Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled
The Software Freedom Law Center has announced the end of the Monsoon Multimedia GPL compliance lawsuit. "As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL, Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs."
(Log in to post comments)
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 18:08 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] It's a testament to the quality and strength of the GPL that these types of defendants always capitulate eventually. Congratulations to the plaintiffs and the SFLC.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 18:50 UTC (Tue) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] > defendants always capitulate eventually I think it's hard to say who capitulated without knowing how much the "consideration" was.
The SFLC achieved their goals Posted Oct 31, 2007 13:02 UTC (Wed) by emk (guest, #1128) [Link] > I think it's hard to say who capitulated without knowing how much the "consideration" was. The long-standing policy of the FSF and SFLC has been to achieve compliance with the GPL. They don't especially want money (though they may ask for it as part of a settlement, generally when the offending company has been uncooperative). So if history is any indicator, the SFLC got exactly what they wanted here.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 18:51 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] What types of defendants ? Monsoon said from the beginning, even before this silly lawsuit was filed, that they intended to comply. I am guessing that it wasn't their first priority because: - BusyBox probably wasn't the most important part of the project - they didn't make any modifications to it Even if they were violating the letter of the license, they weren't really violating its spirit. Rejoice. Now we have one more mirror from where to download BusyBox. This is a tremendous win for Free Software :-) Don't get me wrong, I love the GPL and I support Free Software. I very much respect the authors of BusyBox. I even respect RMS. But I hate lawsuits. And I can't avoid the feeling that had they waited a couple of weeks more, there wouldn't have been a need for one at all. This wasn't some big evil corporation that was taught a hard lesson. Instead, as I understand it, this is a relatively small guy, using Linux for its boxes. Which is supposed to be a good thing. Now, I wonder, if there is a choice in the future between GPL and BSD software, which one would Monsoon pick ?
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 19:30 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] In what sense were they respecting the spirit, when they refused to provide source code?The FSF has obtained compliance from hundreds of violators by quiet negotiation. For years, RMS followed this strategy because he was interested in compliance with the license, not in litigation. In this case, a lawsuit needed to be filed because the defendant was uncooperative. Also, it won't do if people are allowed to object, drag their feet, kick and scream for months, and then finally and grudgingly release source code, with no other penalty. If that's allowed, everyone will do it. The fact is that if you violate GPLv2, your license terminates, meaning that you can't distribute the software at all, until the copyright holder explicitly permits you to. (This is actually an area where GPLv3 has a less severe penalty than GPLv2). Remember the stink that happened when RMS said he forgave KDE for the past copyright violations from when QT had an incompatible license? He was attacked by people who didn't understand that the forgiveness was legally necessary: without it, those who distributed KDE would be forbidden from distributing the FSF code that had been linked with some KDE applications. In this case, Monsoon forfeited its rights to distribute BusyBox at all, and they needed to do this settlement to get their rights back.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 20:17 UTC (Tue) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] > Remember the stink that happened when RMS said he forgave KDE for the past > copyright violations from when QT had an incompatible license? He was > attacked by people who didn't understand that the forgiveness was legally > necessary: without it, those who distributed KDE would be forbidden from > distributing the FSF code that had been linked with some KDE applications. It was also in poor taste, since as the KDE people pointed out none of the KDE software contained GPL code from other software. The KDE authors were the copyright holders and were free to do as they wished with their code. There wasn't any FSF-copyrighted code that was linked with KDE.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 21:33 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] MattPerry wrote:The KDE authors were the copyright holders and were free to do as they wished with their code. There wasn't any FSF-copyrighted code that was linked with KDE. One refuting counter-example, off the top of my head: kfloppy, part of kdeutils. Upstream copyright owner is, as you can verify, FSF. I've not bothered to study that case in years, and never tried to collect more of the above sort of particulars. (Very likely, there were lots more-significant codebases than "kfloppy".) However, at the time, I was going around saying the same sorts of things you were, except in the form of questions out of wariness: "Whose copyright is being infringed, given that the KDE coders wrote all the code? And what business does FSF have opining on the matter or forgiving infringement?" Turned out, my assumptions (and yours) were mistaken, and a friend was kind enough to cite kfloppy to me as an illustrative example. Rick Moen
Also ... Posted Oct 31, 2007 6:11 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] ... in his "forgiveness" message, RMS urged any other copyright holders that were infringed by KDE to forgive any violations as well. It's true that the KDE authors wrote almost all the code themselves, but as Rick points out, not all of it. So thanks to Trolltech fixing the QT license as well as these acts of forgiveness, KDE became legally clean. Too bad that some bitterness remained, even to this day.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 8:29 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] You're wrong, according to the research KDE did at the time. To quote http://www.kde.org/announcements/rmsresponse.php: "There are only two parts of KDE that have GPLed code not written explicitely for KDE -- a small bit in kmidi and a few lines in kghostview."
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 22:50 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] "boudewijn" wrote:You're wrong, according to the research KDE did at the time. Sadly, this merely proves conclusively that the "research KDE did at the time" was, itself, incorrect. You can verify the example I gave, for yourself, by downloading a kdeutils source tarball and observing the presence of FSF's copyright notice, plain as day, in the kfloppy subdirectory. It's a bit late in the day to track down what else they missed in composing their "KDE 'Official' Response to Stallman Editorial", but I do wonder about the extent of their undercounting. (I see third-party claims of the day about vt, kghostview/kgv, kdvi, kmidi, kscd, and others, but a single verified example suffices to make the point.) Rick Moen
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 10:29 UTC (Wed) by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022) [Link] > The fact is that if you violate GPLv2, your license terminates, meaning that you > can't distribute the software at all, until the copyright holder explicitly permits you to. > (This is actually an area where GPLv3 has a less severe penalty than GPLv2). GPLv2 extract: Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. If you loose "your rights under this License", you loose the right to even use the GPL: to use GCC, to use cygwin, to use Linux. What else than the GPL enable you to run even once, on your PC, a copyrighted work? IANAL.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 12:50 UTC (Wed) by AnoymousCoward (guest, #48794) [Link]
You're not a lawyer indeed. To answer your questions:
Of course, IANAL either.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 17:37 UTC (Wed) by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022) [Link] IANAL, but I do not think you are allowed to have a copy of a copyrighted work on your PC, backup and use that copy, without any agreement whatsoever with the copyright owner. The only autorisation would comes from the GPL, that is probably one of the "rights" you lost by not having acepted the GPL requirements.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Nov 2, 2007 10:47 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Copyright deals primarily with the right to make /copies/ of a work. That's why it's named the way it is. Sort of a -duh-. It also includes certain closely related rights, such as the right to publicly perform a work. But yes, you are perfectly allowed to -have- a copyrighted book in your bookshelf, or a copyrighted program in your computer, with no "license" whatsoever. It's only when you want to start making *copies* of that book, or that program, that you need the permission of the copyright-holder. Backups depend on your jurisdiction. In saner jurisdictions you're allowed to make limited copies for your own use of copyrighted works, but this varies with jurisdiction.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Nov 2, 2007 13:02 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Of course in some jurisdictions you're not allowed to do anything useful with that copy on disk, as that involves making a copy in memory. The degree of stupidity of this approach is obvious to anyone with the least modicum of clue, but it hasn't been fixed... one advantage of the iPod and friends is that this sort of thing may finally *get* fixed, because everyone and his dog including lots of legislators are now doing format-shifting and so on and expect it to be legal. If format-shifting is legal, `copying into memory' certainly is.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Nov 2, 2007 13:53 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Yeah, like I said, it depends. In Norway it's also kinda insane, but not that insane. Here you're /generally/ allowed to make a "limited number" of copies of a copyrigthed work for personal use. Personal use includes close friends and family, so here it's actually explicitly allowed to say make a compilation-cd with 15 of your kid-sisters favourite songs for her. There's however an exception for programs. You're *not* allowed to make a copy of the newest computer-game and give it to a close friend of yours. You are however allowed to make any copies needed for normal usage of the program. Courts have ruled that this includes the rigth to take backups, backing up a computer is "normal usage" of the computer. Industry is figthing tooth-and-nail to kill the limited copies thing, or if that doesn't work (which seems currently likely) to make people *BELIEVE* that any copying is illegal.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 19:46 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] The GPL (and LGPL) require something very simple before even getting to "derived work" and complicated legal matter: when you distribute [L]GPLed code you must inform the recient and must either provide them the source or a written offer to provide the source. They never bothered. Not even after clients explicitly asked them. Not even after the Busybox authors asked them nicely. But a call from a lawyer and suddenly they become very nice and cooperative. The authors of Busybox have tried other methods before: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html Anyway, the company is not a "small guy". It is run by "Graham Radstone is a lawyer with over 20 years international business experience. He has held senior positions in some of the world's leading multinational companies that has included DHL, Philip Morris and Pfizer". http://www.monsoonmultimedia.com/executives.html
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 3:04 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] > But I hate lawsuits. And I can't avoid the feeling that had they waited a couple of weeks more, there wouldn't have been a need for one at all. I, too, dislike lawsuits. But, I think that the FSF had exhausted all other options (including just "sitting around" and waiting for Monsoon Multimedia to comply with the GPL. The FSF should be commended for following through procedurally on its quest to keep Free Software free. > Now, I wonder, if there is a choice in the future between GPL and BSD software, which one would Monsoon pick? This assumes that there is a BSD-licensed alternative to BusyBox. Does such a software package exist? (I honestly don't know.)
The FSF wasn't involved Posted Oct 31, 2007 6:05 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Eben Moglen also represents the FSF, but in this case he and the SFLC represented the BusyBox authors.
