GNU General Public License considered very strong, still not challenged in
court
,----[ Quote ]
| You sometimes hear people trying to dismiss the GNU General Public License,
| the most popular of the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) licenses,
| as being unenforceable. While there is a long list of companies that have
| been alleged to infringe the license, none of these companies seem to agree
| this license is unenforceable and opt to settle out of court rather than
| challenge the license.
|
| [...]
|
| Please remember this fact when you hear people trying to dismiss the GPL as
| unenforceable. Some very large and successful companies have been accused of
| infringing the GPL, and they have all opted to comply with the license rather
| than challenge it. I believe they companies understand how enforceable the
| GPL is, and recognize they could not win against it in court.
`----
http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/insights/2008/03/18/gnu-general-public-license-considered-very-strong-still-not-challenged-in-court/
http://tinyurl.com/3aqdl6
Software Freedom: More Than Copyright
,----[ Quote ]
| What would be in these two new definitions? Both would need to define what
| promotes software freedom and how it can be protected. Both would need to be
| pragmatically principled.
|
| * An Open Source Patent Definition would do for patents what the OS(C)D
| does for copyrights. I've posted a lot on this subject before, notably in
| Protecting Developers from Patents and Ten Reasons The World Needs Patent
| Covenants, so I'd go mining there for my contributions to the discussion.
| But it may also be that in addition there needs to be a call for patent
| law reform, maybe as I outlined in Seven Patent Reforms While We Wait For
| Nirvana.
| * When it comes to an Open Source Trademark Definition, we would need to
| similarly define the signs that a developer or user needs to know whether
| software freedom is being promoted in a trademark policy. I've not
| written about this yet, but I do believe we need to collectively
| understand the bounds trademark law places on people who have
| responsibility for trademarks (read: all developers and open source
| communities as well as all vendors). We then need to construct a path
| that promotes software freedom without placing impossible demands on
| trademark owners to behave in ways that are contrary to their
| responsibilities.
|
| This is not easy stuff. But I do believe that certain recent events between
| the open and proprietary software worlds mean that it's time for software
| freedom fighters to get together and work on these things. I'm ready to work
| on it. What do you say, Michael?
`----
http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/answering_michael
Related:
Biggest legal victory ever for GPL
,----[ Quote ]
| For decades, almost no one challenged the General Public License in legal
| matters. In fact, no one has even dared to try to break it in court. That
| record remains unsullied as the biggest company to date--Verizon--that had
| been accused of a GPL violation opted to settle out of court.
`----
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2614635569.html
Another GPL Lawsuit is Settled
,----[ Quote ]
| Third lawsuit over open source license violations is now closed. This time,
| it's a 'learning experience.'
`----
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3732511/BusyBox+Settles+Another+GPL+Lawsuit.htm
BusyBox and Xterasys Settle GPL Lawsuit
,----[ Quote ]
| BusyBox has just successfully settled its GPL ligitation against Xterasys.
| Xterasys has agreed to stop all binary distribution of BusyBox until the
| Software Freedom Law Center confirms that it has published complete source
| code on its web site.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071217142920618
BusyBox Developers, SFLC Sue Verizon for GPL Infringement
,----[ Quote
| The same two principal developers already successfully sued Monsoon Media,
| and they have litigation pending against Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain
| Antennas, LLC. Here is the press release from the Software Freedom Law Center
| on the Verizon suit, followed by the complaint as text.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007120713435029
Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement
,----[ Quote ]
| According to the SFLC, Verizon can be added to the list of companies
| infringing on the GPL. They filed a lawsuit in New York yesterday (pdf)
| alleging that the company is handing out routers using the GPL'd
| software 'BusyBox' without accompanying source code.
`----
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217&from=rss
Second Round of GPL Infringement Lawsuits Filed on Behalf of BusyBox Developers
,----[ Quote ]
| The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two
| more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of its clients, two principal
| developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License
| (GPL). The defendants in the lawsuits are Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain
| Antennas, LLC. BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities
| commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under
| GPL version 2.
`----
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/nov/20/busybox/
Is the Monsoon settlement a missed opportunity?
,----[ Quote ]
| Certainly more was hoped for from the first US GPL lawsuit. “This case is
| very important because it will establish what type of remedies (either
| contract or copyright) are available to licensors for breach of the GPLv2,”
| wrote Mark Radcliffe at the time the complaint was filed.
|
| However, for those looking for legal precedent, all may not be lost. “Stay
| tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here in
| the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL,” notes Haislmaier.
