Slashdot Mirror
Who Enforces the Open Source Licenses?
sams asks: "Every few days now it seems that yet another corporate entity has tried to push the bounds of what is allowed under the open source licenses (GPL, etc..) so the question is: If a company violates the GPL license on a product, who will enforce the license? Who will take the violating company(s) to court to protect the open source intellectual work of others? Probably not the writers of the software, who probably can't afford a long drawn out trial with a company? The EFF? Ideas?" We've already had a close call with the Sun/Blackdown fiasco, and this has probably discussed in that topic. However, there is a high possibility that something like this will happen again, and we would do well to discuss this further.
This is certainly a problem, I agree. I don't think we CAN enforce the GPL-- not in the current legal climate. No individual developer or group of developers-- or the FSF-- can match in dollars spent on lawyers and months spent on courtroom time the power of a potential violator-- at least not until Congress passes tort reform (and would Clinton sign it-- I think not). So we can't really rely on legalism to protect Open Source software.
But that's ok. The key element to making an Open Source product work is mindshare. Closing up the source, embracing and extending, not giving credit where credit is due-- these are tactics that are counterproductive and alienate the network effects that make Open Source so attractive for businesses.
So even if this does happen, I wouldn't worry. We should fight to stop violations, but in the end, the power of the GPL is not in its language or legalisms, but in the community and mass entrepenurism that it makes possible. Break faith with the community, and you lose the one reason to go GPL in the first place.
A "close call in the Sun/Blackdown fiasco"?
Um, close as in "not an open source license and not a contractual issue but a good ettiquette issue"?... Oh close call as in actually nothing at all to do with a close call. Funny how you don't say mention Corel and their Linux distribution instead and it's actually involving open source and a license violation?
Oh, I forgot, Corel Friend, Sun Enemy, Fire Hurt Mongo.
:)
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
For FSF-copyrighted code, they will stand up and go to court against whoever violated the GPL. There has been incidents in the past, but they have always been solved out-of-court though. The FSF lawyers tells us that this is why we should recommend that GNU software is copyrighted by the FSF (and the reason I assign my copyrights to the FSF); I don't honestly know how it will be handled otherwise (a class-action suit by all developers?), someone with more knowledge about US law can probably enlighten.
There may not be any central body to enforce the GPL, but if it comes to it and there's a clear cut case where someone is infringing it then even the big companies had better watch out - with the recent IPOs there are a lot of very wealthy geeks, many of which have already stated that if it came to it they'd happily use some of their money on lawyers for the big fight...
The FSF has lawyers, and if the given piece of code is 100% GPL, or even better part of the GNU project (with all the legal papers properly done), I would bet that the FSF will take legal action, plus probably call for other form of action.
/. provides some insight or questions, may be someone should ask RMS to write up a web page to provide author guidance on what to do in order to give our GPL software maximum legal protection. And of course what to do when someone thinks he has seen a violation ;-).
I once talked with RMS about a company delivering emacs as their editor with some custom elisp code, and he immediately asked me to check the license on the company elisp code...
If this discussion on
--LG
Corel fixed their first license. Their second one still had the over-18 clause, but that apparently passed muster with RMS. If I remember correctly, the wording was such that it only restricted who was allowed to download from their site to those who are of legal age to bind to a contract. It did not restrict use or further distribution. If my memory is correct on that point, that's not much different from the FSF agreeing to give you a tape only if you agree to pay them for it.
If a company releases or uses GPL code, it is more than likely that they are trying to join in on the "we use open-source software" bandwagon. This would mean that they want people like us to like them. Purposely violating the GPL is not going to acheive this.
If its a closed source product that has used GPL code thats a different matter. It's also more difficult to detect. But if its open source, its open source for a reason. To please us. Therefore all we need to do is apply a little pressure, and get them them to sort things out. They are not going to try and alienate us, because there would be no reason for going GPL in the first place.
Granted, I gloss over some problems here, including license incompatibilities etc, but you get my jist.
Prince Charles has been known to do so.....
QE2 herself loves RedHat and hates Solaris and the ol Queen Mum...well she has copies of the GPL hanging in her private art gallery in Buckingham Palace...
Remember Brent Spar? I'm sure Shell does.
The first company to really clusterfuck on this issue will be made into toast - with the mindshare Open Source has in the press increasing everyday, a company had better be very careful when doing something stoopid.
-John
The biggest problem that I see is legal fees. Class-action lawsuit on contingency is unlikely given that no monetary punishment would be available. The warm feeling of forcing a company to comply with the GPL is not enough ;). Some people will probably suggest that Red Hat or Corel would pitch in money for a lawsuit. However, I'm sure that companies that intend to violate the GPL would test the waters with modifications minor enough so that these companies would not waste their time and money on. This sets a dangerous precedent. All GPL violations should be prosecuted or other GPL violations would be used a s a precedent. I see the GPL as very difficult to enforce. Excellent community builder.
he he..
Legally, the only people who can bring a copyright infringement lawsuits are the holders of the copyright in question. That is, only authors of software can sue for license violation.
For all "GNU" software (different from software released under GNU GPL), FSF is the copyright holder, and FSF will fight in court if needs be. (As they did when NeXT tried to bundle gcc pieces with their Objective C compiler).
All the more reasons to assign your copyright to FSF, I'd think.
It is possible that a developer whose copyrights are being violated by GPL abuse could interest an intellectual property attorney in taking the case on Pro Bono (i.e. for free). Most states have some sort of Pro Bono requirement or recommendation to all members of the state bar. IP attorneys frequently have trouble finding Pro Bono work that is actually in their area of expertise so there may be a fair amount of interest if they were aware of these disputes.
Oh please.
/., stop editorializing in the story summaries. You often don't have a clue what you're writing about, and the additional verbosity just makes /. harder to read.
There was no close call with Sun and Blackdown. Sun was completely within their rights to do what they did with the software. Was it rude to not give some credit to Blackdown? Of course, but the GPL doesn't prevent rudeness (Heck, Christmas doesn't prevent rudeness either). The Blackdown folks need to get thicker skins; just because your "partner" goes and uses the product to the full extent of your contract, you don't start whining. Welcome to the business world.
Dear
slashdot.com All the news that isn't.
Perhaps we should just adopt a licence that doesn't draw so much controversy. The GPL is a daily source of fights and confusions. Free licences shouldn't have that, and it obvious that the GPL has its detractors who claim that the GPL is not free. So why don't we pick something people don't threaten to go to court about, or to punch your lights out over?
Gotta disagree. There are better reasons for going with GPL'ed software--such as: "It does the job really well, and the source is available".
Companies who use open-sourced software aren't necessarily looking to jump on a bandwagon. They just want free (beer) software. And it doesn't matter if they alienate the OS community, because they may not be targeting us.
What if TiVO or Be hadn't released source? Would it have affected their bottom line?
If anyone blatently violated GPL, they wouldn't live long enough to go to court. Raving hoards of Ms. Portman-lusting Slashdotters would find the violater and FIRST POST the person to death (if you know what I mean -- and I think you do), ending the event in the ultimate punishment: hot grits down his pants.
While not nearly as painful as having to play with lawyers, it is certainly much more quick and decisive.
InitZero
Well, if they're not targetting us, then they're less likely to release their code. Who is going to know or care if they use a piece of GPL code within their closed source software? Certainly not the shareholders. And if its closed source, its difficult to prove that GPL code is in there.
If they take the bold step of releasing it as open-source, then who else are they trying to please but the free software community??
no it wont. if the GPL cannot be enforced it has a *self-destruct* provision -- read the statement which sez that if the product cannot be released under the terms of the GPL it cannot be released at *all*.
Looks like its time to create a not-for-profit corporation to assist in the defense and provide a legal "enforcement" arm... a 501(c) "Open-source" protection agency.
Of course this begs the question of who will guard the guardians themselves... but it would be nice to have an org you could go to if you have problems.
I don't think legal funds would be a problem. If a case comes up that is serious enough to warrant a law suit, I am sure funding would come from companies like Redhat, Caldera, VA Linux, etc, and community donations. Because these companies rely on GPL and believe in it, it would be in their best interest to protect it. I think with all that IPO money flying around they could afford it. Microsoft spent a lot more money compared to the DOJ on the anti-trust lawsuit. And by most people's oppinion the DOJ won. Money doesn't automatically determine victory. As for who would sue, probably a class action law suit from many different companies and groups. Just because nothing is set in stone at the moment doesn't mean things can't come together quickly to react to a problem.
The question here is "what if they don't release the code?" That's probably the most serious kind of GPL violation.
Perhaps the truth would be leaked by a community-minded programmer. Or maybe it would be obvious, from the way the software worked, that it was based on known GPL'ed software.
It's probably possible to reverse-engineer a binary to prove, in court, that it is based on certain source. Didn't say it was easy.
You can get free lawyers in a criminal case, but not usually in a civil case. That's how it works in Canada, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same in most systems based on British law.
I think that it would be a good idea if there were an organization of some sort that kept an eye on Open Source legal issues. Companies like Red Hat or SuSe that are comitted to OSS could then contribute funds to demonstrate just how comitted they are.
Of course, I am not a lawyer -- but you don't need to be one to see this kind of thing unfolding.
Just imagine this: "Mr Gates, how do you explain your enormous company violated the rights of Mr John Q. LoneHacker, the creator of BlaBlaBla, by stealing his intellectual property, which was protected under the GPL?". =)
Just my $0.02...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
VALinux and RedHat probably have the cash now to fight a long, legal fight.
And don't forgot, now that IBM, Compaq and other big companies are taking an interest in Free Software, and releasing some of their code, they'll have an interest, and the resources, to make sure people don't abuse their licenses.
Dana
Class action? Only whomever owns the copyright can sue. (Do you think that multiple developers on one project *share* copyright? No, if that were true the GPL would not be enforcable. Derivative works are controlled under the copyright of the author of the work from which they are derived.)
Will the FSF really protect any copyrights assigned to them (as opposed to just the ones that are officially part of the GNU project)?
Multiple authors can share copyright if they are both original authors, but generally that's not how open source software is developed.
If I have a GPL'd product from which someone else derives a work, and they release it under a non-GPL'd license, then, due to the license they agreed to in order to use my code in the fisrt place, their code is under the GPL even if they don't expressly say so. Therefore, I can use their code whereever I want. They are then responsible for bringing the suit. My defense is then my original code with it's license and proof that their work is derived from mine. Therefore, the burden is on them to defend their non-GPL license by court actions (similar to defending a trademark).
Since powerful business interests (Bill Gates) will try to interfere with this, here's what people should do in the meanwhile...
Does free software help you get your job done? Do you make money from free software? Have you written an article, or done consulting about free software? It's time for you to give something back to the community that allowed you to eat.
You who make all your money from free software should give 10% of your income to the FSF to make up for the government's slowness in implementing this tax. If you only use free software 50% of the time, that a half-tithe of 5% would be fair.
People used to do community service. They used to give of themselves. They used to tithe 10% to their church. Now we have nothing. Nobody goes to church. Nobody volunteers. Nobody gives of themselves.
Don't think of it as an FSF Tax. Think of it as tithing to the FSF for the greater good of all mankind. And since the FSF is a tax-deductable charity, just like a church, you aren't even charged for this money!
It's time to tithe. Do your part. Give to the FSF, for the love of Free Software. Your conscience will rest easier. It's Christmas. This is the season of giving. Think of how much God gave to you. Think of how much the Richard Stallman gave to you. For the love of everything that's good and true in this life and the next, give your 10% back to those who deserve it most.
