Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Action against the rising cell phone companies will help them be a bit more reasonable!
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.
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.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
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.
Like when TimeLine threatened SQL Server users? Sounds real safe.
Nelson Muntz says, "Ha-ha!"
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.
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.
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:
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
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.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
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.
Soon, the *AA will be forced to deal with a strange new concept...competition.
... and yes, these organizations _will_ take on the *AA, and there _will_ be a film at 11!
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!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
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.
A fast cowboy since 2007
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.
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.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Actually its "ArsTechnica Regurgitation everyday"
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.
A fast cowboy since 2007
That exemption is only available for non-commercial distribution.
In Liberty, Rene
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.
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.
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.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Fear the penguin.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
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?
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.
no big sig
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.
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.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
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.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
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.
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".
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.
~ roscivs
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.
- Raynet --> .
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.
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.
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
- Raynet --> .
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.
Sometimes I think BusyBox was created just so people could bitch about embedded manufacturers.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
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.
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....
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.
In Liberty, Rene
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. 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?
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.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
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
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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.
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...).
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.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
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.
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.
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.
Settling when someone makes an illegal demand isn't smart, IMHO.
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...
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It would weaken the strength of lines like this:
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.
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.
Whatever.
If you are happy with your views, keep them.
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.