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."
Re:For those that use this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because proprietary software producers would be just as bad, or likely worse, does not mean that the GPL is always the best solution, since it is still a restrictive license.
confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't time an effort be spent on finding the guys who modify the sources, and make a profit, rather than those who merely fail to mirror and honour the distribution agreement because they're lazy?
This reminds me of the Debian upstream/downstream problem that rears it's head up now and again: if the sources are freely available, does every man and his dog have to distribute the unmodified version if they merely make use of it downstream?!
Matt
what product does supermicro use BB in ? (Score:2, Interesting)
If they're taking the piss I'll look out for an alternative for future purchases.
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:4, Interesting)
The supermicro suit is a joke. (Score:1, Interesting)
Pretty lame lawsuit.
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, yes.
The software may not be in a form for easy building and consumption. Think about dependency hell and configuration issues. A lot of shops have a golden "build machine" that does the right thing. This poor practice is less common today, but was du rigeur in a lot of shops where I worked in the 90s -- scrambling to get product out. Often, there is a desire to not publicize the "lack of polish".
Furthermore, there might not be a budget to support an internet-facing server if you don't already have one. Often, the "web presense" is managed by a different department than the engineering group. Again, less of an issue than it used to be, but still a problem. One place I worked (which was not exactly known for it's support of free software, and a large presence in Redmond, WA) would have to "internally lease" a server from the department that did this, and get billed $10k/month for the privilege.
Then, there is the issue of "mail requests". If you don't distribute source with binaries, and are not an academic institution, you must be willing to provide an offer, good for three years, to provide source to anyone who asks! -- not just those you distributed binaries to. A lot of businesses are not set up to do this. [This is for GPLv2. I have not checked if GPLv3 is as onerous.]
It actually is a lot easier to ship source with product if you don't already have the infrastructure to distribute to any and all comers. If you're not an agile shop with a dynamic internet presence, you don't have the infrastructure. Even if you do, the department that makes stuff and the department that related "publicly" often do not communicate efficiently enough.
But, then the bean counters that try to shave every penny on the cost of an item will balk at including a CD that does nothing for functionality -- arguing that a web server is cheaper in the long run. But, you lose the market window in the time it takes you to set one up in a manner consistent with corporate policies, and might not have the budget in the short term.
Finally, you might have customers who do not want to receive source, and balk at the CDs you send them (because getting rid of them is now an expense for them). Can you treat them in the "offer good for three years" manner? No, because you are not set up for the transferrable clause in that offer.
This is a case of "what is easy for the individual is hard for the corporation" because of political and scalability issues.
Re:Understandable response... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dear Sir,
it came to my attention that your product XXX, which I purchased through YYY, uses software based on a licensed component ZZZ. The license (GPL) grants me, the user, the right to obtain a copy of the source, and places a specific legal burden onto your company to provide such a copy to users of your product for free, or for a nominal fee to cover copying and mailing. Please refer to ${URL} for specific terms.
As a user of your product, having been granted the right to obtain the source code, I wish to exercise this right. Would you be so kind to inform me how I can download, or otherwise access, the source code in question?
Thanks in advance,
${name}
${address}
${telephone}
Most tech support people will forward such an email to their manager, and the manager will send it to legal, where it will be reviewed, and a company lawyer will not dare to ignore an official, lawful request that is traceable, because they know that willful infringement is worse than ignorance, and now they know.
Re:For those that use this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:4, Interesting)
Today, however, I'm not so sure. I've met plenty of developers who don't really understand the GPL or its purpose, but I have difficulty believing an entire team had nobody onboard who understood. Perhaps the team charged with developing the software didn't have much contact with the customer-facing folks who might be asked for the source code?
Re:How stupid can you get? (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL is not that confusing... it says if you make changes and distribute the software, you have to make the source available. And that's about it. Period, end of story. How is that harder than commercial licenses which require you to do X if you do A, Y if you do B, but WQ and Z if you do C and D. Commercial licenses are a bitch, especially when you start having multiple different libraries that are all licensed differently.
Re:When will closed-source companies learn? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fear. (Score:3, Interesting)
If an SMB customer is willing to install a 3rd-party firmware on a Linksys device to get more features for less coin, I doubt that customer would have considered a Cisco product in the first place. In that case, it seems Cisco could be making a little money through the consumer hardware sale instead of no money through no hardware sale.