How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?

itwbennett writes "The debate over enforcement of the GPL flared up again this week when Red Hat kernel developer Matthew Garrett wrote in a blog post that Sony is looking to rewrite BusyBox to sidestep the GPL. Which is a perfectly legal undertaking. But it raises the question: 'Is there social pressure within the Linux kernel community to not undertake GPL compliance action?' writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'This may not be nefarious: maybe people just would rather not bother with enforcing compliance. Better, they may argue, to just let the violation go and get on with developing better code.'"

Comments

Execution

[busyqth]

By hanging

Re:Execution

[turbidostato]

"GPL isn't designed to force others to share"

Yes, it is. You can ask Richard M. Stallman if you don't believe me.

"but to facilitate sharing while letting the original authors get credited"

Yes, it is three letters too, but they are not G-P-L. The three letters you are looking for are B-S-D. Seriously: you described the BSD license, not the GPL.

Re:Execution

[grcumb]

Trampling by herd of angry gnus. That's poetic justice.

So... Gnus for Nerds, when they copy Stuff That Matters?

Re:Execution

[Githaron]

I was thought the GPL was supposed to prevent businesses from exploiting the hard work of volunteers trying to make open software. If a business wants to reimplement a whole piece of software from scratch, I see no reason why we should stop them. Nor the reverse. If the community wants to reimplement software so that there is a open version out there, I don't think businesses should be allowed to interfere. Now, if a business wants to take the GPL'ed software, reimplement part of it and then close the whole thing, now there is an issue.

Re:Execution

[Mabhatter]

Exactly. I can't record songs off the radio and put them in my YouTube videos, right. One set of copyright advocates has set the bar very high that even background recording has to be trimmed out. They do it less now because they cut a deal with Google to just steal YOUR ad revenue if something is "infringing" rather than take down the item.

So to the established industry, taking ALL your ad revenue for "one small portion" that infringes is perfectly reasonable. Sony OWNS the companies that WROTE these deals... The GPL is far more leinant because it doesn't deal with damages... Just fix the infringement by adjusting your work and move on.

These companies all want SOPA. Fine. Let's hear up BusyBox devs to be the first in line with the new style domain seizures... For a company like Sony with hundreds of products all tied to Sony.com getting the "three strikes" on BusyBox alone should take till about noon the day after the rule hits the books. Hopefully the courts would remember WHO pushed for the law!

Re:Execution

[Nursie]

It's a matter of the (L)GPL being a shitty license for corporate use. If they wish to use the code they are under restrictions that can mean big problems if they are even accidentally violated.

This is pretty much pure FUD.

If they "accidentally" violate a commercial license then they could be on the hook for millions of dollars. With the GPL the choice is generally to distribute the source or stop distributing. Hell, even with the recent "aggressive" enforcement, the only really onerous bit is paying $5k per time to have future FOSS projects vetted. Compared to settling a lawsuit with a commercial vendor, it's peanuts.

Why *wouldn't* they put the time into rewriting it in house? It's pretty easy when you're essentially transcribing source code.

If they're transcribing source code then they've absolutely within the bounds of derivative work and will fall foul of copyright law.

The GPL is a great hobbyist license but it's a pain in the ass at the corporate level, especially when you aren't really a software firm.

It's less onerous that many commercial licenses. The problem comes from the lax attitude towards it. If people further down your supply chain were including commercial code or libraries without the proper license compliance then things would be worse.

As far as everyone else

[inode_buddha]

I think GPL enforcement sould go just as far as everyone else. It should go as far as copyright law allows and as far as the copyright lobby goes.

I'm not sure I understand

[PCM2]

I confess I only skimmed TFA -- this is Slashdot, after all.

But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.

If, on the other hand, Sony is planning to write a Busybox replacement from scratch -- what's wrong with that? Are companies not entitled to write code? How is that "violating licenses with impunity"?

If Sony is planning to do a clean-room re-engineering of Busybox -- what's wrong with that? Isn't that essentially what Linux kernel developers have done for all kinds of devices? Again, how is that "violating licenses with impunity"?

Sony wants to not use GPL-licensed code in its proprietary products. What could be more clear? Would you rather they used it without complying with the license?

Re:I'm not sure I understand

[Daniel Phillips]

But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.

Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source? Genuinely curious here.