Perhaps I'm completely starry-eyed and idealistic, but are there no lawyers who would take such a case for the publicity, or for a percentage of any settlement? It strikes me as if a case like this might be lucrative and seriously good for a law firm's business. The firm/lawyers would have an army of developers as potential clients forever, win or lose.
On another note: What makes everyone think that they're not "stealing" code now? Who's to say that they're not finding ways to optimize their copyrighted ideas by examination of GPL code?
What qualifies as a copyright infringement? If Microsoft makes EDIT.EXE more like Emacs, say with a lisp-like extension language and the same control and meta keys. They ship it in the WinNT command line, are we in sue-able territory here?
The way I see it, why should we worry, if the companies have a clear sign of the way things are going to go *if* they do push? Pushing the license is pushing us, after all... and if it's pushable, so are we and there's just no way we can continue, sadly.
So drink well, eat hardy, and send in those emails. The minute it becomes a legal action legislated by a body that isn't YOURS, the game is up. Luckily, this isn't the case. So again: why worry? Fidgeting is going right back into reacting rather than getting on with what we've given ourselves to do as our lifeblood: code, document, and set about replacinbg order with disorder. Get some perspective!
(after all, it will be "they" who are looking to "us" before too long. Cry wolf no longer, or you'll weaken our stance with, as the /. Non-Anonymous Cowards say, FUD.)
> Perhaps the truth would be leaked by a
> community-minded programmer.
A whistle blower would be the ONLY way it would
happen.
> It's probably possible to reverse-engineer a
> binary to prove, in court, that it is based on
> certain source. Didn't say it was easy.
Actually, its probably impossible.
Unless there are copious amounts of debugging
info stored in the binary, then it would be hard
to go from machine language to any sort of
higher level code, much less prove that some
specific code had to have been used.
Think of compiler optimisations etc. However...
in court you could force the company to let you
see the source code itself (assuming you had a
whistle blower), then you could set about
proving it.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
But this is sort of off topic, unless you wanted to bring damages into the situation, and thus into the tort. Besides which, it would be incredibly hard to prove culpability and influence on an entire community, although it IS highly interesting. I guess it all boils down to the legal system not being capable of sustaining the kind of communitarian idealism (or whatever you want to call it) that we're using. It's too bad, in a way, that precedents aren't part of the tort system, so at least we can see what warning shots are fired at those "viral marketing" goons and their schemes to take over the whirled[sic].
Of course, one could sign over their work to a corporation, like FSF, as we used to in ye olde days. But what is the status of FSF these days? Is it incorporated, corporated, international, non-profit? These things can really matter in torts and criminal proceedings, and might be our tunnel out if the answers are right.
No, but it sure does put me in the Christmas spirit to see Alta Vista offer me the chance to
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The GPL probably CAN be enforced. The FSF has successfully taken legal steps (though none in court as yet) to get GPL-derived software released under the GPL.
The problem of WHO WILL SUE is the one at hand. If the FSF owns the rights to the software, then THEY can sue -- else the can't.
Question: If I GPL my software, and there is a violation, can I then assign the copyright to, saw RHAT or the FSF, such that they have rights to sue the infringing party?? (I -know- that this sounds like a use-them-at-your-convenience statement, but it is an important question.)
John
John_Chalisque
No need for reverse engineering, if it gets to court, the source code would be part of the evidence.
If the source code they present as "the real source" compiles a binary that's identical to the one they're distributing, then this is almost surely the real source code (except maybe for comments and macros). If the binaries differ then they're lying about the source code.
But by that very logic - if the GPL fails, that is if it is found invalid on its face, than any provision or clause of it is equally invalid. The self-destruct clause would therefore be invalid and not applicable.
Jordan
And exactly how would you justify that? I hate to tell you this, but it's completely legal and OK with the majority of Americans for programmers to create something and make money off of it and NOT give it away. Open source is cool, but the vast majority of non-religious (as in the FSF variety) have NO PROBLEM with commercial software and never will. They have NO INTEREST in modifying their code and would prefer to not know it even exists, along with the computer itself. They (and I) don't give a flying rat's ass about Richard Stallman and the FSF, so whatever he proposes is pretty much "so what". As is the boycott of Amazon.com - well intentioned but completely ineffective.
Now, if you're taking money from the public they're going to have some say in what you do and how it's done, aren't they? Do you really want Congress writing a law that says all open source code must be vetted for swear-words so we don't pollute the young impressionable minds of our children? Or one particular window manager WILL BE MANDATED in order to eliminate redundant distribution of public funds? Or maybe you'll need a license and certification to make sure you're REALLY a good open source guy.
So OK, it's Christmas - give some money to the homeless, but keep you're hand out of the public pocket.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
You forget that most libraries does not use the GPL license, but the LGPL license. This license allows further restrictions, and I don't think we kan make a case against software using such libraries.
Time and time again companies will use GPL code or products as enhancements to thier base product. They are not selling the GPL product directly nor are they changing it.
To me, the only true Open Source is Public Domain source code. GPL prevents companies from improving baselines with latest techniques. GPL prevents products from being released that would improve overall life.
I know it is hard to accept but I can only mess with OS products after work, because I need a job. It is terrible for me to have to reinvent the wheel just because it is GPL'd.
I envision a time where all source code would be release public domain so people could sell binary packages and the source code would be released say 1 year afterwards so others can deal.
OMIGOD, that is a real socialistic premise. I just want to make my job easier, and public domain software does, GPL does not.
As for enforcement, GPL states you can include items as long as you do not sell them. How can one prove that you sold a GPL piece of source in a overall package? ie: sell a software environment with gcc included. The company could always claim they sold thier custom products and not the gcc.
