Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Freedom Conservancy Wins GPL Case Against Westinghouse

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the do-the-dance-of-joy dept.

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."

8 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Correct me if I'm wrong by JazzXP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't this the first proper test of GPL in a court of law?

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would've been pretty easy to fully comply with the GPL in this situation without giving anything of substance away to competitors.

      There's no reason to be afraid of using GPLed code as long as you actually READ THE DAMN LICENSE and comply. For something like busybox there is almost no one who would suffer any competitive disadvantage by publishing the source code for the GPL software used in compliance with the license, and a pretty good market advantage (don't have to develop any of the basic functions busybox provides, so you can focus on developing the product-specific functionality).

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  2. Re:Confused by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Not what it seems by Java+Pimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In many senses it was a "win by default" - it was unchallenged, they couldn't afford to challenge it...

    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!
  4. Re:Confused by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.

    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
  5. Re:Confused by hcpxvi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Confused by orasio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.

    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.

  7. I've developed STBs by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I've written set top box software that runs on embedded Linux with busybox taking care of most of the shell side of things. And I can't for the life of me figure out why Westinghouse didn't simply release the source code when they were asked. Even if they were clueless about their obligations, surely it would be simple to meet them after being notified.

    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.