Bell, SuperMicro Sued Over GPL

Markus Toth writes "The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of the developers of the Linux-based BusyBox utility suite. The suits allege that Bell Microproducts and SuperMicro Computer each violated redistribution stipulations of the GNU General Public License (GPL).The Bell Microproducts suit pertains to the Hammer MyShare NAS (network-attached storage) appliance, which is sold by Bell's Hammer Storage division. I was the one who alerted the busybox developers about the GPL violation after providing a script for disassembling the firmware and instructions about mounting the contained initrd. As you see in my first post at the gpl-violations.org mailing lists where I posted all mails that I sent to and received from Hammer Storage, they refused to provide me the GPL sources several times. Looks like they will have to provide them soon; I will post any updates in the nas-central blog."

Comments

Re:For those that use this...

[fotbr]

I still see this as a reason not to use GPL, preferring instead to use BSD-style licensed software or public domain software whenever possible.

Because proprietary software producers would be just as bad, or likely worse, does not mean that the GPL is always the best solution, since it is still a restrictive license.

confused

[QX-Mat]

Is this really such a big thing? Surely they only have to mirror the sources from their original location unless they've made modifications?

Shouldn't time an effort be spent on finding the guys who modify the sources, and make a profit, rather than those who merely fail to mirror and honour the distribution agreement because they're lazy?

This reminds me of the Debian upstream/downstream problem that rears it's head up now and again: if the sources are freely available, does every man and his dog have to distribute the unmodified version if they merely make use of it downstream?!

Matt

Re:How stupid can you get?

[ehrichweiss]

Oh don't even get me started on people's confusion regarding GPL. I just read some blog where a guy completely trashed MySQL because he was under the false impression that you couldn't use it as part of the backend to a website without providing the source code. Later when shown he was wrong he backtracked and said the blog was about how people would have to pay for support or licenses or whatever other straws he could grasp that would enable him to not look as stupid as he already did; too late.

Re:Better late than never

[rahvin112]

It's too bad they already lost their rights under the GPL. Once the suit is filed the SFLC won't accept just publishing the source. To get distribution rights back is going to cost them some cash to cover SFLC's costs in addition to some punitive costs to make sure they remember never to do it again.

Re:Understandable response...

[tftp]

The email fails to connect several ideas. Most importantly, he does not say why "running Linux" requires anyone to make the sources available. We know why, but the email should have said that explicitly. The email does not look like a legal request, it looks like some stupid tech support question. I would write a starter email, for example, like this:

Dear Sir,

it came to my attention that your product XXX, which I purchased through YYY, uses software based on a licensed component ZZZ. The license (GPL) grants me, the user, the right to obtain a copy of the source, and places a specific legal burden onto your company to provide such a copy to users of your product for free, or for a nominal fee to cover copying and mailing. Please refer to ${URL} for specific terms.

As a user of your product, having been granted the right to obtain the source code, I wish to exercise this right. Would you be so kind to inform me how I can download, or otherwise access, the source code in question?

Thanks in advance,
${name}
${address}
${telephone}

Most tech support people will forward such an email to their manager, and the manager will send it to legal, where it will be reviewed, and a company lawyer will not dare to ignore an official, lawful request that is traceable, because they know that willful infringement is worse than ignorance, and now they know.

Re:How stupid can you get?

[jimicus]

10 or 15 years ago I'd have said that they probably were more used to BSD/public domain licenses (along the lines of "do what you like, we don't care", optionally with an advertising clause) or buying in third-party code (which would have almost certainly expressly forbidden redistributing source code) and it was a simple case of ignorance.

Today, however, I'm not so sure. I've met plenty of developers who don't really understand the GPL or its purpose, but I have difficulty believing an entire team had nobody onboard who understood. Perhaps the team charged with developing the software didn't have much contact with the customer-facing folks who might be asked for the source code?