NRE is what drives prices, not reused code.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
I recall that the samba project once had somebody break the GPL. A third party sold their own version of the Software without releasing their altered source, i.e. a clear GPL violation. The samba team contacted the FSF who lent them a lawyer...
and all ended well in the world of free software, or something like that.
Sorry I can't provide links to the article but I don't have time to search for where I might have read about it at the moment. Linear Algebra exam in 1 hour...
Hope this provides some case history for this subject.
Not always true. I discovered a very specific and very blatant violation of the GPL - a guy was selling a library that was released under the GPL in binary-only form, with some "enhancements" (which were trivial it turned out), with a specific license forbidding all of the things that the GPL requires (such as decompilation), and without source code.
t /ObfuscatePage
I wrote him to let him know that he was violating the GPL, and what steps he might take to correct this (i.e. what clauses of his license would need to be removed and how he would have to make source code available) and he responded with a very rude "who gives you the right to tell me what to do" type email.
So I wrote the FSF about it, and they didn't really do anything. They looked into it a little bit but said that unless the original author of the code wanted to sue (and he didn't - he had since written a new version of the lib and was basing a commercial, non-GPL'ed product on it, and couldn't care less about his old code and the GPL violation), they couldn't do anything.
And that was that.
BTW, in case you are wondering, the library was Hashjava, the guilty party is Neil Aggarwal, the URL for the guilty product (Obfuscate & Obfuscate Pro) is
http://www.JAMMConsulting.com/servlets/JAMMServle
If you've got the time and the inclination, write Neil and give him hell.
Are Open Source licenses like the GPL defendable in court?
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the chained effects of GPL code - often referred to as the "GPL virus" - and I don't think this kind of licensing would hold up well in a court of law.
I don't stand strongly for or against the GPL to any great degree. But a license is a contract. My limited understanding of contract law (note: I am *not* a lawyer) that subsumes all subsequent or previous contracts to its own conditions and extends itself to cover objects (i.e. code) that were not written or released specifically under its own terms, probably violates a few basic contractual laws.
As I understand the GPL, if I write something and release it under a BSD or Artistic license, and someone comes along and includes my code in a GPL package, all subsequent derived works become automagically GPL'd. This may not have been my original intent. I may _want_ my code (and any derived code) to always be available for commercial, closed, shareware, etc. as well as GPL and other more open projects. But inclusion of my code in a GPL project by someone else has just ended my license (and intent) and subsumed it with the GPL.
As I see it, the GPL and RMS have provided all of us with lots of benefits, but I find there are areas where it seems to go a little too far, and I think a court would probably rule likewise.
Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare
We, the hacker community, declare GPL violations as such.
Then it falls off our radar screen
and the software hopefully withers away
from lack of sales and bug fixes.
Couldn't someone claim that the GPL'd code is a work derived from code owned by someone else? That the plaintiff has no business claiming ownership of the work?
The main cause for contention with respect to the GPL is its ideological leaning. More specifically, it's seen as anti-business. Which, to a certain extent, it is.
RMS sees the interests of the developer and the corporation as, while not entirely orthogonal, at least not congruent. For that matter, I agree with him: if my company loses money on my employment, I'm out on my ass. My good judgement can be overridden at every turn. Any work that I do on their time, whether incorporated into client work or not, is their property. (I wonder if this post is their property, since I'm doing it at work - most likely, it is).
Is the GPL unenforceable? As much as any license, I presume. The power of a license dispute is that it almost invariably ties up the code in question prior to the suit being resolved. Given that the time between product revisions is much shorter than the time to go to trial, the business logic against using GPL'ed code surreptitiously is impeccable.
Look at the dispute between Symantec and McAfee. McAfee had to do a white-room rewrite of their antivirus software - *twice* - to avoid it being contaminated by a hundred-odd lines stolen by a programmer who had previously worked at Symantec. This was much cheaper and faster, believe it or not, than going out and litigating the matter to a settlement.
While free software advocates may not have the resources to reverse-engineer each and every possible violator, the stick is so much bigger than the carrot as to make it very difficult to rationalize using GPLed code on a systematic basis. I'm sure that small fragments have been grafted in by individual programmers, out of convenience or laziness, but violations are most likely to be individual, not organizational. (Of course, this was the case with McAfee, too).
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
When an Open Source license such as the GNU Public License is violated, whose rights take a beating?
I grant the obvious--the original developer of the software is definitely in an ugly situation.
But why? Open Source Licenses are (by definition) distribution contracts. The original developer obviously has their own code, so how
much harm can come from a "licensee" refusing to return the developer's own code?
Ah, but the whole concept is that the developer isn't demanding the return of his own code, but rather the new code layered upon his own publically licensed work.
Therein lies the key. It is not merely the developer who is being deprived of content--it is the entire market of software users who are being deprived of that which they have every right to use. It is the horde of developers who wish to "scratch their itch" and improve upon an up-and-coming(or long-established!) codebase to which they have been so generously granted access to. It is the none-too-small number of investors--both large and small--who have put forth their money based upon a business model whose prime component is open access to the core software components and all future developments therein.
Open Source is indeed a public (if not natural) resource--possibly one of the few that is not depleted by usage but rather strengthened by it. However, it is alas not immune to the dangers of hoarding, pollution, and sheer misuse. Indeed, to paraphrase John Philpot Curran, eternal vigilance is the price of software liberty. Should the general perception become that the most basic precepts of Open Source licenses were being routinely ignored, both the stream of new open projects and the third party flow of incremental improvements to existing projects would dry up, as the latter group would feel no obligation to the former, and the former would notice.
Vigilance against such a situation--both real and generated by media manipulators(see Microsoft's aborted faux Letters To The Editor campaign)--is critical to the survival of the Open Source movement, and to the rights which have been granted to the public as a whole.
