Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal

Posted by kdawson on from the green-enveloope dept.

l2718 writes "Yesterday we discussed Skype's appeal of a German court's ruling against them regarding a violation of the GPL. Harald Welte (the plaintiff) now reports in his blog that following oral argument, Skype decided to drop the appeal and accept the lower court ruling in Weite's favor. More details and analysis at Groklaw. Congratulations to Mr. Welte and GPL-violations.org!"

7 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. As Groklaw says... by Dekortage · · Score: 5, Informative

    "To all those who don't like the license: you don't have to use it. Just write your own code. But if you want to use GPL code, the license comes with it. It's a package deal. Thanks."

    (which has been oft-said on /.)

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  2. Re:Regarding the summary... by stirz · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's called Harald Welte .

  3. Re:What is the Software? by Tester · · Score: 4, Informative

    What GPL'd software did Skype use and how was it discovered that Skype was using it? The Linux kernel...
  4. Re:So, do we get source code now? by allthingscode · · Score: 4, Informative

    This means that you get to see whatever GPL'd code Skype was using, and if they made changes to that code, they are required to release them as well under the GPL. You don't have access under the GPL to any of their other code that does not meet these conditions.

  5. Re:What is the Software? by jimmypw · · Score: 5, Informative

    They took the open moko device and rebranded it as their own which was fair and legal. What they didnt do was make the source code available for those modifications which is required under section 3 of the GPL. They then packeged their item with a link to the source code but that didnt meet the terms of the license as only people with an internet connection can access it (its a skype device so wouldnt they have an internet conenction to A. Order one and B. Use it) They then claimed the GPL license violated anti-trust yesterday before giving up today.

    As for how it was discovered i'm not sure. Im guessing that as they complied with the rest of the agreement they left the copyright notice in.

    Glorious day

  6. Re:What is the Software? by Daengbo · · Score: 4, Informative

    When they supplied a link, it didn't meet the licensing terms because they still didn't notify the receiver of his right to redistribute.

    --
    Put identity in the browser.
  7. Re:This is a victory? by multisync · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it


    IANAL, but I'll take a crack at that.

    In the US, whatever you create is copyrighted by default. I believe it is easier to defend if you take the step of registering it, but as far as I know simply putting a copyright notice on it is sufficient. So I couldn't come along and take the code you published and use it in a project I intend to distribute without getting your permission.

    "Getting your permission" is what abiding by the GPL amounts to. It says "this code is copyrighted. You may not redistribute it unless you agree to these terms ..."

    Unlike Microsoft-style EULAs, the GPL (as far as I know) does not have to be accepted by the user, as it really has nothing to do with the user (despite the fact that a lot of software out there makes you "accept" the GPL before installing it). You don't need to agree to anything to use emacs to write your novel, but if you want to include it in a software distribution, or use the source code within a project you are developing yourself, you need to get the permission of the copyright holder and agree to his terms. That means abiding by the GPL.
    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC