Slashdot Mirror
Software Freedom Conservancy Wins GPL Case Against Westinghouse
fishthegeek writes "The Software Freedom Conservancy has received a judgement against Westinghouse Digital Electronics for $90,000 in damages, $50,000 in costs plus a donation of all of the offending HDTV's that were using BusyBox in violation of the GPL. Given that WDE is nearly bankrupt it's likely that most if not all of the cash will disappear in a legal 'poof,' but it is a victory regardless."
Isn't this the first proper test of GPL in a court of law?
That the GPL is a valid license was never seriously in question.
Certainly not among competent contract lawyers. SCO lawyers might argue it isn't, sure, but that's what I mean.
That's why out of all the GPL cases the EFF has brought, so many are settled out of court and in the EFF's favor.
The enemies of Democracy are
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
Some say BSD-like licenses are bad because they permit people to use the code in a closed, non-free way.
Some say GPL-like licenses are bad because they forbid the same behaviour.
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not abused (as they see it), by taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back. If that's not the way you roll, so be it, but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
How typical... He with the most money wins! God our justice system needs an overhaul!
Oh wait... we won... nevermind!
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not abused (as they see it), by taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back.
Key words emphasized there. As I see it, if I am truly contributing to the public good, then that should allow anyone (the "public") to do what they want with that contribution (the "good"). Even if that means using it in a closed way. It does not detract from the original contribution which is still there for anyone else to use.
I personally don't believe that it is in good form to expect something back from a voluntary contribution. I do it because I want to do it, not because I want something out of it.
If that's not the way you roll, so be it, but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
Just as the BSD licence gives freedom to users that the GPL licence does not. They are different types of freedom but, objectively, one is not "more free" than the other.
Or, you could say, it TAKES freedom from users (ie: developers using a library) that the BSD license does not.
Not saying BSD is better, just saying GPL doesn't give "more freedoms" on a whole, it just assigns them to different people.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Please tell us how one would magically put their code into the public domain without first dying and then waiting a few decades. I think you can just release it with a statement that says something along the lines of "This software is public domain. I, the author, hereby forego any copyright on it." Or you could write it as part of your job while an employee of the United States government. There is a fair amount of numerical software that is public domain for that reason.
IANAL, but ... My guess would be that public domain is actually quite simple. You forego copyright on your code, thereby placing it in the public domain. And then anyone can do whatever they like with it. I also guess that whoever wrote that pseudo-license on that (unlinked) NASA website had a very shaky understanding of both software licensing and of copyright law and has written something which is self-contradictory. If he wanted to retain some control over the code he should not have placed it in the public domain. By placing it in the public domain he has foregone any right to tell people what they can and can not do with it. (Can any actual copyright/licensing experts confirm my guesses?)
Never in serious question but that doesn't stop people going "it's never been tested in court" what about in Germany? "it's never been tested in US court" what about here? "it's never been tested in court and found legitimate by the judge rather than settled before then".
Well, now we've got an answer to the NOT SERIOUS question "it's never been tested in court without being settled out of court before the judge gets to it".
Though I guess that there'll now be the question "It's never had to pass being contested in front of a Judge in a US court".
Just because the GPL has never been seriously contested as a legitimate copyright license doesn't stop people questioning the GPL as a valid license.
It takes the freedom to take away freedom.
I will never, ever, feel any sympathy for anyone who thinks they are actually less free as a consequence.
The enemies of Democracy are
I have no problems with reciprocating when I am so inclined. To be forced to do so is ridiculous.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
GPL copyright good
RIAA copyright bad
MPAA copyright bad
Disney copyright bad
Pixar copyright bad
Apple copyright bad, good? bad.
Or, you could say, it TAKES freedom from users (ie: developers using a library) that the BSD license does not.
Wrong. It takes freedom from those developers only while they are wearing their distributor hats. They can use GPLed libraries as much as they like. They are just limited from distributing in a way that takes freedom away from users. Their freedom as _users_ is not harmed.
Not saying BSD is better, just saying GPL doesn't give "more freedoms" on a whole, it just assigns them to different people.
