451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
Legal books or not, GPL bolstered by suits
Jay Lyman, November 20, 2007 @ 5:24 pm ETThe Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two new GPL-based copyright lawsuits for open source software developers of BusyBox, a set of Unix software tools used typically in embedded systems. The SFLC recently settled a similar case it pursued on behalf of the same developers against Monsoon Media, which corrected its failure to make source code available as required by the GPLv2. Monsoon managed to settle with the SFLC by appointing an open source compliance officer, publishing the BusyBox source code and paying the open source developers an undisclosed sum. However, the settlement nixed the GPL legal precedent that some hoped would result from that suit.
The two new lawsuits announced this week were filed in U.S. District Court in New York against Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, LLC for their alleged failure to provide access to the BusyBox source code. The SFLC charged that both companies have continued to distribute BusyBox without the required source code availability, even after contact from the SFLC.
Some might say the GPL is getting another shot at making it into the U.S. legal books as precedent, and that seems to be the case. However, as the Monsoon case and others that have reached resolution before court indicate, the GPL is certainly enforceable. There is no question the SFLC will not settle for anything less than full compliance with the license (and perhaps some form of payment as well). Even if the SFLC settles, it is unlikely to do so quietly. We will all know what the open source offending party has done to rectify their errors. If the parties on the line this time think they can wriggle out of their predicament, they have quite a bit to learn about open source. It’s all out in the open, and if it comes to opening arguments, so be it. Either way, open source comes away looking legitimate, strong, legal.
Email This Post
|
Technorati Links |
Bookmark on del.icio.us |
digg it
Categories: Software
Comments RSS feed | Trackback URI
[…] westcoastmusic wrote an interesting post today!.Here’s a quick excerpt The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two new GPL-based copyright lawsuits for open source software developers of BusyBox, a set of Unix software tools used typically in embedded systems. The SFLC recently settled a similar case it pursued on behalf of the same developers against Monsoon Media, which corrected its failure to make source code available as required by the GPLv2. Monsoon managed to settle with the SFLC by appointing an open source compliance officer, publishing the Busy […]
[…] Herbrokentoy.com wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two new GPL-based copyright lawsuits for open source software developers of BusyBox, a set of Unix software tools used typically in embedded systems. The SFLC recently settled a similar case it pursued on behalf of the same developers against Monsoon Media, which corrected its failure to make source code available as required by the GPLv2. Monsoon managed to settle with the SFLC by appointing an open source compliance officer, publishing the Busy […]
Jay,
A legal win might not be necesary if it becomes known that the FSF is on the case. It’s akin to knowing that a policeman will arrest you if you steal. It makes you behave and it makes you civil.
That said, it would be nice to shut up GPL doubters. I see them every day.
Thanks for the post, Roy.
I think you’re right that there are no shortage of doubters out there. However, these lawsuits and enforcement of the GPL can serve as a sort of legal precedent. Certainly the companies being sued and pursued are seeking sound legal advice, and they’ve wisely chosen not to challenge the GPL. We’ll see what happens with these two new cases.
JL
There is already some precedent, e.g.:
German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
,—-[ Quote ]
| German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
| the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
| out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
`—-
http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/german-court-convicted-skype-of-violating-the-gpl/#comment-27057
German GPL defender claims legal victory
,—-[ Quote ]
| Open-source programmer Harald Welte said Thursday he won a civil court
| case in Germany centered on the General Public License (GPL). The license
| governs many open-source projects and permits anyone to use software
| covered by it, but requires that companies incorporating GPL software
| make the underlying source code available.
`—-
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6113453.html?part=rss&tag=6113453&subj=news
gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link
,—-[ Quote ]
| D-Link Germany GmbH, a subsidiary of D-Link Corporation, Taiwan R.O.C.,
| distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage (NAS) device which uses a
| Linux-based Operating System. However, this distribution was incompliant
| with the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers the Linux Kernel and
| many other software programs used in the product.
`—-
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
Wallace’s Appeal Firmly Rejected - GPL Has Nothing to Fear [pdf]
,—-[ Quote ]
| PJ: “Just so you know, Daniel Wallace’s appeal of the ruling
| against him in his pro se quest to overthrow the GPL on antitrust
| grounds, one of SCO’s daydreams too, has been firmly rejected by
| the appeals court, as I knew it would be.”
`—-
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceAppealRejected.pdf
Ah, good point, Roy. There is substantial stuff on the books already, but I’m referring to the U.S., where a GPL case has yet to reach the courts. Please forgive my geocentricity, and Happy Thanksgiving!
JL
Thanks, you too. I just worry that the press consistently gives the impression that the GPL is broadly untested.
[…] Over at the 451 Group’s blog, I found myself facing geo-centricity which assumes nothing is true until its arrival in America. It’s something along the lines of “innovation exists only once Microsoft implements (imitates) an idea and mass-markets it. Anyway, the assumption there was that the GPL requires a test case in court. This isn’t quite the case though. Here is a quick list of GPL court wins: […]
[…] I’ve already written about how these GPL lawsuits bolster the open source license. It seems the ante continues to get raised and now, with Verizon involved, the GPL and open source will get even more attention and, most likely in the end, credibility. I would bet Verizon will wisely choose to comply and settle and while some would be happy to see a GPL case hit the U.S. courts, the recognition of GPL’s legitimacy keeps on coming. […]