Slashdot Mirror
GPL vs. Skype Back In Court
mollyhackit writes "Hackaday reports that the GPL vs Skype case is going back to court today. This as an appeal to the court's decision Slashdot reported last July. The original case was brought against Skype for the Linux based SMC Skype WiFi phone. The court upheld the GPLv2 and decided that Skype had not gone far enough in meeting section 3 which details how to provide the original source. This time around Skype is apparently trying to argue that the GPL violates anti-trust regulations."
Perhaps if they code something off their own back then rather than leech off the work of others, there would be no problem. Honestly, the nerve!
If you don't like GPL terms, don't use GPL software. How much simpler can it be?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Judges generally prefer low-impact rulings that set little precedent and make little waves beyond righting the wrongs done. If you recall the Artistic License case a while back, the judge ruled that violating the license didn't suddenly make it copyright infringement, merely contract violation. In this case you would have to prove and quantify damages, which with open source is nearly impossible (really, what's the financial damage done by failing to provide yet-another copy of the kernel source).
Geeks like us tend to see things as binary, algorithmic, "EITHER gpl is valid OR it's copyright infringement". This naive take on the law will blindside us when more cases like this proceed to trial unsettled.
Well, if they tried to do it in a smart way. This is about the most stooooopid way possible. First, they use a legal theory that only a fool would pursue and that is, indeed, known for having been pursued foolishly only to be dismissed with a very clear finding by the judge in a U.S. court. Then, they pursue this case when complying with the terms of the GPL would cost them nothing, which is the mark of a lawyer who isn't considering his client's best interest. There is nothing special about Skype that belongs in the Linux kernel. Their proprietary software is safe in user-mode, where this case won't touch it. The only things that would need releasing is the customization for that particular embedded phone device, which is not terribly different from the wealth of customization for similar devices already in the public.
In other words, complying with the terms of the GPL would cost Skype less than pursuing this case.
They're stupid, or crazy. If eBay can't rein them in, what about eBay stockholders?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
OK, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the whole purpose of antitrust legislation was to crack down on things that discourage competition.
What in the GPL discourages competition? Nothing. You can make your own competing programs all you want. You may not be able to use GPL'd code without also releasing your source, but this is irrelevant: no one complains when Coke doesn't let Pepsi use the Coke recipes.
Even if that were a legitimate complaint, however, it would still be irrelevant. There is plenty of competition, even among GPL'd software. Consider the myriad Linux distributions, to give an example of entire businesses that compete with one another despite using GPL'd products. If Skype wants to compete with Linux using some kind of "Skynux," they too are free to do so. All they have to do is comply with the license.
The GPL is very much a permissive and mandative license, not a prohibitive one.
It absolutely will NOT stifle competition, because anything you release can only help other companies if they decide to use it.
Which means...a restraint of trade can ONLY happen with the cooperation of the victim.
"You gotta give out the source code" does NOT mean "you can't use this".
The only case where the GPL "encumbers" anything is if there's a patent involved, in which case the encumberance is both legal AND preexisting anyway.
In principle, this, is complete bullshit.
In practice, I fear some judge might not see it that way, especially in this current plutocracy.
The GPL doesn't violate anything, but even if they did manage to get the License declared illegal in some way... They would still be using someone else's copyrighted code without a license. GPL is the only thing that grants you the right to distribute copies, if you throw it out then you've got nothing to stand on. After all the other cases, I still find it amazing that people don't understand this.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There's a whole raft of problems with this argument. Here's my short list. Feel free to add your own.
- * The GPL isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of competition for software out there, including a convicted monopolist.
- * GPL code cannot be priced up if a monopoly is ever achieved. The terms of the GPL prohibit charging for GPL code ever, so real predatory pricing is precluded.
- * The antitrust laws have been gutted by a series of court cases. One of the "new" standards is harm to the consumer, an almost impossible to prove issue. (So, how do you know Netscape wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway?) While Microsoft has benefited from this standard, it also will require Skype to prove that giving away software for free harms the consumer.
That's my short list. Like I said, please feel free to add your own.===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Their competitor does not have to use GPL software to implement the standard -- they are free to re-implement the standard so long as they don't copy code. Compaq seemed to do just fine in terms of copyright with their whiteroom implementation of the IBM BIOS, and that BIOS wasn't even offered under such open terms as GPL software.
How can the GPLv2 which essentially is a public domain license with a few twists of ownership thrown in, violate Anti Trust laws?
Freaks!
I say they can run, but they cannot hide.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I know their service appears to be superior to traditional POTS and mainstream VoIP offerings, but they still suck. You're locked into a proprietary protocol that doesn't interact with anyone else's apps, and the crypto is "fake" (in the sense that Skype is always the trusted introducer for key exchange, and is therefore subject to coercion by, say, governments).
Kill this app. The "free" calling seems neat, but this isn't what we really need. Like the iPhone, it's a good demo of the future, but everyone loses if the actual product is the future.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
And they got to write the specifications.