Here's the situation. A startup company took a GPL licensed program, made modifications to it and dynamically linked to a proprietary third party VOIP library. Initially they weren't going to release any of their modifications, but after being contacted by the developer they tried to come into compliance. However, the use of the proprietary VOIP library is not compatible with the GPL as they are unable to provide source code for it.
The startup company was the first to sick the lawyers on, but the developer has fought back better. For a while it looked like there was going to be a default judgment in the developer's favor but now it looks like it is going to court.
I mean, if they defeat the GPL, then they couldn't use the software in the first place, if they defend the GPL, then they need to conform to it. That's a false dichotomy. There's a remote possibility that a judge could rule that the use of GPL on BusyBox is "copyright abuse" and the developers could lose their copyright. Or the judge might rule that certain actions that were thought to be insufficient to be in compliance with the GPL are actually sufficient. For example, the judge could rule that "the source code being available" is sufficient and it doesn't matter where the source code is available. Or that only a "majority" of the source code need to be available, etc.
The idea that we know what would happen in a US court should the GPL ever be tested is wishful thinking.
They're good GPL soldiers, they're not interested in money. Asking for damages in the complaint is just a stick. Dropping the complaint if Monsoon comes into compliance is the carrot.
By the way, the whole "instant termination" thing has been laughed out of US court once already. It's simply not legal in the US. You can "cure" a license compliance issue and the copyright holder can't terminate your license because of it.
Here's the affidavit of Eben Moglen. The judge's response was basically "we'll deal with this at trial, but as Progress Software is now *currently* in compliance with the license, they have a license." Which is exactly the opposite of what Moglen was trying to achieve. He was trying to get the license dispute case thrown out and "pure" copyright violation case at trial. For this particular judge, it didn't work.. and it gives anyone who is considering bringing a pure copyright violation case a go some pause I would think.
Ya know, if you keep using "OS" and "Linux" synonymously I'm going to have a hard time understanding what you are talking about.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. It appears they are using the Linux kernel and BusyBox (for something).
Filmzy said:
I'd like to see you boot a working Unix system without those tools. I'm not talking about running a shell. I'm talking about simply booting the system. Mounting the root filesystem, starting init, starting whatever daemons are necessary... The Linux boot scripts depend *very* heavily on these tools. (That's not to say it's theoretically impossible to boot without using 'ls', 'cd', 'rm', etc... But you would need *something* that accomplishes the same functions.) He seems to think they are running a stripped down Linux distro on this box. You seem to think the same.
From the complaint:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the Defendant as follows: (1) That the Court issue injunctive relief against Defendant, and that Defendant, its directors, principals, officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with Defendant, be enjoined and restrained from copying, modifying, distributing or making any other infringing use of Plaintiffs' software. (2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' actual and consequential damages incurred, in an amount to be determined at trial; (3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts; (4) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action; and (5) That the Court grant Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. That's never been done before..
I remember ranting about this a while ago, could it be that someone actually read my journal? Nah.. that's just crazy talk.
to continue the questioning, why would you want a unix system on a set top box?
btw, at the boot prompt type: linux root=/dev/hda init=/foo.bin
the root filesystem is mounted by the kernel.. init is started by the kernel, and in this case is my custom image foo.bin. As for daemons etc, wtf, it's a set top box.
From the complaint:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the Defendant as follows: (1) That the Court issue injunctive relief against Defendant, and that Defendant, its directors, principals, officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with Defendant, be enjoined and restrained from copying, modifying, distributing or making any other infringing use of Plaintiffs' software. (2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' actual and consequential damages incurred, in an amount to be determined at trial; (3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts; (4) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action; and (5) That the Court grant Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
That's never been done before.. and it could spell a new era of Free Software development.
If they put the source on a cd and distribute it with the device, or even, put the source ON the device, they'll be in compliance with the license.
Otherwise, they have to supply to anyone they sell the device to a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide the source code to any third party.. and yeah, putting the source on their server would be a way to do that, but they don't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because if there's one thing Microsoft is all about, it's the fair fight.
</sarcasm>
I don't think these guys really understand that they are violating.. which is why they are fighting.
In the US, the FSF tends to be contacted and steps in very quickly and negotiates how to bring the violator into compliance.
In this case, it seems the talk of money has made both parties a bit standoffish and the only talking they're doing is through their lawyers.
I don't really get that whole "First US GPL Lawsuit" thing.. I mean, wasn't Progress Software vs MySQL AB in the US?
Here's the situation. A startup company took a GPL licensed program, made modifications to it and dynamically linked to a proprietary third party VOIP library. Initially they weren't going to release any of their modifications, but after being contacted by the developer they tried to come into compliance. However, the use of the proprietary VOIP library is not compatible with the GPL as they are unable to provide source code for it.
