Injunction to Enforce GPL

Harald Welte writes "The netfilter/iptables project has just been granted a preliminary injunction against a GPL infringing WLAN AP Vendor. The project is trying to fight against the increasing number of products sold in violation of the GPL. Following a number of out-of-court settlements, this is the first case where a company refused to sign a letter to cease and desist. So we took the logical next step and applied for a preliminary injunction. The court reviewed the case and confirmed that Sitecom is in fact in violation of the GPL license terms."

finally

a precedent is being set and hopefully can be used by the masses here soon.

Re:finally

Great! Finally I can respond to those GPL-is-not-proven-in-court trolls!

Re:finally

Great! Finally I can respond to those GPL-is-not-proven-in-court trolls!

Actually, I rather liked being able to say to people, "The GPL has never been tested in court because nobody has ever dared. They know they will lose, because the terms of the GPL are so clearly defined, and since they grant additional rights on top of existing copyright law, disobeying the terms of the license means all you're granted is what copyright law grants you."

It's terribly simple, and the fact that nobody wants to test the GPL in court makes it seem even more bullet-proof. Of course, I'm happy that now case law will begin to set precidence for the GPL, but I kinda liked being able to say "people are afraid to test the GPL in court." :)

Jason.

No precedent really, in the legal sense

This hasn't gone to a trial, and it doesn't look like it will. Sitecom almost immediately added a download that appears to bring them into compliance with the GPL to their Drivers and Manuals Page [sitecom.com]. Of course we'll have to wait for the copyright holders to look it over and decide whether it's legit or not before we can be certain...

"financial sense"

it always amuses me that that argument of financial sense only applies to alternate energy devices. Just about very single other consumer product out there doesn't have that distinction. You get it primarily because it's valuable to you, you think it's a good idea, you want to lead by example, you want to do your part to get the show on the road.. Do we add to the nations energy supply by getting new bass boats, 35 inch plasma tv's, new gaming consoles, that marvelous new living room furniture? does it make "financial sense" to get a new TV when you already got one that works? No one ever questions that, they just do it, don't they? What is the energy "payback" time for that 35 inch TV? Oh ya, that's right, never That kind of stuff just costs "energy".

Everyone is in serious arrears if all their purchases were forced to have a "payback" in terms of dollars.

Following the same line of reasoning, no one should "invest" in the linux desktop,because it's not already well established in 99.995 of the dwesktops out there. No one should have ever bought a personal computer, because they weren't "cost effective" and not "there" yet back in the day. Let "the other guy" do it, this "them" or the equally dubious "the business people" or "the government". Ya, lets let "them" do it,while we all sit back and wait, and keep doing nothing other than being consumers and complaining about it.

I'm pretty poor, as in wicked poor, offical US sub poverty level. I still managed to put my money where my mouth is with computers and with alternate eneergy, because in the long run we NEED to. Both. Simple as that.

As to cost effective, granted, PV is not as cheap as coal, but it works, it's scalable starting at any reasonable budget (say one grand for a nice starter system, less than a gaming machine for sure)), and it's here now, not some pie in the sky future time. Wind chargers in particular are highly favorable with coal now, almost a dead even split there. The past two years running, planet-wide more wind-watts have gone online than nat gas derived watts, primarily in europe and the rest of the world, although they are catching on fast in the US now.

Me, I don't wait for this "they" guy to do what I can do NOW. I DON'T have access to some magic back yard fusion reactor, but I DO have some solar and a wind genny. As to ethanol, nothing stopping you, do it yourself, all kinza people have done it, I made some legal back in the 70s, you need some forms and add a chemical to it via the BATF to do it *legally* , as it's booze and they regulate it. Suit yourself on that picky detail, IANAL. Easy as snot to make ethanol, I ran a chainsaw and two motorcycles off of what I made way back then. I built a methane digester before,too, again, small scale, junk parts, easy, made burnable gas. Took me a little under 1/2 hour to build one.

Financing. I can tell you how a lot of people are getting FREE (more or less) alternative energy. Say you got like x-thousands of dollars to build a new home. Call it 100 grand just for conversational purposes. Now, what you do is look for land that is still cool to put it on but like one mile from the nearest telephone pole. You'll get a wicked deal on the land, probably save a coupla thousand an acre just because it's one mile extra away from the "grid tied"- place. The money you save on the land cost for the home you put directly into alternative energy from day one, and a ton of lenders out there will gladly let you tie it in to your 20 year mortgage if you want to go that way, some bioggess, too, like GMAC. You get the same exact home, just now you got a real nice alternate energy system, and more land than what you could have gotten for the same money just a mile away. That's one idea, there's more.

That's one way. On another thread the other day(low head hydro article) some guy chimed in his friend makes an additional 600$ a month selling extra juice back to the grid from his small wind genny efforts. So not only is it affordable, you can profit from it.

So much for SCO's defense

So much for SCO saying the GPL has no weight in court :-)

Re:So much for SCO's defense

Um...I wish that were true, but this injunction was brought in Munich, which has very little impact on cases currently pending in the United States.

SCO has behaved very differently in Germany, from what I've read--and apparently for good reason. ;)

Re:So much for SCO's defense

That's because the German legal system has the will to stand up to SCO.

Re:So much for SCO's defense

>> That's because the German legal system has the will to stand up to SCO.

> And the US doesn't? How so?

Germany put a gag order on SCO, prohibiting them from spouting massively unsubstantiated statements about their IP rights until they're proven in court.

The US has done no such thing, and doesn't really have any legal basis for doing so... corporations have free speech rights here.

Free speech is not the issue -- Sanity is

corporations have free speech rights here.