Is not the defense of public rights the raison d'etre of Government itself? The strip mining of communal codebases is something we've been spared thus far--should our "vigilante slashdotting" fail to sway an entrenched competitor, the involvement of government agencies and government lawyers is not something we should shy away from. There are a number of issues to consider, but Judge Jackson has shown that the U.S. Government can most assuredly "get it" when it comes to the socioeconomic issues surrounding the technology industry.
I'm not naive--although an attacking company would be harmed far more than we would by sheer public disapproval, it'd be better for everyone involved if we never had to travel down this route. Conviction does not negate the crime. However, a public statement of the willingness of government to defend us may have the peculiar effect of preventing us from needing their defense, and that is something I feel may be of value.
I'm interested in what the rest of you think about this. Feel free to disagree, or to provide insight as to what would be necessary to deal with the issues that I have brought up.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This may be extremely silly, but I agree with you. I just don't know how to use international keystrokes from Lynx (or ?terms). In LaTeX, sure, but I don't usually keep my DTD-def ents handy. :( Maybe Rob or Hemos should should put the elements on the post-page for lamers like me.
The Open Source Liberties Union!
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The fact that the FSF said to leave it to the original author suggests to me that the library hasn't undergone the copyright assignment, in which case they could do nothing (except maybe pay court costs -- I have no idea about that) The earlier poster was talking about software which is copyrighted by the FSF. Daniel
Wouldn't the same rules re: shareware and freeware apply to GPL? Perhaps a legal union such as the SPA would get involved. BTW: Sun can't steal Java. They never gave it away. Inprise mentioned Blackdown twice. To suggest that Sun and inprise have no proper rights to Java is to say that Linus has no proper rights to Linux. Even without respect to the leagalities, Sun invented it for crying out loud.
Ok so lets say you reverse engineer his product and then put it back under the GPL. Can this person then sue you as basically the original GPL invalidates his licence?
Basically as this person violated the GPL licence would they then have a leg to stand on if you violated his licence ?
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
IMHO, the right way to think about this is in terms of defense against lawsuits by corporations, not in terms of going after corporations that violate GPL. If a corp violates GPL on some project but doesn't bother to enforce it, I would imagine there's a good chance that the project would fork into commercial and non-commercial branches.
If the corp sues the developers and/or users of the open-sourced branch, it will not have a leg to stand on since both branches derive from GPL'd code (of course, IANL).
Rather, in Canada, the "civil" side of the law is descended from Napoleonic law. And a good set of consistent standards they are; the 'Mericans can learn a thing or two from us.
Actually the only part of Canada's legal system that decended from Napoleonic Law is the state system in Quebec. Which is very similar to what is practiced in the State of Louisiana in the US.
If they've hijacked GPL code which explicitly states it and its offshoots are GPL'd, then take whatever you can get of this guy's code (source and or binaries) and start distributing it. Let him take you to court, and lose.
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
but how to do it in Beijing, Outer Mongolia, or Sudan.
They can do whatever they want in their own countries, but if they try to import their products to a country that recognizes copyrights, they have a problem.
I know a lot of people don't like the WTO, but one of the effects of the WTO is getting countries like China to recognize copyrights internally.
1) Other corporations using the GPL software will sue them in order to level the playing field. For example, if Red Hat tried to do something that violated the GPL of linux, VA Linux, SUSE, Debian, IBM, Compaq and a few others would show up at their doorstep with a big pack of lawyers. It is corporate interest that threatens the GPL and it is the same interest that will protect it.
2) Evil Bad Corporation (unrelated to Microsoft), decides that it wants to take a piece of GPL'd software and put a bunch of modifications on it, then sell it under a closed or heavily modified OS license. Now, the question is, WHY ON GOD's GREEN EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THIS??? If you did this, and your product was successful you've just set yourself up for a nasty fall. If you get sued, and somebody can afford the attorneys, you will lose, and with it will go your lock on the source code. Your empire will crumble quickly.
One other thing to consider is that not only would the breaching of the license be a civil legal issue, it might also be considered criminal because of breach of copyright. I'm not sure about that one but it seems at least vaguely plausible.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've been puzzling over this aspect of open source. Say some leader of a powerful software OS company gets on the news and say something like 'Don't install linux, if it doesn't cause your computer to explode outright, it will give you cancer. And it SUX compared to our OS, slower in every aspect by an order of magnitude'
Normal OS companies would be able to sue, what can the Linux comunity do? No one is really in charge, no money is being made so we can't hire a lawyer.
Hurm,
Erik Z
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Good point, so basically does it then make it legal to redistribute via say ftp sites a company's derived work.
Lets say for example Amalgamated Breadheads, take gcc, add a small feature and then sell it as ABCC and make it closed source. If you then take ABCC and distribute it via say an ftp site would they then have a leg to stand on?
I take it you would have to have substantial proof of a GPL violation before you did this, but then I think this would hurt a company more than a threat a GPL action.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
If all else (like legal actions) fails (or should legal actions not be feasible): Remember that companies who incorporate GPLed code into their products without making the product GPLed are nevertheless producing a legally GPLed product, which means that we can copy this product freely and "safely" ignore their licensing terms. If enough people do this (and maybe even let that company know) their losses in revenue and reputation will soon dissuade them or any potential followers. This is probably not true for other Open Source licenses and I don't know how "safe" it would be to do as described above as I am no lawyer (disclaimer!), or how risky this might be in the U.S. where the lawsuit craze rocks...
Here is an interesting scenario, lets say for example that you have a company that has taken some GPL software, made some changes and then sell it as you own closed source product.
2 22&cid=84
Apart from the question is it legal for someone else to then redistribute this for free as it is a derived work of the original source, you also have the fact that the copyright holder might at sometime want to sue for damages later on.
