Welte v. Skype going to trial [LWN.net]

Welte v. Skype going to trial

Posted May 7, 2008 19:02 UTC (Wed) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

RTFA... it is tiny.  From what little info that is there... Skype has a hardware phone
appliance that is based on the Linux kernel... which is like... kinda GPLed, right?

Welte v. Skype going to trial

Posted May 7, 2008 19:21 UTC (Wed) by ericc72 (guest, #41737) [Link]

Actually, the short FA didn't state much in regards as to what was in violation.  I would
think the previous poster asks a valid question.

Welte v. Skype going to trial

Posted May 8, 2008 2:22 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

The most likely candidate would be the same thing Harald has successfully sued people about in
the past: distributing the Linux kernel in violation of the license terms (i.e. without a copy
of the license or without the source or a written offer to provide the source code).

Welte v. Skype going to trial

Posted May 7, 2008 19:27 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

Harald's blog states:

This case is about a GPL violation of Skype, related to their sales of Wifi Skype phones based on the Linux operating system kernel.

so what right to use Linux do they execute then?

Posted May 8, 2008 0:25 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]

If they find the license nonsensical then they have no right to use the code as the license is
the only way they have a legitimate use of the code in question. If they don't want to adhere
the license they are free to go elsewhere but IMO they are also liable to disgorge any revenue
to date to the copyright holders as the product is violating copyright.

They can't just stop using Linux, they have to pay damages.

so what right to use Linux do they execute then?

Posted May 8, 2008 0:41 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

s/use/distribute/ above, surely.

so what right to use Linux do they execute then?

Posted May 8, 2008 7:25 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Sure they can. Anyone (who is in posession of a legal copy) can USE any computer program for
any purpose, you don't need a license for that.

Now, if they want to DISTRIBUTE the program they -do- need permission from the
copyright-holder(s). For a GPLd program, one way of getting that permission would be to comply
with the GPL.

Another way would be to contact the copyright-holders and negotiate alternative arrangements.
In the case of the Linux kernel though, that is practically impossible since there are so many
distinct copyright-holders, and you'd need to negotiate a deal with every one of them, many of
which have no interest in such a deal.

Who is in posession of a legal copy? How?

Posted May 8, 2008 16:32 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Sure - if you do in fact have legal copy you can use that. But if license is null and void then surely you don't have a legal copy!

err-ata

Posted May 8, 2008 18:56 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

Er... my bad, meant "embed and sell" (that is "distribute") as "use".  Should have been
sleeping for good %)

Who is in posession of a legal copy? How?

Posted May 9, 2008 5:57 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

The license doesn't at all enter into the question of if you've got a legal copy or not.

If you go to www.kernel.org and download a copy of the linux kernel, this is a legal copy of
Linux. It is because www.kernel.org does infact have permission to distribute it to you (they
have this permission because THEY follow the rules stipulated in the GPL)

Now you are free to use this single copy of Linux any way you want without even READING the
GPL, much less adhere to it. It does in no way matter if you've got a license or not, you
don't NEED one.

The moment you want to do something that is otherwise prohibited by copyright-law, such as
distributing copies of the kernel to others, THEN you need a permission -- which the attached
GPL will give you on certain conditions. But only then. If you do -NOT- plan to distribute,
say you're only planning to use Linux on your own computer, then the GPL does not restrict you
in any way. (it even says so in the GPL, but even if it didn't, this would be the case)

I really don't understand why people persist in thinking they need a LICENCE to do something
that is allowed by default.

You only need a licence if you want to do something that is FORBIDDEN by default. (such as
distributing and copying the creative work of someone else)