German corporations enjoy free speech in Germany as well -- this is not the issue. The German legal system just doesn't believe in waiting years before addressing what is an obvious wrong. Contrast this with the judge in the SCO case [groklaw.net] who decided to let SCO keep spitting out their FUD until the IBM case is solved, thereby giving SCO a free hand to continue to damage RedHat's reputation for what could be just about forever. German courts happen to think that if you want to say bad things about the way other people do business, you should be able to prove it right away, not five years later. This is sort of along the lines that free speech does not cover me calling up your boss and telling him that you, say, have intercourse with sheep.

The simple fact is that Germany's legal system is superior in this respect, as in quite a number of others. Or to put it the other way around: The American legal system is hopelessly stuck in the 18th century, and even though Germany is not in the 21st century [pbs.org] where everybody should be, it is at least in the 20th century.

Sometimes, 200 years and a bit of common sense can make all the difference.

Re:So much for SCO's defense

Would that I had a "-2 WRONG!" mod to give this post and its siblings.

A ruling from a German court can, and, in light od the recent drive (last five-ten years) to harmonize US with European copyright law, SHOULD be considered by a US court. It will never be considered "binding authority, but if no other US court has addressed the question presented, it would be trated as "persuasive authority" and followed IF the US judge found the German judge's legal analysis convincing.

Since the principles of contract (read, licensing) law are pretty similar on a worldwide basis, I imagine the US judges will give considerable weight to the only ruling on this question, particularly if it came out of a German Appellate court.

Just my US$0.02
'wands

(and yes, IAAL)

Re:So much for SCO's defense

Clever, but I'm afraid you didn't do the math correctly. The post he was referring to was the parent, and the siblings he speaks of are the parent's siblings. The post he made is not a sibling of its parent. The sibling of its parent is of course the Aunt/Uncle post, and you cannot be your own uncle, in a normal family structure. So I'm glad what you think is not the way things are, or else we'd have an even more fucked-up society.

Re:So much for SCO's defense

The post he made is not a sibling of its parent.

Unless he made it from Arkansas.

(DISCLAIMER: I have an aunt and several cousins in Arkansas, all with very traditional familial relationships... so this is truly in jest.)

Re:So much for SCO's defense

(and yes, IAAL)

Where the hell have you been? People have been looking for you around here for years.

Re:So much for SCO's defense

Parent is correct. SCO spews FUD about GPL not being court-worthy. A court has just respected the GPL. Does SCO have any examples of the GPL being ruled against in court?

TW

Re:So much for SCO's defense

Except that the US Supreme Court has recently cited "International Law" in cases, and will likely do so in the future.

See this. [worldnetdaily.com]

Re:So much for SCO's defense

" ... Doubtful that a German decision would be considered by any court in the US. ..."

Replace "German. Germany, etc" with "US, American, etc" in the following prior post; still stands.

In fact, replace these two with any reasonably mature legal system with an established tort law (ie Russia may not be appropriate, Ireland or Australia or Finland would).

Any ruling by any court can be presented as an argument supporting your position; it is most compelling if there are no prior relevant precedents in your jurisdiction. By definition, that means the court will consider it, with varying weight but certainly not no weight whatsoever, providing it's applicable to the situation at all.

Parent Post:

" ... A ruling from a German court can, and, in light od [sic] the recent drive (last five-ten years) to harmonize US with European copyright law, SHOULD be considered by a US court. It will never be considered "binding authority, but if no other US court has addressed the question presented, it would be trated as "persuasive authority" and followed IF the US judge found the German judge's legal analysis convincing.

Since the principles of contract (read, licensing) law are pretty similar on a worldwide basis, I imagine the US judges will give considerable weight to the only ruling on this question, particularly if it came out of a German Appellate court. ..."

try to remember...

The GPL is something that GIVES you rights. The GPL is a license to copy and use software that's copyrighted. If the GPL is invalid, you're in violation of copyright law.

Re:try to remember...

"lest your copyright go "poof" due to failure to enforce"

You're thinking of trademarks, not copyrighted works. Your copyright remains in effect whether you protect it or not.

-Erwos

Re:try to remember...

The GPL is a license to copy and use software that's copyrighted.

Actually the GPL does not govern use at all. It is assumed that you obtained the copy legally. If you didn't, it is the fault of the distributor who made the illegal copy, not the person using it.

Contrary to what many commercial software vendors would have you think, a copyright only restricts the ability to make copies, not use them.

That's also why you do not need to accept the terms of the GPL to use any GPLed software.

Re:So much for SCO's defense

It's passed the first hurdle. A judge found the GPL has enough validity on the face to issue an injunction. While (as some posters have pointed out) this is a German court, its' effects will be far-reaching. International treaties will require that, should the GPL be upheld in Germany, that other signatories of the Berne Convention respect it :-)

The US, as a member of the WTO, has to respect it :-)

Re:So much for hypocrisy

It's perfectly possible for people to think that the RIAA is abusive while still respecting copyright without being hypocritical. If you weren't far more interested in waving a Slashthink flag than actually reading and analyzing posts you'd realize that. You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.

criminal punishment != civil punishment

And? What part of the difference between "spend a year in jail" and "give us the source code and maybe pay some fine" you have problems understanding?

Paul B.

Re:So much for hypocrisy

"The MPAA is evil for sending pirates to jail! Their attempts to go after copyright infringement is 'abusive' and just like the 'War on Drugs.' The RIAA is 'greedy' for legally pursuing people who are violating their copyright."

Two articles later...

"Here's another article about evil companies violating the copyright of the GPL. We must enforce the GPL and punish those who infringe its copyright. GPL violaters are evil, and the copyright of the GPL must be respected."

While you have a good point, you need to bear in mind that the two cases are not exactly identical.

The RIAA/MPAA are considered unreasonable because their reactions are percieved as disproportionate. Illegally uploading one music file to the internet does *not* cause hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage, but that's what the RIAA will sue you for. Also, none of the people the RIAA/MPAA are suing are infringing copyright for commercial gain, unlike in this case.

While unauthorised file sharing is a crime, comparing it to stealing GPL'd code is a bit like claiming that stealing cookies should get the same punishment as rape or murder. Yes, I know that happens in parts of the USA, and rest assured, the rest of the world doesn't know whether to laugh or cry...

Re:So much for hypocrisy

The difference between the two and why, in my opinion, there is this dicotemy is that the MPAA article is about sending someone to jail, where the GPL article is about forcing a company to comply with the copyright.

Personally, the person caught recording the movie should be, at a minimum, subject to a fine, maybe jail if it wasn't a first offense. The real problem I have is that big business has made it so a single person (that is not making a profit, and that is a big part of my opinion) can be prosecuted and sent to jail. While a corporation (that is making a profit) is only subjected to potential fines from a civil trial. If one person can go to jail for copyright violations (I don't think that is a just punishment) then the leader(s) of a company violating copyright sould also be sent to jail.

Re:So much for hypocrisy

I think there's a fundamental difference between copying a work for personal use and copying a work to turn around and sell it for a profit.

Back In The Day (tm) when I worked in the record industry there were always stories in the trades and mags like Musician about this or that pirate album dealer bust. What struck me most was an extensive investigative report in Musician about the cost of piracy to the music industry (there is no question that some guy selling illegal copies of CDs on the street corner hurts album sales) also had a large sidebar on the topic of bootlegs.

According to both the RIAA rep and the DOJ rep, there was no interest in pursuing tape traders as they weren't considered to be really competing with legit product. The theory being that people interested in tapes and videos of live shows were likely fans who already owned all the legit releases. Speaking as someone who was a tape trader at the time, I can say that that largely mirrors my experience.

So here within the music industry itself you have an example of both damaging and non-damaging copyright infringements...

Re:So much for SCO's defense

The US is a member of the World Trade Organization, and has to respect the Berne Convention on Copyrights or face trade retaliation. The German court judgment WILL have a chilling effect on SCO's US stance.

more at groklaw

Well, this certainly has the potential to become a really big deal for tHe FOSS community, one way or the other.

For the legally inclined, there's another discussion [groklaw.net]about this going on over at Groklaw.

This could mean repercussions against others...

...big time. MSFT and their campaign against the GPL as "viral", perhaps? prolly not in whole. OTOH, it would certainly put the bite into SCO after IBM gets done with 'em, and Linux vendors everywhere begin attacking 'em for distributing GPL'd stuff contra to the license.

Re:This could mean repercussions against others...

There's nothing viral about the GPL. And there's nothing in the GPL that says you can't sell your GPL'ed code. If there was, companies like IBM and Redhat couldn't sell their open source products. But like with any other license agreement, there are terms to go by. In this case, it sounds like the vendor didn't disclose their improvements. If you use GPLe'd code, you agree to those terms. This idea that GPL is somehow the public domain are nuts. There's a huge difference between free and public domain. I'm glad there's a court that agrees.

Re:This could mean repercussions against others...

This could mean repercussions against others... ...big time. MSFT and their campaign against the GPL as "viral", perhaps?

I doubt that this case will cause repercussions against the MS campaign against the GPL as "viral." On the contrary, I suspect this will be misused by MS to further its attack on the GPL as "viral." The simplistic MS argument will me, "See, this company used GPL software, and all it got in return it was to be sued and hit with a preliminary injunction!"

According to the press release:

When asked about the reasons for the sudden rise in legal pressure for GPL compliance, Harald Welte, Chairman of the Netfilter Core Team states:

"We are not in any way opposing the commercial use of free and open source
software. Specifically, there is no legal risk of using GPL licensed
software in commercial products. But vendors have to comply with the license
terms, just like they would have to with any other, even proprietary software
license agreement."

(emphasis added) I'm not sure companies and PHBs who (superficially) read about this case (and particularly how it is spun) will be confident that "there is no legal risk of using GPL licensed
software in commercial products." Indeed, to be honest, there is of course a risk if one uses GPL licensed software without complying with the license. We need and want there to be such a risk. However, it is a point that may get lost in the spinning and propaganda.

The fact that Mr. Welte felt it was necessary to address the issue speak volumes.

is this it?

is this the test of GPL in the courts everyone has been waiting for?

Precedent?

Question for those !(IANAL)s:

Does this now set a precedent in favor of the GPL to be used in such cases as SCO vs *ix/BSD?

Slightly o/t: My worry over GPL

I understand why the GPL needs to be used now, so Microsoft can't just take all our innovation, repackage it and sell it with advertising. But when Microsoft is gone, will we be left with something a bit dangerous?

I mean, this pooling of labour thing is very admirable, but as a lasting solution haven't we shown the world there are better, more efficient systems? It just seems a bit unsuitable, it makes me uncomfortable. Capitalism has got us where we are, it seems a shame to throw it away in an overreaction to the danger of Microsoft.

Re:Slightly o/t: My worry over GPL

I understand why the GPL needs to be used now, so Microsoft can't just take all our innovation, repackage it and sell it with advertising.

Sure, why not? They'd just have to distribute the source code as well.

