Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL vs. Skype Back In Court

Posted by timothy on from the remember-what-a-license-is dept.

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."

12 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Violates Anti-Trust?? by NoSCO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Violates Anti-Trust?? by sohmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws? Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field...I guess in a way.

      --
      We don't live in Shouldland.
    2. Re:Violates Anti-Trust?? by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws?

      It is not.

      >Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*?

      No. The "opposite" of violating the law is "compliance" and the GPL cannot "comply" with Anti-Trust laws.
      A creator of content has certain rights, that are reserved by default, purely on the basis of him having created that work. There are ways to assert those rights, such as giving notice (e.g., "registrations"), but these do not confer any "improved rights", they merely help with evidence when those rights need to be defended.

      But the GPL is a license, a grant of certain authority that the licensee would not have without the license.
      If you wanted to accused the grantor of a GPL-style license of breaking some law, you would first need to show that the grantor did not have the right to use the license, which in the case of the GPL, would mean somehow depriving the grantor of his rights that he has under copyright law. What you suggest doing would be unprecedented in the US.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Violates Anti-Trust?? by joostje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EULA's impose extra restrictions on top of what copyright gives (cannot reverse engenier, etc); while the GPL gives extra rights over what copyright gives (can run, copy, etc as often as you want). If you claim not to have read the GPL license, you would have been bound to normal copy right law, and not have been allowed to distribute the program at all.

  2. Simple Solution by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This time around Skype is apparently trying to argue that the GPL violates anti-trust regulations.

    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."
    1. Re:Simple Solution by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you see? The source code is right there in the open! It's free! Why are you guys getting so worked up about something that you don't care about enough to protect? The nerve of you hippies; go smoke your pot while us real people turn your code into something useful, something that will revolutionize the world and move us closer to utopia, things like recording television and making phone calls on the internet.

    2. Re:Simple Solution by neokushan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try telling that to an overpaid manager that's thinking "hmm, we could spend maybe a few thousand hiring software developers to code up this thing we need, or we could save all that money by stealing this free thing. Worst case scenario is we'll need a couple of lawyers to get us out of that pesky GPL thing"

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    3. Re:Simple Solution by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm you could always go the apple route and just take BSD code that has a license that makes the software free to abuse as much as you like.

      It doesn't take a brain to see the differences. If you wanted it closed use a close source license to begin with.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Simple Solution by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But there is a lot of profit in saving money. That's the point. In Business you make money by doing two things... raking in revenue and controlling costs. It would have been a lot less expensive for Skype to have just played by the rules.

  3. Anti-trust theory already tried, and failed by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The anti-trust theory was already tried in Wallace vs. International Business Machines et al.. OK, Wallace represented himself, and wasn't a lawyer. But it's not going to fly. Why is eBay asleep at the switch while some rogue laywer at Skype pulls this? They have nothing to lose from releasing the kernel, and both reputation and money to lose while they balk.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  4. If it wasn't so dumb... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    shooting down the GPL - you can bet there is more behind that push than just "somebody" at Skype

    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.
  5. The problem for Skype by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.