SFLC Sues 14 Companies For BusyBox GPL Violations 309
eldavojohn writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit accusing fourteen companies, including Best Buy, Samsung and Westinghouse, of violating the GPL in nearly 20 separate products. This is similar to earlier BusyBox GPL suits. The commercial uses of BusyBox must be much more prolific than anyone could have imagined. Having dealt with hundreds of compliance problems and finding an average of one violation per day, the SFLC recommends one thing: be responsive to their requests (they try to settle things in private first) lest you find one of these (PDF) in your inbox."
Re:Not such a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Why - because if you take something that's GPL'd you have to offer the source? What's the big deal? It certainly costs less to make the source available to buyers than it would to write your own code from scratch.
What's a DVD cost nowadays - a dime? Heck, they could include it on a free USB key, or offer it for $1 (+ $10 shipping and handling) a pop in the written documentation [gnu.org]:
You're starting to sound like Monty Widenius wanting to have the GPL retroactively removed from all versions of MySQL.
Works for me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike the patent trolls and the **AA, at least these guys do it right. You don't find a summons showing up without knowing that one is coming, there's no extortionist tactics, and they're not doing it for profit motive.
Now why in the hell don't we see state/federal laws that require such behavior? I mean, why not have something sane like a law detailing that first the litigant must prove that they spent at least x days/weeks/months trying to negotiate a change in behavior first, and must prove that they had done so in a good faith effort? (that last part is important, as otherwise one could see the likes of the RIAA sending some ungodly demand down, then claiming that they "tried")?
Re:Not such a great idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to give credit to Sharp. I bought an Aquos 52" TV this past year and they included the GPL statements and a link to obtain busybox on their site. The link wasn't working at first and I emailed them to get the source and the link started working again the next day. Following the rules isn't all that hard to do. I don't see why there would be such a huge problem with companies providing a link.
But who gets paid? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know much about this product, but in general...
If there is a community supported project then
a) Who gets to sue companies/people who violate the project's GPL or other open source license
b) Who gets paid should the lawsuit be successful
c) Who gets in debt should the lawsuit not be successful?
d) Who funds the lawsuit?
e) Doesn't the possibility exist for "open source trolls" who scour the world looking for GPL/Apache/BSD/whatever violations and sue the offender hoping to make a few dollars?
SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations (Score:3, Interesting)
What the hell, I have karma to burn: It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?
Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil. The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.
Re:I can hear upper management screaming now (Score:5, Interesting)
In which case - why didn't they simply remove it from the shipping version? They are free to use it as an internal tool, just not ship it with the product. Satisfies everyone - engineers, upper management, and the OSS lawyers.
Re:SFLC Sues 14 Companies for Copyright Violations (Score:2, Interesting)
mythical piracy supporters
I have no idea why you're suggesting that there aren't piracy supporters on Slashdot.
And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).
I disagree. See this post [slashdot.org] for why they wouldn't really be so happy. It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit. Free software developers would get absolutely nothing in return.
Re:Not such a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Following the rules isn't all that hard to do.
I agree. I really don't understand why companies get themselves in this hole. Though I wonder what happens if you do manage to customise and replace the code for your TV and something goes wrong with it. Could you really blame Sharp for not providing support to TVs with altered firmware? It would be a tech support nightmare!
The only time that GPL does become a problem is if you used it during the development process for something that you thought would never need to be released and then find that circumstances change and you would like to do so. You have limited your options.
That reminds me of the case of the Topfield set top boxes, where they used GCC to develop their software but then ran afoul of the licence when they wanted to release a development kit to allow people to write their own applications for the box (or TAPs). I don't know why Topfield didn't want to release their customised GCC code (maybe they thought that it might lead to them being forced to release too much of their other system code they had written), but they ended up withdrawing the SDK. In that case, the public lost out.
Basically, if a company wants to use GPL software, they need to plan it out carefully. They should define the exact areas of code that they are willing to open up and ensure there is enough of a buffer between it and other code. In the case of your TV, ensure the MPEG decoding software is completely separate from the GPL network handling code. Spell out in all in the documentation including warranty issues and links to the GPL code. Don't make adhering to the GPL licence an afterthought. Then nobody can complain about GPL "gotchas".
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am unaware of any commercial vendor telling me that their code is free, or, for that matter, encouraging me to use their code in my own projects. This, however, is the dominant litany for GPL code.
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
Re:Not such a great idea (Score:2, Interesting)
You appear to be correct, but the OSI's effective definition of open source seems to be a bit buggy.
Consider something I'll call a Reciprocal Self-Terminating License. It'll be basically identical to the GPLv2 except with a few changes. Specifically, all GPLv2 references will be replaced with RSTL#. RSTL# will be, at the header of the license, "Real Self-Termination License" with a whole decimal number. If that number is greater than one, any redistribution will decrement that number by one and release under the new numbered license (ie, if you have RSTL2, you'd redistribute as RSTL1). Merger of two or more RSTL# licensed code will result in licensed code having the lowest license number of the group. At RSTL0, you can only redistribute under non-commercial terms and the license will be stuck at RSTL0. This definition is probably incomplete, but I think you get the idea.
A similar effect could be had if, for example, a company were to take source code, release it under a BSD license to a subsidiary or partner company, and that subsidiary/partner company would only ever released the code under a non-commercial BSD-like license.
From what I understand from the open source definition, in both the RSTL1 and the partner company situation, the code would be considered open source.
Re:But... (Score:1, Interesting)
Hence, GPL code is not "free" but it licensed and as such, if you want to use it, you have to abide by the license or get sued.
You write "use" when what you really should write is "distribute".
There is a difference, and it is a LARGE one. One consequence of the difference is that the GPL says nothing about your use of the covered code. It only covers what you need to do if you want to distribute the code to someone else, with or without any modifications.
The misuse of the word "use" instead of "distribute" is what leads to recurring misunderstandings and confusion where people somehow get the impression that the GPL is in any shape or form similar to an EULA. It is not.