Re:Slightly o/t: My worry over GPL

Capitalism has got us where we are

If by "we", you mean "Linux users and developers", then you are certainly correct. Do you think that IBM contributes heavily to Linux because they get warm fuzzies from it, or because they're acting in their best interest to build a solid infrastructure that they can package for their clients?

Much Linux development has been driven by individuals "scratching an itch". Another huge portion has been driven by for-profit entities who want to use it to make more money. In that sense, you're right. Capitalism has definitely helped Linux to rise to its current position.

Re:Slightly o/t: My worry over GPL

Actually there is no evidence at all, that within a capitalistic state that there is a more efficient development model for the long term then this. Emphasis long term.

To explain a bit, open development work, like you can see in open source has been the standard for improving our technical abilities for centuries now. Think science and engineering, and this has shown up till now always to be the most effective way. Thus what all these companies are doing with there closed development models is kind of like a big experiment. Personally they can go try what they like, but they shouldn't complain if they lose out against other more commonly used methods then, they took the risk afterall.

Quickshot

Re:Slightly o/t: My worry over GPL

You should take a read of the GPL again. It does not stand opposite of Capitalism.

In fact, a good argument could be made that the GPL enhances Capitalism by stimulating real innovation through competition.

The explosion of computer technology in the 70s and 80s was largely due to people working together and sharing their ideas.

When all the cards are on the table, it's easy to see who the innovators are apart from the hangers-on. The innovators will make tons of cash, and will raise the technological bar for the next round of innovators, while not retarding their growth and progress (as we are seeing in today's Corporate environment).

I'd flesh this out more, but I'm in a hurry. I'm sure you get the idea.

Re:Slightly o/t: My worry over GPL

1. The GPL is not a part of any war against Microsoft; it is one of tools which maintains the Free Software Club.
2. Microsoft can stay for as long as they like, as long as the Free Software Club gets to stay too. On the other hand the members of the Free Software Club won't shed tears if Microsoft passes.
3. Free Software is not anti-capitalist.
4. Capitalism has not got us where we are. Lots of things, including the influence of capitalism, have got us where we are.
5. Microsoft is not a danger. Rather, proprietary software is distateful.
6. Pooling of labour is not ineffient. Capitalism depends on it; have you heard of "companies"?

wow. oh, it's in germany

where sco already has been made a bitch by the courts. it's not in the US, which i think is where people want something like this to happen

Dirty legal bastards and copyright

Always picking on us.. oh wait a sec....

Go Legal crusaders fighting for the just rights of the people !!

please explain

Scenario: I write program which builds on GPLed code. But I choose to distribute my program as a binary patch. The end user needs to get the GPLed code/binary from somewhere else, then he applies the binary patch and gets my functionality. Is my code bounded by GPL or not? I would claim that it does not, but feel free to cntradict me and make me understand more about GPL.

Re:please explain

Scenario: I write program which builds on GPLed code. But I choose to distribute my program as a binary patch. The end user needs to get the GPLed code/binary from somewhere else, then he applies the binary patch and gets my functionality. Is my code bounded by GPL or not?

Answer: Is your work a derivative of the GPLed code or not? Derivative works must also be GPLed. I'm inclined to think that the situation you describe would be a pretty clear example of a derivative work.

No he didn't

From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:21 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:
>
> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
> under the GPL.

Nope. No such exception exists.

There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard
system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that
isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is
clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not
derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is
just doesn't matter.

And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same.
The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result,
anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.

Now, the "derived work" issue in copyright law is the only thing that
leads to any gray areas. There are areas that are not gray at all: user
space is clearly not a derived work, while kernel patches clearly _are_
derived works.

But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was
originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived
work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived
work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?

THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe
that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because
they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux
behaviour.

Basically:
- anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_
works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived
work.
- anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
with core code, you're derived, no question about it.

Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem
module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the
first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just
because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface
to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that
judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray
area.

Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to
tell the AFS guys so.

Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived work?
HELL NO! It has nothing to do with modules per se, except that non-modules
clearly are derived works (if they are so central to the kenrel that you
can't load them as a module, they are clearly derived works just by virtue
of being very intimate - and because the GPL expressly mentions linking).

So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just
one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't
derived.

Linus</blockquote></i>

Full thread available here [kerneltrap.org].

This is just a long line that I have to include because apparently my characters per line is too low, I would use the space to tell a crap joke but that would be a waste of time. God the line length is still too low, this is really dull. Am I there yet? Apparently not, I could really fall out with slashcode over this.

Is this the first time?

I'm curious, is this the first time a court has acted to enforce the GPL as legally binding?

I'm not aware of an earlier one

I've been keeping an eye on it. I've worked at several companies in the past that wanted to use GPLed/LGPLed software and I guarantee you that they've all had armies of lawyers evaluate the licenses. If any of those lawyers had said "Yeah, we can steal everything licensed under that code!" they'd have done so in a heartbeat. You know what all those lawyers said? They said "We can use this stuff as long as we're careful not to infringe on this license because there's no way we'd win if we fought it in court."

That's why every company hit with a C&D letter in the USA (There've been a few of those) has moved into compliance. Deciding to open your own code base gives you a lot more flexibility than having some judge TELL you what to open.

And since the GPL is more permissive than any other EULA, any software company that tried to get the GPL invalidated in court would really be cutting their own throats too. That'd most likely invalidate their EULAs too.

Oh, but I'm not a lawyer. I've just seen every episode of "Ally MacBeal." Twice.

Win-win?

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that even if the GPL gets struck down somehow, that would likely mean that everything draconian and evil about EULAs would get struck down too. Although I suppose there is a difference, namely that the GPL is really granting you the right to copy stuff, where EULAs are generally removing stuff. Hmm, maybe that means we can keep the power of the GPL and lose the power of EULAs... Sound good to anyone else?

who's next

This is great news. Hopefully it will scare more companies into compliance. I'm sure that there are a lot of companies using code from open source projects in their products [deadly.org], and I bet that there are more than a few in violation of the GPL.

