Linksys boxes.

The uses I can foresee is modifying the ipstack and modifying snmp of the router. I am sure more creative minds than mine can come up with much more useful ideas.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Their users can't install new versions on the box, but other developers can look for changes they've made, and possibly incorporate them into their own code. You could create a replica of the hardware, and install their code on it. You can find and point out security vulnerabilities. There's plenty of reasons you'd want the source, without being able to modify the code running on the box itself.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[morgan_greywolf]

Not really. The Archos 605 case is entirely different. Here, we're talking about a wireless router that (presumably) is locked down by Verizon to prevent unauthorized modification by Verizon's customers, for purposes of keeping Verizon's network secure, right?

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is the SFLC and why are we expected to know?

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[itsdapead]

sending them the source code seems like a pointless formality

(a) They don't actually have to include the source code with every router - just a written offer to supply the source code on demand. (I assume that the references to "including the source code" are journalistic imprecision or its gonna be a very short lawsuit).

(b) Users may also be developers who wish study the source code or to use or modify the software in other systems - as is their right under the GPL.

Anyway, most such products ship with a CD for plug-n-drool installation so how hard can it be to include a few source files?

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[wattrlz]

Pointless or not, it's the terms of the license.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Ed Avis]

Agreed, but most of that doesn't help the users (who could download busybox sources from the net anyway). I'm just wondering what the point is to this legal action - if there is some wrong to be righted, or if they're just enforcing compliance because they can. I doubt that Verizon or the hardware manufacturer have made any enhancements to busybox.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Ed Avis]

Your roommate was able to get the code off the net anyway. He didn't need a letter from Verizon offering to send him the code on CD for a handling charge of ten dollars. So what real benefit would users get from this lawsuit?

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Ed Avis]

(a) a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge (and we can assume that anyone with this router has an Internet connection...)

(b) again, you can study the busybox source code whenever you want, whether you have bought this router or not.

I support the GPL and of course it should be enforceable but I wonder what makes this particular router a target for spending time and money on a lawsuit. Surely there are more pressing threats to freedom that the SFLC could be busying themselves with. Or do they just sue as a matter of principle?

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Frosty Piss]

a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge (and we can assume that anyone with this router has an Internet connection...)

Sure, you can download BusyBox code from BusyBox. But can you download BusyBox code as modified by Verizon? Under the GPL, shouldn't you be able to do that? It might not be the sam as the BusyBox code at BusyBox...

...I wonder what makes this particular router a target for spending time and money on a lawsuit...

Of course it does. Like with all such lawsuits, there will be monitary damages of some kind, so why not sue the deep pockets at hated megacorporation Verizon? 1, 2, 3, PROFIT!

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[pfleming]

Well, if you had RTFA (but this is /.) you would have seen that they state Verizon is distributing the binary from their web site. That nullifies any, "we're only renting the router" arguments. They are distributing binary. They have to distribute the source too.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Tsiangkun]

Depends.

Are people purchasing these things ?

I was led to believe in a different blog that these are included with service,
and thus rented units.

If these are not being sold to customers, but are loaned/leased/rented etc,
then is there really a GPL violation ?

I don't think my friend can force me to give him admin rights to my computer,
just because I loaned it to him . . . probably extends into corporate personhood.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[homer_ca]

It's not locked down. Verizon gave me an Actiontec router free with FIOS service. You get the password, and you can reconfigure anything you want. You don't need to change anything, since the installer will get it working with your wireless laptop if you need the help (default setup is 64bit WEP). You can also use your own router, but if you get FIOS TV, you'll have to use the Actiontec because it has a coax out for the TV set-top box. I tossed it in the closet because wireless performance sucked. Not sure if it was WPA or incompatibility with the wireless client, but it barely worked in the same room.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[soloha]

your geek card has officially be revoked and your google searchbox removed... ;)

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[Ajehals]

If they have modified the software in question to work with the hardware then those changes would be vital (or at least beneficial) to anyone wishing to improve or modify the capabilities of this kit. At the end of the day Verizon could have written their own software but decided they didn't want to re-invent the wheel (sensible, they probably saved some money) but now don't want others to be able to do the same (by not releasing their changes)

So the benefit that people would get form this lawsuit is the benefit Verizon currently enjoy.

Re:Is the router user-modifiable?

[itsdapead]

a written offer is kind of pointless, when you can download busybox source code off the net free of charge

Someone pays to maintain whatever website you download the source from - why should they be obliged to provide a service to "your" paying customers?

Plus, you're missing a major strategic aim of the GPL - it guarantees that the source code of useful products is always available from a multitude of sources and can't easily be "lost".

Get real - we're talking about Verizon sticking a .zip file on a website and adding a sentence to the inevitable legal bumf that comes with the product saying "under the terms of the GPL source is available from our website or we'll send you a CD on request for $x" (where $x can be a "reasonable amount" to cover the costs of writing a CD-R and sticking it in the post). In return they get to distribute a valuable bit of software without paying license fees and access to the source code without NDA or other rubbish.

Compared to the other silly, onerous and expensive hoops businesses have to jump through these days, that sounds like a good deal.

Awsome

[Jrabbit05]

Action against the rising cell phone companies will help them be a bit more reasonable!

Infringed on the GPL?

[ScentCone]

Does one really "infringe on the GPL" in a case like this? It seems that the issue is an alleged infringment on someone else's code, as released under the GPL. I don't think we're talking about ripping off the license and producing their own cloned license without permission. Though that would be funny.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given that they are using the code one must assume that they have accepted the GPL or they would have no rights to it at all, so the failure to release source can be seen as a failure to comply with the license. They can of course argue that they never accepted the GPL at which point it's a plain copyright violation.

They don't really have to bundle the code with the units though. Just hand it over on request from a user. The article wasn't to clear on that. But I expect SFLC tried to ask them for it before it came to this.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[supersky]

I always find these interesting, but if the company can prove that they never modified the orginal code but are just using it as a blackbox. Then there is nothing to release.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

Please, read the GPL or one of the five zillion FAQs about it out there---the one one the gnu site might be a great starting point---before commenting...

Do not be the noise: be the signal.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

Well, Version could have never accepted the GPL and the manufacturer which could be someone different could have.

In that case, I would think that Verizon is somewhat protected by the right of first sale and the fact that acceptance isn't necessary for use. It could be that the original manufacturer is the one responsible to the source code.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

Why don't you go ahead and quote what you think makes the GP wrong. He seems to not have seen it and quite frankly, I don't either. I can think of a few ways that Verizon could be exempt from the GPL too. But more importantly, I remember a part that says with popular code, you can link to the original distributer.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooosh!

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can actually bypass the router they gave you and use your own. The ONT on the side of your house has an ethernet port (!) that I've plugged my Netgear router into directly. Theres something called MoCA that is normally used, and it creates a mini cable modem type connection over the coax to the ActionTec which provides the internet connection. Unfortunately, the STBs require the Actiontec as a bridge to get EPG info and OnDemand programming, but all you have to do is hang the Actiontec off the router and it can go through it to get that programming. It was a bit of a PITA to get verizon to switch from MoCA to the Ethernet port, but I prefer using things that are very standardized.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing to understand is this: The GPL is a copyright license. It gives permission to copy the code, provided you follow the stipulations in the license. If you don't, then you are in violation of the author's copyright.

Each device contains a object copy of BusyBox, the GPL allow this as long as you convey the source as prescribe in section 6:

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

• a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
• b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
• c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
• d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
• e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

whoa....

Busybox is licensed under the GPLv2 not v3. The GPLv2 doesn't use fancy terms like convey.

And conversely, id ActionTech was the ones who set the program/routers up, then Verizon didn't copy anything. And more importantly, because acceptance isn't required for use, then may have never accepted any parts of the GPL. Their sale should be covered by the right of first sale doctrine too. It could be possible that Verizon isn't effected/affected by the GPL at all.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[vux984]

The GP is wrong because he apparently assumes that if you take gpl code, put it in a box unmodified, that you can sell it without including the offer to provide source.

That is in clear direct violation of the GPL.

If you were to even just download a common oss app like Azureus and tossed it up on your own website for other people to download you are responsible for making the source code available.

As an aside, I'm suddenly curious how and if this impacts on p2p. Would someone downloading a torrent be technically responsible for providing the source, because they are also distributing it? I wonder...

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

You probably has a transmission error while getting the copy of the GPL you read, since it apparently was missing section 6...

As for your last sentence: see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[Plaid Phantom]

If one is distributing the software unmodified, can they not just point requesters to where they got the source from in the first place? It's been a while since I looked at the GPL, but I thought this was the case.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

I'm wondering how this would play out though,

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

I know it is meant for a compiler and so on, but if Verizon hasn't changed the source, could they be using this as the reasons for not giving the source?

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[crossconnects]

It is my understanding that you cannot assume that the source at the other site will stay there unless they have a contractual obligation to keep it there. I have heard the time duration it must be kept available is 3 years. I'm not sure if that's true.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[vux984]

No. That has never been the case.

You are responsible for fulfilling that gpl obligation by taking responsibility for providing the source. Note that 'taking responsibility' doesn't mean you actually have to do it yourself. You could hire someone to handle that obligation, you could even make an arrangement with the party you got it from to handle that obligation.

But you can't just 'offload' it onto someone else.

I guess a good litmus test of whether you've met your obligation would be: "Does the person fulfilling YOUR gpl source obligation KNOW and AGREE that they are fulfilling YOUR gpl source obligation?"

You can't get by simply by using other unwitting parties to fulfill your obligations even if they are hosting the content anyway. That's not good enough.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[init100]

I really don't think that this is the case, even though this often is the way it's done. But even if it would be possible to point requesters to the origin of the source, the distributor must inform the user that the product contains code licensed under the GPL and that they thus have a right to request the source code. Otherwise, how would the user know?

IANAL though.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[init100]

I know it is meant for a compiler and so on, but if Verizon hasn't changed the source, could they be using this as the reasons for not giving the source?

If they could, I'm pretty certain that Verizon would have to include a note that the product contains code licensed under the GPL and that the user has a right to download the source from the original distributor.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[coryking]

Having an FAQ for a contract is a cruel joke played on the ignorant. The GPL is about the only legal document I've seen that thinks it needs an FAQ to explain it. Last I checked, FAQ's are not legally binding. Reading the GPL FAQ is wasting your time. If you have a question about the GPL, either seek a lawyer or don't bother using the code. I personally just recommend the latter, there are plenty of codebases out there with licenses that don't require an FAQ to explain how they work.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

Huh?

You must be a very lucky person: essentially all legal documents I have read are basically incomprehensible, except for the GPL and a few others. It is written in what very closely ressembles plain English, which is something that cannot be said of legal texts, generally.

And as for your rant regarding FAQs and what not, you are certainly welcome not to use my code.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

Verizon is distributing the code and the GPL, as you more or less note, is a license which only affects distribution. Are you seriously saying that acceptance of the GPL does not apply to Verizon's actions? Do you seriously consider them to be users of the code in this situation?

Remark, regarding your last couple of sentences, that neither of the two companies owns or ever owned the copyright to the GPL code in question, so whatever they sold or bought did not include the copyright (ie, the right to make copies) of that code.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[coryking]

Never said they weren't incomprehensible. I just think you are fooling yourself if you think the FAQ means anything at all. The FAQ might as well be written about sunshine and lolypops because anything the FAQ says is irrelevant. Lets not even step into the fact the FAQ is more of a marketing brochure than anything. Do you trust the FAQ to tell you about the problems or holes in the GPL? Do you trust the FAQ to say "that one clause, yeah... that is unenforcable 85% of the time".

Using the FAQ for the GPL as your guide is like using the brochure that came with your health care plan as a legal reference. You think their brochure lists anything negative about the plan?

If you are worried enough about the meaning of a clause in the GPL, only a lawyer will help you decipher it. The FAQ is for fools only.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[that this is not und]

So what you're saying is that if I download a torrent of a Linux CD, since I am hosting it as well as downloading it myself, if I delete the torrent and don't seed it for two or three years afterwards, I am in violation of the GPL.

That is interesting. I wonder if it could be used as a legal predecent to shut down bittorrent. Or, at least, to make it completely unworkable to share anything that is GPL'd on it.

1. If you share something on a torrent that is GPL'd, you need to keep it available for three years.
2. Hmmm....

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

Verizon is distributing the code and the GPL, as you more or less note, is a license which only affects distribution. Are you seriously saying that acceptance of the GPL does not apply to Verizon's actions? Do you seriously consider them to be users of the code in this situation?

Yep. Verizon isn't modifying the GPLed code. As far as we know they have modified a web page that sits on the code and set passwords. That flows along the lines of use. And they probably had the original manufacturer put that in place before they took possession of it.

So what Verzon did was purchase a device that in a separate transaction from them, used GPLed software. Verizon then uses their first sale right to resell the device to it's customers. It is no different then you buying a laptop preloaded with linux and after 3 years, selling it to buy another. It would not obligate you to host all the GPLed software on that laptop for three years and offer it to any third party that asks for it.

Think about that, The GPL's only teeth is that you cannot make copies or distribute the GPL covered works without agreeing to the GPL license. The only thing that stops you from ignoring the GPL license is the fact that copyright law forbids you from doing the same without permission of the copyright holder. But, there is a few exceptions, and if you fall into those exceptions, copyright law doesn't require you to get permission so nothing is forcing you to agree to the GPL license.

Remark, regarding your last couple of sentences, that neither of the two companies owns or ever owned the copyright to the GPL code in question, so whatever they sold or bought did not include the copyright (ie, the right to make copies) of that code.

Wow, I really butchered those sentences up.

Anyways, your right, neither owns the copyright. But what they have is the ability to obtain the software legally. And that legal right doesn't require them to accept the GPL or anything in it. Well, it might for action tech, but in the instance of verizon, they are buying a hardware product. and they can get rid of it without accepting the GPL.

Think about that, If you buy a Tivo and sell it to someone, are you obligated to host the GPLed software in the Tivo and give it to any third party that requests it for the next three years after the sale?

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[psmears]

The FAQ might as well be written about sunshine and lolypops because anything the FAQ says is irrelevant. No, it isn't. For one thing, it shows how the FSF/SFLC interpret the licence—and they're the ones who will sue you if they think you're distributing software they own in an infringing way. What's more, if they have made public statements (such as the FAQ) describing the way they intend their legal documents to be interpreted, a court will very likely hold them to that. So it is relevant, but I agree it's not a substitute for reading and understanding the licence.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[petermgreen]

If you have been provided 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" and you are distributing non commercially then you can pass on a copy of the offer. In all other cases you are responsible for either distributing the source with the binary, offering equivilent access to copy from the same place (in the case of distribution by allowing access to copy) or providing a written offer as above.

At least that is the case for GPLV2, i'm not sure what the suitation is for GPLV3

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[Narcissus]

How could that shut down Bittorrent? You may be able to use it against the USERS, but not Bittorrent itself. If you could, the RIAA would have shut down Bittorrent years ago (ie. by making the protocol responsible for the user's actions...).

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[gnasher719]

If one is distributing the software unmodified, can they not just point requesters to where they got the source from in the first place? It's been a while since I looked at the GPL, but I thought this was the case. Whether you modified the software or not, you have three choices if you distribute it (and "distribute" means: Give a copy to someone else):

1. Ship the software together with a copy of the GPL and the source code. 2. Ship the software together with a copy of the GPL, a promise valid for three years to provide the source code, and the information how to get the source code. 3. If your distribution is not commercial, and the software is unmodified, and you received it from someone who used method (2) or (3), then ship the software together with a copy of the GPL and the information how to get the source code. (3) obviously cannot apply if you modified the software, because nobody else has the code. It also doesn't apply to Verizon, because their distribution is commercial. So they have to ship with source code, or with an offer to supply the source code. They didn't do either, so their distributing the software is copyright infringement.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

I repeat: are you seriously arguing that Verizon is not distributing the code in question? It's not like they bought a couple of boxes containing the software and sold them on ebay...

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

Actually, I am arguing that copyright law doesn't prevent them from distributing the code in question so the GPL doesn't apply.

It isn't a hard concept. The GPL requires copyright law to place a restriction on copying and distributing anything that is copyrighted. If copyright law provides an exception to that restriction, then nothing in copyright law would be forcing you to get permissions and hence, the GPL won't apply outside someone wanting to voluntarily conform to it. But that is a very specific and narrow restriction. that is can only be there because according to the GPL, acceptance isn't required for use.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[that this is not und]

Well, it would mostly have a corrosive effect on the legal arguements of bittorrent defenders.

It would weaken the strength of lines like this:

"It has many legitimate and legal uses. It is useful for downloading Open Source software. In fact, that's the main thing I use it for ('wink' 'wink')."

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

Actually, I am arguing that copyright law doesn't prevent them from distributing the code in question so the GPL doesn't apply.

In fact, copyright law itself very strongly forbids them to distribute the code, unless they accept a licence which allows them to. In this case, the one licence available for them to accept is the GPL. So the GPL very much applies if they want to distribute the said code.

It isn't a hard concept. The GPL requires copyright law to place a restriction on copying and distributing anything that is copyrighted. If copyright law provides an exception to that restriction, then nothing in copyright law would be forcing you to get permissions and hence, the GPL won't apply outside someone wanting to voluntarily conform to it. But that is a very specific and narrow restriction. that is can only be there because according to the GPL, acceptance isn't required for use.

Dude, Verizon is DISTRIBUTING the code (in object form). They are NOT users of the code.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. You can argue this all you want but your not going to get anywhere.

Verizon doesn't have to accept any license of any kind to get the code in a device sold by a third party. Nothing stops them from doing this. Copyright is all about who distributes it and ActionTec has done that to Verizon. Now Verizon has the device with no strings attached and it has to look to see if it needs permission to get rid of it. Well, the right of first sale says no because the legally obtained the product and the copyright covered code within it. SO Verizon does not need to get special permission from anyone who owns the copyright on anything stored on the device that they didn't place on it themselves. So they don't have to even consider the GPL in that instance.

Now I guess the lawsuit covers Verizon offering for download, the same code in binary form from a website on their servers and under their control. Now the question becomes, how did they obtain the code they are offering for download. If they took it off the device then they need permission. If they downloaded it or it was provided by Actiontec for the purpose of updating the device, then it isn't clear if they would be covered by the right of first sale. It is quite possible that they can be covered in that situation too if actiontec didn't present the code as GPLed properly and tell Verizon exactly what that meant when Verizon would distribute it. The courts will have to hash that out is something isn't reached by the attorneys first. If they don't take a settlement of allowing Verizon to start hosting the files fist, then it could be a court battle that they will lose.

And quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the GPL says about the instance of a device you purchase and later resell. IT does however about hosting the covered works on a website and distributing it. You can sell your Tivo or Linksys router without having to host the source code for the GPL protected works on it for three years and allow any third party to get a copy. The right of first sale, or the first sale doctrine, says you don't have to get permission from copyright, patent or trademark holders to sell something legally obtained. The copyright owner can do nothing about it, even when it technically "is distribution" because it is one of the few exceptions the law provides to the copyright holders control.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[msuarezalvarez]

Whatever.

If you are happy with your views, keep them.

Re:Infringed on the GPL?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Don't be disappointed that you are wrong. And for the record, these views should be your views too because it is enshrined in not only case law but the US code too. Look up the first sale doctrine. Wikipedia would have something on it and I'm sure there are a host of other places too.

Now think about the chain of events.
I mean what gives the GPL any power? It is Copyright correct? And what does it say in copyright that gives it power? It says that the author or copyright holder has the ability to control copying and distribution, Still with me?, Anything incorrect yet? So anyone wishing to copy or distribute the copyright covered/protected works have to get permission from the copyright holder first. Anything off yet? The GPL offers that permission with conditions. Right? And the GPL is enforceable because without it, nothing else gives you permission to distribute the works right?

So we have the GPL as you know it and nothing else give you permission to distribute the covered works. But what happened when there is a law that says you don't need to ask permission to distribute something that you legally obtained elsewhere? Then there is nothing requiring you to ask permission to distribute the thing and hence no power for the GPL to exert.

This isn't about what the GPL says. IT is about what gives the GPL power over someone in connection to the copyright protected works. The law says that under certain circumstances, you don't need permission to distribute copyright covered works therefor the GPL doesn't enter into the picture.

You might still need the permission on the download because they are copying it as well as distributing those copies. As far as I know, the first sale doctrine won't cover that. Now intent can play a large role in punishment for copyright violations. So if they think they had the right to distribute it because someone else in the chain of ownership represented themselves as being able to give them that right, then it could be likely that Verizon doesn't get much of anything from it. But as for buying a device and selling it, giving it away, or otherwise transferring ownership of it, it can be exempt from the requirement to get permission first. And you you never did anything to accept a license that says otherwise, then your scott free from it.

Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[Anonymous Coward]

This demonstrates why you should never use GPL licensed software. License a commercial solution instead. It is much safer.

Re:Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[sqlrob]

Like when TimeLine threatened SQL Server users? Sounds real safe.

Re:Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[iRegister]

Looks and smells like a troll... but marked as score: 1! Anyway, you'll get sued if you violated the licensing terms of closed source commercial software, too. So, this story demonstrates nothing of the sort you mention.

Re:Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[iRegister]

Oops, looks like the AC's post was Score: 1 when I looked at it because of my Anonymous Modifier preference setting. Never mind, nobody upvoted it. Slashdot is still safe.

Re:Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't avoid GPL software because you don't like the license (it isn't enforceable anyway)! Avoid it because IT DOESN'T WORK, and people who develop software licensed under the GPL ARE IDIOTS.

Re:Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[mathfeel]

With either license, you can negotiate to be able to use under different terms. Now, with a commercial license, the guy might ask you for $10 buck for each box you sell/rent/whatever...With GPL, chances are, the guy might value code freedom above and sort of compensation you deemed reasonable.

Nobody's forcing you to use GPL'd code except perhaps you own realization that it'll cost a lot more to develop and maintain an in-house version of whatever networking tools you are using. Bottom line, don't want to release the code? fine! Just don't use GPL'd software.

Re:Don't Use GPL Licensed Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't use GPL'd software.

That's what I said. Just don't use GPL software and you will avoid this nonsense. Who wants to have some guy tell them that because they used some of his code they must now reveal trade secrets? Nobody. That is why the GPL going to go the way of the <blink>blink tag</blink>.

'luck with that case

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge is going to take one look at the GPL lawyer with his unshaved face, and smelly, dirty, unclean, unshowered body, roll is eyes, and ask "Why me?"

Re:'luck with that case

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does free software suck, the people that use it are unkempt slobs as well! How depressing.

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

[kannibal_klown]

The router in question is the ActionTec MI424WR. It's very pretty, and the web admin page is quite intuitive.

Unfortunately it has a MAJOR flaw. They're giving it out to their FIOS customers now, and the router shuts down when it gets hit too many times. This happens when using a Torrent, but also when refreshing STEAM server lists!

It's quite annoying, and since it's used by the TV set-top-boxes in the house it's kind of necessary. It's a shame, my 20Mbit connection can't handle Steam.

The problem was found a while back (when the casing wasn't as pretty about a year ago) but still no fix. I believe it has to do with a small NAT table.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it is a feature. --------------- http://ebgp.net/forum

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

[Autumnmist]

Oh crap is THAT what it is? Mine ends up unresponsive on wireless even though it's still issuing IPs (no packets getting through though).

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you by chance have port forwarding going on? Their routers cannot handle two different machines. It's a bug that's been present for years and there's an identical bug in netgear routers.

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

[sumdumass]

Are you sure? Because if that is true, then Action tech could be the one responsible for the GPLed code.

A quick search of their site seems to indicate that they have a download for it.

Now, Verizon could be protected from having to distribute the code by either of two ways that I can think of. The first might be in that they don't actually sell it but lease it and keep control of it. This sounds like something Verizon might do but I have replaces My ADSL2+ modem after their got hit by lightning. Their tech support even made sure that my Netgear DG834G router was set up properly.

The other way is something that I don't think the FSF or the GPL could get around at all. Seeing how ActionTech makes the thing and distributes it, Verizon could be protected by the fact that acceptance is not required for use and the right of first sale that supersedes the ability of copyright holders to restrict protected materials past the original purchaser.

As long as verizon didn't change the code outside simple settings that the use could change without having to accept the GPL, then they could be totally separated from it.

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

[sumdumass]

I just read the filing. Evidently, the fact of the router is secondary. They posted a link to the firmware for the product and the complaint references that. http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

I was surprised too. I though verizon might be covered by the right of first sale. But unless they are redirecting the firmware from the ActionTech site, they are probably in violation.

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

[ptbarnett]

Now, Verizon could be protected from having to distribute the code by either of two ways that I can think of. The first might be in that they don't actually sell it but lease it and keep control of it.

No, you "purchase" the router. Actually, you get it free. But, if it dies after the 1-year warranty period, you must buy another.

There is an exception: if you are also a FIOS TV subscriber, they will replace it -- because it is used to download program guide information and pay-per-view videos into the set-top box(es).

I had exactly this problem earlier this year. At that time, customer service for Internet service wasn't aware of the distinction, and insisted that I purchase another router. I hung up and called back, claiming I had a FIOS TV problem instead -- and they arranged a service call to replace it.

If you are only using FIOS Internet, there's no need to use their router -- you can use any router that can keep up with the bit-rate.

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

[homer_ca]

I'm confused by this too. Verizon is distributing, more or less, an off-the-shelf embedded product. Yes, it's somewhat customized because of FIOS TV, but Actiontec is the manufacturer. Is a retailer like Best Buy liable for copyright infringement in any embedded devices they sell?

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

[homer_ca]

I didn't get as far as the Torrent and Steam problem, but I struggled for a week with poor wireless performance before giving up and using my $15 Airlink router from Fry's. It sure did suck. At first I thought it was weak signal and interference, but when I couldn't get a good connection with a laptop 6 feet away in the room I knew it was time to give up.

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

[sumdumass]

I read the filings and found that they aren't complaining about the router itself, but Verizon is hosting the firmware file for it on their website with no source. The FSF is claiming that file contains Busy box and it is covered by the GPL.