The FSF wasn't involved Posted Nov 2, 2007 4:41 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] My most sincere apologies to Eben and the SFLC (and to the FSF.) I was obviously not paying attention to exactly who the plaintiff was in this case. Thank you, JoeBuck (and landley, below), for correcting me.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 31, 2007 18:31 UTC (Wed) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] SFLC != FSF. For one thing, the SFLC was quite happy to enforce the busybox license despite busybox being GPLv2 only (no "or later" clause, meaning no GPLv3 for the project ever). The FSF seems to think that sticking with GPLv2 shows a lack of purity and commitment to the glorious cause, or some such: http://lwn.net/Articles/176582/
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Nov 1, 2007 21:06 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The very comment thread you linked to points out that this is probably because the FSF sees no reason why it should pay to host code it can't use because of license incompatibility. This seems reasonable enough to me. It's not as if the world is short of hosting sites.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Oct 30, 2007 20:17 UTC (Tue) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link] It's a testament to the quality and strength of the GPL that these types of defendants always capitulate eventually.I wish it were so, but I don't agree. A judgement in favor of the GPL would be that testament, but not a settlement. Many meritless lawsuits are settled simply because it is cheaper for the defendant to do so.
Countersuers Posted Oct 30, 2007 22:33 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Well, it is true, but for meritless lawsuits someone is eventually bound to defend themselves in court (and even countersue). It is, if you will, a testament to the strength of the GPL that defendants never go before a jury and never retaliate: the mere idea is preposterous (love this word).
Copyright Posted Oct 30, 2007 23:21 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] This "a judgement in favor of the GPL is needed" argument is so wrong! Copyright gives the holder almost complete control over the distribution conditions. No one fights the GPL because they realize this fact. The GPL is not something weird that needs testing in court.
Copyright Posted Oct 31, 2007 0:53 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well also, if I understand correctly, if (in the unlikely event) the GPL is invalid then the copyrights don't evaporate and the software becomes 'public domain'. If the GPL is fought and defeated then the copyrights go right back to the original copyright holders and a new license would need to be drawn up.
Copyright Posted Nov 3, 2007 1:00 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] if ... the GPL is invalid I don't think the adjective "invalid" has any legal meaning with respect to a copyright license. But it may be that a particular condition of the license is null and therefore the license exists without the licensee having to meet that condition. I don't know much about copyright licenses, but I know in contracts it is not uncommon for the law to remove a clause and the rest of the contract still stands. The debate I've heard isn't over whether the license or any part of it is invalid -- it's over what the conditions described in the license actually are. In a particular case, one person believes it is a condition of the license that a particular piece of source code be distributed, while another person believes there is no such condition. That's what would be nice to have a judgment on.
Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled Posted Nov 3, 2007 8:14 UTC (Sat) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] > A judgement in favor of the GPL would be that testament, but not a > settlement. As soon as we got their attention (which took filing a lawsuit to do), they became very interested in coming into compliance as quickly as possible. They wanted to settle. They gave us the code and paid our expenses to get it from them (five figures, and that was from settling _fast_ before the lawyers could spend all that much). What were we supposed to do, try to rake them over the coals to squeeze a precedent out of the legal system when they _wanted_ to come into compliance? It takes a certain amount of screwing up to wind up in court at all. The SFLC has taken a number of enforcement actions already, they just didn't wind up in lawsuits being filed because the companies all cooperated. (I've bugged the SFLC for a list, it'll probably get posted to the busybox mailing list when it's ready.) Monsoon's problem was that it wasn't paying attention, didn't consider GPL compliance _important_ (probably didn't think we were serious), accidentally let their tech support guys make policy (maybe if I bring up the end user license agreement they'll go away), and then froze like a deer in headlights when actual lawyers tried to contact them about it. As far as I can tell there was no actual malice involved at any point, just some ignorance and a couple of really bad judgement calls. They have now fixed it, educated themselves about what the requirements are, and appointed an open source compliance officer to make sure it doesn't happen again. They're even sending the SFLC quarterly reports on license compliance. As far as I can tell, they are now "the good guys". Actual villians like SCO are few and far between. It takes an unusual combination of stupidity, belligerence, and deep pockets to oppose the GPL all the way to a loss in court. Generally people that dumb don't have the money to do anything about it. Even Microsoft only has 2 of the 3. MS fought off federal antitrust enforcement until they got an administration they could bribe, bought off the individual states, and tried to do the same in Europe, but it acts positively _terrified_ of the idea of going up against GPLv2 in court. It may be belligerent and rich as it gets, but Microsoft is not _stupid_. Microsoft could throw a couple _billion_ dollars at this without missing its numbers for the quarter, but they haven't. Why? Because they don't think they can win. They think they would loose, and not only waste their money (which wouldn't be a waste if it slowed us down like they hoped SCO would), but end up providing the very precedent you're talking about. Even SCO backed off its attacks on GPLv2 after the first year or two. Because it just wasn't working out for them. And _that_ is why there's no actual ruling on a GPL infringement suit yet. Rob
Why we don't need a GPL judgment Posted Nov 26, 2007 19:31 UTC (Mon) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] A Japanese samurai warrior once bragged, "My sword is so sharp that if you bury its hilt in the bottom of a slowly-moving brook with the blade pointed up and out of the water, leaves floating by will be cut in two as they encounter its blade." A second warrior replied, "Ah, but my sword is sharper. If you bury its hilt in the bottom of a slowly-moving brook with the blade pointed up and out of the water, leaves floating by will move aside to avoid the blade."
|
|||||||||||||