Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Monsoon is in settlement negotiations with BusyBox to resolve the matter and intends to fully comply with all open-source software license requirements. Monsoon will make modified BusyBox source code publicly available on the company web-site at http://www.myhava.com in the coming weeks."
Posted Sep 24, 2007 14:39 UTC (Mon)
by moxfyre (guest, #13847)
[Link] (15 responses)
In the coming weeks?? Where do these companies get the idea that it's okay to release their binaries even a day before the source code? The GPL clearly doesn't allow that, it says that whenever the binaries are distributed, the source must be distributed with them or made available as well.<p>
Besides being illegal and, in my opinion, simply rude behavior, allowing this sort of thing to continue sets a pretty bad example. How often do you see a commercial release of modified GPL software with the source accompanying it IMMEDIATELY these days?
Posted Sep 24, 2007 15:16 UTC (Mon)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link]
The GPL clearly doesn't allow that, it says that whenever the binaries are distributed, the source must be distributed with them or made available as well. That's not actually true - a written offer to provide the source that meets certain criteria is also acceptable. Not that this really changes anything about this case, of course, but it's a myth that should be buried along with other myths such as "you can't charge money for GPL'ed software" and so on.
Posted Sep 24, 2007 15:32 UTC (Mon)
by mheily (subscriber, #27123)
[Link] (1 responses)
You are wrong about companies being required to simultaneously release source code with their binaries. GPLv2 merely says that you must "accompany [binaries] 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."
Besides, why are you in such a hurry to get your hands on a modified BusyBox tarball, anyway? You can always get the latest and greatest BusyBox sources directly from the project website. I'm guessing you don't even have a Hava video streaming device, and thus can't even use the source code that they will be publishing. Since Monsoon isn't going to release their proprietary video streaming software under the GPL, I fail to see how access to the modified BusyBox sources will be useful to anyone.
Posted Sep 26, 2007 3:00 UTC (Wed)
by grouch (guest, #27289)
[Link]
Since Monsoon isn't going to release their proprietary video streaming software under the GPL, I fail to see how access to the modified BusyBox sources will be useful to anyone.
By that reasoning, there has never been a need for free software, at least, in your world.
Monsoon is infringing copyright. Monsoon pledges to continue their infringement for some indeterminate time. Unless and until the copyright owners magnanimously forgive Monsoon's past and continuing infringement, Monsoon is subject to severe remedies. You might want to read those along with the complaint that was filed.
While compliance is the ultimate goal of RMS, the FSF, Eben Moglen and gpl-violations.org, this is not a requirement imposed on all who choose to place their work under the GPL. Even though the BusyBox developers have the legal right to press their case against the admitted infringer, and their Hall of Shame page gives reason enough for their patience to be thin, their intent appears to be to obtain compliance:
"Free software licenses such as the GPL exist to protect the freedom
of computer users. If we don't ensure that these licenses are
respected, then they will not be able to achieve their goal," said
Eben Moglen, Founding Director of SFLC. "Our goal is simply to ensure
that Monsoon Multimedia complies with the terms of the GPL."
I hope Prof. Moglen's comment is sufficient to explain how access to the source is useful. If not, please read Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by Richard Stallman.
Posted Sep 24, 2007 15:41 UTC (Mon)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (5 responses)
They get that idea from the license, which simply requires that you offer to provide the source on request. There is no language in the license defining what timely delivery of the source in response to such a request would be, so I imagine normal commercial law definitions of timeliness would apply. IANAL. Commercial offers often have delays of 4-6 weeks for delivery...
Posted Sep 24, 2007 21:49 UTC (Mon)
by xtifr (guest, #143)
[Link] (4 responses)
As far as I can tell, the binaries are _still_ not accompanied by either the source code or a written offer. Posting a written offer somewhere else does not. AFAICT, meet the terms.
Posted Sep 24, 2007 22:49 UTC (Mon)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (3 responses)
I certainly didn't intend to defend Monsoon Multimedia or claim that what they did was OK. Assuming they didn't accompany the product with such an offer, they would have been non-compliant and, under the terms of GPLv2, that would have automatically terminated their rights under the license.
Note, though, that GPLv2 says nothing about how such rights may be reestablished. I think you could argue [IANAL] that a subsequent compliant distribution would be permitted by the license, since it would be a new application of the license. Definitely room for lawyering around that. Given the aims of the GPL, it's arguably desirable that previous offenders be able to use the license if they adopt compliant practices...
Posted Sep 26, 2007 1:46 UTC (Wed)
by lxoliva (guest, #40702)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2007 15:23 UTC (Wed)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2007 18:04 UTC (Wed)
by lxoliva (guest, #40702)
[Link]
Posted Sep 25, 2007 22:52 UTC (Tue)
by Gary-MM (guest, #47795)
[Link] (5 responses)
Monsoon Multimedia manufactures and sells through various channels a product known generically as HAVA, a video time and place shifting device. The hardware box itself runs the Linux operating system, the licensing of which is governed by the GNU Public License (GPL).
Monsoon Multimedia is a small company, whose employees work hard to develop new products, develop new functionality for and fix issues in existing products to help satisfy our paying customers and corporate stakeholders. Along the way, we have unwittingly neglected to honor the terms of the GPL which requires us to obtain permission from the copyright holders of any software component for which we have modified the code in order to deliver our product. Additionally, we are obligated to publish the GPL code we have used and modified so that all others can benefit from our efforts, and up to now we have failed to do so.
We wish at this point to apologize for this oversight, both to the copyright holders of the code which we have used and modified, and to the free software community in general. We take full responsibility for these actions. We fully endorse the concepts of free software. We are now working closely with the copyright holders to make sure that our obligations under the GPL are met in full measure.
Regarding claims of "stonewalling", etc. all I can say is that we're going through the list of everything we have (it's not just Busybox), figuring out where it came from, what was modified, etc. etc. and we wish to do this correctly to avoid further controversy. I am personally very sorry it is dragging on because I'd like to get back to helping customers and being a general pain in the neck to the developers.
Here's our official press release:
http://myhava.com/press_releases_monsoon_open_source.html
With 20/20 hindsight,
Gary Worsham
Posted Sep 26, 2007 3:27 UTC (Wed)
by grouch (guest, #27289)
[Link] (4 responses)
Along the way, we have unwittingly neglected to honor the terms of the GPL which requires us to obtain permission from the copyright holders of any software component for which we have modified the code in order to deliver our product.
No, it doesn't. You still seem to be confused about the GPL.
The GPL already grants you permission, from the copyright holders, to modify and distribute the code under certain conditions. It is a unilateral, but conditional, grant of permission. The layman's summary of those conditions is that you have to pass on the same rights to the code as you received. You failed to do that. You received the source but you did not pass it on with your binaries. You imposed additional restrictions on the code beyond those under which you received it.
The only time you must seek permission from the copyright holders to modify and distribute code licensed under the GPL is when you wish to do something that is outside the scope of permissions granted by the GPL. In this case, you failed to distribute the source or an offer to obtain the source and you added an End User License Agreement which contradicts the GPL.
Please note that I am not a lawyer, am not one of the copyright holders, and have no standing in the complaint against Monsoon Multimedia. I make extensive use of software released under the GPL, have contributed minorly to some GPL'd projects, and have a very strong interest in free (libre) software. I am thus a part of the "free software community in general" to which you aim your apology, but I am completely unimpressed by that apology. Unless and until the BusyBox copyright holders announce they are satisfied, any apology is empty.
While the press of business concerns may lead to oversights, copyright infringement is no less grave simply because it is a business infringing copyright owned by individuals. The license chosen for the BusyBox developers' work is not nearly as complex as the legalistically obfuscated list of denials of rights that comprise the typical proprietary software company's EULA. Turn the tables around and imagine that apology being posted.
Posted Sep 27, 2007 8:38 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (3 responses)
Realy, they do. Especially for companies that are more hardware oriented then software oriented. They are used to using and modifying other people's creations to do things they need them to do.. it's not at all like software develoment were all this licensing on what you can and cannot do with a object is normal.
Software to them would be just another componant. Something to 'make work' and be done with it. As soon as that portion is done it's a race to put out the next fire. For them government regulatory compliance is what they are used to dealing with. Not licensing restrictions on stuff they soldier to their circuit boards.
What this press release illistrates is that even after all that have happenned they are still confused and still don't understand what the FSF is suing them for.
Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if they thought the letters and attempts at communication (earlier from pre-trial) from the copyright holders was confused with the standard 402 nigerian email scams and was dismissed by some secretary that barely knows what a mouse is, much less what busybox is. And thus everybody else that potentially had a clue didn't even know that people were starting to get pissed at them.