Good. So when...

...do we get to see Darl in his next role - as Defendant?

Testing the GPL in court

What I still don't undestand is why some true geek doesn't purposedly inflinges the GPL, is sent to court and hires the lousiest lawyer he can find. Repeat a hunded times (since the lawyer is so bad you can have them cheaply).
Now you have a greatly tested in court Licence!
Why some rich dotcommer doesn't does this a contribution to the community?

Re:Testing the GPL in court

As in this case [metnews.com], for example, dealing with hidden collusion between prosecution and defendents in order to set a precedent while allowing a lesser penalty.

Confusion...

I've never understood how/why the GPL would be "struck down" in court; a concern that seems to appear quite frequently. If I want to release my code under a license that says you must do 50 jumping jacks before you can modify/compile/install/distribute it, why can't I? And why wouldn't I be able to enforce it if someone violated that (as absurd as that may seem)?

Re:Confusion...

Your requirements are discriminating to fat people and are therefore not enforcable.

Re:Confusion...

I've never understood how/why the GPL would be "struck down" in court.

My fear isn't that it will be struck down, my fear is that some judge will say that's no damages for violating GPL. Often only monetary damages are considered and a judge might say there's no lost profit, so no damages.

Is this likely? I have no idea. At least one judge here believed that damage was happening, so I feel better now.

The world can influence the US believe it or not..

As someone who is considering writing software under the GPL I hope to see it upheld in court around the world.

Also while this case is in Germany and the US often does its own thing, there is something to be said about how the world can influence the US. The US and its citizens like to think they are the ones calling the shots, but the simple fact is that America is influenced by trends around the globe.

So /. readers, please hope with me that the GPL wins out it Germany and around the globe.

The image of open source

While I and everyone here knows that the AP vendor is in the wrong on this (yes, stealing code is wrong), it can't really do our public image any good. "Support Linux, get sued!"
Perhaps easing up on violators might be a good idea for the greater good; we're lucky to have mainstream companies just *use* our code.

I don't get it.

What was the topic implying ? that everyone running netfilter, or any gpl'ed code for that matter, has to redistribute source code? sounds like a bitterly stupid, disorganized attempt to "replicate" bittorrent, without the whole clients uploading ordeal.

It's been said before

and probably wouldn't hurt to be said again: The GPL is a DISTRIBUTION license, not a "usage" license. You are free to do whatever you want, just when you redistribute the binaries must you then also provide the source. There.

Re:It's been said before

Just what exactly gives you the right to use the software?

Lawful posession.

Like if you lawfully buy a pack of gum -- or are given one for free -- you can use it. There's nothing magical about creative works.

It's the same thing. Just like how the owner of a book (as opposed to the holder of the copyright pertaining to the work embodied within the book) has the right to read it by virtue of his ownership of it.

Source available now?

I just went to their site, and under the support link [sitecom.com] for the infringing product, they had this under the downloads section:

WL-122 Wireless Broadband router 100g+
Firmware Source code GPL
Note that these downloads are completely unnecessary unless you plan to do programming to alter the code.

Did they just add this? or was there more to it than just having source available?

GPL overview

Knowing about GPL and actualy reading it is 2 different things.

site doing an overview of GPL [google.ca]

GPL license (not that i've read it) [google.ca]

Both google cache so we don't /. them

Look out Linksys

I wonder what volume of sales Linksys does in .de. This should be interesting.

Poorly-written press release

The text of the press release was interesting, but certainly could've used some editing before distribution:

The GPL licenses software free of cost, but requires any redistributor to provide the full source code.

If you're a reporter interested in the story, but you don't work for a tech rag, then would that mean anything to you?

injunctive relieve... preliminnary...

Not everyone speaks English as a native tongue. However, if you're going to issue a press release in English, then have a native speaker proofread it for you.

The netfilter/iptables project provides state-of-the-art network security software for Linux firewalling, packet filter and network address translation (NAT), distributed as Free Software under the terms of the GNU General Public License. Being part of the linux operating system kernel, the software is running on virtually every Linux installation.

Umm, what?

~% lsmod | grep ipt
~%

It most certainly is not running on virtually every Linux installation. Is it even available for the machines still running 2.x kernels?

I'm very happy for the netfilter/iptables team, and glad that they've established a precedent in their country. However, bad grammar and exaggeration are not becoming to anyone.

Before I get flamed for the inevitable typo or grammar mistake in this post, remember that I'm not issuing a formal press release. If I were, I probably would've hit "preview" before I posted this.

I don't get it what's wrong with that

GPL is a license, you agree with it's terms when you choose to use this code. And those principles are advertised all around the Internet. Actually it brings one sad point about all this licensing stuff - most business people don't give a shit about copyright, as long it doesn't cause a pain in the ass, they will steal. If that code would belong Microsoft, no one would touch it, not even talking about ignoring licensing terms. Sad, the money is the only power now what scares them, not law. But hey, let's hope that by such small steps we could learn the world respect the law again.

Let me share something with you

Let me share something about most country's copyright laws with you folks, since many seem to be mistaken.

1. I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may use it under any circumstances without my express permission.

2. I decided to grant that permission by taking the text of the GPL and distributing my code under that license. But from the standpoint of the law, there is no such thing as "the" GPL. My code simply has a license that grants rights and places restrictions. That others choose to also use this or similar wording is of no consequence.