The startup company was the first to sick the lawyers on, but the developer has fought back better. For a while it looked like there was going to be a default judgment in the developer's favor but now it looks like it is going to court.
See http://www.jinchess.com/ichessu/ for more details.
The idea that we know what would happen in a US court should the GPL ever be tested is wishful thinking.
They're good GPL soldiers, they're not interested in money. Asking for damages in the complaint is just a stick. Dropping the complaint if Monsoon comes into compliance is the carrot.
By the way, the whole "instant termination" thing has been laughed out of US court once already. It's simply not legal in the US. You can "cure" a license compliance issue and the copyright holder can't terminate your license because of it.
Here's the affidavit of Eben Moglen. The judge's response was basically "we'll deal with this at trial, but as Progress Software is now *currently* in compliance with the license, they have a license." Which is exactly the opposite of what Moglen was trying to achieve. He was trying to get the license dispute case thrown out and "pure" copyright violation case at trial. For this particular judge, it didn't work.. and it gives anyone who is considering bringing a pure copyright violation case a go some pause I would think.
Or you could read the GPL. That would not suffice as it is neither machine readable or a medium commonly used for software interchange.
If you were trying to be funny, you failed.
Stallman isn't involved in the SFLC. Eben Moglen has a much wider agenda than Richard Stallman.
Sigh. It's the SFLC not the FSF and that's what the SFLC does, they make money from "helping" corporations deal with compliance of GPL software.
Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. It appears they are using the Linux kernel and BusyBox (for something).
Filmzy said: I'd like to see you boot a working Unix system without those tools. I'm not talking about running a shell. I'm talking about simply booting the system. Mounting the root filesystem, starting init, starting whatever daemons are necessary... The Linux boot scripts depend *very* heavily on these tools. (That's not to say it's theoretically impossible to boot without using 'ls', 'cd', 'rm', etc... But you would need *something* that accomplishes the same functions.) He seems to think they are running a stripped down Linux distro on this box. You seem to think the same.
Why do you think this?
(1) That the Court issue injunctive relief against Defendant, and that Defendant, its directors,
principals, officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns,
and all others in active concert or participation with Defendant, be enjoined and restrained from
copying, modifying, distributing or making any other infringing use of Plaintiffs' software.
(2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' actual and consequential damages incurred,
in an amount to be determined at trial;
(3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all profits derived
by Defendant from its unlawful acts;
(4) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of this action; and
(5) That the Court grant Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper. That's never been done before..
I remember ranting about this a while ago, could it be that someone actually read my journal? Nah.. that's just crazy talk.
to continue the questioning, why would you want a unix system on a set top box?
btw, at the boot prompt type: linux root=/dev/hda init=/foo.bin
the root filesystem is mounted by the kernel.. init is started by the kernel, and in this case is my custom image foo.bin. As for daemons etc, wtf, it's a set top box.
I've developed an improvement to William Gibson's design of the neural interface so that you can't be killed by ICE.
It's about as impressive as this announcement.
Copyright law is not clear on anything.
That's why you need lawyers.
Actually, that's about the only one they have a chance of winning.
It's almost the default settlement in copyright infringement cases.
It's *trivial* to comply with the GPL, I don't know why anyone would risk their profits by not.
All the evidence shows that people are quite happy to do so because the cameras are such poor quality that you can't even get a face off them.
It's simply not easy to make a cheap camera that can give sufficiently hi-res and in-focus results.
More importantly, why would you want unix utilities like ls and cd and rm on a set top box?
What's the point?
(1) That the Court issue injunctive relief against Defendant, and that Defendant, its directors,
principals, officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns,
and all others in active concert or participation with Defendant, be enjoined and restrained from
copying, modifying, distributing or making any other infringing use of Plaintiffs' software.
(2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' actual and consequential damages incurred,
in an amount to be determined at trial;
(3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all profits derived
by Defendant from its unlawful acts;
(4) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of this action; and
(5) That the Court grant Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
That's never been done before.. and it could spell a new era of Free Software development.
Something like that.
If they put the source on a cd and distribute it with the device, or even, put the source ON the device, they'll be in compliance with the license.
Otherwise, they have to supply to anyone they sell the device to a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide the source code to any third party.. and yeah, putting the source on their server would be a way to do that, but they don't have to.
It's all spelled out here.
They're distributing GPL licensed software in binary form without the source code and without an offer to supply the source code on request.
These are requirements of the license.
It's really that simple.
I would hope that Google phones would move away from this Java insanity.
.. what a great idea!
Small device + virtual machine
Sorry, but armed robbery isn't "potentially violent".. it's violent.
Blah. Both people who suicide and people who riot are responsible for their own actions.
If erroneous data is all it takes to make people riot then they don't belong in society.