Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#61

Post by dedward »

jevinskie wrote: post #43
angersock wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if they switch to (say) a full BSD-licensed stack, what is the problem? They can use it for whatever, modify the code for whatever, and there shouldn't be any problems. Why is this a bad thing, other than that it weakens the importance of the GPL?

That would be fine but the article indicates that they want to continue to use other GPL code (like the Linux kernel) without complying with the GPL. Only Busybox copyright holders have been eager to prosecute violators - removing Busybox would let vendors violate the GPL with little practical consequences.

is it realistic for someone who releases their code to expect an unrelated party dealing with a license violation to just give them a free ride to enforcement? I mean, fine if they do, but it is by no means expected. I dont disagree with how this looks on sony's part, but mucking about with other peoples license enforcement smells kind of funny. Who says sony doesnt have a license from the author on a given piece of code? I mean, sure, then linix kernel andwhatnot, we know, but hypothetically, they could be usingsoftware available to the general public under gpl, but licenced to sony including non-disclosure terms about the license - only thecopyright holders can go after them, as it should be.

If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#62

Post by trotsky »

SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does.

It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworkers. As noted elsewhere in the comments, Rob Landley regrets assigning them rights for busybox, and no other authors have been represented in the suits.

The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution.

Quoth wikipedia:

On 7 December 2007, a case was brought against Verizon Communications over its distribution of firmware for Actiontec routers; this case was settled March 17, 2008 on condition of license compliance, appointment of an officer to oversee future compliance with free software licenses, and payment of an undisclosed sum.

On about Aug 03, 2010, BusyBox won triple damages of $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865, and possession of "presumably a lot of high-def TVs" as infringing equipment in the lawsuit Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, etal., the GPL infringement case noted in the paragraph above.

The suit against High-Gain Antennas was settled on March 6, 2008 with the company agreeing to comply with GPL and paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs.

On October 30, 2007, an SFLC press release announced that the lawsuit had been settled with Monsoon agreeing to comply with the GPL and pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs.

etc.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#63

Post by dedward »

gcp wrote: post #13
jlarocco wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not seeing the problem. On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. On the other hand, if Sony would rather write it themselves than abide by the GPL then I'm not seeing the problem there, either. Again, it makes no sense, but it's their decision.

On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them. Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is ofte…

Indeed - Pragmatically, why should sony care? They will care when they end up in court because the rightsholders go after them. if the rightsholders are not willing or able to do so, then sony doesnt have much to worry about. thats business.

Sony aside, I wondr if it is legally feasible for there to beaclass action suit against a large serial gpl violator, the class being developers only related by the license they chose to use.... copyright violation is illegal, after all, right?

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#64

Post by derleth »

fryguy wrote: post #33

So an analogy would be that Pirate Steve wants to put the entire criterion collection ( http://www.criterion.com/library ) on the pirate bay. However, he knows that Fox is really litigious about their movies, so he replaces all of their movies with garage remakes (like "Be Kind, Rewind") so that he can safely pirate the rest of the movies since the other motion picture studios are lazy. Is my analogy correct at all?…

> copywritten

Copyrighted. It's about rights, specifically the right to copy.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#65

Post by dedward »

thristian wrote: post #40
angersock wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if they switch to (say) a full BSD-licensed stack, what is the problem? They can use it for whatever, modify the code for whatever, and there shouldn't be any problems. Why is this a bad thing, other than that it weakens the importance of the GPL?

If they were going to switch to a full BSD-licensed stack, there would be no problem. They want to switch to a mostly-GPL stack, except for the one component that causes them to have to live up to their GPL obligations.

until any other rightsholder whos copyright is being violated does the same thing....... its pretty simple.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#66

Post by fpgeek »

mjg59 wrote: post #50
fpgeek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chip vendors and suppliers could have concerns even if they are not violating the GPL. For instance, they may believe their modules contain important trade secrets. Given that, they might not want anyone they haven't approved to review the modules period.

The only code that they'll ever be obliged to release is code that's covered by licenses that already require them to release it, and if their trade secret containing modules aren't derived from GPLed works then it's not an issue. If they are, then getting rid of Busybox reduces the probability of a lawsuit - but shipping other GPLed code (like, say, the Linux kernel) means they're still vulnerable.

Perhaps I have misunderstood something. Wouldn't you have to analyze all of the non-busybox modules to determine whether or not any non-busybox modules are GPL-derived?

I'm suggesting that some companies would not want to let you analyze their trade secret modules on principle even when they aren't GPL-derived. I'd say that concern is unreasonable, but that doesn't mean some companies don't have it.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#67

Post by mjg59 »

trotsky wrote: post #62

SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does. It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworke…

That's a somewhat misleading. The TVs were awarded to the SFC by a judge in lieu of costs and any other settlement - Westinghouse, the company involved, had declared bankruptcy and were no longer paying their lawyers. There was no settlement in that aspect of the case, and Westinghouse never came into compliance. And if a settlement doesn't involve any payment, congratulations - you've just spent a significant amount of money and you haven't got your costs back.

Many kernel authors simply don't care. Many others are employed by companies who would prefer not to potentially scare off customers, or are contractors who work directly for companies that are concerned about increased enforcement. Some have performed all their work under work to hire conditions and are in no position to engage in any kind of enforcement. While I'm sure some do disagree with the SFC's actions, I'd be astonished if that's the overwhelming reason for a lack of involvement.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#68

Post by dedward »

tikhonj wrote: post #9
lunarscape wrote: post #3

>The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Wait what? This has actually happened?

That's more than fair: you can use our code as long as you don't rip anybody else off either.

fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#69

Post by dedward »

larrik wrote: post #55

SFC enforces copyrights on others behalf's?? Isn't that where Righthaven failed because it isn't actually allowed?

not exactly.... they are enforcing their own copyright, and by virtue of the license wording, using it as easy leverage to insist the infringing product is cleanly complying with similar licenses before granting a new license.

Re: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

#70

Post by dedward »

thristian wrote: post #42
tibbon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, isn't this pretty much what Linux and GNU did? They saw software with restrictive licensing that they wanted to use, so they re-wrote it completely and released it under a license that worked for them.

No, this is not what Linux and GNU did, because they rewrote all the software they wanted to use. The linked article accuses Sony of only wanting to rewrite the software that gets them caught , so they can continue ignoring the GPL obligations on the rest of the software they use.

Thats how things work..... why would you spend time and money on something that is not likely to cause you damages? It is a calculated risk..... andnthey arent eliminating the risk, just reducing it.
Post reply on HN