Monsoon Multimedia GPL lawsuit settled

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.

> 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

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."