Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| ||||||||||||||||
SFLC files first U.S. GPL violation lawsuit
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE On Behalf of BusyBox Developers, SFLC Files First Ever U.S. GPL Violation Lawsuit NEW YORK, September 20, 2007 -- The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed the first ever U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL) on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GPL version 2. One of the conditions of the GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. On the company's own Web site, Monsoon Multimedia has publicly acknowledged that its products and firmware contain BusyBox. However, it has not provided any recipients with access to the underlying source code, as is required by the GPL. "We licensed BusyBox under the GPL to give users the freedom to access and modify its source code," said Erik Andersen, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit filed yesterday in Manhattan Federal District Court. "If companies will not abide by the fair terms of our license, then we have no choice but to ask our attorneys to go to court to force them to do so." The complaint filed by SFLC on behalf of the BusyBox developers requests that an injunction be issued against Monsoon Media. It also requests that damages and litigation costs be awarded to the plaintiffs. A copy of the complaint is available at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/busybox/c... "Free software licenses such as the GPL exist to protect the freedom of computer users. If we don't ensure that these licenses are respected, then they will not be able to achieve their goal," said Eben Moglen, Founding Director of SFLC. "Our goal is simply to ensure that Monsoon Multimedia complies with the terms of the GPL." The lawsuit, "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Monsoon Multimedia Inc.," case number 07-CV-8205, will be heard by Senior District Judge John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. About the Software Freedom Law Center The Software Freedom Law Center -- directed by Eben Moglen, one of the world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software -- provides legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software. The Law Center is dedicated to assisting non-profit open source developers and projects. Visit SFLC at http://www.softwarefreedom.org. Media contact: Jim Garrison Public Relations Coordinator Software Freedom Law Center +1-212-461-1910 garrison@softwarefreedom.org ### (Log in to post comments)
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 0:43 UTC (Fri) by ndye (subscriber, #9947) [Link] The timeline seems rushed:
Then the Prayer for Relief begs the Court to... order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts where the unlawful act(s) appears to distributing a Firmware binary including BusyBox without distributing the source code, per the GPL. While I agree that's Not A Good Thing(TM), what do Erik and Rob really want?
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 0:54 UTC (Fri) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] It has been suggested that this is a strategic response to the Jacobsen case, which suggested that the Artistic License was weak in a way which might impact all free/open licenses. I've blogged about the case a bit here, here, and here.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 1:26 UTC (Fri) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] Indeed this seems fast compared to past violation cases handled by the FSF, such as the Vidomi GPL violation case in which code from VirtualDub, a Microsoft Windows GPLed video editor, was incorporated into a proprietary program and the FSF got involved through negotiation with the offending party on behalf of the original author to reach a settlement.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 1:34 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] It may well be that such negotiation failed in this case. I imagine they would have tried that routefirst, since litigation is much more expensive and time-consuming.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 2:12 UTC (Fri) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] According to the complaint, Busybox (and SFLC) tried to contact them, and got no response.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 3:10 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] More to that point by Rob Landley on Groklaw here. Basically it seems that the firm stopped corresponding, leaving asking the courts as the only way to get satisfaction.
Rob Landley of Busybox on Groklaw Posted Sep 21, 2007 3:21 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Rob wrote this:
and this, saying that using the SFLC is Busybox's response to the ineffectual vendor response to the Busybox Hall of Shame.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 1:59 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] go take a look at the timelines that gpl-violations have been following. They have also been pretty short (they are required to be short under German law.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 21, 2007 15:32 UTC (Fri) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] I have no idea what's going on in this case, but it would also seem to make sense, at some point, to make an example of a company which is "stealing" GPLed code.
If companies are planning products get it in their heads that they can use GPLed code, not release the source, and then, IF they are caught, release the source after long "negotiations," there is no real encouragement for them to do the right thing in the first place.
A couple of settlements in cases like this might make GPL violations in the future much less common. So far, free software developers have been MUCH nicer about this than any company would have been.
U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit? Posted Sep 23, 2007 10:47 UTC (Sun) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] I have no idea what's going on in this case, but it would also seem to make sense, at some point, to make an example of a company which is "stealing" GPLed code.Exactly. And to do that, they should ask for more damages than just profits. If the damages are supposed to have a penalising effect, they should ask for all *revenues* or triple profits or something like that. If all that happens to a GPL violator is to lose the illegally attained profits, then it also encourages to continue violation, since expectancy of profits remain positive. (You can't really loose, but you can still win, just keep trying...)
SFLC files first U.S. GPL violation lawsuit Posted Sep 22, 2007 7:04 UTC (Sat) by wt (subscriber, #11793) [Link] You know, Motorola is doing the same thing with their OpenEZX platformfor there cell phones. I asked for the source for the firmware corresponding to my Motorola A1200 and they told me their lawyers wouldn't let them release it. Someone needs to talk to them as well.
wt
SFLC files first U.S. GPL violation lawsuit Posted Sep 22, 2007 8:43 UTC (Sat) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
It may be that the people you talked to don't know what they were talking about. :) When I did a Google/Linux search for 'Motorola A1200 gpl violation', it returned Harald Welte's blog, which points to opensource.motorola.com, which in turn points to A1200 kernel/pkgs. I don't have a clue about whether or not those are the real stuff.
SFLC files first U.S. GPL violation lawsuit Posted Sep 23, 2007 14:46 UTC (Sun) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link] the opensource.motorola.com sources ar "the real stuff"
|
||||||||||||||||