Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal

Posted by kdawson on Fri May 09, 2008 08:01 AM
from the green-enveloope dept.
Government The Courts GNU is Not Unix News
l2718 writes "Yesterday we discussed Skype's appeal of a German court's ruling against them regarding a violation of the GPL. Harald Welte (the plaintiff) now reports in his blog that following oral argument, Skype decided to drop the appeal and accept the lower court ruling in Weite's favor. More details and analysis at Groklaw. Congratulations to Mr. Welte and GPL-violations.org!"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: GPL vs. Skype Back In Court 369 comments
mollyhackit writes "Hackaday reports that the GPL vs Skype case is going back to court today. This as an appeal to the court's decision Slashdot reported last July. The original case was brought against Skype for the Linux based SMC Skype WiFi phone. The court upheld the GPLv2 and decided that Skype had not gone far enough in meeting section 3 which details how to provide the original source. This time around Skype is apparently trying to argue that the GPL violates anti-trust regulations."
Submission: Skype gives up anti-GPL appeal by l2718 (514756)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Regarding the summary... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2008, @08:04AM (#23348816)
    Is his name Welte or Weite?

  • As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dekortage (697532) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:12AM (#23348874) Homepage

    "To all those who don't like the license: you don't have to use it. Just write your own code. But if you want to use GPL code, the license comes with it. It's a package deal. Thanks."

    (which has been oft-said on /.)

    • Re:As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by William Robinson (875390) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:26AM (#23348996)
      Absolutely

      Also,

      If a publisher wants to publish a book of an author that wants his book only to be published in a green envelope, then that might seem odd to you, but still you will have to do it as long as you want to publish the book and have no other agreement in place.

      It is freedom, in a way, that binds you with some responsibility. And how difficult it is for many people to understand.

      One does have freedom to choose not to drive on roads. But when you choose to drive on roads, there is binding of following certain traffic rules, for the benefit of all. And one must understand the logic behind those bindings.

      Go...Penguin ...Go...

      • Go...Penguin ...Go...

        Dude... you're Batman? [yimg.com]

      • Re:As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dekortage (697532) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:21AM (#23349662) Homepage

        It is freedom, in a way, that binds you with some responsibility. And how difficult it is for many people to understand.

        People often want to have authority without responsibility: let me do what I want, without having to pay attention to other people's terms, short- and long-term impact, etc. But if you want freedom from this responsibility, you must also give up the authority that requires it. You can try to fight it, but this always comes back in the end.

        • I agree with you right up to the point where you say "You can try to fight it, but this always comes back in the end."

          That is something I found out when I bought into a condo complex. Where I live the ruling council has enormous powers and very little legal responsibility. What little responsibility assigned to them by the relevant legislation is ignored at will because the only way to make them responsible is to take them to court. If there are N units in the complex they have (N-1)X funds to draw on to

  • What is the Software? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2008, @08:13AM (#23348888)
    What GPL'd software did Skype use and how was it discovered that Skype was using it?

    • Re:What is the Software? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tester (591) <.ac.retset. .ta. .retset.> on Friday May 09 2008, @09:15AM (#23349546) Homepage

      What GPL'd software did Skype use and how was it discovered that Skype was using it?
      The Linux kernel...

    • Re:What is the Software? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jimmypw (895344) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:21AM (#23349656)
      They took the open moko device and rebranded it as their own which was fair and legal. What they didnt do was make the source code available for those modifications which is required under section 3 of the GPL. They then packeged their item with a link to the source code but that didnt meet the terms of the license as only people with an internet connection can access it (its a skype device so wouldnt they have an internet conenction to A. Order one and B. Use it) They then claimed the GPL license violated anti-trust yesterday before giving up today.

      As for how it was discovered i'm not sure. Im guessing that as they complied with the rest of the agreement they left the copyright notice in.

      Glorious day

  • Two thoughts on this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stirz (839003) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:14AM (#23348890)
    This ist the first time, a foreign firm loses in a German court in a GPL-related case. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that it is not sufficient to offer the related sources only on the internet and mention this in a rather general way in the product manual.

    Go Harald :-)

    Regards

    Stirz

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by camperslo (704715)
      Let's hope other cases end with a similar outcome. Anyone up for tackling Visual Hub (OS X)?

      I believe that the same violation of the GPL is occurring with the software Visual Hub for the Mac. While the core program is a separate GUI frontend and it's source need not be provided, the work of this popular video conversion utility is done by ffmpeg with the related codecs and multiplexers. The single modified ffmpeg binary is downloaded separately from the same servers as Visual Hub. When Visual Hub downloa
    • ...it is not a loss. The case was abandoned, not ruled on, and this could be problematical. Rulings carry weight in future cases, actions by either party generally do not. If the judge had ruled Skype had violated GPL, in the appeal, it would have substantially boosted the GPL's legal status. As it is, only the original case law exists. Which may be sufficient, but more would likely have helped.

  • And thanks to skype too, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:26AM (#23349000) Homepage Journal
    for not being a prick and pushing the thing around like sco did.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dwiget001 (1073738)
      Uh, Skype was a prick.

      Had to be taken to court first by the copyright holder. Then, Skype appealed. Only *then*, when Skype saw that there appeal was pretty much doomed, did they cave.

      It would have been more *un-prick-like*, for them, when confronted by the copyright holder, to just have a little sit down and abided by the GPL right then. No court, no appeal, etc.

    • Re:And thanks to skype too, (Score:5, Funny)

      by R2.0 (532027) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:39AM (#23349896)
      Skype is owned by Ebay; prickdom is pretty much a given.
  • Stop me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to be roughly what happened....

    Skype ripped off some GPL code.
    After they got caught out, it went to court.
    After some months toing and froing, Skype lost a lower court settlement.
    Skype took it to a higher court.
    Later that day, the story appears on slashdot.
    The next day, Skype drops the case.

    Coincidence?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by achurch (201270)

      Skype ripped off some GPL code.
      After they got caught out, it went to court.
      After some months toing and froing, Skype lost a lower court settlement.
      Skype took it to a higher court.
      Later that day, the appeals judge slaps them down, hard.
      The next day, Skype drops the case.

      Fixed that for you.

      • Re:This is the story... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mr_mischief (456295) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:31AM (#23350704) Journal
        Did the slap down go along the lines of, "Well, since you believed the license which permitted you to make these copies to be invalid, each copy you made was intended to be a violation of the copyrights for this code. We could therefore start the settlement process by negotiating how many thousands of euros you'll pay per copy."?

        I think it really should go something like that. If you think a license in invalid, you're not allowed to use the code under that license. Therefore, you have no license under which to use the code. So if you use the code anyway, you're purposefully committing copyright violations, just the same as if the license is valid and you don't live up to its terms.

        Either way, they violated copyright. It's a damn poor argument to make that you thought you'd just use some code because you didn't think there was a valid license that gave you a right to use it.
        • I've posted elsewhere, so I can't mod you Insightful but I wish I could. The people who parrot Ballmer and complain about the "viral" nature of the GPL gloss over the fact that if the copyright holder didn't grant additional rights via the GPL, Skype would have no right to distribute the software. Copyright prevents it.
    • Later that day, the story appears on slashdot.

      No. By the time the story appeared on Slashdot, Skype's silly anti-trust claims had been dismissed by the judge, and they abandoned their appeal. In the /. article, someone posted a link to a German site which had the news already.

      Coincidence?

      It taking some time for the news to cross the language boundary, and still further time to show up on /., isn't very coincidental. ;)
  • This is not over. Until Ebay/skype make big contributions to open source, we will remember that they are the enemy of the free, and though they lost, have not repented.

    I know ebay treats the customers and seller poorly, but this shows what is really inside that corp. Nothing but greed.
    • Tell that to this Seal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      Just like real life if you're smaller and on the bottom, you're screwed. Fortunately that wasn't the case for the article's penguin.
      • Was it a male penguin at least? (French readers will understand...)

        The seal then alternated between resting on the penguin, and thrusting its pelvis, trying to insert itself, unsuccessfully.
        Hihi, Linux' security proves itself again against all kinds of intrusion attacks. But did the seal at least attempt to give the penguin a hickey? [luxtrust.lu]
    • Yes, dont be this guy. [bbc.co.uk]

    • Re:Important lesson: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:15AM (#23349552) Homepage

      Shouldn't that be "don't fuck with the GNU [gnu.org]"? I mean, I know people are hesitant to refer to the Free Software Foundation and use the term "open source" more often than "free software", but not referencing the GNU Project when talking about the GNU General Public License is pretty ridiculous. The penguin may have helped spread free software and all, but this isn't his fight.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by msebast (318695)
        The code in question is the Linux Kernel. So the penguin and the gnu are both relevant.

        • Re:Important lesson: (Score:4, Funny)

          by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday May 09 2008, @11:32AM (#23351658) Homepage
          So the penguin and the gnu are both relevant.

          That's right. It's a tag-team match. And Skype's partner was a brain damaged lawyer who thought anti-trust arguments were worth even mentioning. While Tux pummeled Skype, the Gnu snuck up on the lawyer from behind and bashed him with a folding chair.

    • Re:So, do we get source code now? (Score:5, Informative)

      by allthingscode (642676) on Friday May 09 2008, @09:21AM (#23349650)
      This means that you get to see whatever GPL'd code Skype was using, and if they made changes to that code, they are required to release them as well under the GPL. You don't have access under the GPL to any of their other code that does not meet these conditions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by multisync (218450)

      Well, it looks like business can no longer ignore and quietly use unlicensed software in supporting roles and they'll have to recognize it for what it is.

      Unlicensed software is a threat that will expose all of the work it touches it to outside scrutiny whether you want it or not. No longer can unlicensed code be relied upon to fill some small niche in a product environment. Whatever it touches, it taints. Instead, it will be necessary to re-invent these wheels. Poorly.

      It therefore immediately needs to be el

      • ...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it?

        Does all code have to have a license now?

        Just curious...

        • Re:This is a victory? (Score:4, Informative)

          by multisync (218450) on Friday May 09 2008, @10:54AM (#23351028) Journal

          ...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it


          IANAL, but I'll take a crack at that.

          In the US, whatever you create is copyrighted by default. I believe it is easier to defend if you take the step of registering it, but as far as I know simply putting a copyright notice on it is sufficient. So I couldn't come along and take the code you published and use it in a project I intend to distribute without getting your permission.

          "Getting your permission" is what abiding by the GPL amounts to. It says "this code is copyrighted. You may not redistribute it unless you agree to these terms ..."

          Unlike Microsoft-style EULAs, the GPL (as far as I know) does not have to be accepted by the user, as it really has nothing to do with the user (despite the fact that a lot of software out there makes you "accept" the GPL before installing it). You don't need to agree to anything to use emacs to write your novel, but if you want to include it in a software distribution, or use the source code within a project you are developing yourself, you need to get the permission of the copyright holder and agree to his terms. That means abiding by the GPL.

          • In the US,
            Ok, interesting, but what about the rest of the world.

            Are the rules at least similar to what you describe?

            I mean, it does kind of sound like there is no such thing as 'unlicensed software' from your description.

            Ah, perhaps the previous poster meant something along the lines of 'unlicensed use' of software, or 'use of the software that is not compliant with the license'.

            Am I right?
            • The poster you were replying to was referring to using software either without obtaining a license or using it outside of the terms of that license.

              The only way you can have "unlicensed software" the way you're talking about it (as in, there's no license that applies) would be for the original author to decleare it public domain. Possibly also when the copyright expires, but that's pretty unlikely with software!
              • I see, yes. I misunderstood.

                I wonder what happens to software published in countries that don't have software patents. I guess copyright still applies?

                What about countries that don't even have copyright? Can people from countries that *do* still use it?

            • Ok, interesting, but what about the rest of the world.

              I suppose you would have to look at the applicable laws in the country you want to distribute the software in.

              In some places the author of the work may have to take steps to explicitly copyright it. If he failed to do so, that may limit his ability to seek legal remedies if you decided to redistribute his work, or use it in a project of your own.

              I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. What exactly do you mean when you ask "is there no such thi

              • I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

                I think you do understand what I was getting at. I'm really asking, 'What does it take to release something completely?'. I guess my natural inclination is to assume that this is the default state and that it only changes when I am informed otherwise. If I were to publish something on the web, I would assume anyone could use it for whatever purpose they wanted - if I didn't want that, I would put some license up with it.

                However, it seems I am incorrect, and that to release something completely, I need to d

                • I think you do understand what I was getting at.

                  I guess what I should have said is you question implies that a license is a means of limiting what a person may do with a piece of software, when in fact it grants additional rights - at least in the case of the GPL. The limiting factor is copyright law.

                  I blame Microsoft and others who have used "End User License Agreements" to attempt to impose further restrictions on how their software is used by the purchaser beyond the restrictions against distribution tha

        • ...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it?

          If you just post some code without saying anything about licensing, copyright, granting permissions, etc. then people should assume they don't have permission to distribute it. It may be difficult for you to enforce, but someone would be an idiot to just assume it was there for the taking. If you want to distribute some code that is published on a website like that, you should contact t
          • If you just post some code without saying anything about licensing, copyright, granting permissions, etc. then people should assume they don't have permission to distribute it. It may be difficult for you to enforce, but someone would be an idiot to just assume it was there for the taking.

            I have a question about that; I quite often browse the net for code samples. There are thousands of sites that people have posted "How to build a sample Direct3D application" or "How to access a parallel port" or what

            • I have a question about that; I quite often browse the net for code samples. There are thousands of sites that people have posted "How to build a sample Direct3D application" or "How to access a parallel port" or whatnot. Sample code is presented, sometimes full (generally simple) programs, but no license is declared at all. I'm sure that as a practical matter, it's pretty safe to use those code snippets, because nobody will ever know or care. But legally, is code that has been freely published as training material, free without restrictions for those being trained to use?

              The first problem is that you don't know the origin of the code, so that is a certain risk. For example, I could run programming courses, using lots of examples that are all copyrighted in my course. If a student takes these examples and publishes them on a website, there is an obvious legal problem if you download it. I don't think that for your private use this is a big risk, unless there were signs of copyright infringement that a reasonable person should have noticed.

              For your real question: It seem

        • ...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it?

          Technically, yes. Everything on the Internet -- including this post -- is copyrighted, unless the copyright holder explicitly releases it to the Public Domain. The only thing that might give you the right to download this to your computer (thereby making a copy) as you just did is the implied permission I gave by posting it. This implied permission is not likely to extend to further dupl

    • Yes, you're absolutely correct. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday May 09 2008, @01:38PM (#23353306) Homepage
      You know what? I was going to try to tell you how wrong you were, and how you basically don't have any idea what you are talking about (or you do, so you know how to make sure everything you say is wrong).

      But you know what? That's stupid. I'm not going to argue. You're right. You're absolutely right, the GPL will corrupt your code, your people, and your family. You will have to open source your bedroom activities, and invite RMS to watch. It's all true.

      Because, frankly, I'm sick of companies who are too dumb to figure it out themselves, or too fucking retarded to hire the cheapest lawyer they can find to explain it to them if they can't figure it out for themselves, what exactly the GPL does and doesn't do. Cus if you can't figure it out, and are going to just assume whatever comes into your crack-damage brain (it'll pollute us all! no wait it's free we can do whatever we want!)... Then I don't want you using GPL code.

      I mean seriously. If you can't figure out how maybe modifying the Linux kernel into your product means you have some obligations to follow vis-a-vis this free OS kernel you just picked up, and how this doesn't affect all the code you wrote that has nothing to do with the kernel... Then you are an idiot, your company deserves to fail, and I can only hope that your fear of using GPL software puts you at a competitive disadvantage and thus hastens that day.

      So yes. GPL is viral. Pass it on.
      • See how long you can get by without gcc. Even the iPhone relies on gcc.

        The compiler simply converts code from one format (C) to another (object code) - the GPL doesn't contain any clauses regarding the output. gcc _does_ include some of its library code within the resulting object code though, but the licence explicitly states that the GPL does not apply to this.

        So no, just compiling something with gcc does not mean you have to GPL it. As always, read the licence agreements for the software you use in you

        • The compiler simply converts code from one format (C) to another (object code) - the GPL doesn't contain any clauses regarding the output. gcc _does_ include some of its library code within the resulting object code though, but the licence explicitly states that the GPL does not apply to this.

          More accurately, the code that is included within the resulting object code is glibc, which is covered by the LGPL, not the GPL. No part of gcc proper goes into the resulting binary.

          But yes, the GPL does explicitly s
    • I'm wondering what happens now too.

      It seemed that they were actually offering to distribute the code they had changed, so I don't think the code is all that interesting. This ruling is more about how the code was offered - kind of petty in an important kind of way.

      Is compliance the only outcome, or is some fine involved (other than lawyer's fees)? If so, where does the money go?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.