`----
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2007/10/31/is-the-monsoon-settlement-a-missed-opportunity/
Do Microsoft's EULAs have any real legal basis?
,----[ Quote ]
| "Microsoft has no special exemption from the sale of goods act." Well,
| no, probably not - but it might still be selling you "services"
| instead of "goods". But the real point to remember is that it doesn't
| matter a jot what the "logical" position is, it is what the courts
| decide that matters.
|
| As far as I know, no one has tested Microsoft's EULAs in a UK court
| and, until someone does, Microsoft will just go on assuming that they
| work. And I don't fancy the risk of taking on Microsoft's expensive
| lawyers in court myself...
`----
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/04/25/microsoft_eula/
BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit
,----[ Quote ]
| The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
| announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
| lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox.
`----
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/oct/30/busybox-monsoon-settlement/
And Just Like That, The Games End — First Ever GPL Lawsuit Dismissed
,----[ Quote ]
| In the agreement to dismiss the lawsuit, the SFLC is reporting that Monsoon
| Multimedia has agreed to appoint an “Open Source Compliance Officer” within
| its organization “to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source
| code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its web site,
| and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox
| from Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL.
|
| [...]
|
| Stay tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here
| in the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL.
`----
http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/and-just-like-that-the-games-end-first-ever-gpl-lawsuit-dismissed/
SFLC: Setting Legal Precedent Not the Goal of GPL Case
,----[ Quote ]
| Software Freedom Law Center co-founder Dan Ravicher says the Center’s
| copyright infringement case against Monsoon Multimedia on behalf of the
| creators of BusyBox is not about setting legal precedent for the use and
| interpretation of the GNU General Public License.
`----
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=241
GPL defenders say: See you in court
,----[ Quote ]
| The license also requires anyone distributing GPL software, in an executable
| form that a computer can run, to make the complete source code available. One
| example: Cisco Systems subsidiary Linksys, which shares the GPL software
| used in its wireless networking equipment.
`----
http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-say-See-you-in-court/2100-7344_3-6210837.html
First U.S. GPL lawsuit heads for quick settlement
,----[ Quote ]
| The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick
| out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had
| violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will
| release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license.
`----
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html
New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations
,----[ Quote ]
| "A paper to be presented at the upcoming academic conference Automated
| Software Engineering describes a new method to detect code theft and could be
| used to detect GPL violations in particular. While the co-called birthmarking
| method is demonstrated for Java, it is general enough to work for other
| languages as well..."
`----
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/25/1648253&from=rss
German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
,----[ Quote ]
| German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
| the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
| out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
`----
http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/german-court-convicted-skype-of-violating-the-gpl/#comment-27057
German GPL defender claims legal victory
,----[ Quote ]
| Open-source programmer Harald Welte said Thursday he won a civil court
| case in Germany centered on the General Public License (GPL). The license
| governs many open-source projects and permits anyone to use software
| covered by it, but requires that companies incorporating GPL software
| make the underlying source code available.
`----
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6113453.html?part=rss&tag=6113453&subj=news
gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link
,----[ Quote ]
| D-Link Germany GmbH, a subsidiary of D-Link Corporation, Taiwan R.O.C.,
| distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage (NAS) device which uses a
| Linux-based Operating System. However, this distribution was incompliant
| with the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers the Linux Kernel and
| many other software programs used in the product.
`----
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
Wallace's Appeal Firmly Rejected - GPL Has Nothing to Fear [pdf]
,----[ Quote ]
| PJ: "Just so you know, Daniel Wallace's appeal of the ruling
| against him in his pro se quest to overthrow the GPL on antitrust
| grounds, one of SCO's daydreams too, has been firmly rejected by
| the appeals court, as I knew it would be."
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceAppealRejected.pdf
Would Dostoevsky Use the GPL?
,----[ Quote ]
| I get nervous whenever large software shops talk up the virtues of a license
| with fewer protections of developer and user rights. In the linked articles
| above, there is talk of permissive licenses being the path of least
| resistance, with the premise that it's "easier" to gravitate towards them. My
| question is - easier for whom? Easier for the developers or easier for the
| companies who wish to make use of it without those annoying obligations to
| the greater free software ecosystem? As is often mentioned by others smarter
| than me, a scenario where developers gravitate towards permissive licenses
| makes it easier for companies to avoid community reciprocity.
`----
http://tinosc.blogspot.com/2007/09/would-dostoevsky-use-gpl.html
|
|
