Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 19:12 UTC (Tue) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901)
In reply to: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement by rahulsundaram
Parent article: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

See Armijn's response below for some details in one case. It includes the right to bar shipment of any product produced by a company that the SFC feels does not meet it's compliance criteria. This includes for the SFC's interpretation of compliance for software other than busybox. It also includes products for which the company HAS produced correct versions of busybox source.

to post comments

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 21:56 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (6 responses)

So essentially the objection is that infringers don't get to go on infringing on other copyrights? Or exactly what mjg said it was?

And really - Sony coming out and saying that it's too hard to comply with copyrights? There is just no way that's anything other than rank stinking hypocrisy.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 20:35 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (5 responses)

NO.

It's that if the SFC *THINK* you are infringing, they can stop you shipping the product.

What happens if the SFC are mistaken? What comeback does the victim have? Especially if, all along, the victim has been acting in good faith?

THAT is the problem - the SFC (quite reasonably) wants to make sure there is no future infringement. But the victim doesn't want to risk a (quite possibly time sensitive) product being delayed.

So Rob's attitude of "let's provide a product that doesn't give rise to that risk" is a very pragmatic, and in the circumstances sensible, approach.

Cheers,
Wol

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 20:58 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (4 responses)

Do you think a Cisco or a Sony would stop shipping product just because of baseless threats from the little SFC when they can demonstrate license compliance.

> What comeback does the victim have?

Aside from the silly tactic of characterizing the company as being a victim I would say the comeback for a bogus infringement suit would be to take it to court and smack the crap out them for wasting everyones time. If the SFC tried this they would probably go out of business instantly.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 23:24 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, if the victim has been dropped in it by someone else, and made reasonable efforts to comply, then I *would* classify them as a victim.

Are YOU squeaky-clean absolutely-white in all your dealings?

At the end of the day, we all make mistakes, we all do things we shouldn't. And if, at the end of the day, some company decides that rewriting busybox is cheaper than risking a mistake, then they'll rewrite it.

That's my personal attitude to life as well - if I can, I *avoid* risk, I *avoid* temptation. Rob is seeking to provide a risk-free alternative, and Tim - whether on behalf of his employer or off his bat - sees it to his advantage to help.

At the end of the day, most Free Software people write software to scratch an itch. Rob and Tim are scratching their itch - who are we to complain?

Cheers,
Wol

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 2, 2012 2:32 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

I think calling large manufacturers "victims" when they are discovered to be engaged in copyright infringement and when the remedy is to comply with the very easy license terms is absurd, laughable. The whole purpose is to make license compliance easy and automatic while preserving reciprocity.

The "itch" that is being scratched here is the existence of the GPL and it's requirement for reciprocity. Many people are offended by the implicit assumption that enforcing the reciprocity terms of the GPL is a bad thing, that we should look other way if the offender is a big vendor. It's also offensive to suggest that the GPL is dangerous and that its license terms are too onerous or risky when that is clearly not true. There are many reasons to choose other licenses like BSD but I think in this case its not really a positive thing.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 3, 2012 19:18 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.

As Tim points out, they are a big company. They have hundreds of products that use linux. It only takes ONE supplier to make a mistake, and ALL of those products could be vetoed and off the market.

Yes I know Sony Entertainment and Sony Hardware are totally separate divisions, and the hardware side is tarred with the entertainment brush, but the fact appears to be that the hardware side want to play fair.

Let me use a footballing analogy. I have no qualms with a sending off for a deliberate foul (and indeed, think that that should be the *automatic* penalty!). But I DO have an issue with a player getting sent off for an innocent mistake - for example if the keeper is out of his area and gets hit on the arm by a ball he may not even have seen coming...! As I understand the rules, if your hand or arm makes contact then it's handball. And if a keeper commits handball it's an automatic red card. Why should the keeper get sent off for that?

THAT is Tim's point. One player makes a mistake, and the entire team cops a penalty. And THAT is why I'm quite happy to describe them as a victim. (Sony as a whole, well... I was one of the people who's PC was trashed by the rootkit, so they are on my "do not buy" list, but just because I don't like them is no reason to ignore them when they are victims of what I perceive as manifest unjustice!)

Cheers,
Wol

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 3, 2012 19:24 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

> It only takes ONE supplier to make a mistake, and ALL of those products could be vetoed and off the market.

I don't think that is a legitimate statement of risk although clearly some people believe it.

> I'm quite happy to describe them as a victim.

I think that to be a victim requires a the abuse of a power imbalance of the stronger against the weaker which is obviously the opposite as the described situation. That's just my opinion though and reasonable people could disagree.