Posted Sep 27, 2007 8:56 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
On that site take the code that you used to compile the software for the firmware and stick it on there in a tarball or zip file or something like that. Have a new tarball/zip file for each new firmware revision you release.
Not just the changes or the original tarball, but what you actually used in the released product. The idea is that a person can recreate the licensed software themselves using that tarball.
Then, along with other documentation in your product, you supply a peice of paper or something equally accessable, that documents were the end user can obtain the source code.
Then that's it. From what I understand that will do nicely.
Another option would be to include the source code on a cdrom with the product and a written offer to supply the source code for anybody for any firmware revision on cdrom willing to pay for the very minimal cost of postage and the cdrom media.
Shouldn't be a big deal. 99.9% of your customers aren't going to give a shit either way.
(I am not a lawyer)
Posted Sep 28, 2007 6:03 UTC (Fri)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link]
While this may, in fact, satisfy most authors who release their code under the GPL, it technically does not satisfy the GPLv2 terms, which allow web distribution of the source ONLY if the distribution of the executable is also web-based. Otherwise you must either provide the source or provide an offer to provide the source on a distribution medium.
GPLv3 liberalizes this restriction - GPLv2 was written when broadband was less widely available.
Posted Sep 27, 2007 10:32 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
when you get something from a lawyer that you have to sign for and then don't respond to it in a timely manner it's hard to explain away as an honest mistake. (and note that the response doesn't need to be an answer to the accusation, it can be a simple "we've received this and are investigating, please give us until X to do so", the date proposed may not be accepted, but it's still far better then silence)
Posted Sep 24, 2007 14:52 UTC (Mon)
by arjan (subscriber, #36785)
[Link]
"Gives in"? This looks like just more stalling! "Monsoon will make modified BusyBox source code publiclyMonsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
available... <b>in the coming
weeks.</b>"<p>
Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Wow, did you have too much coffee this morning? This is actually good news as it is the first time the company has acknowledged it's obligations under the GPL and pledged to comply. This
Groklaw posting claims that Monsoon was stonewalling until the lawsuit was filed. Now they are finally pledging to take the correct action and respect the license.
Chill out..
it's called infringement
"Where do these companies get the idea that it's okay to release their binaries even a day before the source code? "Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Let's rephrase, then. Where do these companies get the idea that it's okay to release their binaries even a day before the source code _or_ the required written offer?Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Yes. If I recall the language correctly, the license does require that the offer to provide the source must "accompany" the binaries, which I would read as requiring the offer to be made simultaneously with delivery of the product containing the binaries.Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSo...Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Could you clarify what you intended the link to show? The quoted part of the GNU FAQ is just about cases where the binaries are distributed by FTP; in this case the binaries were distributed embedded in a device. More important, I believe it's an FAQ item specific to GPLv3 - GPLv2 (which I believe is the relevant license for BusyBox) had somewhat looser rules (rules that _allowed_ handling source distribution this way, but did not require it; GPLv3 requires it).Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Just that in some cases the option of the written offer is not really available (because a claim in a web site might not qualify a legally binding written offer, I suppose), and since that's how most GPLed software is distributed, I guess that means that the option of the written offer is the exception rather than the rule. So it's kind of easy to forget that this option exists, and not everyone who does remember it exists also knows of cases in which it is not available. Or something along these lines. It is indeed a distraction from the main discussion.Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Dear members of the free software community:Monsoon Multimedia responds on GPL
Senior Director of Program Management
Monsoon Multimedia
Monsoon Multimedia responds on GPL
Beleive me, people make honest mistakes. Failure to release code as per the GPL is one of them.Monsoon Multimedia responds on GPL
For future reference... in order to comply with the GPL, and generally, other open source licenses what you need to do is make a website or a ftp site or whatever. Monsoon Multimedia responds on GPL
"For future reference... in order to comply with the GPL, and generally, other open source licenses what you need to do is make a website or a ftp site or whatever."Monsoon Multimedia responds on GPL
not all of the pre-lawsuit communication was electronic, they sent the message on paper via fed-ex and the company rep signed for it.Monsoon Multimedia responds on GPL
"We hold back the source until we get sued" would be the wrong kind of behavior to encourage; I suspect Monsoon might not get off as easily as just posting the source code in a few weeks.Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL