First US GPL Lawsuit Heads For Quick Settlement 196
Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
from the owning-up-shows-character dept.
from the owning-up-shows-character dept.
DeviceGuru writes to tell us that the first lawsuit centered around the GPL seems to have been quickly resolved outside of the courtroom. Monsoon Multimedia was quick to admit that they had violated the GPLv2 in their modified BusyBox code and will soon be releasing the source to come into full compliance with the license.
Cue Amelia from slayers (Score:5, Funny)
Aha! (Score:5, Funny)
2. Get sued and get massive publicity for your little device that's actually kinda cool, then settle
3. Profit!
Re:Aha! I Bet... (Score:2)
Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Either way, the whole GPL suits are so full of pitfalls and dangers to those abusing the code that they really don't have a chance, and any good lawyer should be telling them that.
There was another suit awhile ago with CherryOS vs PearPC, that looked to be pretty hefty, but before anything could be done, they dumped the product entirely. Sometimes, if something isn't worth that much... it's just not worth keeping around.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, let Microsoft challenge the GPL in court then. They haven't dared to try it, even though all indications are that they really, really hate it. They have a history of going for what they want, dishonestly or honestly, if they think they can get away with it. But they have left the GPL strictly unmolested, and that is pretty strong evidence that even Microsoft feel intimidated by the strength of the license.
Re: (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
The real public opinion of MS is expressed in the continued popularity of XP. Vista was their last gasp^Wrelease. Now, do they go 'nucular' on the GPL, a la their SCO meat-puppet, and try some courtroom shenanigans?
I suppose if one o
Re: (Score:2)
Most people barely understand who Microsoft is, or what an operating system is anyway. Even less are familiar with Microsoft's past actions. The Microsoft name is mud in a majority of tech circles but it is important to note that such circles are an absolute minority of the population. Basically: Not many people know, care, or know why they should care.
If you asked two dozen random people (ie. not techie friends) who
Re: (Score:2)
That's the first time I've ever seen it spelt how Americans actually say it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they would have to even touch a court room. If they really had a stiffy for the GPL, they would just wait until the GPLv3 became standard, specifically with Samba using it along with enough code updates to make it a major pain in the ass to back port to a different license, Then release some sort of discriminatory patent license as defined by the GPLv3 with every product they sell while rese
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
When you touch that nerve, an awful lot of people become highly interested.
MS would have to tread very, very carefully to make an attack on GPLv3 and not face ridiculous blowback in the form of anti-trust proceedings.
The outcome would be far from certain, and I don't think big money moves in uncertain waters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that Microsoft "hates" the GPL. It would certainly hate for the GPL to be applied to some component of a Microsoft product, but overall continued uncertainty about the legal status of the GPL benefits Microsoft.
Most of Microsoft's anti-GPL rhetoric is really aimed at enterprise customers considering migrating servers from Windows to Linux. The
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
However, corporate executives are always interested in saving money, and they will stretch pretty far in order to do it. Linux and the GPL have the reassuring presence of IBM and HP behind them, and that is usually good enough for even the most timid exec. This is why Linux has been growing by leaps and bounds the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's risk perception rather than actual risk.
Even if Microsoft is found to be an infringer, as in the Eolas case, it has the resources to protect its end-users from any potential risks or lo
Re: (Score:2)
Lose their rights to enforce the copyright until the misuse is resolved, you mean. In any case, it doesn't apply here. The copyright misuse defence theory of GPL infringement is that it relies on the copyright holder overstretching the definition of 'derivative work' beyond what copyright law allows. MyHava were being growled at over unmodified copies of bu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're very wrong here though, as regards Lexmark. SCC and the EFF did argue a copyright misuse theory, but that theory related to antitrust issues (the theory that the GPL violated antitrust laws has already been soundly clobbered by the sixth circuit in Wallace vs IBM et al) and it wasn't addressed by the appellate court. Lexmark didn't 'permanently lose their copyright for copyright abuse',
Re: (Score:2)
It would be rather hard to attack the GPL without also attacking all similar licencing. Which would create a lot of "interested parties", e.g. any publisher who subcontracts their production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(I won't be a Spelling Nazi)
(I won't be a Spelling Nazi)...
I'm not a lawyer - this is a layman's comment, reflecting only a layman's understanding, so of course utterly worthless. Still, I had fun writing it.
No, it won't stand up (much).
A precedent isn't an automatic win for subsequent cases. If a precedent appears to have technical flaws, people opposed to it will normally ask a higher court to overturn it. In some cases, all this takes is legal status as a
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Better for whom? The attorneys in the case represent their respective clients, not the public interest at large. If they see a way to get a good result for their clients, they are ethically obligated to pursue it, even if in the long run someone else down the road has a harder time of it.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I think that it would be in the client's best interest - if that client is responsible for a lot of GPL software - to set a precedent. It takes a larger up-front effort, but further actions that disposit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks, I'm a lawyer. I think what a lot of people here also might miss is that even if they pursued it to a victory in court, that might not really create anything of real precedential value. If the case is routine e
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd say it's only liminary better than current situation. After all, a precedent is the opinion of one judge impressing the opinion of another judge. Current situation is that of a lawyer (the one that settled outcourts) and it will reasonably impress future lawyers in simmilar situations. So while they don't have a precedent, they already have a "precedent".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh c'mon, who the *cough*sco*cough* heck would *cough*Microsoft*cough* ever do something like that? You're being paranoid and trollish. Are you one of those GNU shills?
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake.. HUH? (Score:2)
That tells me they are a scumbag company ran by scumbags. Instead of doing what is right and working with everyone, they were selfish and scummy and forced everyone involved to go to court.
Re:Nice to see a company admit it's mistake (Score:5, Informative)
If you read TFA, Monsoon didn't do Sh!t until lawyers got involved. The developers of BusyBox tried to settle things "under the radar". If Monsoon was a company with any morals, they would have corrected their mistake(s) then. However, they did not. It wasn't until a lawsuit came and bad press came that they did what they should have done from the get-go.
So no, it is not "nice to see that Monsoon is able to admit" anything. They basically said F-U until legal measures were taken. If BusyBox didn't have the ability to get support in fighting this, Monsoon would still be violating the GPL and saying F-U to the developers.
There is nothing "insightful" about the GP (I don't mean that to offend you GP). This sounds like typical corporate crap. Monsoon continued in their infringement after being notified. Monsoon did nothing until legal matters were taken. Now Monsoon is all like "we 'intended' to comply and we will comply". BS.
Most companies are better than that (Score:2)
Either Monsoon Multimedia is more stubborn than most, or the BusyBox developers lack the finesse of the FSF.
all's fair in law and war (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to sound like a pessimist, but this sounds like nothing but a win for Monsoon. Number one, there's no mention of any cash payout, and number two, they get a shit-ton of free advertising for doing the "right thing".
Win for Free Software. (Score:5, Insightful)
this sounds like nothing but a win for Monsoon. ... there's no mention of any cash payout, and number two, they get a shit-ton of free advertising
It's another win for software freedom. We get their changes or they get hammered. The thing being advertised is that free software can be and is used for business. No one had to waste money on lawyers and everyone is happy.
For their reputation, it's a wash. Monsoon's reputation has been damaged by their original behavior but the settlement goes a long way to repairing that. The reputation enhancement they get from using free software is well deserved because free software has a well earned reputation for quality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both, I think. When FOSS software is used according to the licenses, it is a win for all parties involved.
The only possible losers are those with competing proprietary software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:all's fair in law and war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do there always have to be (punitive) damages paid?
I've got one concern with no financial penalty, and I admit it's minor. It encourages companies to think, "Hey, let's start with GPL'd software and if we get caught, we'll wait until someone sues us and settle."
On the flip side, other companies see how the FOSS community treats violators and contrasts that with Microsoft and the BSA.
Microsoft - Product activation, DRM, byzantine license requirements, and CALS.
BSA - Audits, lawsuits, big public
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it provides people with a reason to do the right thing.
It's like this, if you break the rules either you get away with it or you get caught and have to comply with no additional penalty.
If you know that getting caught doing the wrong thing will cost you more than just doing the right thing in the first place, you have an incentive to stay above board.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? If they're making so much money by violating the GPL, then they have that much more to lose when it turns out they have to give the source away and people can replicate their entire company with a download.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:all's fair in law and war (Score:5, Insightful)
He emphasizes that the objective is for the software to end up free, not to extract revenge, or get extra money. As such, the message we must send is "do the right thing," and not "pay for your crime." He says that this strategy has worked remarkably well: most GPL infringements never make it anywhere near a courtroom: a couple of friendly phone calls and the situation is resolved.
Frankly I think this "don't be a jerk" tactic is something we should encourage everywhere, not just in the FOSS community. In any case, the somewhat more even-handed approach to infringements helps to not scare away potential users of GPL software and code (e.g. corporations). The message they get is: "play by the rules... but if you make a mistake, don't worry: we'll send you a friendly reminder before taking any harsh action."
Re: (Score:2)
except theres no real plaintiff so who cares?
The plaintiff is the copyright holder, just as in any other copyright violation case.
Contracts without signatures are really worthless
Actually I believe that verbal contracts (at least here in the UK) are just as binding as written ones, it's just a lot harder to prove that they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's better to think of the law as a method of getting people to do the right thing instead of being some tool of vengence.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing the right thing only once they were threatened with a lawsuit isn't entirely positive advertising. If it encourages other comapnies to do the right thing from the start, it's a win for BusyBox (and GPL software generally) too.
Precedence (Score:2, Insightful)
While it's good that Monsoon's finally agreed to uphold the GPL agreement I was rather hoping that they'd hold out, if only to establish precedent for future actions.
Still, there's a chance that other companies approached by the SFLC [softwarefreedom.org] will look to this act before deciding to refuse to comply with the GPL they're trading under.
Hopefully...
Re:Precedence (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess. Is a precedent really necessary? I mean the "GPL hasn't been tested in court -- it might be an invalid license!" makes for great anti-GPL FUD, but when you get down to it there is no reason to believe the GPL would be invalid. There are thousands of licenses out there that have never been tried in court, and with most of them there would be no point.
This may be the first GPL lawsuit, but it is hardly the first GPL-related incident with lawyers involved. The fact is that most companies cave immediately when faced with the facts of their GPL violations. Before now nobody has even wanted it to get to the point of a lawsuit being filed, much less letting the facts be tried by a jury. I think it's safe to say that most of these companies' legal departments regard the GPL as a sound license, and getting it ruled invalid as unlikely (and detrimental, since without the GPL they would have no license to use the code at all).
The closest we've come to a company actually fighting the GPL in a court of law was SCO who claimed it was unconstitutional of all things. Nobody else seems to be crazy enough to want to fight the GPL at all.
So a precedent would be nice simply for being able to say "the GPL has been tested in court and was ruled to be a valid license" to silence the FUDmeisters, but practically speaking it's not necessary to protect GPLed code.
Bargaining chip (Score:3, Funny)
They backed down once they found out RMS might be called to testify.
In reality, this means that there is still no precedent for the GPL in court which is a shame.
Re:Bargaining chip (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the (unofficial) conclusion from a wide variety of lawyers working for different, unrelated, companies is: "Don't go to court against the GPL." It's not a legally-binding test, but it sends a clear message to other would-be infringers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
a violation the offending party is not going to be stupid enough to go to court over it. If you loose the case you get smoked for copyright infingement, if you win you still cannot distribute the compiled code since the GPL is the only thing allowing distribution.
Only a fool would take his chances with such odds.
Re:Precedent (Score:4, Funny)
We had a fool.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the right to create a derivative work is one of the rights held exclusively by the holder of copyright or those to whom the copyright holder assigns or licenses them.
Try on Copyright Office Basics [copyright.gov] from the U.S. Copyright Office for size. It is a good starting point for any content creator, and the bundle of rights that make up copyright in the U.S. are near the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you choose not to abide by it, go home and stop distributing it. At that point, you have as much right to the GPLed code as you do to Microsoft Vista.
Re:Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry too much. If that problem is the lack of an SO to be waking you up instead; it's a slashdot wide problem.
Call the Grammar Nazi (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Call the Grammar Nazi (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as was said in the former /. FA (Score:2)
Since the GPL is pretty straightforward and based on the same principles as 'normal' copyright, companies really don't make much of a chance, and they know it. A little bit of pressure, and even the obnoxious ones cave in rather soon, *without* having to go to court.
As long as violations can be solved this way, there really isn't a need to go
GPL Settlements Nicer (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget that GPL settlements are usually much nicer than 'normal' copyright settlements.
Example: Violate Microsoft's copyright on some code, bundle it up in an executable, and start distributing it (heaven help you if you actually sell it). Think the settlement that Microsoft will offer you will be anywhere near as amicable as "Share your changes back to the rest of us." ?? Not on your life.
The fact that the GPL hasn't needed a legal confirmation gives testament to its simplicity and strength. These waters are filled with some *very* dangerous sharks that have had plenty of time to attack. It seems our shark cage is made of some pretty stern stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even a word, but even if it were, I'm still waiting for your contradicting facts which would show it.