3. If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person using the code is now a copyright violator! They are using MY code without MY permission.

Insofar as the GPL is unenforceable, all EULAs are unenforceable (because that's all the GPL is: a software license like any other). In such a case, all rights would most likely revert to the original creators. In situations where multiple people had a hand in creating something, things get trickier as do derivative works situations. But I think you get the point.

The truth of the matter is that the GPL will never be declared unenforceable; A creator has the right to license his or her works in any way he or she pleases, unless such a method is expressly forbidden in copyright law.

The GPL is not a EULA

Okay class, let's all repeat this sentence three times together:

The GPL is not a EULA.

The GPL is not a EULA.
The GPL is not a EULA.

If you legally download a GPL program (sourceforge, gnu.org, etc.) you can use that program. You do not have to agree to any End User License Agreement (EULA) to use that program. Exercise for the reader: Compare and constrast this freedom to use the software with the restrictions placed on the buyer/user of the current edition of Microsoft Office by that company's restrictive EULA.

If you legally download the source code to that GPL program (and by the terms of the GPL, the organization that provided you with the program must also provide you with the source code) then you can use that source code. You can read it. Print it out. Edit the source code and recompile. Intermix that GPL code with other code you have the rights to, compile, and use.

What you cannot do is redistribute any modification of that original GPL program without also distributing the source code including all of your modifications. This is the case because the GPL is a LICENSE that grants you permission to redistribute. This is a right you would not ordinarily have for any copyrighted work that you legally own. For example, just because you purchased a book legally does not mean you can make up galley proofs of that book, print them, bind them, and start selling them on a street corner. In fact, you cannot, because you do not own the copyright.

Similarly, you do not own the copyright of that GPL program that you downloaded (and its attendant source code). However, in the case of the GPL you have a license (the GPL) that allows you to redistribute the program (and even charge for it) as long as you distribute the corresponding source code with modifications. That is the quid pro quo: the GPL has granted you rights you did not have under copyright, and in return has asked you to make your contributions available.

If you want to redistribute (exercise rights granted by the GPL) without making contributions available (satisfying the terms of the GPL) then you are not in compliance and you will be slapped.

Just ask Sitecom.

-renard

Re:Let me share something with you

I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may use it under any circumstances without my express permission.

Umm... wrong. That should read:

"I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may distribute it under any circumstances without my express permission."

If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person using the code is now a copyright violator! They are using MY code without MY permission.

Wrong again. Same problem:

"If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person distributing the code is now a copyright violator! They are distributing MY code without MY permission."

This is an *incredibly* important point! The GPL governs distribution! That is ALL. A person, once in possession of GPL'd code, can do anything they want with it. However, they are not allowed to distribute it unless they abide by the terms and conditions present in the GPL.

Similarly, if I purchase a book at the book store, it is mine. I own it. However, I am not allowed to distribute copies of that book, as that would be copyright infringement.

Source coda available?

It seems that they do make the source code available on their website (www.sitecom.com).
When you choose "products => wireless networks => wl-122 => drivers" you can download the source code of the firmware.
So maybe they are complying now?

Why the double standard?

After reading the posting, I have to ask that question. Propretary commercial licenses assume you must (and will) follow the outlines of the license. Why do some commercial entities assume that the GPL is invalid? Why does it have to be tested in court? I've said this before... an EULA you don't agree with is still an EULA, and you should agree (and follow) the guidelines. You don't see other popular licenses being "tested in court". Everyone just assumes they stick... so it's about time for people to take the GPL seriously and realize, it too, sticks.

interesting take on black hats invading systems

--never thought of this, but here's an additional charge that could (maybe/might/possibly/dunno)be used agasinst them in court when caught, if they fool with the code, they might perhaps be in violation of the license.

The message is clear...

Don't use GPL code if you can't abide by the terms of the license.

END OF LINE.

GPL'd code available on their site

It appears they are now offering the source code:

http://www.sitecom.com/driversmanuals.php?grp_id=6 &prod_id=237&search=1 [sitecom.com]

It's not clear if this is the original unmodified code, or if it truely corresponds to what they are shipping. It's also not apparant when this was added to their site... maybe have been in response to the injunction.

If anyone from sitecom is reading this, your website's fancy navigation system makes it almost impossible to copy-n-paste a URL to refer someone to a specific page on your site. Also, the search does not work in Mozilla/linux with the Sun JRE. Why not just use standard links and entry boxes?

Surprising babble-spew from Harald Welte

I'm a bit surprised that Harald dodged the question in the article...

This preliminary injunction follows a series of out-of-court settlement agreements that the netfilter/iptables project has concluded within a short period of time. When asked about the reasons for the sudden rise in legal pressure for GPL compliance, Harald Welte, Chairman of the Netfilter Core Team states:

"We are not in any way opposing the commercial use of free and open source software. Specifically, there is no legal risk of using GPL licensed software in commercial products. But vendors have to comply with the license terms, just like they would have to with any other, even proprietary software license agreement."

Nice, and it's always good to remind the media that there's no restriction on selling open source in this manner. But.... That wasn't the question. Why now, brown cow? Why is there a sudden enforcement flurry now?

This is exactly the sort of non-answer that raises my hackles when listening to politicians. It especially bothers me when it's "one of us," a member of the open source community. I can't imagine why Welte would be dodging the question, so I can only assume he's very worried about giving the wrong impression.

What is this about?

