Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| ||||||||||||||||
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SFLC Files GPL Violation Lawsuit Against Extreme Networks, Inc. NEW YORK, July 21, 2008 -- The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Extreme Networks, Inc. on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). 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. According to the complaint, SFLC contacted Extreme Networks in February, but the company continues to distribute BusyBox in violation of the GPL. The complaint requests that an injunction be issued against the defendant and that damages and litigation costs be awarded to the plaintiffs. A copy of the complaint, as filed July 17 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is available at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jul/21/busybox/ "We attempted to negotiate with Extreme Networks, but they ultimately ignored us," said Aaron Williamson, SFLC Counsel. "Like too many other companies we have contacted, they treated GPL compliance as an afterthought. That is not acceptable to us or our clients." The lawsuit announced today is the latest in a series of GPL enforcement lawsuits filed on behalf of BusyBox developers Erik Andersen and Rob Landley. So far, four cases have resulted in out-of-court settlements requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with the GPL. 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. ### (Log in to post comments)
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 21, 2008 19:25 UTC (Mon) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] Extreme Networks' quarterly conference call is next Thursday at 5pm US Eastern Time. Interested parties could call and pose questions about the financial risks of this IP litigation.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 21, 2008 19:56 UTC (Mon) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] I wonder how long it is going to be before more of these companies start doing enough due diligence to know that SFLC won't back down and they also won't lose.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 21, 2008 20:04 UTC (Mon) by syspig (guest, #41889) [Link] http://www.extremenetworks.com/services/osl-exos.aspx Is the above new, insufficient, or ???
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 21, 2008 20:14 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the GPL allows two methods to distribute the source to recipients of the software. This method appears to be a mix of the two allowed methods and doesn't appear to comply with the GPL. Beyond submitting a request and finding out if they actually respond to them someone would need to review the source to see if it can build to a complete version of their shipping product. The BusyBox campaign has been specifically addressing vendors who provide generic builds of Busybox code without providing their modifications. So the complaint could address the code availability or the lack of completeness, the lawsuit announcements never say what the ultimate problem is.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 21, 2008 22:13 UTC (Mon) by hannada (subscriber, #4633) [Link] Can anyone point to the deficiency, if any, of this method of offering source code? Assuming that the same offer is printed and distributed with the product? From the GPL V.2 license: "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange".
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 22, 2008 0:20 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Not sure. But the complaint doesn't say that Extreme isn't currently complying. I read Sections 17 to 20 as saying that Extreme didn't comply with the GPLv2, had its license terminated, and now refuses to meet all the terms that SFLC have demanded for granting of another GPLv2 license. In particular, "Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs". Remember, once you breach the GPLv2 there is no automatic restoration of the license, even if you come back into compliance with the terms of the GPLv2. Initially I wasn't pleased that an resolution seemed to have stalled because SFLC wasn't being paid (and I'll admit to a bit of reading between the lines here). But if all defendants take that attitude then it won't take long before there is no SFLC. So it does seem right that the SFLC insist on compensation.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 22, 2008 7:56 UTC (Tue) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] "once you breach the GPLv2 there is no automatic restoration of the license"What do you base that on? Clause 6 says you get a license each time the Program is distributed to you. All they would have to do is get a new copy and then not break the license from then on. Of course, even with the license restored, SFLC can still sue for past behavior. Invoking some of the RIAA laws and demanding $100,000 per infringement could get pretty steep. Is that what you mean?
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 22, 2008 10:02 UTC (Tue) by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022) [Link] > "once you breach the GPLv2 there is no automatic restoration of the license" > What do you base that on? Clause 6 says you get a license each time the > Program is distributed to you. All they would have to do is get a new > copy and then not break the license from then on. "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." Or are you saying that if you download 3 times the software, you have 3 license so you can break it twice and have still a license? You cannot "add" licenses, and anyway you have lost the right to use it. IANAL of course.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 22, 2008 10:27 UTC (Tue) by Tjebbe (subscriber, #34055) [Link] The way i read it (iaverynal) is that when you break one of the conditions the entire license is void (you also forfeit all rights). However, as soon as you comply again, you regain all rights. There's indeed no multiple licenses, you just comply or you don't.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 22, 2008 16:59 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] This is definitely one of the areas where the GPLv2 is ambiguous. I'm sure it would be an interesting debate if it went to trial - I think you can argue either side pretty reasonably. My vague recollection is that the general rule is that license ambiguities are supposed to be decided to the licensee's benefit, but even that isn't clear, here, since the argument would be over whether the licensee actually was a licensee...
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 28, 2008 22:55 UTC (Mon) by lindi (subscriber, #53135) [Link] I requested the source code by snail mail in 2006, numerous emails in 2006-2008 and now sent email to the address mentioned on that site on 13 Jun 2008. I have got no reply and they never returned my phone call.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 21, 2008 21:04 UTC (Mon) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] It's really surprising that this got so far - Extreme is a well known vendor of high end Ethernet switches to enterprises so I'd have thought they'd settle it by negotiation.
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 22, 2008 6:02 UTC (Tue) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] High-end and wu-ftpd...
Briefly leet legalese Posted Jul 21, 2008 23:50 UTC (Mon) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] Respectfully submitted, [..]I guess once you understand the system, one can manipulate it! I found one mention to the assignment of this BAR code—just under three months ago...
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 24, 2008 4:58 UTC (Thu) by Scott (guest, #53064) [Link] What if Extreme Networks was attempting to comply with GPL in every way and responded to ALL of SFLC's requests? What would that say about $FLC and the real intent regarding the lawsuit? I've been working in Silicon Vally for close to 30yrs. and have worked on many a S/W project that included OpenSource GPL code. Now that I've seen how SFLC lawyers work from the receiving end I'm appalled. If you now have BusyBox in your commercial product(s) get rid of it as soon as possible and do NOT assume you are immune from a lawsuit. They already know that many companies will settle out of court to try and save $$$ and in the process make themselves and their BusyBox clients rich. SFLC will undoubtedly be talking to other OpenSource authors about how to cash in so don't think this will remain a BusyBox thang. Oh well...
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 24, 2008 6:42 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] if they were responding to the SFLC and complying with the requests there would not be press releases saying that they didn't respond in any way for several months (or at most there would be a few such statements, after which proof would be offered that the SFLC was lieing and they would shut down) busybox tried for years to get compliance without lawyers, with no sucess. as for the clients getting rich, Rob Landley has publicly stated that he doesn't accept the money from the settlements, they go to further investigation and costs. he's very clearly in it for the principal (follow the license he choose if you want to use his code) not for the money what company do you represent
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 24, 2008 13:27 UTC (Thu) by Scott (guest, #53064) [Link] Try to step back and be objective if you can. The assumption that SFLC's claim they were not responded to for months simply on the basis that they said so is not much of an argument. That is called circular logic in that the allegation must be true because of the allegation. SFLC was responded to and every request was met but then the goal posts were moved. I was stunned... Now that I know that SFLC falsely represents the facts I no longer have any faith in "public" statements from Rob Langley. A couple of days ago I would have but not now. I do not represent any company as I'm simply a side line observer of all this and simply stating what I've seen. I understand the need to attack the messenger... I probably would have done the same... S
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 25, 2008 20:01 UTC (Fri) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link] Where did you see what you are claiming? The only places you could know what responses were sent and received between the SFLC and Extreme Networks, Inc. would be if you were working at one of them (or a postal employee, checking out mail as it passed by ;-) ). Presuming you are not a new hire at SFLC (going from your comments about "receiving end"), you must therefore have been getting your information from being at Extreme Networks. While this doesn't disqualify you from speaking (at all), you should probably clarify what sort of relationship you do have -- were you an employee, a contractor, a friend of an employee, an intern, or what? Also, being specific about what goal changes were made, how many letters were exchanged, and how long the time was between responses would help your argument. With what you've said right now, you have not demonstrated any evidence of personal credibility (who are you, how did you find out the information, etc.) and no factual credibility (dates of responses, contents of responses, etc.). It is certainly possible that the SFLC is behaving badly -- if so, PLEASE provide specifics; we'd all benefit. If you can't... well, vague accusations are cheap, and get made all the time. Try harder. Jesse Weinstein
Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. Posted Jul 24, 2008 9:08 UTC (Thu) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link] I'll call FUD. If your post isn't about spreading Fear, Uncertainity and doubt, I'd like to know what is. 1) no specifics at all, only vague unverifiable claims 2) Nobody who's been 30y on the business is childish enough to use s->$ substition 3) ...or get a new login just to spread a unverifiable claim 4) "busybox clients" are not getting rich from these lawsuits Fact remains that busybox, Linux and uclibc allow you to make simple computing systems really easily, and GPL compliance is really trivial too. I have no doubt that being in the receiving end of any lawyer is a unpleasant experience, but if follow GPL correctly from the beginning, you'll never have to deal with them in the first place.
Case links Posted Jul 29, 2008 8:32 UTC (Tue) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link] As of now, in the Extreme Networks case (1:08-cv-06426 ) (in the same court as the other ones, SDNY), two documents have been filed: the complaint (SFLC's copy), and an "Order for Initial Pretrial Conference" (filed on July 23), which simply requires both parties create a outline of how they expect the case to go, and meet with the judge to discuss it on Sept 12, 2008, 9:30 AM, Courtroom 12C. The judge is P. Kevin Castel. I last reported on the status of the cases in March, in this LWN comment. Previous articles on the SFLC's cases can be found listed in this comment. I realize I've left out some of the last few cases; I'll try and catch up later, especially if anyone actually comments that they've read these, or cares. ;-)
|
||||||||||||||||