U.S. GPL lawsuit for BusyBox - profit?
Posted Sep 21, 2007 0:43 UTC (Fri) by ndye
Parent article: SFLC files first U.S. GPL violation lawsuit
The timeline seems rushed:
- 2007-Aug-28, BusyBox developers learn a company has been distributing binaries without distributing source, apparently since 2006-Jan;
- 2007-Sep-05, the company's support forum confirms Busybox is in the Firmware;
- 2007-Sep-11, SFLC lawyer-types notify Monsoon Multimedia of their GPL obligation (I'd like to presume some unofficial talks before then, but the complaint doesn't mention it);
- 2007-Sep-20, Federal Court!
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?
- another distributor for BusyBox?
- source for the HAVA firmware?
- good old cash? ;-)
to post comments)