Bell, SuperMicro Sued Over GPL 273
Markus Toth writes "The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has filed two more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of the developers of the Linux-based BusyBox utility suite. The suits allege that Bell Microproducts and SuperMicro Computer each violated redistribution stipulations of the GNU General Public License (GPL).The Bell Microproducts suit pertains to the Hammer MyShare NAS (network-attached storage) appliance, which is sold by Bell's Hammer Storage division. I was the one who alerted the busybox developers about the GPL violation after providing a script for disassembling the firmware and instructions about mounting the contained initrd. As you see in my first post at the gpl-violations.org mailing lists where I posted all mails that I sent to and received from Hammer Storage, they refused to provide me the GPL sources several times. Looks like they will have to provide them soon; I will post any updates in the nas-central blog."
I'll guess "money". (Score:4, Informative)
Source not posted? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp
not the right stuff?
Re:Funny thing about GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Besides which, the complaints about lawsuits typically have less to do with quantity and more to do with quality. Otherwise the discussion threads would be much shorter.
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
Re:Maybe I'm wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you're not being pedantic, you're being wrong. To quote from the GPL v2, section 3b (which covers distribution of source for binaries which were distributed without accompanying source), the vendor must:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
Notice that the offer does not say the vendor must give only people who bought their product the source code. It says they must give any third party the code. Now, under section 3a the vendor only has to give the code to people who receive the product, but 3a pertains to the vendor distributing the source code with the product itself. If they don't include the source code with the binaries, 3a doesn't apply. And since it's not a non-commercial distribution, 3c doesn't apply either.
Re:what product does supermicro use BB in ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those that use this... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Understandable response... (Score:4, Informative)
A single kid making noise? The settlement cost would be less that the bandwidth bill for 6 months, and that is based on a really low likelihood of the kid getting out of his basement and pressing the issue.
A copyright holder with out an attorney? Not the biggest threat on the plate, but definitely something that is on the radar. Might be worth it to have a contingency plan in place so that if this treat grows the organization can deal with it quickly and effectively. No sense in blowing resources unnecessarily though.
A certified letter from an attorney demanding we correct our licensing deficiencies? Time to spin up that contingency plan!
A summons? Those files better be on the website before I have to explain to the CEO why we are being sued!
Again, just to make sure no one is going to confuse me for a GPL abusing bastard, in that case I would have ensured the GPL code was available on the website and have avoided the situation all together. I'm not saying this stuff is right, only that it is realistic, and that you will get a LOT further in the business world by writing respectfully than writing in SMS shorthand.
-Rick
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For those that use this... (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is yours, and it is one of reading comprehension. The GPL promises "Free Software". It does not promise free use, reuse, redistribution or anything else. The GPL is about freedom for software, not for you. This leads to freedom for users, although perhaps not for developers. However, since the software is about the users, this is perhaps the more defensible position anyway.
If you feel otherwise, feel free to try to boycott the GPL, and goodluckwiththat.
Re:what product does supermicro use BB in ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Informative)
and how would you distribute closed-source PHP code anyway?
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Informative)
Inside a hardware as part of the software that make the hardware work as it should.
Re:what product does supermicro use BB in ? (Score:1, Informative)
posting as a.c. for obvious reasons.
Re:Fear. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They should fight the GPL all the way.. (Score:3, Informative)
Argument A would get tossed out immediately based on copyright law. The law is very clear: code is copyrighted by it's author by default, and never enters the public domain except by the copyright term expiring or by an explicit written statement from the author committing the work to the public domain.
Argument B would get tossed out as a matter of law. A party who has standing to sue can contract with someone to represent them in the suit. That's what's happened here, the BusyBox authors have assigned SFLC as their legal representative when dealing with copyright-infringement matters. If you think the court's going to tell the BB authors that they can't have an attorney handle their case for them, I'm afraid you'll be in for a suprise.
The problem is that the law is settled. That's why companies are so quick to comply and settle fast in GPL-violation cases once they realize that the copyright holder really is prepared to take them to court.
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Informative)
If the only penalty is having to open up the source once a suit is filed (and the SFLC or associated copyright owners proceed to drop the suit) then there isn't a downside to closing the source and violating the license.
If there aren't any monetary damages, then any company can violate the GPL with impunity until they're "caught".
Re:For those that use this... (Score:5, Informative)
Except, uh, that's not what happened here. What happened here is that you looked up "Free", decided it didn't apply to the author of the software, and therefore that "Free Software" was bullshit. But it doesn't say "Free Use Of Software". It says "Free Software". It's like "Free Willy", it doesn't mean you can take him home, it means he jumps over the rocks and goes out in the ocean and gets eaten by a giant squid.
Look, this is very simple. The choice of license is at the discretion of the author. If the author's principal principle is that the code remain free to roam about the world, they use the GPL. This reduces the freedom of the author, but it improves the freedom of the customer. If they want to retain maximum control, they use the BSD license. However, even the BSD license has restrictions (the continuance of the license.) If you truly want to make unencumbered software, you place it within the public domain. This relinquishes control of the software entirely.
