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.

Comments

Legal Firepower vs Developer Interest

[Wellspring]

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.

For FSF-copyrighted code

[Jonas �berg]

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.

A close call with Sun/Blackdown?

[stange]

Oh please.

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 /., 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.

Course of action

[Noryungi]

How to win your GPL-based lawsuit against big corporations, in 5 easy steps:

1. Publish all relevant details on your web site, including both the GPL-covered version of the software and either a copy or a link to the non-GPL-covered version. Include, if at all possible, a useful comparison of functionalities, diff of sources, etc. In short, try to obtain as much information as possible about the alleged violation. Make sure you triple-check everything before going any further.
   
2. Send a polite e-mail to company/individual, requesting that they "cease and desist", respect the terms of the GPL, publish full source code and/or modifications from your version, and acknowledge you as rightful "owner" and maintainer of the software. Since most companies will try to ignore you, prepare several polite copies of the same e-mail, and send to relevant authorities in the company (CEO, legal department, marketing department, etc...). Make sure to publish both e-mails and responses on your web site. I believe most companies will settle at this stage, especially if you explain very clearly what you intend to do if they do not comply (see below).
   
3. Try to get the news published on Slashdot and other public-discussion forum -- this will raise awareness of your case very, very, very fast. Include links to both GPL-protected version and non-GPL version. Make sure people can look at the evidence you have gathered on your web site. Put mirrors up if your site is slashdotted. =)
   
4. If no answer (or the wrong kind of answer) is received from the company: post entire stories on your web site, including links, etc. Contact both FSF, Slashdot, and most users of your software and (politely) ask them their help in setting up a legal defense fund. If your software is included in large Linux/Open Source distributions (for instance: Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE), ask these companies to contribute as a gesture of goodwill. Make sure you send the entire story to on-line and off-line media (for instance the NY Times and Salon).
   
5. You have won: the GPL-violating company now face (a) the wrath of Internet zealots (Mmmmm... the taste of the Ping Of Death in the morning...), (b) a legal suit that could prove very costly and financially damaging and (c) a public-relations nightmare. No sane company is going to expose its backside to the kind of hellfire you have just created. Just make sure you have got everything right before unleashing this kind of thing on an innocent company, though...
   

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...