BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 23:48 UTC (Tue) by fergal (guest, #602)
In reply to: BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw) by nix
Parent article: BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Something is fishy here.

Let's say I am the author. I have not authorized my work to be included in this TV. You have bought the TV in good faith from Westinghouse, who performed the illegal copying. Then I have no right to stop you using my work? That's what you appear to be saying.

I'm pretty sure I cannot legally use a proprietary OS that came pre-installed on a computer if the person who installed it had done so illegally.

BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 1:24 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link] (4 responses)

Your only recourse is through the courts. For cases of copyright infringement the court decides what the penalty is. It's often monetary damages. It does not necessarily include an injunction against selling the product.

IANAL, YMMV.

BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 7:48 UTC (Wed) by fergal (guest, #602) [Link] (3 responses)

The article specifically mentions an injunction. That said, I don't see what that has to do with it, we're talking about whether an end user could continue to use a TV set they had already bought if it contained illegally acquired software.

BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 9:33 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

I'd wager that it's up to the copyright holder. Given that they have the government-granted monopoly on copying their works, they could ask them to be destroyed (i.e. reset to a state where the copying hadn't happened).

Firmware's tricky, though; they don't have a right to the TV itself.

as always, ianal and tinla. ;)

BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 9:36 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

(given that this GPL'ed software, I'd bet that they'd allow the *users* to keep using, and probably put up (or have the defendants put up) a website with the source code and notify the users. Especially since this is the core of why the defendants are, well, defending. ;)

BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 10:30 UTC (Wed) by etienne (guest, #25256) [Link]

The problem in this kind of equipment, as usual, is that the software is not totally GPL - but a mix of GPL software and commercial software.
The manufacturer has signed a contract saying that they will never show the source code of the commercial software.
The manufacturer may have had the possibility to buy that commercial software with the right to redistribute source code in the past, but they did not do so because it was more expensive.
The manufacturer cannot release source code, so the GPL says the manufacturer cannot sell/distribute the equipment.
That is good in the short term because this manufacturer is not allowed to compete with another one doing The Right Thing (TM) even when it is more expensive.
That is good in the long term because the GPL community slowly see how to talk to new hardware to be able to write more drivers.
That is *only* good if there is a country where copyright laws are respected, this case gives more hope.