451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
Is the Monsoon settlement a missed opportunity?
Matthew Aslett, October 31, 2007 @ 6:24 am ETAlthough it is heartening to see that the Software Freedom Law Center and Monsoon Multimedia have reached a settlement regarding claims that Monsoon had breached the GNU GPL, one can’t help the feeling that the case once again represents a missed opportunity to establish a legal precedent.
The complaint stated that Monsoon had failed to supply users of its HAVA TV media software with the source code to the BusyBox software used within it. The company has now agreed to do so, as well as appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer to monitor and its GPL compliance, and to notify users of their rights to the software under the GPL. The company is also making an undisclosed financial payment to BusyBox developers Rob Landley and Erik Andersen (for more on that see Rob’s comment below).
While this is a good result for BusyBox and the enforcement of the GPL, at least one legal expert has expressed frustration that the case did not result in a legal decision. “The settlement itself appears to have done little to advance the law surrounding the enforceability and interpretation of the GPL and open source licenses in general,” writes Holme, Roberts & Owen partner, Jason Haislmaier, on his blog.
“As a result, those of us in the open source legal community who had hoped that the BusyBox lawsuit might begin the process of establishing the type of binding legal precedent regarding the enforceability and legal interpretation of the GPL here in the U.S. that has begun to occur in Germany and other countries are once again left empty handed.”
Certainly more was hoped for from the first US GPL lawsuit. “This case is very important because it will establish what type of remedies (either contract or copyright) are available to licensors for breach of the GPLv2,” wrote Mark Radcliffe at the time the complaint was filed.
However, for those looking for legal precedent, all may not be lost. “Stay tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here in the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL,” notes Haislmaier.
Comments (9) Categories: Licensing,Software
Maybe disclosure of the sum paid to the developers would help, iff that sum is high (for the infringing party, which is not really probable).
Anyway, I don’t think that a “binding legal precedent” is needed at all. Legally, the GPL is fully enforceable, and this settlement only proves that (or else why did the company pay?). What is needed is some of the infringing party’s blood. I mean, let it be known that it really cost them more than just complying from the beginning, so there is incentive not to infringe. The legal incentive is already there (nobody would like defend a GPL violation). What’s missing is a harder incentive…
What I do find disappointing nevertheless is the particular remedy chosen… starting from the title, it sucks! “Open Source Compliance Officer” what about non-OS licenses? I though it was the Software FREEDOM Law Center who acted on the case (why not using “Free Software” instead of “Open Source”? I know it’s asking too much, but they got to choose the conditions). Furthermore, is that really needed? Is it that hard to comply? I mean, come on, you’ve gone and developed a full product, taking care of so many aspect, either technical or otherwise, can’t you just know that you need to comply with the licenses of the software you used? Is that the message we would like to spread? That Open Source licensing is somehow black magic?
my 2 cents
(anyway I’m glad they reached a settlement)
nachokb
The thing is, once we finally got Monsoon’s attention they were eager to come into compliance. It just took a while to _do_ once lawyers were involved. We’re not going to rake them over the coals to try to squeeze a legal precedent out of the system when they _want_ to come into compliance. Actual villains like SCO (both antisocial, stupid, and belligerent enough to go all the way in court against a volunteer community they’re benefitting from) are few and far between.
The financial payment is in the low five figures. It’s basically lawyers fees, they’re paying it to the SFLC (not directly to either of us), and it’s being paid in installments over several months. We have no interest in putting Monsoon out of business; they didn’t get away scott free but it isn’t more than they can afford either.
The SFLC offered to pass some or all of this on to Erik and/or myself, and I at least have declined. It might wind up being held by the SFLC’s conservancy on BusyBox’s behalf, and current maintainer Denis Vlasenko might eventually find a use for the money to help the project somehow. I dunno, not my call.
This is very _unlikely_ to be the last lawsuit the SFLC files on our behalf. But they’re also settling lots of these things behind the scenes.
The takeaway from all this is that open source projects like BusyBox and uClibc can delegate license enforcement to the SFLC, and license enforcement will in fact happen. Pro bono. And with no strings attached (I.E. BusyBox is GPLv2, not v3, so the FSF wouldn’t touch us, but the SFLC is still happy to represent us). This is REALLY COOL.
Rob – thank you for your perspective and level of openness. It’s quite refreshing to have this level of disclosure by someone directly involved in the case.
Thanks Rob for your insight and perspective. I agree it’s not worth dragging a case through court for the sake of it if a good settlement is available.
[...] all the details here [...]
[...] Is the Monsoon settlement a missed opportunity? [...]
[...] of the first group are being dealt with one at a time by the SFLC. With reference to the second group it is important to note that contributing [...]
[...] law. However, I also wonder if the desire to establish some actual legal precedent in the U.S., as discussed previously on our blog, is contributing to the move to file lawsuits. This also serves to remind us that while [...]
The licenses of Open Source software licenses are not negotiated agreements. Companies must ensure compliance with applicable Open Source license obligations. Make Open Source compliance a priority before product ship: Companies must establish and maintain consistent Open Source compliance policies and procedures and ensure that Open Source license s and proprietary licenses co-existence well before shipment.