Your whole paragraph doesn't touch what was said in the former
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think someone should lose a lot of money over this. It wasn't accidental and I've seen way too many of these reverse-the-blame-and-hide cover-ups to believe it doesn't go all the way to the top. If this was isolated, why were the phone calls not returned? If it was accidental, why did the support rep try to muddy
Re: (Score:2)
But firstly, you have to give the benefit of the doubt, as long as you're not absolutely sure. And most importantly: it doesn't matter how THEY behaved, I'm talking about how we should behave. Giving 'notification' on a forum is just crappy. The real notification happened on the 11th. They sued a week later; in my opinion, that's too few, too fast, if you're goal is to give
Conspiracy theory in favor of Monsoon (Score:5, Funny)
I know, far fetched. But still, I love a good conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
NO IT DOESNT (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050225223848129 [groklaw.net]
Hrm... What is cheaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
or
B.) Just release the source which costs you nothing
Re: (Score:2)
I have to applaud the FSF lawyers, who are giving big businesses a second chance to do the right thing without any monetary penalty. It is something that other area
Re: (Score:2)
Hire a lawyer and fight a court case you may or may not loose.
Rotsky!
Sorry. Wrong site.
There's still one really bad option (Score:2)
That changes the game. That was a concern for the artistic license [slashdot.org] not too long ago.
It could happen. I hope not, but it could.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL either. To me it is kind of like the DMCA, for good guys. The more it is defined by the courts, the less options that we will have.
I just don't have a lot of faith in our legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL is Not a contract... (Score:2)
Contracts also must be agreed to by all parties. GPL is a license because I can release my
Re: (Score:2)
and since artistic license is a free license there *are no* actual damages
I don't remember what Artistic says about this, but I think thatGPL allows one to charge distribution fees. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that a company could have distribution fees of GPLed software as its only revenue stream. In fact, there are many Web shops around that sell nothing more than GNU/Linux and BSD CDs/DVDs. Their profitability revolves around their ability to offer quick access to superior high-quality software. If they cannot offer high-quality software, then their profitability
Re: (Score:2)
In cases where there are no damages we should apply the benefits as damages. You got $10 value from it? Then the damages are $10 - you might have paid that if you hadn't copied it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When most people break a contract, they do so unknowingly or in a way that would make them appear to be ignorant of the fact. In that case, they wouldn't know they didn't have a right to distribute the copyright protected works.
And there are some other snags in the picture, Are they agreeing to the license each and every time they are distributing, or are they
More interesting case happening in Israel (Score:4, Interesting)
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/ [jinchess.com] for more details.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
A clearer explanation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fred loves it too,
You couldn't be more wrong (Score:3, Informative)
GPL Will Never Be Chalenged (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other risks to the GPL -- Derivative Works (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that a Court would see program Foo available under the GPL, and rule that the GPL is somehow unfair and shouldn't be enforceable. But what would a court rule? What about derivative works.
For example, if I take Application Foo, modify it to be a library that is called by my Applicatio
Where's the money? (Score:2)
Read some more (Score:2)
You may argue that the time given for response was short,
but it should have been adequate given the nature of
the allegation.
Also don't assume that all interaction between the parties
is documented in the complaint.
Re:Read some more (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me that some of you have just come out blatantly admitting you are reverse engineering the firmware - or trying to. How should we handle this?
I had posted the an article up on slashdot at around the time the forum debates were taking place, but unfortunately it never made it past the firehose (and I assume that is has now disappeared since it was rejected). However, the same rep was involved in a debate with me, and was spouting the same BS. His question was "well, what is the opinion of slashdot on breaking the EULA and reverse-engineering our code." I answer that it would really depend on the context, particularly whether the code should have been visible in the first place, and that the use of strings [wikipedia.org] does not qualify as reverse-engineering. He continued to insist that "having reverse-engineered stuff in the past, I know what I'm talking about, so it's just your opinion that strings doesn't count." etc etc
All in all, their attitude - or at least of this rep - has been an offensive defensiveness (aka justify their actions by attacking those of others). I'm hoping that along with having the issues settled he now has an understanding of how the GPL works, but I'm sure he'll probably continue along with the mistaken assumption that his company was never in the wrong, and that this whole thing is the fault of those darn free-software people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe so.. That kind of stuff is just theatrical, what they
Re: (Score:2)