Now lets say the violating product sells really well and the copyright holder notices this, does this not mean that they have a nice target to go for? So does this fact alone make it seem the a company would not want to use GPL code in thier products for fear of later being sued. I think such a company would have less ground to stand on than Kodak did against Polariod. Not to mention of course the company becomes a target of all the powers that have been set up to take down the smaller guys for violations of the big corporates licences.
Now lets say you are a contractor mining GPL code for the clients product, and this is later discovered and later used in such a case, would that company not then sue you for damages? I only put this in because a while a go there was an AC boasting about how he mined GPL code and passed it off as his own to his clients.
For an example of such a product check out this post of an alleged violation. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/17/2011
Can anyone add or refute any of the above?
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
The agenda that's different than the clearly stated, totally open agenda stated at fsf.org? Please, enlighten us.
When did the FSF become more open about their "hidden" agenda? Most of the documents on fsf.org are pretty old.
A commercial, for fee, license also solves all of the "problems" of the GPL, too. GPL solves all the problems with a license that allows someone to profit from others work without providing anything in return.
Different licenses for different requirements, I guess.
-Jordan Henderson
For one thing, the world would never know if GPL'd code were used in closed source. For another, who's to say that it wasn't an algorithm that got lifted? When the source is open, anybody can look and copy the approach. That's the kind of thing that gets you thrown in jail. You see, if you don't practise a cleanroom approach, it's still a derivative work. The GPL still applies. But we can't prove it, because we can't look. And no one who does the dirty work of the Slaveware Lords will admit to having peeked.
The rest of the comment talks about the programmer view of Open Source -- it's better for all of us, basically. The problem with that is that business people do not think that way. They will always be operating for their short-term goals, and they will always be seeing the attractive possibilities of making a lot of money off of closing up the source.
The GPL works tremendously well to keep that in check. Even if we don't see it in court, think about how well it has worked up to now to dissuade business people from taking the source and closing it off. Even if a business thought they might get away with selling GPL'd code against the terms of the license, they'd be running an enormous risk. If they lost that suit, the damages could be enormous. So most businesses don't bother with that risk -- instead, they buy something already closed with a license they can work with and they sell that.
In contrast, take the original BSD code -- something which many programmers think of as "Open" but which is not protected by the GPL. What happened when Unix vendors in the 80's got their hands on it? They all took it, extended it and promptly closed it off.
Whatever else you can say about RMS, I think the GPL is a beautiful thing -- precisely because it gives a precise legal formulation of the author's intentions (if those aren't your intentions, fine, don't use the GPL).
I have written a truly remarkable operating system which this sig is too small to contain.
Saying closed source that uses GPL will never get found out is untrue. Basically like any secret the more people that know it the less secure it becomes.
Two such ways the news can possibly leak is: a) A disgruntled employee gets fired or leaves and leaks the news. b) A person is recruited from outside the company and does not agree with this and leaks.
Once the news is leaked will not this source get out and the brown stuff hit the fan.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Linux International been heavily involved in helping to protect Linux, yes? I recall that being a major point of maddog's talk at AUUG'99.
Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.
Stallman's agenda is obvious. He wants no one to own their own work. I can't recall the URL, but I read some great stuff from a BSD developer on his realization that Stallman is just a power hungry freak.
The GPL is a virus. It is the number one reason that these other licenses keep popping up, and will continue to do so.
GNU is a cult. They all follow RMS in lock step, and if you don't agree, they say that you are not enlightened. It is a software cult, fairly benign, but a cult nonetheless.
RESPONSE
SEE ALSO
EXAMPLES SIGNATUREOh quit whining. The game of licensing is speak up if you want something. Make a viral BSD if that's what you need and please for Pete's sake quit whining.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
As you see, mere aggregation with the infected Jack does not pass the virus back up to Mom, nor over to his sister Jane. Aggregation does not infect. This is true whether Dick and Jane are programs, or whether they are libraries. It doesn't matter. I'll say it once more for the logic-impaired: Aggregation does not infect. Otherwise they are trying to dictate what is or is not legitimate use. Copyright law does not permit this.
If the FSF shows up to break your kneecaps, as another poster semi-amusingly seemed to imply might happen, and so you feel need a more legalistic way around this library infection issue, here's why you're safe.
It's time to let go of your fear. The virus doesn't transmit across library aggregation. The reign of terror is ended, and the black death is put back into its bottle. You are now free. Code in peace.
Imagine company X proprietarize your GPL code. There would be serious doubts about who is the copyright holder for the software.
This is the reason why you don't even need to sue company X. Instead you put their software up for download on your site (charging money or not) and encourage other people to do this as well.
Now company X will need to defend their copyright and sue you under the copyright laws.
Unfortunately for them, you may have sufficient proof that they are not the legitimate copyright holders of the software; or at least, of part of their software.
From a legal point of view, their own violation of the law invalidates any subsequent legal rights they may have:
fraus corrumpit omnia
(fraude invalidates all legal consequences)
This principle holds in general: If you steal money from someone, and I steal it from you, you have no claim against me, because your property rights on the money were void in the first place.
Therefore, Company X are going to have a hard time trying to make you and other people cease and desist, let alone, collect on you.
Not at all. 'Pirating' just means duplicating and distributing software in violation of its license agreement. The only software you can't do that with is public-domain software, which has no license and isn't the same thing as free software at all. Free software, as embodied by the GPL, is under a number of license restrictions on its distribution and use, and can therefore be pirated. E.g. if a company takes a GPL'd piece of software, modifies it, and sells it without the source, that would be piracy, or something similar, under the terms of the GPL.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
If you don't have any money and aren't interested in personally extracting some from the person violating your copyright, you might be able to sign your collection rights over to a company or agency with the money and time to pursue this (sort've like doing it on contingency, except they get %100 and you get the satisfaction of having the violation stopped). It helps if the violation actually concerns a piece of software that's known to be worth something. The Caldera/DRDos lawsuit comes to mind.
You might even go as far as to ask the violator's competitors about whether they'd like to get in on the legal escapades (since they'll probably want to do anything to tear their rival down). But for that to work, your own software will have to be in a separate market from theirs, since they won't want to tear their rival down only to prop you up even further.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Ask not who should sue over GPL violations, for surely
it is you. The "P" in GPL is for "Public" license and
there is no greater fear to a corporation and thousands
of people sueing them. Who protects the GPL?
You do.
But considering this article is about the GPL, a reasonable and logical person would assume "free software" takes the RMS definition.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
The only thing wrong here was that Sun was a bit rude, by not mentioning the blackdown people.
It was not a GPL issue, and not an OSS issue. The terms of their porting were clear from the beginning.
And sun apologized..
so what's this 'fiasco' you are talking about?
Here's the approach I considered:
Compile the original source. You'll need the compiler the Evil People used, but there's usually an indication of compiler in the binary. Compare your binary to the Evil People's binary. If there's a pattern match between the binaries, there must be a pattern match in the source. If the pattern is big enough, you've got a good case.
As you point out, optimisation will make it tricker. You may need to automate the process to try it with all possible options.
Getting a subpoena may be easier. . .
Do you understand the meaning of "context"?
The only "restrictions" the GPL has are ones that ensure the freedom of software for others.
In a hostile world, there can be no such thing as unchecked freedom. This includes the world of software.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
"Stallman's agenda is obvious."
You disagree with the person who said it was hidden then?
"He wants no one to own their own work."
Well, if we confine this to situations where the work is a piece of software and where ownership means the ability to restrict distribution then yes, I think that's a fair comment. I guess nobody thinks that he's trying to hide that?
"I can't recall the URL, but I read some great stuff from a BSD developer on his realization that Stallman is just a power hungry freak."
Well.. I'm glad you enjoyed yourself... not sure if you were trying to make some sort of point? You read somewhere, but you don't know where, that someone else has a low opinion of Stallman, is that it?
"The GPL is a virus."
Not really, at least it only affects those that choose to enter into the bargain - use GPL'd code and in return you have to GPL the works you derive from it.
"It is the number one reason that these other licenses keep popping up, and will continue to do so"
Which other licences? Whatever they are, why would people not need them if the GPL didn't exist, presumably their licencing needs would stay the same?
"GNU is a cult. They all follow RMS in lock step, and if you don't agree, they say that you are not enlightened. It is a software cult, fairly benign, but a cult nonetheless."
Hmmm.. not sure what you're getting at here. Care to say what you mean by a "cult" in this paragraph?
Even though the FSF could not sue the violator, the copyright holder could have the FSF represent them as their lawyer in court. This would help to transfer the financial burden away from the copyright holder.
Simply changing the name of the copyright holder to the FSF would not give them enough standing to sue because it was requires signed documentation that the copyright is being transfered to a new party (see the GNU website for more.
There isn't much chance of recieving monetary damages in an Open Source case because it is required to register a copyright with the copyright office (is that the USPTO?). All that a court could legally do is order a company to comply with the GPL, which is what is intended in the first place.
Matt Leese
Well, make up your mind. First, the agenda was hidden and now it's obvious.
As to people "owning" their own work, perhaps it could be said that GNU advocates believe that Intellectual Property rights should be reviewed, but the broad statements about "no one to own their own work" are a bit strong. I've never heard RMS say anything about the ownership of material works.
A couple of posts ago, you - I think it was you, it's so hard to debate the anonymous - insisted that "There are many good resources on the web explaining the hidden agenda of the FSF and the GPL. "
Now, you refer to some vague statement somewhere by a BSD developer who said that RMS "is just a power hungry freak". Well, to paraphrase the signature of a Slashdot BSD advocate "I read it from a BSD Developer, it must be true."
I have no reason to believe that RMS is not completely forthcoming about his agendas. I think a lot of his followers would wish that he were a bit more subtle.
Gee, I must have missed the clause in the GPL that states "If you prefer not to release under the tenets of the GPL, then please consider making your work covered under an incompatible, but still Open Source, license."
I think the reason other licenses keep popping up is that people are waking up to the advantages of community development and they want all the advantages while still holding their precious Intellectual Property. They want it both ways. If that's not the case, why don't these entities just choose a BSD style license?
The GPL license is no more viral than any commercial license that allows you to see the source and modify the source, but not allow you to own changes. Funny, you never hear those commercial licenses referred to as viral.
Is the problem that you just really really want to use the GPL'd software, but once you do, you find you're stuck, it's just so hard to make money from it? Well, I have a solution. Stop using that darn virus carrying software.
That's right, come up with your own C compiler if the GPL is so pernicious. I seriously doubt that Intel, IBM, Digital, SGI, Sun and everybody else down through the years would have given away their changes to gcc that they paid to have done had it not been for that horrible viral GPL. These guys would have included binaries with their OS releases and closed off their changes, just like they do with their own compilers.
Sure would have put a crimp in Free OS (Linux, *BSD) portability had gcc not been a fairly decent cross platform compiler.
What an amazing virus the GPL is! Software catches it and people benefit.
- GNU is a cult. They all follow RMS in lock step, and if you don't agree, they say that you are not enlightened. It is a software cult, fairly benign, but a cult nonetheless.
I agree with Tom Christiansen about the use of emotionally charged words and how they are used to destroy objectivity. RMS is a cult leader, a communist, a counter-culture hippy, all sorts of things that evoke emotional responses. So much talk, so little insight.-Jordan Henderson
Wellllllllll...
If you asked me I'd guess the Free Software Foundation would patrol it. I mean, they ARE the ones that created the thing in the first place. Asking others to do it for them would be outlandish.
Okay, the scenario I see goes like this :
1. Someone gives you some files including some source code.
2. You think "hmm.. I could incorporate that into my project, but wait.. there's this copyright law thing, it'd be illegal for me to do that."
3. You notice there's a file containing the licence conditions included with the code, you read the licence.
4. you realise "Ah, I can use the code, but only on condition that I release the program I use it in under this same licence".
5. You either think "sounds fair to me" and use the code or think "no way am I doing that" and do without it.
What's the trick? I think it must be far too subtle for me because I just don't get it.
If you don't read or don't understand the licence conditions, why would you be using the code? If you do read and understand the conditions, what's the problem?
Fine. It's not free. Are you happy? I'm still going to develop under the GPL, whether you like it or not.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Only the copyright holder is entitled to sue for copyright infringement. This is basic law in virtually every nation. You can't sue your neighbor across the street for stealing the apples of your neighbor down the way. Only the person who is damaged can sue.
If your software is not in the public domain, then please, please, don't claim that you have given it away or are not the owner. This will be used against you in court. "Your honor, the plaintiff has an entire website arguing that he doesn't own the vimacs software..."
So what happens with Megasloth infringes upon the license of John Q. Hacker's tiny perl script? Without John's permission, the FSF, Slashdot readers, OSI, or anyone else is allowed to initiate a lawsuit. However, John Q. Hacker can initiate the suit. And anyone who subitted copyrighted code to the project can join in. Then funds are gathered from all the indigant bystanders from the FSF, Slashdot, OSI, etc.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I don't set it free because I don't want it to be free. I don't want to work for some company for free. I also want free software (ala RMS) to have an *advantage* over proprietary software. Public Domain does not suit this.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
OK. What happens if company X not only ignores GPL but goes further and convinces the US Patents office to issue a patent for a particular idea/software (which, going by recent patents granted, must be an INCREDIBLY easy thing to achieve). Now you've got to try and overturn the patent. What if Company X then started suing open-source distributors of the original (GPL'd) code? (or offering "cheap" licenses for it) I'm not saying this is likely, but I'm wondering what the response would be. ------ Edward G. Robinson, "Soooo...where's you're messiah now?"
I want to be as much of a pain as I can to software hoarders, while making things easier for other free (ala RMS) developers like me. The GPL suits my needs. If you don't like it, shut up and don't use my code.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Listen up, moron boy.
Most programmers aren't writing code because their employers pay them for the code. Most programmers get paid to produce a desired result. The fact that many can now do it using OSS and cost the company not-a-dime offsets the time that programmer may devote to fixing a flaw or adding a feature to that code. The employer doesn't care because that coder still gets the job done and does it for less than it would have cost to buy and customize a proprietary product.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
"Free software, as embodied by the GPL, is under a number of license restrictions on its distribution and use, and can therefore be pirated."
Am I the only one who finds this terribly amusing?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
For users of GPL licensed software, there are NO restrictions. (except for the dev tools) The few restrictions (compared to closed source software) invoked in the GPL are for the redistribution and modifications to the source.
Instead of debating semantics over the definition of the word "free", why don't you enlighten all us old guys as to the specific problems with the terms of the GPL. According to my copy of the OED, there are 17 definitions for the word "free".
Dave
What do you think would be wrong with destroying IP rights?
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Who's the Anonymous Coward here? And what's thievery? Licensing *my own* code is thievery somehow?
Your argument is baseless. Say something that actually has to do with what I said and I'll talk with you. Otherwise, I end this thread here.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Yeah, this is why I regard the GPL with a certain degree of suspicion. I suppose the idea is that the software is free (as in speech, not beer), rather than the user. The analogy would be with human rights- human beings are born free, and governments and other entities are subject to a number of restrictions as to what they can do with us without violating our freedom.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
How does asking a child in the street have anything to do with the GPL?
If you are going to argue about the restrictions of the GPL, then do so. Equating what you feel wrong with the GPL to asking children what they preceive a word to mean, is meaningless.
By your interpretation and comments here, it doesn't seem as though you have even read the GPL.
Dave
If I'm writing free software and I want anyone to use it under any license, I put it under a BSD-like license. If I'm writing free software and I want the derivitive works to be free, I use the GPL. But let's say someone really wants to hoarde something developed as a derivitive of my code... why NOT let them pay for the privilidge?
And it's not just about people making money. If folks want to make money off my code and follow the GPL (a la Cygnus, TiVo, WilburWorks, etc etc) they're free to do so, UNLESS THEY WANT TO HIDE THOSE DERIVITIVE WORKS.
Sheesh!
Why don't you set yourself free, I find your closed source identity to be offensive.
YANAL[1]. And it is obvious. (Disclaimer: IANAL, either.)
In USL vs Berkeley, USL tried to claim this. It didn't hold water.
This is apart from the question of whether the GPL is enforcable at all; for most cases, I think it probably isn't. And the Linux users should be happy for this; an enforced (L)GPL would block large amounts of what is considered standard parts of all Linux distributions (glibc, parts of the kernel, etc). Most of the violations I've found are due to GPLers thinking they can slap the GPL over the BSD-derived licenses; they can't. Not even over the two-clause variant. (If you don't believe me, read the GPL. Carefully. If you're not good at tracking state in your head, create a matrix showing how the GPL and the BSD license interact, for each of the different software states that the GPL talks about.)
[1] You Are Not A Lawyer.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/licen se-list.html
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
That doesn't answer my question, you miserable FUDding AC!
Not everything to do with communism is bad. Did you know communists drink water? What's bad about communism is the fact that it's hippocritical. Communism talks of equality, but then it turns around and has an aristocracy anyway.
Just because you yell "communist", doesn't make something bad.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."