It can be. That is why cloning a library under an incompatible license typically requires an expensive "clean room" engineering process. Of course, Sony holding to their well known high moral and ethical standards, would never think of playing fast and loose with this, would they? And of course we would never notice if they cut a few corners to save cost, would we?

Re:I'm not sure I understand

[c]

> Sony wants to not use GPL-licensed code in its proprietary products.

Well, no. If you RTFA, it suggests Sony wants to use GPL-licensed code except for projects the license is actually enforced. They'll use the Linux kernel because the Linux kernel community doesn't bother with GPL enforcement. They don't want to use Busybox because the Busybox developers will sue them for license violations.

Of course, it's a bit of a risky strategy. Just because someone hasn't enforced their copyrights so far doesn't mean they still can't or won't. You'd think their own lawyers would raise a stink about it...

Re:Slashdot double standards

[ad454]

There is a huge difference between copyright enforcement against individuals in the context of personal use, and organizations in the context of earning signifigant revenue.

Most people including those on Slashdot, do not think it is reasonable to sell a pirated DVD movie on a street corner for profit, but consider it okay to download that same movie for media shifting for personal viewing.

Sony should be applauded for making their own BusyBox alternative, rather than violate the GPL. Hopefully it will be released as opensource with a different licence, for those that want an alternative choice. Adding more choice is a good thing!

Re:Slashdot double standards

[busyqth]

Indeed. The only thing that has stopped me from producing such a heavily commented disassembly of Microsoft Office is that it is sadly illegal.

Re:Non sequitur?

[larry bagina]

short version: RTFA

long version: Most GPL copyright owners aren't aware, don't care, or don't have the time/legal training to enforce GPL violations of their code. The Busy Box guys actively enforce the GPL license on their code. If you violate the busy box GPL license, they will not re-license it to you unless you also stop violating the license on all the other GPL software that's being distributed. If they replace busy box, nobody will bother them about the other GPL violations.

Go to hell; here's a map.

[tepples]

Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source?

Proving an allegation of copying requires proving two elements: first, that the alleged infringer had at one time had access to the older work; and second, that there is a level of similarity between the two. "Access" can be as simple as having heard a song on the radio a decade ago (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).

Compaq decided to make lack of access clear when it reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS using a "clean room" technique. This involved having one team turn copyrighted code into descriptions of its (unprotected) functionality and a second team turn the descriptions into code, with all communications between the two teams carefully monitored. I've been told it might not be quite necessary to go that far, but in the business world, you'd often rather spend money on engineers than trial lawyers. In such a case, it's best to draw up a plan for "being able to tell IBM to go to hell, and having the federal judge draw them a map for exactly how to go there", as sigwinch put it a decade ago. (Here's such a map.)

the argument

[chrb]

The argument that is being made in a nutshell:

Busybox copyright is enforced by the SFLC, which sues companies to get them to comply. When negotiating for compliance, they also request that the company in question comply with the GPL2 license on the Linux kernel. Now, for whatever stupid reasons, some companies don't want to release their kernel modifications for Android devices. So they think that by removing Busybox, the SFLC will no longer have a copyright claim that opens them to litigation which results in their releasing their kernel source. This reasoning is flawed, because there is another, much easier way to avoid Busybox litigation: put the source code on your web site. That's all it takes. They could keep their kernel sources, and just put up the Busybox source, and they would achieve the same thing.

The other argument being made by one developer is that enforcement action is pointless, because he hasn't seen any Busybox source opened up from this route that was worth anything. Others disagree, saying there was some useful code, and that it's not just about Busybox - the Busybox enforcement actions have also resulted in kernel drivers being opened up.

So, the "outrage" here is the allegation that Busybox is being rewritten so that companies can violate the copyright of the Linux kernel without being sued by the SFLC.

Sigh and again with the bad summaries.

[LWATCDR]

Sony is not doing this project the summary was wrong. From the FAQ on the project.

"Q. Tim Bird, the proposer of this project, works for Sony. Is this a Sony project?
A. No. Although Tim is employed by Sony, he spends a portion of his employed time working on behalf of the embedded industry to improve Linux and encourage GPL compliance. As of February 2, 2012, Sony has not endorsed or agreed to support this project. This wiki page is for gathering information and project description information, to present to various companies to solicit support and resources for the project."

It reason is that it seems that the authors of BusyBox are very willing to go after companies and sometimes ask for remedies outside the scope of compliance with the GPL. At least that is what they are claiming.