So it wasn't the router itself, just connected to it by the firmware.

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

[HRH King Lerxst]

Well that's true in some cases...they way they wired my house, they fed coax into my house for the WAN connection......haven't seen too many routers @ newegg that can take a coax wan connection.

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

[Hsensei]

As a FIOS customer and a heavy torrent user, I ran into this issue. I fixed it by turning the Actiontec into a passthrough and using my own personal router. the Actiontec now for all purposes is a big ugly modem. The NAT allocation table is something like 90k so after 92 connections it will crap out and it will not accept a new connection for something along the lines of 3 minutes. My DGL-4300 D-link will handles thousands without blinking. Since i have the 15/15 offered in N. Texas I need all the connections i can get for "legit" torrents.

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

[kannibal_klown]

Does this work w/ FIOS TV? I've heard mixed reviews of this solution.

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

[Hsensei]

No idea to tell you the truth. I dont subscribe to FIOS TV or phone only internet. I stoppped watching network TV years ago, and couldn't be happier. I dont even pirate tv or movies. The japanese on the other hand might have a problem with me >.>

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

first post?

Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

These 'GPL Infringement' stories have really help educate the business world to STAY THE FUCK AWAY from the kooky and viral GPL and stick to using only free licenses like the BSD.

It is going to take time to purge the nutty GPL stuff from most business hardware but the process is well under way.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[laffer1]

If management even knew it had GPL code, I'd imagine lawsuits will only make companies stop using all open source code. They will not bother to research which licenses are "safe". Companies don't want to give away trade secrets and they don't realize GPL software forces them to do so.

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:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[laffer1]

Why do you assume the lawyers are looking at everything the programmers or whoever they outsource to is doing? Maybe verizon contracted it to a consulting firm in the US or elsewhere and didn't bother to look at the license?

I can think of a lot of things Verizon's lawyers might be doing including dealing with RIAA lawsuits against their customers. Big companies don't always think. If lawyers checked everything, we would never see patent lawsuits either. Think about it.

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:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[DaleGlass]

Why do you assume the lawyers are looking at everything the programmers or whoever they outsource to is doing? Maybe verizon contracted it to a consulting firm in the US or elsewhere and didn't bother to look at the license?

Because the potential consequences can be quite horrible? Infringe on the copyright of somebody like Microsoft or IBM, and things can get very unpleasant, fast. There are many companies with nasty terms out there. Some for example specify you give the company permission to run an audit on you at any time. Possibly at your expense. Some specify in what jurisdiction any issues will be litigated. Those are serious issues, and a sane company just can't leave decisions like that to a programmer on the bottom of the hierarchy.

I can think of a lot of things Verizon's lawyers might be doing including dealing with RIAA lawsuits against their customers. Big companies don't always think. If lawyers checked everything, we would never see patent lawsuits either. Think about it.

AFAIK, you can file a lawsuit for any reason. Look at SCO for instance. No proof at all, yet the whole thing managed to stay in court for years. You can bet they talked to lawyers before they filed it.

There are more uses for a lawsuit than the originally intended ones, look at SLAPP lawsuits or SCO.

Also, I'm not sure lawyers are that interested in a lack of lawsuits -- it'd be like an in-house programmer continously pointing to off the shelf products and not doing anything himself. I don't think years spent on giving advice to management and nothing inside the courtroom looks very good on a lawyer's resume.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[ShiggedyShwa]

Actually, no, they wouldn't know. When's the last time engineers and lawyers sat down and talk about that kind of stuff. We don't.

Here's what typically happens:

Engineers design the SW and HW architecture.
Engineers determine what software tools and development packages to use.
Engineer A decides to use GPL'd tools or source code.
Engineer A MAY mention to management GPL use.
Engineering completes project.
Management approves project and MAYBE asks what licenses were used.
Marketing does some magic. Sales does some reading.
At the end lawyers come in to make sure everything is kosher.
IF Engineer A communicated to management and management realized how F*CKED up you'd be since Engineer A (like a dumbass) used GPL'd code, then MAYBE the lawyers would've known.

What happens in cases like this is that the lawyers take the blame although management screwed up by allowing Engineer A to use GPL'd code in the first place.

How do I know? Because when it almost happened with one of the products I worked on. I had enough sense to let my client know that licensing could be an issue. At that point the lawyers knew and they could work from there or even deny my request altogether.

Point is, being a large company doesn't make them anymore guilty, it just makes them more susceptible and visible to GPL infringement if their engineers don't realize how much of a burden it could be if they include it. Also, (please don't strike me down) it's not necessarily the lawyers fault either.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[mathfeel]

Do you have a good example of this? Especially with these routers, last I checked, Linux and all its GPL'd-ness is still huge in the embedded world.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[raynet]

I think all GPL'ed code should be sold at some minimal price, say like 100yen, that way, if the engineer A wanted to use the GPL code, he would have to get someone to purchase it and at that point management perhaps might read the license and even forward it to the lawyers.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon does not use Linux as a favor to the people who created it. Those people allow Verizon to use Linux as a favour as long as Verizon share's its code. Unless for some reason you think that Verizon is good for humanity, you will see that stopping them from using open source is a benefit. Open source software allows them to do their business more cheaply than otherwise and be competitive against other businesses which use open source. If they switch to using only proprietary software their costs will increase and their ability to do things will decrease. This will open up more space for another competitor which does follow the GPL license to take over their business.

There are lots of other big companies who do check all their licenses and follow them to the letter. It's much more beneficial to replace Verizon with one of these companies than it is to encourage them to use the software even against it's license.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[laffer1]

Thanks for proving my point:

You said "AFAIK, you can file a lawsuit for any reason. Look at SCO for instance. No proof at all, yet the whole thing managed to stay in court for years. You can bet they talked to lawyers before they filed it."

Thus the legal teams at big companies are busy fighting "random" lawsuits.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[gnasher719]

If you think that the business world is fleeing the "viral GPL", then why is Apple shipping every single Macintosh, and every single copy of Leopard, together with the gcc compiler suite?

The business world has no fear of GPL. The GPL is a license. If a business wants to use someone else's copyrighted code, then they check the license, and the cost, and decide whether the license and the cost are acceptable or not. Some companies will decide that using code licensed under GPL is not suitable to them. Microsoft would never add GPL'd code to Microsoft Office. Not because they are afraid of the GPL, but because they understand it and find the license terms unacceptable.

Re:Business World Fleeing The Viral GPL

[iggymanz]

false, companies have lawyers that research ALL licenses in use or being considered for use. The GPL version 2 is very easy to understand compared to other licenses that go on for pages. And discovered violations of GPL have been for very obvious reasons, not some obscure violation of "section 5 paragraph 20 sentence 3" of some mountain of paper.

It's ArsTechnica-Regurgitation-Friday!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Zonk,

Is today officially "ArsTechnica Regurgitation Friday" or something?

Half the crap I'm seeing here on Slashdot this afternoon, I already read earlier today on Ars.

Re:It's ArsTechnica-Regurgitation-Friday!!!

[doombringerltx]

Actually its "ArsTechnica Regurgitation everyday"

That's odd...

[sczimme]

It's quite annoying, and since it's used by the TV set-top-boxes in the house it's kind of necessary. It's a shame, my 20Mbit connection can't handle Steam.

That's odd: I thought Steam was supposed to travel through a series of tubes...

Try putting a pressure gauge and valve just upstream from your router: if the Steam pressure goes up too much, you can close the valve. Easy peasy!

PS Get a whistle, too: your router will sound like an old train.

Re:That's odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also implement the ever-popular "centrifugal governor" or Watts device, but you will need to compile it yourself. Very flashy spinning around; as more bits of steam go through, the brass balls fly out and begin to restrict the flow. Sort of a Steampunkt QOS, if you will...

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon makes heavy use of GPL inhouse from what I can see. Apparently, inhouse, they were told to hold off on GPL in the early days of the sco crap, but now the lawyers say that it is good to go as long as the code is not going out of house. These ppl screwed up.

Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, an opportunity to show what unenforceable garbage the GPL really is. All free software has ever done to people is make them miserable.

re: Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement

[phalse phace]

Nelson Muntz says, "Ha-ha!"

I have this router

[EMIce]

They are handing it out these Actiontec routers with fiber optic service. It has a coaxial port which is WAN/LAN port (different frequencies for each), WAN ethernet port, and a few LAN ethernet ports. The coaxial LAN and cat5 LAN are bridged.

The TV set top boxes get IP addresses on the LAN via their coaxial connections. So these Verizon controlled boxes actually sit on my LAN in the same subnet as my PCs. They start at 192.168.1.100 while the PCs start at 192.168.1.2. Well I pinged then port scanned these Motorola set top boxes, and at least the HDTV DVR model of the box had it's VxWorks debug port left open. Interesting...