Note that even after an author releases code under the GPL, they still have the right to release it under another license. What they don't have the right to do accept code from others without having them assign copyright to the original author, and then close that code, re-issue it under another license, et cetera. This part of the GPL is powered by copyright law, so it changes nothing.
Anyway, it really is very simple to see that the GPL provides the maximum freedom for the code. This is the best situation for the developer in many cases, if their goal is for others to benefit from changes made to their code.
The problem with this analysis is twofold. First, as the size of the code base increases the benefit from using the GPL solution increases, and software is always getting bigger. Second, it's not hard to not get sued for GPL violation. Just follow the license in the first place. If your lawyer can't tell you what to do in order to follow the GPL, get a new lawyer.
Tivoization is an attempt to bypass the intent of the GPL, and closing that loophole is the only sensible thing to do.
As before, if you don't like the GPL, don't use it. But so much of the best software out there is licensed under the GPL, perhaps you should consider the possibility that there might be something to this whole thing after all.
Sooner or later there won't be any more closed-source operating systems. There will probably always be closed software, but it will be only for niche markets and amusements. After a certain point it just doesn't make sense to reinvent the highway system, let alone the wheel.
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Informative)
The inclusion of gpl'd code in the way I described - download software, find good bits, cut and paste anything from a few lines to entire files, change some strings, compile, link, and so forth - is practically impossible to detect in a big executable.
This goes for Java as well - I've witnessed (remotely) Indian shops copying screens of code from what they called "freeware" for inclusion into their outsourced code. Happens on a daily basis.
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, and this is not legal advice. That said, the requirements of the GPL go quite a bit beyond that. You must include a copy of the GPL with any GPL software you redistribute. If you distribute object code without the source, you must make the source code available to anyone who requests it for three years (which amounts to having to make it available for three years after you stop distributing that object code.) And there are other very important terms, too.
The GPLv3 is really even harder. And all of it is in the same legalese that commercial licenses have.
The GPL is probably easier than most commercial licenses, but that does not make it easy. The fact that it's extremely commonly misunderstood should speak to that.
Re:For those that use this... (Score:5, Informative)
This is true as a user. It's not so true as a developer, except that developers tend to use more software than they write... Which makes them users, too.
When someone orders a "Pepsi Free", are they expecting to not have to pay for it?
Again, it's not about your freedom, it's about the software's freedom. There are many resources which explain this.
As a USER, you are MORE free with the GPL software. You can do anything you like to it, except steal it (e.g. take credit for it, benefit from it without giving back, et cetera.) In fact, the only person you have to give the code to is the person who buys it.
PHP and mysql are clusterfucks. gcc, on the other hand, is pretty much the most versatile compiler suite on the planet, and it's often shipped with some of the best compiler tools (flex, bison, etc etc) around. THOSE tools are so good that even people who have the suits with better-optimized compilers (e.g. sunspro for SPARC) will still use those pieces.
But seriously, all types of software is being superseded by OSS "alternatives" over time.
No, that is nonsense. It allows others to close derivatives of your code, thereby profiting from your work without giving benefit to others. That does NOT provide the maximum benefit to the user. If it's what you want, that's okay, but it clearly does not provide the user the maximum benefit. It allows people to make products with your code and then close it away from the user. That's not a benefit to the user in ANY way!
What? Operating systems aren't based on licenses. They're based on kernels and libraries (or something equivalent.) In the case of Linux, while the Kernel is under the GPL there is an explicit exception to allow programs which require it to operate to not be GPL'd, although things linked into the kernel must be GPL. In the case of the libraries, licenses vary but many of them are LGPL, which does not require that you license under GPL, thus you can still keep your code closed.
This is a blatant lie, or you simply do not understand what is actually happening. Use vmware as an example. The part that goes into the kernel is open source. The important parts are all in the closed-source binary. The program is dynamically linked, and ships with fallback libraries in case you don't have the appropriate libraries or versions. There is no need whatsoever to take the steps you describe.
OSX is a boondoggle. Apple decided they needed Jobs so they took NeXTStep instead of BeOS, and then ruined NeXTStep in the process of modernizing it. It used to be peppy on a 25 MHz '040. Now it's slow (as in, unresponsive) on a dual G5, or a Core Duo. BeOS was fast and peppy on their silly dual 66MHz system. If Apple becomes the dominant player, I'm going to be very surprised.
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Informative)
See http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL [sourceforge.net]
Re:Fear. (Score:1, Informative)
You can sue them for damages incurred, remove any profit they may have made. You can stop them from distributing your code. You can under no circumstances 'hijack' their code modifications.
If you could, we'd have a much scarier legal system, and the GPL would be as viral and plauge-like as Microsoft used to imply.