Slashdot Mirror
SFLC Sues 14 Companies For BusyBox GPL Violations
eldavojohn writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit accusing fourteen companies, including Best Buy, Samsung and Westinghouse, of violating the GPL in nearly 20 separate products. This is similar to earlier BusyBox GPL suits. The commercial uses of BusyBox must be much more prolific than anyone could have imagined. Having dealt with hundreds of compliance problems and finding an average of one violation per day, the SFLC recommends one thing: be responsive to their requests (they try to settle things in private first) lest you find one of these (PDF) in your inbox."
Well, this was mentioned in page 8 of the PDF:
"Western Digital's WDBABF0000NBK WD TV HD Media Player;"
Western Digital Techonologies Inc. is listed as one of the defendants.
Here's the pdf:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
Seems like they were given enough chances to respond, it would've been the same with proprietary software.
-- Linux user #369862
Are you sure these companies "embrace" open source? sounds to me like they really just raped it...
Without the litigation, you lose the purpose of the GPL, though.
We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".
Learn about Photography Basics.
If they don't want to play by the rules, we won't miss them. If they do, then they will find a great resource and profit from mutual cooperation.
And Microsoft shouldn't sue any of the Mom-n-Pop computer shops for selling boxes with phony Windows license keys, as it would discourage anyone from selling boxes based on commercial / propriatary software.
If you don't agree with the license, don't use GPL'd software.
Why - because if you take something that's GPL'd you have to offer the source? What's the big deal? It certainly costs less to make the source available to buyers than it would to write your own code from scratch.
What's a DVD cost nowadays - a dime? Heck, they could include it on a free USB key, or offer it for $1 (+ $10 shipping and handling) a pop in the written documentation:
You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.
Unlike the patent trolls and the **AA, at least these guys do it right. You don't find a summons showing up without knowing that one is coming, there's no extortionist tactics, and they're not doing it for profit motive.
Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Big fucking deal. Follow the license or don't use the code.
I have to give credit to Sharp. I bought an Aquos 52" TV this past year and they included the GPL statements and a link to obtain busybox on their site. The link wasn't working at first and I emailed them to get the source and the link started working again the next day. Following the rules isn't all that hard to do. I don't see why there would be such a huge problem with companies providing a link.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
So, err, there's no risk of a lawsuit by stealing someone else's proprietary code? I sincerely beg to differ on that one.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Major correction. We do want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it". If it happens to be free software as well, they just need to release the source code to their new product as well. If it's BSD or some other open source license, the conditions might be different (attribution in advertising, possibly). Very few open source licenses forbid the commercialization of code.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".
No, you're dead wrong. The GPL allows exactly what you're describing.
It attaches a condition to that, though: It also says, 'Anything you distribute has to be available in source form as well.'
It's bad enough that proprietary software apologists try constantly to conflate the terms 'proprietary' and 'commercial' without GPL supporters showing equal ignorance. Proprietary software has exactly nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. GPL has exactly nothing to do with price.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Which is still possible without releasing any source code.
The keyword here is "distributing" - even if you don't create a derivative at all.
If you are only using it internally (like for a server hosting your website - as we do at my job) I do not think you need to supply any source code, the business is using it for itself. Once you start distributing that software outside of your business to customers or business customers thats when the rules start to kick in. I could be wrong but that's how I interpret the GPL (and have heard of it interpreted/explained).
In order for people to use open source software, someone has to write open source software. It does not appear by magic from the "software fairy".
The SFLC's primary purpose is to encourage people to write open source software, not to encourage people to use it. By encouraging people to write OSS, SFLC helps ensure that there is a large body of useful and relevant OSS available for people to use.
People who write OSS under the GPL are motivated by (among other things) the idea of sharing work: The price you pay to use my work is that you have to share any improvements you make, and you have to allow your users to share my work, too.
By bringing forward these lawsuits, the SFLC ensures that the author's sharing requirement is met, thus encouraging the author to make more OSS available.
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
Yes. The SFLC have consistently been proponents of working with violators in private whenever possible; see, for example:
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/11/08/gpl-enforcement.html
If they're resorting to a suit, it's likely only after making serious efforts to resolve the conflict some other way.