With the right tools I could imagine full access to the drive and the running software. So what does it take to work with this VxWorks debug port?

Some people may want to copy recordings out or enable the USB/Firewire to allow more than the 80GB internal storage included, but I am more curious if this untrusted box is doing anything I don't want on my home network. Few have the special equipment to tap these MOCA (multi-media over coax) wires between the router and the STBs, so this debug port might be a good way to check.

Re:I have this router

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it's anything like the VxWorks setup I have here at work, but I do the following to run code.

1. Compile to target architecture, using VxWorks libraries, and get an object file.
2. Telnet to VxWorks.
3. "ld lib.o"
4. "foo()"
5. ???

You'd have to look inside the box to figure out exactly what's in there. I'd imagine the OS is mostly doing housekeeping.

Replica of the hardware?

[tepples]

You could create a replica of the hardware Wouldn't that possibly violate hardware patents or the FCC's monopoly on radio frequency transmissions?

Re:Replica of the hardware?

[sumdumass]

Depends on how you create it. If you purchased the chips, then presumably your patent obligations concerning them would be covered. If you purchased the radios pre-configured and so on, it could be the same. Think of it more like building a PC and selling it. You aren't actually building it as much as assembling it.

Now, according to the FCC and radio frequencies. If you purchased the radio broad/chip and antenna from the same manufacture, they might have already had it certified. If they haven't, then you can do this too. There are several companies that can help with it. Personally, I would attempt to get one already certified and then change out the antenna to something with a little more gain and act like nothing ever happened.

Re:Replica of the hardware?

[norton_I]

You can get your hardware certified for operation in the band in question.

You might be able to make a router that doesn't infringe on any hardware patents you can't easily license.

You might want to port any busybox patches to openwrt and use them in a linksys box.

Any inability to replicate the hardware due to other IP is irrelevant, the busybox people don't own that.

Uh-oh...

[idontgno]

I wonder if Verizon is the right place to be looking for the source code?

If the "infringing product" is, indeed, the Actiontec MI424WR, wouldn't the correct place to look be the manufacturer of the hardware and integrator of the firmware, Actiontec?

Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website (http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html), I see the following:

GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products: Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR

The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the MI424WR Products.

List of modules:

busybox-0.50
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz

Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's there.

So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon? I'm sure Verizon would argue that (A) they're just retailing and installing off-the-shelf hardware, and (B) any license liability is the hardware manufacturer's.

BTW: to the 4 anonymous cowards that I upmodded earlier in this article, sorry you lost my moderation bump. I hate wasting modpoints, but this seemed relevant and important.

Re:Uh-oh...

[phoenixwade]

it depends on whether or not Verizon modified the code. If they did, they need to make the source available.

Re:Uh-oh...

[strredwolf]

Verizon modded the firmware to at least display the Verizon logo on the router's admin pages. They usually supply the modded firmware themselves, so it's not Actiontec who's at fault (they are in GPL compliance). It's Verizon (with the modded firmware).

Re:Uh-oh...

[idontgno]

Now that's the answer which makes the most sense. If it's not stock firmware, and the altered firmware is in the scope of the original open source (i.e., not just simple aggregation), then yes, Verizon is obligated to honor source redistribution requirements.

But remember: not everything in the firmware image is necessarily open source. (Again, the "simple aggregation" criterion.) Therefore, not everything would trigger an obligation to share source.

TFA is a fine piece of press-releasemanship, but awfully light on technical goodness. Does anyone know of any in-depth analysis of the nature of the alleged infringement?

ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but ya gotta admit I can fake it pretty well.

Re:Uh-oh...

[markov_chain]

It doesn't matter if they modified the firmware, as long as they didn't modify BusyBox. I guess they must have detected some changes in the binary and went after Verizon.

Re:Uh-oh...

[mctk]

Seeing as you just gave us your opinion for free, I must point out that you don't fake it very well.

Re:Uh-oh...

[ChrisA90278]

If you distribute the software you must accept the GPL. Read the GPL. They can't say "I got this from X nd X offers source code." NO, each distributer must also distribute source. The GPL says you do not have to agree to this but agreeing is the only way you can distribute the software

Re:Uh-oh...

[v1]

I have a GT701-WG and it runs busybox. I just recently updated the firmware too. This is a Qwest DSL modem with wireless capacity.

Strange that you can telnet into it and login, but you can't ssh in. Fortunately the telnet is only listening to machines on its lan ports, since there's no way to turn it off that I know of.

BusyBox v0.61.pre (2006.07.03-16:17+0000) Built-in shell (ash)

ifconfig sure does list a lot of ports. It must be a very generically written os to work easily on a wide variety of their boxes.

Re:Uh-oh...

[noidentity]

Regardless, isn't there some requirement that the one distributing the product (Verizon in this case) ensure that there is a written offer for the source code?

Re:Uh-oh...

[that this is not und]

That means that anybody who shares any GPL'd software at all in a torrent needs to provide the source code. My reading is that they are required to keep a copy of the source code around for at least three years, to give to anybody who asks for it. This could have a significant dampening effect on GPL'd software shared with bittorrent... Share it once, even just to download it, and if any single bit of it is sent off your hardware while you're downloading your copy, you're required to seed it for three years...

Re:Uh-oh...

[nmx]

It doesn't matter if they modified the firmware, as long as they didn't modify BusyBox. I guess they must have detected some changes in the binary and went after Verizon.

The GPL covers distribution of copyrighted work, even if it hasn't been modified. (You don't have *any* rights to distribute copyrighted work without some sort of license, such as the GPL.) Simply the act of distributing BusyBox in binary form requires that you also distribute the source used to compile it (or a written offer for said source).

Re:Uh-oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Question : Did they modify the code, or just the art assets?

Last I checked, the GPL covers the code, but not the other assets.

Re:Uh-oh...

[einhverfr]

I would still think that a good faith allowance should come into play.

Suppose Microsoft were to release a download of a C++ runtime library which infringed on glibc. Suppose this didn't come with the source code. Would you go after every MS VC developer? Or would the entire liability be Microsoft's?

Re:Uh-oh...

[mvdwege]

As long as such sharing over bittorrent is non-commercial in nature, clause 3c of the GPL is in force, allowing the distributor to discharge their obligation by merely giving a link to the source.

A commercial distributor must either distribute the source along with the binary (clause 3a) or give a written offer (3b). Clause 3a can conceivably be met by distributing a torrent for the source from the same location as the binary. That is an edge case though, but given the history of GPL enforcement not something that will land you in hot water.

Mart

Re:Uh-oh...

[markov_chain]

Alright, point taken. I still think it's a lame complaint if no source changes took place, since the spirit of the license is really to keep the contributions open.

I Forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the enforcement of intellectual property rights good or evil on Slashdot today? It's an odd-numbered friday, but it's warm in the southern united states today.

Re:I Forget...

[that this is not und]

It doesn't depend on the day of the week. It depends on if it's a "good" IP holder who we approve of, or a "bad" one that we disapprove of. And it's fairly arbitrary which one is which.

What is the point of trolling like that?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

I never did understand what "thrill" people get from doing this. Do you have some valid knowledge? A point? Come on, next you'll be bitching about my english.

P.S. I went to publick skewl and i right ok.

Re:What is the point of trolling like that?

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:What is the point of trolling like that?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

yeah, yeah, I know.. I guess I meant, why do people troll?

Is downloadable source code enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've got something similar here. My router is from German "T-Com" and doesn't come with source code for the firmware or any notice about GPL code packaged. On their website for downloading updated firmware, however, there's GPL'd source code.

So, my question: Doesn't that count as an infringement too? I would have never known about it if I didn't look for updates. They really should put the code on one of their countless CDs filled with manuals and crapware.

Re:Is downloadable source code enough?

[Ash-Fox]

My router is from German "T-Com" and doesn't come with source code for the firmware or any notice about GPL code packaged.

Not including the license is infringement - but many of these cases tend to be the company forgot to package it (programmers aren't the ones doing the marketing material - a honest mistake, usually informing them is enough to get it fixed..).

So, my question: Doesn't that count as an infringement too?

Request the company for the source code, and if they don't provide it, then it is infringing on the source code requirement.

Competition

[RAMMS EIN]

Soon, the *AA will be forced to deal with a strange new concept...competition.

Soon, they will find that they are not the only ones prosecuting copyright violators...

Soon, they will be struggling to keep ahead of the organizations that prosecute GPL violations! ... and yes, these organizations _will_ take on the *AA, and there _will_ be a film at 11!

Verizon is distributing the software

[Chirs]

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.

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?

You think that every reseller of an integrated hardware/software system (or hardware/firmware) has to be licensed to "distribute" the software (firmware) component?

LOL

Well, that would certainly shake things up a bit. Want to re-sell your used iPod? Better get a copyright license to "distribute" the OS!

Dork.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[bug1]

"You think that every reseller of an integrated hardware/software system (or hardware/firmware) has to be licensed to "distribute" the software (firmware) component?"

So if load up a PC with a copy of windows i bought in a back alley in china for $1 and "resell" the hardware/software in the US then im legally in the clear, and its only the guy in china that can get in trouble ?

Copyright laws dont just magically disappear just because one commercial transaction has taken place.

Perhaps your confused as a lot of commercial software licences are tied to specific pieces of hardware.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[sumdumass]

Reselling your Ipod is covered by the right of first sale doctrine. Verizon could be covered too.

Also, the configuration pages that Verizon probably did change to display their logo might not be any different then a webpage running on an GPLed webserver. It probably shouldn't kick in the GPL. And if it did, all verizon would have to do it provide access to the logo's image.

This entire thing is extremely complexed and there is little to no information in the article. I would like to see the actual filings to see if it points to specifics. But even that might take some times before it appears.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[mr_matticus]

So if load up a PC with a copy of windows i bought in a back alley in china for $1 and "resell" the hardware/software in the US then im legally in the clear With regard to the resale, yes.

The trouble is that you purchased illicit goods knowing them to be of questionable origin (strike one, bad faith), installed unlicensed software (strike two, copyright infringement), aren't licensed to do business with China (strike three, multiple no-nos [tax, commercial code, etc.]), and misrepresented what you're selling as legitimate (strike four, fraud). You'll get busted for any number of things. Resale of goods purchased in good faith would not be one of them.

Now, had you simply bought the computer from a vendor assuming it to be legitimate and having no reason to suspect otherwise, you'd be fine. You'd also be in the position of a reseller here...as opposed to your off-base hypothetical that supposes Verizon is installing GPL-violating software and trying to pass it off. Unless Verizon knew, orchestrated, or had reason to suspect that Actiontec was violating its license terms, it has nothing to do with this.

Perhaps your [sic] confused.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

True. If they modify the GPL-covered code/image, then they'd be covered. It's not clear that they did that - configuring the router and adding a logo might well fall into non-covered areas.

If Verizon hosts a copy of the firmware image for use in updates, they might in theory be covered, though that would be pushing the edge of reasonableness (they could term it a cache for ActionTek). If they host a modified copy, they're in a little more trouble, though it's still basically a minor technicality.

In fact, this entire lawsuit appears to be an attempt to engender publicity for going after a "Big Guy". I see no assertion that they've failed to provide GPL-mandated source that's been modified, no assertion that the source they used isn't trivially obtainable from ActionTek, no assertion of tainting of other code that Verizon linked with GPL code.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[bitmonk]

I'm sorry, and IANAL, but the right of first sale doctrine does not relate in any way to F/OSS or the GPL. If you CONVEY a binary executable copy, you MUST take personal responsibility for distributing the FULL SOURCE DISTRIBUTION which will produce that binary. No exchange of money or business relationship must exist, only a conveyance.

If I allow you to browse my computer's hard drive, via http, and it is full of binary GPL software, i'd better:

    (a) close it up
    (b) make sure /usr/src is full ;)

Cheers!

J

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[sumdumass]

Some things are just obvious. And I would caution ising the term conveyance as it doesn't mean what you think it does in the context of the GPLv2 which is what the software in question is covered under.

But anyways, The GPL doesn't place any restrictions on anyone that doesn't accept it. Copyright places restrictions on what you can do with copyright covered works. Now, Copyright has a "right of first sale" (or the first sale doctrine) exception that basically says that as long as you legally obtained the covered works, you can sell them to one other person provided that you transfer the works to them and don't keep copies. I could sell you my newspaper when I am finished with it. I couldn't photocopy it and sell you one or the other while keeping it. I also couldn't sell it to more then one person in this way.

So, IF acceptance in not necessary for use, then when verizon obtained the router, they didn't accept anything. They are aren't under the spell of the GPL, Now, with the fist sale doctrine, they aren't subject to copyright in the sense that they have to get permission against to sell it or transfer it to someone else. So they wouldn't be limited to copyright or GPL restrictions in the sense of being tied to condition in the GPL unless they modified something.

It is the binding principle that allows you to sell a used music CD or a used play station game without getting special permission to distribute it. Once you legally transfer the copy to your control you can legally transfer it out of you control without permission from the copyright holder.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[Samizdata]

Not only that, but keep in mind, the documentation on the Verizon site where the firmware upgrade is posted shows that some of the routers are specifically branded AS Verizon.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[that this is not und]

Now, Copyright has a "right of first sale" (or the first sale doctrine) exception that basically says that as long as you legally obtained the covered works, you can sell them to one other person provided that you transfer the works to them and don't keep copies.

That doesn't work very well on eBay.

I have a legal copy of Office 2000. It's the 'retail box' version, meaning I bought it at a store as a stand-alone unit. Awhile back I tried to list it on eBay. Microsoft's goons got it delisted because it did not consist of every single bit of the entire package. I didn't have the manual and the colored box that it came in any longer. Just the hologrammed CD with a license key on the back. It is clearly and obviously a retail-box copy as can be determined by looking at the license label. Doesn't matter. Microsoft's good whine. eBay delists you.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[sumdumass]

Microsoft got busted for that in 2005 when they attempted to sue some guy named Zamos.

Here is more about the first sale doctrine as well as the Zamos case.

Something to note is that Ebay has some weird policies concerning software. And your right to sale doesn't necessarily mean to sell on Ebay. But if anything other then some Ebay policy, MS stopped you because you didn't sell the thing in it's entirety, Box manual and all just as you purchased it(you admitted to not having it anymore). It is more likely an Ebay policy and you could have taken it somewhere else and sold it just fine.

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"

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[bug1]

"Unless Verizon knew, orchestrated, or had reason to suspect that Actiontec was violating its license terms, it has nothing to do with this."

Well they know now dont they, so they have to abide by the license, agreed ?

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol.. how is a direct response to someone redundant.

maybe off topic or trollish but it can't be redundant.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[gnasher719]

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.
Forget about the terms of the GPL. If someone sells you a product, and you sell it on, and the product contains parts that are protected by copyright and you don't have permission from the copyright holder, you are responsible. If I produce 1000 illegal copies of MS Vista, sell them to you, and you sell them on, you can't deny responsibility. Microsoft can and will sue you. You may be able to sue me in turn, depending on circumstances.

Same here. When Verizon gives the product to the end user, they are infringing Busybox's copyright. It doesn't matter whether that is their suppliers fault or not, they are responsible. If their supplier lied to them and didn't tell them that the product contained Busybox's code, then Verizon can sue their supplier.

Re:Verizon is distributing the software

[einhverfr]

Forget about the terms of the GPL. If someone sells you a product, and you sell it on, and the product contains parts that are protected by copyright and you don't have permission from the copyright holder, you are responsible. If I produce 1000 illegal copies of MS Vista, sell them to you, and you sell them on, you can't deny responsibility. Microsoft can and will sue you. You may be able to sue me in turn, depending on circumstances. Not quite so fast.

Contributory infringement usually seems to apply in cases where someone is either negligent in checking (i.e. you sell me 1000 illegal copies of Vista for $5 each, so I should know something is wrong) or in cases where someone actually promotes infringement (the Grokster case).

One does not need to go back to Microsoft and verify the validity of every copyright license of every part to sell it. Think about it.... Suppose your normal (and previously trustworthy) channel starts making pirated copies and selling them to you at full price. YOu have no reason to know. Why should it be your fault?

How did they infringe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just curious, since my eyes glazed over reading the PDF, how they are alleged to have violated the license? It was my understanding (noting my non-lawyer status) that you could distribute non-modified binary versions of GPL'd software all day and only need note that it is unmodified (meaning you can download it from the original authors or mirrors, to get the same software). I thought you only had to make available any modifications to that GPL'd software (a patch, say; which would fall under the same GPL).

If my above assumptions are correct, and they didn't modify the source, couldn't they just put up a static page saying "we use busybox on our routers, download it from over there" and be in compliance?

Re:How did they infringe?

[Rene S. Hollan]

That exemption is only available for non-commercial distribution.

Re:How did they infringe?

[roscivs]

That exemption is only available for non-commercial distribution.

Wow, that is ridiculously wrong. At least if we're talking about GPLv2, there's no difference between commercial and non-commercial distribution.

The fact of the matter is that if you're distributing GPL'd code in a manner that would violate copyright if no license were given (e.g. copying it), then you must distribute the source code (either directly or via a written offer).

Of course, if you're not distributing GPL'd code in a manner that would otherwise violate copyright (e.g. you don't make copies of it yourself, you buy devices with the GPL'd code already in place), then you don't have to do anything. TFA doesn't make it clear whether this is in fact the case with Verizon.

Re:How did they infringe?

