Slashdot Mirror
WURFL Founders Fire Off DMCA Takedown Against Fork
An anonymous reader writes "ScientiaMobile, the company formed behind the open source library WURFL, an API used to do mobile device detection for web applications, has issued a DMCA takedown notice against the OpenDDR project on Github. ScientiaMobile claims that OpenDDR is 'ripping them off' by forking their database, which used to be licensed under a liberal license. Newer versions of the device database are licensed under restrictive licenses which do not allow any modification or redistribution."
Just another example of the blatant abuse that is possible with these laws. SOPA will only make it worse if it passes.
Konami once sued Roxor Games for infringing Konami's patents on Dance Dance Revolution. Why can't Konami just send a takedown notice to OpenDDR for using a confusingly similar trademark?
So it's like this,
When the software is born look look at us, help our community were are open source blah blah blah.
Suddenly the cow fattens , Oh no this is proprietary code blah blah yes open source , but our work business model etc.
Seen this movie a lot of times, sadly
There are far too many disputes in tech these days around formerly-open-source stuff that some bastard decides to co-opt and pretend he owns. This case strikes me as simple, clear-cut, winnable, and potentially precedent-setting. It would be good if the EFF brought its weight to bear on this issue - it could be crucial to the future of FOSS.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
To give ScientiaMobile the benefit of the doubt, it is possible they simply don't know how the licensing system works and don't realize that changing the license later on doesn't restrict uses of earlier versions that had been distributed under GPL. This would make them idiots, however. Presuming, of course, that OpenDDR doesn't use the newer version of the database (which I am assuming they don't and seems to be the idea from skimming TFA.)
The alternative is that they are simply assholes deliberately trying to abuse the system. So they are either idiots or assholes.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
The database is the problem, not the code, and the data is not GPL.
And, it would be easy to argue that while the database is commonly known or available information (like a phone book), the collection as it is constitutes a copyrightable work. Extracting the data might be a workaround, but the dataset is so huge it almost requires a hierarchical data organization. Any reasonable attempt would be derivative.
Having had to integrate that horrible thing into a web application, I can only wonder why OpenDDR didn't just start from scratch with a new API. They would have had to have gone some way to create a worse implementation than the original.
the DMCA, afiui, requires some form of [potentially entirely and utterly useless] encryption. this is _data_. in an unencrypted, unencumbered and freely-licensed format. sounds like one for the SFLC....
From http://openddr.org/takedown.html, the original file had terms of use as below
Seems clear to me - as long as OpenDDR are making public any changes.
"All the information listed here has been collected by many different people from many different
countries. You are allowed to use WURFL in any of your applications, free or commercial. The only thing required is to make public any
modification to this file, following the original spirit and idea of the creators of this project."
OpenDDR used the last snapshot of WURFL that had very liberal licensing. This snapshot dates from April last year. In July, the wording on the database file became a bit more restrictive, stating it was only for use with the WURFL API, but not in the terms of anything approaching a formal license. The subsequent version was the one that had the legalese restricting modification or redistribution. So the OpenDDR people were actually pretty careful about this.
The sad thing is that most of the WURFL data came from third party contributions. These were probably submitted with a belief that the data would remain available the same way it had always been. The the WURFL developer (essentially one guy) decided to commercialise it. The moral of this would appear to be:
And before someone with poor reading comprehension crucifies me on nitpicks, the latest original liberally licensed data was used as a base, not the current explicitly restrictive data.
That means the whole case depends on how effective the included disclaimer works The data is meant for use with the WURFL API available on the official WURFL website at http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ . If it serves to tie the data to a specific implementation, OpenDDR is hosed. If not, no worries.
I'm just answering the question, not claiming which way the situation will go. I happen to agree that WURFL compiled contributions from a number of parties without ownership being assigned, and so if anyone owns the data it is the contributor, not WURFL. And further, if we poll each contributor, they would likely disagree with this restriction and choose a more permissive license. "Contributing means you agree" type of claims are probably not enforceable, since inclusion in WURFL is the only way to get your additions in widespread use.
it looks like this person is responsible for the stupidity: https://twitter.com/#!/luca_passani
i've advised openddr to contact the SFLC but this is twitter: can i recommend that people also advise openddr on twitter to contact the SFLC, as well as pressurise the moron who doesn't understand what the DMCA is for.
I used to release works that I made under MIT or artistic - thinking the GPL was too extreme for my tastes.
It is becoming clear to me that businesses _predictably_ try to "proprietize" anything they can - morals are never part of the equation. The only defense you have when writing software for the public (and keep it that way) is the include clear, strong, and pervasive licenses such as the GPL.
The legal framework we live in, at least here stateside, basically demands we protect our works' right to be free and shared in an active fashion. Corporations only have incentives to try and lock down and monopolize anything they can - it makes sense and history continues to repeat itself. Looks like RMS was right; everything I write is GPL from here on out.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Subjective properties I may agree with, objective properties not so much. The country that calls its copyright takedown provision "DMCA" doesn't have a "sweat of the brow" doctrine; instead, it has Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service . To what sort of "property names" and "hierarchy" do you refer?
you can't copyright a database (at least in the US).
Citation needed.
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Is this citation in the correct format?
an individual map (and the intentional flaws introduced by the cartographer)
Flaws like so-called "trap streets"? Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co., 796 F.Supp. 729, E.D.N.Y., 1992. "To treat 'false' facts interspersed among actual facts and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright. [...] If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated." (Id. at 733)
the ability to copyright your interpretation of the facts, your method of storing them, your dataset, is fairly unlimited.
To what extent does this copyright in the method of storing them survive automated conversion to another method?
Is it just me, or does the photo of Luca Passani on the sourceforge page look a bit like an aspiring axe murderer?
Trademarks work very differently than Copyright. For starters, they are limited to a field of use.
The most famous trademarks for consumer products are protected independently of a field of use. See trademark dilution. "Super Mario" would probably qualify as famous, but I'm not so sure about "DDR".
Trademarks outside of the field of use are more rare than those inside a field of use. There is also nothing to prevent multiple fields of use. However, it is a far harder burden to prove trademark dilution outside the field of use - you first have to show that your trademark was somehow hurt in the field of use by the use outside the field of use. Duable in some cases; not so doable in others. This is also typically more the case when the term is very unique - e.g. there are no other known uses in other fields.
For example, if you used "Super Mario" in a porn flick, then Nintendo would probably go after you as it would hurt the family friendly brand (supposing Super Mario was only in the gaming industry - it's not, it's in the move and TV industries too...)
Konami have a problem with DDR the outside field of use infringement as there are other uses already out there (e.g. DDR Ram), so they can't argue the uniqueness factor and would have to explicitly argue that that use hurts their games, which would be a lot harder to do as the use has nothing to do with games.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
well, his twitter feed is the PR equivalent of an ax murderer on a killing rampage.
He has clearly no clue what he is talking about (IP law), and apparently is too emotionally
invested in the matter to even be taken seriously.
That is not going to end well.
You cannot simply change the license of open source software to something else. Every contributor needs to agree to the new license. If a contributor rejects the new license or simply doesn't respond you can only change the license if you remove all contributions of the contributor that didn't agree. This is the reason why FSF included the following in the GPL terms: "or (at your option) any later version.". That would allow you to change to a newer version of the license, but it doesn't allow you to change GPL to AGPL, just GPLv2 to GPLv3.
Looking at the commit history of wurfl as documented on ohloh.net I see some contributors that committed to the CVS repository, but do no longer appear to be project members (and haven't committed a long time before), for example "Andrea Trasatti" and "Ed Alkema". I have serious doubts that the change from GPL to AGPL was signed off by these inactive contributors.