I downloaded the source code (www.sitecom.com) that they had available on their site for the product, and found an "Applicability of Licenses" document in the zip file, which contained:

In order to assist licensees with determining what code can be shared with the end customer, the
following summary of release package should be used: /MIBS ==> can be distributed /Software/firmware/apfw ==> can not be distributed /include ==> can not be distributed /mvc ==> can not be distributed /uClinux/appbuild ==> can be distributed /apps-gpl ==> can be distributed /apps-non-gpl ==> can not be distributed /Documentation ==> can be distributed /include ==> can be distributed /kernel ==> can be distributed /lib ==> can be distributed /make_include ==> can be distributed /romfs ==> can not be distributed /scripts ==> can be distributed /test ==> can not be distributed /tools ==> can not be distributed

I think this is the problem. They are saying that certain parts cannot be distributed. Due to the viral, damaging nature of the GPL this is clearly incorrect. I hope they get their leiderhausen sued off!

This is PRELIMINARY

This is probably better news in Europe in general than it is on this side of the Atlantic. I would expect other EC member nations to be more persuaded than the U.S. would be.

The biggest barrier to using this at all in a U.S. court would be that it is a PRELIMINARY decision, not a final decision. If the word "preliminary" means the same thing in Germany as in the U.S., the German court has not made a full consideration of the merits, and is only making a disposition for the period until which it reaches a final decision.

This ignores the many difficulties in using foreign law as authority in U.S. Courts. (Which differs from enforcing foreign judgments in U.S. Courts.)

good news

good to hear. Hopefully this goes the whole nine yards and sets a precedence and forces another GPL violator, Sigma Designs, Inc. (for using XVID source without keeping it open), DVD player manufacturers, and other bad WLAN ppl into compliance.

completely unenforceable

I don't see how any contract or license is enforceable unless both parties agree to its terms. If I hid a clause giving me the rights to your firstborn children in a copy of the GPL shipped with my software, I doubt any court would force compliance just because the software somehow ended up on your file share directory.

Whether I had any workable legal remedy left, in leu of your firstborn, for copyright infringement of said software, which I might be openly giving away to anonymous parties without payment, would be the big remaining issue.

The remedy might just end up being payment of the price which I'm openly charging all other anonymous users (e.g. zero). But courts do weird things. What do I know?

Re:completely unenforceable

And, firewood, you are absolutely correct.

GNU GPL states exactely that -- that NOTHING has compelled you to agree with the GPL.

If you didn't, then you are allowed to use the software.

But, and the GPL is clear on this point, NOTHING else gives you permission to redistribute.

Certainly Copyright restricts you. The GPL specifically allows this, under some conditions. Since you don't have this right, the GPL grants it to you.

No, you don't have to agree to the GPL. No, you don't have to even READ the GPL. But, if you don't, your rights are governed by the prevailing law (in this caase, Copyright). You don't have that, and the punishment can be quite severe.

What is the "value" associated with an infringement? Depends. If it is a product like a security router, and DEPENDS on the GPL software... could be as high as MULTIPLES of all profit.

Ratboy.

Yay! Progress!

This is definitely a good thing. As companies learn that they can't use GPL'ed code in violation of it terms, hopefully they will start to gravitate away from GPL'ed code in favor of code under Berkeley-style licenses.

Obviously, being required to release source code weakens a business's market position since people could obtain their software for free or an adept programmer could come along, snatch the code, and create a better product. All of this could be bad for a software company.

Of course, this may also bring a possible backlash against using open-sourced software and companies may start holing up again, developing their own code.
Either way, though, companies would be abandoning GPL'ed software which in my book is a big plus.

That said, I fully support the enforcement of copyright licenses, even when it's the GPL. I respect the time and effort programmers put into their software and those who write from scratch should have the right to publish or not publish their source code. Those who use licensed code should be respectful of that license, and thus, the work of previous coders.

And note, that while I know my comments will bring much resentment from the /. community, I'm not commenting here for the sake of pissing people off. I disapprove of the FSF's goals and hope more people will join me. The FSF may "free" the software but at the expense of it's authors.

Their code is available...

There's a link on this page:

http://www.sitecom.com/driversmanuals.php?grp_id =6 &prod_id=237&search=1

to this file:

http://www.sitecom.com/md_download.php?md_id=144 2

that contains source code, makefiles, scripts, the GPL, etc.

I thought that posting the GPL code was acceptable practice. So what's the issue with Sitecom vs GPL?

let's hope it's not an isolated case

I'm hoping this is a sign that the wheels are slowly starting to turn in our favor.

next step..

go 4 SCO.. and stop them from selling SCO products...

There are plenty of GPL violations going on..

Back in January [advogato.org], I "accidentally" stumbled upon a company in Germany who was using some of our LGPLs code in their proprietary Windows products. I contacted them, and contacted the FSF, and started asking questions. They claimed they didn't use any of our code in their products (despite the fact that strings and other tools reveals exact function names being copied, etc.), but claimed that they DID use our code as a basis for an API, where they decided to "rewrite" their own version of it, for Windows. A fishy description from the start. Paraphrasing code to write an identical copy in another language, is still a copyright violation.

Fast-forward 3 months...

I let it lie for awhile (honestly, I was busy with other things, like trying to bring in paid work), until I read a story on Slashdot about the iptables/ipfilter team getting an injunction in Germany.

I decided to revisit our old friends, to see what they've been up to. I caught up with a friend on ICQ who lives in France, and he tells me that he knows a guy in Germany who wrote $APPLICATION entirely from scratch, and that it competed with his own product. Curiously, the guy he knows, is the same one that claims he didn't take any of our code (small world, huh?).

So I mentioned my issues with the "guy", and his company, and as I'm talking on ICQ, I start digging through the code again, and I find our functions littered through their codebase again. I also find an SDK that they've "written" to allow other developers to write "modules" that plug into their proprietary product (questionably using our code).