[raynet]

I don't think it really matter if you modify it or not. If you distribute the binary, you must also offer to give out the source and you cannot just point people to a 3rd party site to get the source. See this article for more related info: http://www.linux.com/articles/55285

Re:How did they infringe?

[Rene S. Hollan]

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.

If you receive it with an offer to provide source, you can redistribute it non-commercially with a copy of that same offer.

This actually caused headaches for us in a commercial venture: we wanted to distribute source, on demand only, to those we distributed object code to. But, we didn't want that right to be transferable -- we didn't want to sell 100 object copies, but provide an unlimited number of source copies. So, we ended up providing source, with object.

SFLC

[l2718]

SFLC is the Software Freedom Law Center. You can think of it as the militant arm of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though one does not directly control the other. Its founder and main figure is Prof. Eben Moglen, formerly general counsel and board member of the FSF.

Re:SFLC

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is theft! Down with The GPL!!

Re:SFLC

[Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright is theft! Down with The GPL!!"

The GPL is a Copyleft license. So, yeah, down with Copyright!

Re:SFLC

[that this is not und]

There is no legal defintion for this term 'copyleft' that you used. Are you implying there is no legal basis for the GPL?

I know there are others who will disagree.

Is the router sold or rented?

[CustomDesigned]

If the router is owned by Verizon, and merely rented or provided for use by customers, then Verizon is not under GPL obligations - regardless of whether it is on customer premises. It is only if Verizon is selling or giving away the routers that they need to meet GPL obligations. The case of DRMed media and devices is weird. While ostensibly a "sale", you can't actually do anything with the product without permission from the maker. Thus Tivo and *AA companies are lying to consumers when they offer to "sell" DRMed media and devices. The media/device is still effectively owned and controlled by the maker. The best way for such companies to avoid GPL 3, stop lying to their customers, and still maintain the desired control, is to call a spade a spade and rent DRMed media and equipment. Call it a "long term rental" if you want. When I go to the theatre, I don't expect to be able to do what I want with their equipment.

Re:Is the router sold or rented?

[sumdumass]

Well, actually, I was thinking about this the other day.

Suppose I sold something for 400 dollars. I didn't want you to modify it so I leased it instead at a cost of $100 over the expected life span and then claimed that the life span was 4 years and you were to toss it in the trash at the end of it's life.

You would effectively have bought the thing, I can deny service is changes are made and I never actually distributed anything because you are supposed to dispose of it. If you keep it and it still works after 4 years, that is on you not me.

Somehow I don't think that would hold up though.

Re:Is the router sold or rented?

[Myopic]

Are you saying they wouldn't have to provide the source code because by merely renting the unit instead of selling it they aren't "distributing" the code? That's an interesting interpretation of "distribute". Can anyone who knows comment on the legal definition of "distribute"? It seems to me that if I have something, and give it to you, even if I only loaned it to you I have distributed it to you; but this certainly wouldn't be the first time a word means different things to lawyers and non-lawyers.

You're right about the 'ownership' thing. I always wonder about that when I see a commercial saying "Own %MOVIE% on DVD today!" They say "own" but they mean "not own". I don't have that trouble though because I don't buy DVDs.

Re:Is the router sold or rented?

[pfleming]

Distribution means, "having a copy on your computer, whether anyone downloaded it or not". At least to the *AA

So where is the GPL text

[Anonymous Coward]

so that you

a) know there's GPL code in there
b) what your rights are to that code

because forgetting to put that in is a license violation (and not in the section you slectively quote).

Re:So where is the GPL text

[einhverfr]

The point is that reselling copyrighted works does not require a copyright license.

For example, if you bring me a copy of "The Wind Done Gone" and I sell it, it doesn't matter whether it infringes on "Gone with the Wind" or not. I can resell it. I am not liable. IANAL, but any other doctrine would simply be stupid.

This idea that we are going to use copyright law to do exactly what we complain about patent suits shows that certain individuals on certain projects are sinking to a level that we shouldn't have to see in our community.

No longer a paper tiger

[SiriusStarr]

It seems to me that for a long time, the GPL was viewed by most simply as an ideal, a nominal rationalization for releasing source rather than the license agreement that it actually is. Hopefully with the recent rash of GPL-violation lawsuits, companies will start taking seriously the protections granted by the GPL and the principles of open-source software design that it supports. Nothing like a few court trials to wake people up...

Re:No longer a paper tiger

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, some authors actually mean what they say. SFLC is going to get a christmas present from me! You should donate too! God I love those guys!

SFLC is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and donations made to it are fully tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/donate/

Twat faced monkey-fucker

[Anonymous Coward]

When your balls have dropped, you cretinous little child, turn up in real life and I'll take your sorry life out before you can start pissing in the gene pool.

You have a very small penis

[Anonymous Coward]

Your penis is miniscule.

There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from your post.

Turn up in real life and I will laugh at your tiny penis.

Fantastic!

[kilodelta]

I'm happy to see this suit being filed against Verizon. They're the same Verizon who patented RFC's and then went after VoIP provider Vonage if you recall.

I hope their FIOS is a complete failure.

Re:Fantastic!

[Nullav]

I hope their FIOS is a complete failure.

Nose, face, spite, etc.

So they're patent trolls, at least they provide something useful on the side. I, for one, would rather have a cheap, high-bandwidth connection than cheap VoIP. (Don't we have Skype for that anyway?) 15Mbps upstream is just too good to pass up, compared to the 512Kbps-1Mbps the cable companies provide.

Re:Fantastic!

[kilodelta]

I get a verifiable 1.5mb up from Cox. It's fine, I'm not serving out much anyhow as my devel environment doesn't require it.

I realize that clashes with torrents and things like that, but just watch and see what Verizon does. They're famous for luring you in then jacking up the price. The only reason there's any buzz about it is because people have the memory span of a gnat.

Terminology

[Akaihiryuu]

Ok, this is nit-picking, but it comes up every time there's a "GPL violation" in the courts/news. Verizon is not being sued for a "GPL violation". The GPL is NOT an EULA, it is a copyright license. They ONLY have the rights to distribute the GPL'd software in question if they abide by the terms of the GPL. If they are not abiding by the terms of the GPL, they don't have the rights to distribute the software *at all*, and since they continue to distribute it, they are distributing it in violation of copyright. Sure, I don't expect the media to get this right, but at least the Slashdot editors could. The subject should read "Verizon being sued for copyright infringement".

Re:Terminology

[mr_matticus]

It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop.

Further, what you claim has never been established or held to be true in a US court. The GNU Public License is indeed a license--a license extending beyond statutory provisions. The text therefore forms a license agreement, since you can only modify a statutory scheme by operation of contract.

This fantasy framework of yours is a fun way to think of things, but it's not grounded in reality. One must also still notify a noncomplying party of their noncompliance--termination is automatic, but it's not repudiation. There's nothing in the toolbox that allows you to pretend that distribution wasn't originally authorized.

To put things in a more concrete perspective, a holdover tenant is not a trespasser. Someone who had permission to distribute (granted by the copyright owner unilaterally without even meeting the prospective distributors) cannot be treated as though they never had such permission. You can seek an injunction. You can seek damages. You can't say they had no rights whatsoever, though. It just doesn't work, because the fact is that they did indeed have permission to distribute which was not instantaneously coupled with a restriction--there is no provision requiring immediate release (only a reasonable timeframe standard). Violation of the license is a multiple-step process.

There's an ongoing debate about whether, upon notice of termination, what interest is being misappropriated by the "GPL violator." Frankly, most courts are going to see it the way they see everything else: you've violated a contract which gave you a license. That license can of course be terminated, but the GPL has no provision for blacklisting--each conveyed copy arguably restarts the process, because the GPL is an imperfect tool. You can't skip to "there's no license in play" because it simply isn't true.

Re:Terminology

[hanshotfirst]

The subject should read "Verizon being sued for copyright infringement".

And since we are told to DEATH that "copyright infringement" == "stealing" == "piracy" we could have it read "Verizon being sued for software theft and piracy".

Even harder and more important than the editors and media understanding the subtlety here -- do the lawyers and the courts understand it? If Verizon WINS this case would it set legal precedent to relax judgment on other forms of copyright infringement?

Re:Terminology

[gnasher719]

It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop. You are wrong. GPL violation is _not_ copyright infringement. Distributing software without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. Not meeting the terms of the GPL just invalidates any claims that you might have permission of the copyright holder. That is an important distinction, because it means the copyright infringement has happened, and distributing the source code now doesn't help anymore.

You cannot sue anyone for breach of the GPL. You can only sue for copyright infringement. They can then use the GPL as a possible defence saying that the GPL allowed them to copy your software, and then you tell the court why it doesn't.