You are right here. It takes freedom away from distributors, and gives it _all_ to users. Just they are not necessarily different people, just different roles.
developers users
Just have a look at the number of users of, say, Windows compared to the number of Windows developers.
YOU want the freedom to take the freedoms away from the users. Increased freedom for you: 1 unit. Decreased freedom for 10,000 users: 1 unit each.
Net loss: 9,999 units.
The only other alternative is that you think that what code you develop will have NO MORE than one person looking to learn from the code, expand it or just read it for giggles. And even in the case where ONLY ONE person you're marketing to has interest in the code they bought, there is no difference in the freedom between the case of the BSD license and the GPL. Just who gets the shaft.
And, since the person who PAID you for that code gets the shaft in the BSD case, I think we should give them the tiebreaker.
So, is the code you create so worthless that NOT ONE person cares about the code you sold?
Seems like too much trouble; just download the "Firmware Update" package on the manufacturer's website and run strings on that.
All copyrights good. Taking public domain material, slightly modifying them, and then suing anybody who tries to use the material (which is what Disney does, and sort of what Microsoft does) bad. RIAA do have a right to enforce their copyrights, preferable through take down notices. What we hate about the RIAA is their sleazy methods, e.g. suing children and old ladies that have never used a computer. Apple intellectual property protection good when it covers their actual innovations, bad when it covers stuff they stole from other people (anybody remember Xerox PARC?) See, it's not really as hypocritical as you make it out to be.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
No, it explicitly does not. Freedom is, if anything, the antithesis of civilization.
Who is truly free? The loner who lives out in the wilderness by himself, or the cosmopolitan city dweller?
The loner, of course - he is free to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, restricted only by the requirement that he provide for his own needs. He is unbound by social restrictions, by financial needs, by the necessities of cooperation. Indeed, depending on how he supports himself, he probably even "works" far fewer hours than the city dwellers - I believe nomads need to spend something like three or four hours per day hunting and gathering to provide enough food for themselves, depending on the environment.
The city dweller, on the other hand, is far less free. In order to provide for his own needs, he must spend far more time working; in order to maintain his social status, he must perform social activities. He is restricted in innumerable ways - wearing the wrong clothes might reduce his status, being a jerk will make his job harder and in fact risk losing it, killing and skinning a squirrel in public will almost certainly get him arrested - but as a tradeoff, he can call upon the powers of his civilization.
The loner doesn't have electricity; the city dweller does. The loner doesn't have access to reliable medicine; the city dweller does. The loner doesn't have access to other people, but the city dweller does. The city dweller has men with guns who enforce his property rights; the loner must do that himself. The city dweller has access to goods from all over the world; the loner only has that which he makes himself.
And why does the city dweller gain these extra privileges? Because he sacrifices of himself to further his civilization. Judging from your signature, you're something of a Christian; surely you understand that sort of self-sacrifice for the good of all people, even if it is only on the scale of eight hours per day? After all, the city dweller might work in a shipping concern that brings foreign goods to other people, the city dweller might work at a power plant that provides power to his neighbors; he gives up some of his freedoms and some of his time and ability in order to provide something for other people, and in return they give far more back to him.
When we become civilized, we give up a great many of our freedoms - but in return, we gain the ability to call upon and rely upon the abilities of our civilization. That is why reciprocation is the fundamental unit of civilization; I give part of my time and energy and freedom to my people, and they give back to me; the benefit we get in return is far greater than the initial sacrifice, but we still must give up that initial investment. For some reason, people seem to forget that - they forget that you can't just take back those freedoms you gave up initially, and expect civilization to still work. It's like saying "well the table is in place, so I'm going to take the table legs back and use them for myself".
Keep in mind that I'm not saying we give up all our freedoms, or even that it's necessary to subsume yourself in the civilization like some mindless drone - however, the freedoms we give up (like the freedom to be a douchebag and not cooperate, or the freedom to keep all of everything you make, or the freedom skin squirrels in public) are freedoms we can't just take back and assume civilization will remain standing.
I have to wonder if they did something completely insane like link their TV application software straight into the busybox executable because I can't think of any other reason to withold it upon request. If they did straight link then more fool them.