As I look through their SDK, I have this eerie feeling of deja-vu. I've seen this code before. I start grepping my source tree, and sure enough, the functions in their SDK are byte-for-byte identical to our own, including the comments. Of course, this portion of their code claims to be covered by the LGPL, but the copyright header has the author marked as this "guy", not the original authors who actually wrote the functions he's ripped off from us.

Needless to say, I reopened the issue with the FSF, and gave them the additional information they needed to have to make sure this incident does not get dropped this time.

Not only did this developer ("guy") in Germany lie to us about the nature of his code, he lied to my friend in France by telling him he wrote it all from scratch, and he is openly, and knowingly ripping off the hard work of others, by removing their copyright notice from their code (OUR code), and replacing it with his own name and company name, and are shipping it in an SDK, that they claim as their own. I wonder how many other companies and developers have downloaded this SDK, and are unknowingly also in violation of copyright?

Now I'm pissed. This is the third violation of our code, OUR code, by commercial companies in the last 6 months, without even a single "Thank you for all you've done" from any of them.

Sitecom are terrible..

Having previously worked for a company who are one of the main distributors of Sitecom products in the UK, I can vouch that their service is very poor..
I'm suprised they even responded to the cease-and-desist request...

Re:I guess...

That's very nice, Jimmy. But the adults are talking now, okay? Now go off to bed like a good little boy

Re:I guess...

nice trolling dude.

Thats correct

Civil disobedience is when you violate an immoral law.

If you consider copyright to be immoral, then its natural that you would consider a copyleft to be moral.

So supporting copyleft while opposing copyright is a perfectly consistent moral position.

(The fact that copyleft is enforced by laws designed to protect copyright is but a technicality. )

Re:Thats correct

No, it is not a technicality. Without copyright laws, there is no GPL. Period, end of story. You oppose copyright, you oppose the entire basis of the GPL.

Re:I guess...

I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with going after people who download music and/or movies, provided it was done in a reasonable way, instead of trying to use civil courts to bully, intimidate, run roughshod over various rights (fair use, privacy, etc), and so forth.

By contrast, this appears to be a reasonable civil action, taken only after attempts at negotiation have failed.

Re:I guess...

Slashdot is a big community.

I think what you're actually seeing is the piracy-minded folks ranting against RIAA/MPAA in the music and movie stories, and the hardnosed "free as in speech" faction piping up in the boring lawyer stories.

I suppose a better test (over just guessing like I am now ;) would be to compare lists of posters in both subsets and look for trends.

Re:I guess...

You're trolling, but I want to point out the difference between the two copyright violations.

It's already legal for them to download and use the linux kernel and netfilter code as much as they want. They can modify it and never tell a soul.

What they're doing, however, is trying to resell the modified code in binary form without giving back the changes. That's like making copies of CDs and selling them for $2. I don't think that the majority of the slashdot users (or the editors whoever the hell it is you're characterizing here) would support that practice.

Re:I guess...

There is a big difference, right now we are talking about a for-profit company (I assume this is so, no I have not rtfa), and in the case of mp3 download its usually just a single individual that is not seeking profit. There really isn't a double standard with the slashdot community, we detest people taking other peoples work and trying to make money on it, whether that be a gpl'd work, or someone selling bootleg dvds on the streetcorner.

Comparing Apples to Oranges

going after someone who infringes on GPL IP is ok, but going after people who download music and movies is not ok.

You're making a spurious comparison. The former violation involves a corporation using the copyrighted material to sell a product and earn profits, while implicitly (or explicitly, in the case of SCO) claiming the copyrighted material as their own. The latter involves individuals making unauthorized copies for personal use, or at worst making those unauthorized copies available to others for free.

The former is much more blatant than the latter. They should be considered separate crimes, with seperate sentences and/or penalties.

Re:I guess...

going after someone who infringes on GPL IP is ok, but going after people who download music and movies is not ok.


Yes, going after a company who has taken copywrited work to claim as their own, and sell for profit, is different than using scare and extortion tactics against people who have allegedly copied copywrited work for for their personal use, and enabled other people to do the same.

Re:I guess...

I guess going after someone who infringes on GPL IP is ok, but going after people who download music and movies is not ok.

Correct in some people's opinions. Those subversives that look at society as a whole and whether you should punish the people in relation to the damage they cause to society. As opposed to those that look on laws as carved in stone tablets handed from God, where every law is black and white and any transgressor obviously evil. Who on earth modded you insightful instead of troll?

Phillip.

Gnu License adds freedom, RIAA takes away freedom

The GPL is a license that gives you rights to copy and use software that's copyrighted. It gives you feedom to use software and makes sure that the software remains free for other people to use.

RIAA/MPAA on the other hand takes away freedom by restricting and criminally prosecuting people.

Also as someone else told before "The RIAA/MPAA are considered unreasonable because their reactions are percieved as disproportionate. Illegally uploading one music file to the internet does *not* cause hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage, but that's what the RIAA will sue you for. Also, none of the people the RIAA/MPAA are suing are infringing copyright for commercial gain, unlike in this case."

OR MAYBE THEY COULD BE NON-DUMBASSES AS YOURSELF

If they want to use GPL code, it's quite simple...

Do what they did in remedy UPFRONT, at the BEGINNING.

Then, OH LOOK, no court battle. OH LOOK, how nice, that company's distributing a binary version of project code AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE SOURCE AS THEY SHOULD HAVE.

AMAZING!

Is that so difficult to comprehend? Sure they can use BSD source too. In fact they can use WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT. They just have to read a FEW SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS AND ADD A GODDAMN LINK TO THE DRIVER PAGE.