I don't know much about this product, but in general...
If there is a community supported project then
a) Who gets to sue companies/people who violate the project's GPL or other open source license
b) Who gets paid should the lawsuit be successful
c) Who gets in debt should the lawsuit not be successful?
d) Who funds the lawsuit?
e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
A little over two years ago, I discovered that my VersaTek modem was using Linux/BusyBox. I requested the source, and the company refused saying that their Chinese OEM didn't give it to them, so that they couldn't give it to me. This is, of course, still a violation of the GPL in the same way that selling a stolen stereo doesn't change the fact that the stereo is stolen.
I mailed a report of this to the BusyBox author, and this morning the SFLC sent me an e-mail letting me know that VersaTek was being included in this lawsuit. They don't mention the specific VersaTek product that I notified them about, but it's nice that they followed up.
While I like your sentiment, your statement is wrong. You can selectively enforce copyright all you want.
It's trademarks that lose strength if you don't enforce them.
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
What the hell, I have karma to burn: It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?
Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil. The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.
Wouldn't the use of BusyBox inside a DVD player be for debugging use only? In other words, great for the developer, but useless for the end customer?
In which case - why didn't they simply remove it from the shipping version? They are free to use it as an internal tool, just not ship it with the product. Satisfies everyone - engineers, upper management, and the OSS lawyers.
Its not that difficult to comply with the GPL.
I've been emailing Humax for the last year (since I bought one of their digital TV STB) to get hold of the code in accordance with the GPL and they've either sent me a manual for a different device, told me that they didn't need to provide the code as I was unable to update the firmware myself so its useless me having any source code.
They do provide some GPL code for a box they sell in Germany though - but not the UK one, and there is no mention of using GPL code in their manuals.
If you want to try and get anything GPL related out of Humax you can try emailing them
gnu@humaxdigital.com (who never reply)
support@humaxdigital.com (who say they don't need to provide the code and can't even C&P a name properly)
You can selectively enforce copyright all you want.
It's trademarks that lose strength if you don't enforce them.
Not exactly. Copyright and patent claims are still subject to laches, even if the penalty for delay is weaker than for a trademark claim.
Busybox is used for setting up the ethernet interface most devices seem to have these days and to manage the internal filesystem most devices have for caching & downloadable content. Well thats what its for in the box I have. I wish they'd activated the HTTP server in Busybox aswell as then I could have some access to the content on the box from elsewhere on my home network.
No the GPL is just somewhere between "actually free" and totally proprietary...
How do you think most commercial vendors would react if you started distributing their code in violation of their terms?
The GPL is a defence mechanism, primarily against vendors who would take open code, perform minor changes to break compatibility and they try to lock people in to proprietary forks. Noone really likes it, it's just a sad fact of life that if you give people too much freedom they will abuse it.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
That depends on what you mean by "use". Typically people mean executing a program, running the software. The terms of the GPLv2 (Busybox's license) do not compel one to do anything upon running the software. And this quality is not unique to the GPL.
Digital Citizen
It's been said here 10 times, but I'll say it again.
The FSF/SFLC GPL (ok, that's a load of acronyms) enforcement efforts are not about money; they're about compliance. These people try hard to create a peaceful solution for GPL violations, and only resort to lawsuits when it's clear that they're not intent on cooperating.
Well, if the company had followed the rules, then either a) the company would have paid the author some money for a closed-license version of the source so they could incorporate it into their product without releasing the source, or b) the company would have had to release their changes, which could then be merged back into the project (not directly money, but programmer time is a resource with non-zero value). Or c) the company made no changes to the GPLed code but wouldn't redistribute the source even after they were warned because they're a bunch of idiots, in which case this represents the idiot tax.
I don't see what's so hard to understand.
It appears Erik Andersen is responsible for a large amount of rewritten core apps in BusyBox:
http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/AUTHORS
In reality, most of the GPL code copyright owners are more than happy to drop the claims if you comply by releasing the changes.
No, proprietary software is anti-progress, because unlike free software it locks the people who bought the software out. People who license their code with GPL are simply saying "I don't want the software I wrote helping people getting locked out", while PD/BSD/MIT/etc are more than happy to contribute to it.
Dilbert RSS feed
Except that with the SFLC, they typically don't ask for monetary compensation when going after violators. If you come into compliance with the license, which you should have done before, then they leave you alone, and you don't have to pay damages, or remove your product from the market. Everybody wins.
Actually, use it all you want. Just don't distribute it.
Following the rules isn't all that hard to do.
I agree. I really don't understand why companies get themselves in this hole. Though I wonder what happens if you do manage to customise and replace the code for your TV and something goes wrong with it. Could you really blame Sharp for not providing support to TVs with altered firmware? It would be a tech support nightmare!
The only time that GPL does become a problem is if you used it during the development process for something that you thought would never need to be released and then find that circumstances change and you would like to do so. You have limited your options.
That reminds me of the case of the Topfield set top boxes, where they used GCC to develop their software but then ran afoul of the licence when they wanted to release a development kit to allow people to write their own applications for the box (or TAPs). I don't know why Topfield didn't want to release their customised GCC code (maybe they thought that it might lead to them being forced to release too much of their other system code they had written), but they ended up withdrawing the SDK. In that case, the public lost out.
Basically, if a company wants to use GPL software, they need to plan it out carefully. They should define the exact areas of code that they are willing to open up and ensure there is enough of a buffer between it and other code. In the case of your TV, ensure the MPEG decoding software is completely separate from the GPL network handling code. Spell out in all in the documentation including warranty issues and links to the GPL code. Don't make adhering to the GPL licence an afterthought. Then nobody can complain about GPL "gotchas".
I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects. This, however, is the dominant litany for GPL code.
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You appear to be correct, but the OSI's effective definition of open source seems to be a bit buggy.
Consider something I'll call a Reciprocal Self-Terminating License. It'll be basically identical to the GPLv2 except with a few changes. Specifically, all GPLv2 references will be replaced with RSTL#. RSTL# will be, at the header of the license, "Real Self-Termination License" with a whole decimal number. If that number is greater than one, any redistribution will decrement that number by one and release under the new numbered license (ie, if you have RSTL2, you'd redistribute as RSTL1). Merger of two or more RSTL# licensed code will result in licensed code having the lowest license number of the group. At RSTL0, you can only redistribute under non-commercial terms and the license will be stuck at RSTL0. This definition is probably incomplete, but I think you get the idea.
A similar effect could be had if, for example, a company were to take source code, release it under a BSD license to a subsidiary or partner company, and that subsidiary/partner company would only ever released the code under a non-commercial BSD-like license.
From what I understand from the open source definition, in both the RSTL1 and the partner company situation, the code would be considered open source.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing the issue here.
The GPL boils down to the following:
If you don't want to follow these rules, don't use pre-existing GPL code as the basis for your product. Problem solved. Or, if you want to see if the author (or authors) is/are willing to re-license it under a different license for your project, you can do that too. And yes, there are additional details regarding patents and such, but the above is the gist of the license. Those additional details are intended to ensure that any downstream recipients won't be encumbered by other legal restrictions that may prevent them from exercising the rights they receive with the source code.
For all the complaining about the restrictions placed on them by the GPL, the above seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing? I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.
I got one of their ME1 multimedia enclosures. It's great, and uses Busybox. I can't find the source code anywhere on their web site.
http://www.emprex.com/03_support_02.php?pg_no=10&group=84&kind=1
There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic. As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware, that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes, you would gladly provide the source code upon request. I personally prefer when companies, regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software, post these on their website. It just feels more "community" like, which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers.
> Just look at the lack of a stable driver ABI that makes shopping for Linux compatible devices in 2009 a case of paperweight roulette for example.
Utter nonsense.
Linux has better driver support than MacOS for most things and it has a smaller marketshare. Most drivers are supported by the community and the requirement for a binary ABI simply doesn't exist. The few hardware vendors that directly support Linux are not visibly hampered by this "binary ABI problem".
It's just something for Lemming Trolls to whine about.
The fact that Linux has lower published marketshare numbers than MacOS is far more of a problem in this regard than this ABI nonsense.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.