Re:Terminology

[mr_matticus]

You are wrong. GPL violation is _not_ copyright infringement. Distributing software without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. Wow. You were SO close. GPL violation sparks what action? Termination of license. Distributing without a license is what? Distribution without permission. Distribution without permission is what? Copyright infringement.

That is an important distinction, because it means the copyright infringement has happened, and distributing the source code now doesn't help anymore. It's not a distinction at all! You're living a fiction totally unsupported by the law. There is no mechanism--let me repeat--there is NO mechanism, for perpetually terminating a GPL user's license. You can seek an injunction requiring a company to stop sales until they comply with the license. You can seek damages for the failure to comply. If they start complying, though, there's nothing you can do. Distributing source puts them in compliance and they can go on their merry way. The GPL is a grant to the world--the entire world. There is no mechanism in the GPL that says 'anyone EXCEPT you, you, and you."

You cannot sue anyone for breach of the GPL Then this suit would not exist. You can't bring a copyright infringement suit without an infringing act. Either there is no license or the license has been breached. In this case, it's an alleged breach, because you cannot deny the existence of a license for anything released unilaterally under an open source license.

Re:Terminology

[mr_matticus]

What should be important is that Slashdot understands it, and you've handedly demonstrated that you don't.

If Verizon wins this case, it sets no precedent whatsoever. If it evolves to a precedential ruling, at best it will simply cause damage to the notion of suing for any kind of open source infringement, by invalidating restrictions that can't be enforced (granting distributions rights without a contract) or that never legally existed (requires no notice or assent--users are not so much as presented with the GPL prior to download).

Not all copyright infringement is stealing (there are other ways to infringe), and for what it's worth, it's difficult to "steal" GPL software--it comes with the right to redistribute, to modify, and to copy indefinitely, so the only property right that can really be unduly taken by a wrongdoer is attribution. That then poses a problem for piracy, since there is no money involved and no restrictions on pure reproduction.

From there, it's not clear whether the GPL violation ultimately will be judged copyright infringement, since Verizon has an unlimited, irrevocable right to copy the exact material copyrighted by BusyBox without restriction. New Verizon code would be copyrighted by Verizon, and so failure to disclose its own code only becomes copyright infringement through the operation of the GPL, a contract...only lots of people don't want to say that the GPL is a contract, so without this link, there's no telling where a court might go with it. That's why when the day comes that someone really pushes the issue of the GPL, it might not go the way you're hoping.

So if they said Verizon was stealing or pirating, they'd be mistaken. They are infringing on copyright, but more specifically they are violating the GPL. Moreover, why would you want to lose that specificity in the headline? Talking about the GPL and potential repercussions of noncompliance raises the profile of open source software.

Re:Terminology

[hanshotfirst]

Whoah - easy, there. Guess I should have used the tag explicitly.

Re:Terminology

[hanshotfirst]

... tag...

Re:Terminology

[mr_matticus]

Maybe so :)

Sigh

[Brandybuck]

Sometimes I think BusyBox was created just so people could bitch about embedded manufacturers.

Re:Sigh

[nmx]

Sometimes I think BusyBox was created just so people could bitch about embedded manufacturers.

I laughed at this. But the truth is, the manufacturers could have written their own BusyBox-like toolkit. They wisely chose to use someone else's work instead, and have to pay only the small price of providing the same source that they were given. It's not too much to ask.

Re:Sigh

[Diesel Dave]

My code hath bore it's fruit. It's purpose shall now be known!!

Muha Muha MUAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!!!!

Don't be offended, but...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you just talking about some web interface?

There is a huge difference between being able to ssh in as root, and having the ability (with a web interface) to "reconfigure anything you want".

Simple example: The NAS we have at work, despite being basically a hard drive in a box with an ethernet port, does allow us to ssh in as root, which lets us use it for things it was not designed for at all -- for example, we could probably run BitTorrent on the box itself.

Compare that to my Linksys router at home, where if it's not on the admin pages, I can't do it. The only way to get more software on there is to upgrade the firmware, and I can't make my own firmware (at least, not for this one, I think).

Now, I understand that some systems are even more locked down -- some really do prevent you from making your own firmware at all, whereas some people have coaxed a custom Linux to run on Linksys routers that weren't designed for it. And some, your ISP basically disallows you from ever changing anything about the router.

But by "user-modifiable", what they are asking is whether we could recompile the Linux source and load new software, a new kernel, etc onto it.

Is it impossible to use both?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Specifically, is it impossible to do Linksys -> ActionTec -> Set top -> TV?

Or maybe some Linux box which fools the router into thinking it's on the Internet, if it won't work behind a NAT.

say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Busybox is a userspace application isn't it? If I for example, included "gzip" on a CD with my installer, wouldn't I only have to distribute the source to gzip and not my application as well?

I don't see that Verizon would have to release the code to their router, just the portions that are gpl'ed (hint: gpl doesn't move from user space applications to others, only libraries that statically link).

Tempest in a teapot

[Brett Glass]

This whole thing seems silly. The source code for Busybox, and all of the utilities that can be integrated into it, is already readily available. So, what is Verizon supposedly "withholding?" (Never mind the fact that the GPL, because it constitutes a "contract to make a contract," is invalid.)

Re:Tempest in a teapot

[nmx]

The source code for Busybox, and all of the utilities that can be integrated into it, is already readily available. So, what is Verizon supposedly "withholding?"

The fact that (as you point out) it would be ridiculously easy for Verizon to comply with the GPL does not negate the fact that they are not in compliance.

(Never mind the fact that the GPL, because it constitutes a "contract to make a contract," is invalid.)

Interesting opinion. The GPL has been held up in Germany, and has not made it to court in the U.S. simply because everyone has been smart enough to settle.

Re:Tempest in a teapot

[Brett Glass]

Settling when someone makes an illegal demand isn't smart, IMHO.

That is why they won't get my TV business

[dreamchaser]

I put my own router in place of the crappy Actiontec one for my FIOS Internet. However, they are saying they *require* their router if I want to use FIOS TV. No sale. Unfortunately that means I'll be sticking with Comcast for my TV.

Different problem

[einhverfr]

Of course, making the code available is important to the GPL. It allows other competitors to use Actiontec's enhancements.

However, the question is: why is this Verizon's problem? If a musical artist is found guilty of copyright infringement in using a sample, does this mean that the music retailers are liable for contributory infringement simply because they don't immediately pull all the copies from the shelves when they learn of the problem?

It seems to me that it does us all very few favors to go after Verizon in this matter. We complain about the issues of patent infringement and how much uncertainty that creates relating to software development. Now it seems that there are people who are trying to do the same with copyright. I see this as very troubling because this could easily hurt us (the FOSS community) as much as anyone else.

Close to my concern, actually

[einhverfr]

The issue I see with this is that we all know that there is not a piece of software out there that is safe from patent scrutiny, except perhaps the most basic Hello World application (and even there, the compiler or interpreter, runtime libraries, etc?). In short if people throw enough effort and money at it, one can make any software vendor, developer, or user pay.

It seems in this case that going after Verizon is like going after a second-hand music store because they are reselling albums that were previously judged to be infringing on a third party's copyright. This makes any sort of distribution and development very risky, whether commercial or open source, and it makes copyrights in general as dangerous to software development as patents are today.

Not really

[einhverfr]

If I buy a copy of Microsoft Windows Vista and resell it, I do *not* need a copyright license to do that. And the EULA is unenforcible at that point (there was a case involving Adobe which showed this).

This is a suit simply aimed to get a settlement from Verizon. I would actually be happier if they fought this one.

BTW, I make my living developing open source software, and I am very sympathetic to Busybox, but I do *not* think this gives them the moral right to sue up and down the chain. We complain about this sort of thing with regard to patents. We should not do the same thing with regard to copyrights.

The suit should be limited to ActionTec. What is next? Suing Radio Shack because they might sell some routers which infringe on GPL code?

So, in your view....

[einhverfr]

Would Verizon ask Microsoft for copyright licenses for all third party technology licensed by Microsoft and included in each of their products that they use? For example, agreements with Sybase relating to SQL Server....

Yeah, right.....

THis is just an attempt to get the big guys to settle rather than limiting one's actions to the real culprits....

Walmart analogy

[einhverfr]

You can buy Linux systems at Walmart, does this make Walmart a party to the GPL? Under what theory of copyright law?

Next, we shall sue Walmart for not offering coupons for the source code to all people who buy products they merely distribute.

idk about actiontek's gpl problem

[Anonymous Coward]

but i do know that westell's ultraline 3 runs linux and i can't find sources on their website for it
and westell is a major cpe provider for verizon

Complaining and losing jobs over GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of complaining about companies blatantly not caring whats even in an open-source GPL. I've lost many jobs because I wouldn't break the agreement or violate the law. RockBand the game's community portal was the latest nightmare scenario I've had... where the project manager admitted she didn't know or care if editing the Drupal code base was legal. (and didn't even have me sign an NDA)