Allnet GmbH resolves iptables GPL violation

[Posted February 17, 2004 by corbet]

From:		Harald Welte <laforge-AT-netfilter.org>
To:		coreteam-AT-netfilter.org
Subject:		PRESS RELEASE: netfilter/iptables announces out-of-cort settlement with Allnet GmbH
Date:		Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:47:21 +0100

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
---------------------
Of interest to editors and journalists covering: Linux, Free Software, Open
Source, Wireless Networks, Network Security

NETFILTER/IPTABLES PROJECT REACHES OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT ON THE INFRINGEMENT
OF THEIR COPYRIGHT BY ALLNET GMBH

BERLIN, Germany - Feb. 17, 2004 -- The netfilter/iptables project
(http://www.netfilter.org/) announces out-of-court settlement with Allnet GmbH
(http://www.allnet.de/) on Allnet's infringing use of copyrighted material.

Allnet was offering two products, a wireless access router and a load-balancing
DSL router, both including software developed by the netfilter/iptables
project.

However, Allnet did not fulfill the obligations of the GNU General
Public License covering the netfilter/iptables software.  Specifically,
Allnet did not make any source code offering or include the GPL license
terms with their products.

Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and inform its
customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL.  It will
further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products
without adhering to the GPL.

"We are very happy with the cooperative manner of Allnet in which this issue
 was resolved and an amicable agreement reached", 
notes Harald Welte, the Chairman of the Netfilter Core Team.

As part of the aggreement, Allnet will make a significant donation to
two tax-exempt non-for-profit organizations established under german
law: 
The Free Software Foundation Europe (http://www.fsfeurope.org/), and the 
Foundation of a Free Information Infrastructure (http://www.ffii.org/).  

About the netfilter/iptables project

The netfilter/iptables project provides state-of-the-art network
security software for Linux firewalling, packet filter and network
address translation (NAT), distributed as Free Software under the terms
of the GNU General Public License.  Being part of the linux operating
system kernel, the software is running on virtually every Linux installation.

For more information on the project or the software, visit
http://www.netfilter.org/

About ALLNET GmbH
 
Allnet GmbH is manufacturer and distributor of networking equipment, including
switches, routers, NICs and wireless adapters.

Media contact:
Harald Welte
Phone: +49-30-24033902
Email: laforge@netfilter.org
-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

Question

Posted Feb 17, 2004 18:56 UTC (Tue) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link] (7 responses)

If the equipment were leased, not sold, would the source code need to be reavealed?

Question

Posted Feb 17, 2004 19:27 UTC (Tue) by Zelatrix (guest, #5163) [Link] (4 responses)

Yes.

The GPL is a licence to reproduce a copyrighted work. Without accepting the GPL, Allnet didn't have the right to make multiple copies of the iptables code.

You can't run off a few hundred copies of a copyrighted work and distribute them, whether you're selling or leasing.

ObIANAL

Question

Posted Feb 17, 2004 20:33 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] (3 responses)

[loose quoting.]
>> If the equipment were leased, not sold, would it violate the GPL?
> Yes.. You can't run off copies and distribute them.

OTOH, the GPL DOES allow for internal distribution within a company,
without publishing source or any mods used in the internal build. Leased
equipment still belongs to the company and may be held to be internal
distribution and thus exempt. IANAL, but that's getting close enough to
borderline that I'd be a bit doubtful.

It'd be interesting to see Professor M's (sorry, won't attempt to spell it from
memory, but the FSF's lawyer dude..) take on that specific question, and he
might have addressed it somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Even then, I
believe it'd take a series of court verdicts to establish and confirm precedent
and know for sure.

Duncan

Question

Posted Feb 17, 2004 23:56 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] (1 responses)

You cannot lease or rent a piece of code without permision from the
copyright holder. The GPL does not allow leasing or renting code.
The only authorisation is about distributing it.

So they have no other options than _giving_ the software as
part of the leasing, and then they are bound by the source code
obligation toward the recipient.

Question

Posted Feb 20, 2004 9:55 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

Good explanation. Thanks!

Duncan

Question

Posted Feb 18, 2004 20:44 UTC (Wed) by remijnj (guest, #5838) [Link]

It'd be interesting to see Professor M's (sorry, won't attempt to spell it from memory, but the FSF's lawyer dude..)
That would be Eben Moglen.

Question

Posted Feb 17, 2004 22:10 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (1 responses)

They must accept the GPL in order to duplicate it beyond fair use of a copy provided by a distributor, regardless of what they do with it. They therefore would have to reveal the source. On the other hand, it is not entirely obvious to whom they have to reveal the code. The GPL says (3, 3b):

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
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

It therefore comes down to a question of to whom you are distributing the object code when you lease a piece of equipment to someone. If you are not distributing it to the user, then you only have to offer yourself the source (although if Allnet sells devices to ISPs to rent to ISP customers, they have to give the code to the ISPs). However, I think you are, in fact, considered to be distributing something if you rent it to someone.

The thing about internal use of modified GPL software is that you have to distribute the source, but you don't have to distribute it to anyone but yourself, so it doesn't matter much. (You never have to distribute source to the general public, but people generally find it easier than distributing it only to the necessary people, who can then distribute it more widely anyway).

Question

Posted Feb 18, 2004 1:10 UTC (Wed) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link]

If you go for solution 3a) of the GPL (shipping source together with binaries), then you don't have to ship it to anybody else.

However, if you go for 3b) (the written offer approach), then you have to ship the sources to any 3rd party.

Enforcement

Posted Feb 18, 2004 9:37 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Now, this looks like GPL enforcement to me. Someone, somewhere said that GPL is unenforceable...

He, he, gotta love that donation bit :-) Looks a lot like damages in a real copyright infringement case. Whadayanow, GPL might be enforceable after all ;-)