FSF Files Suit Against Cisco For GPL Violations 409
Brett Smith writes "This morning the Free Software Foundation filed suit against Cisco for violations of the GPL and LGPL. There's a blog post with background about the case. The full complaint is available too." The short version, as excerpted by reader byolinux, is that "in the course of distributing various products under the Linksys brand Cisco has violated the licenses of many programs on which the FSF holds copyright, including GCC, binutils, and the GNU C Library. In doing so, Cisco has denied its users their right to share and modify the software."
Re:This is why copyright laws are bad (Score:0, Insightful)
Though there is an element of truth to it. I'd argue that BSD and the like are more "free" then GPL.
Re:This is why copyright laws are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD and the like are more "free" for the developer / manufacturer while GPL is more "free" for the user / recipient of the software.
Which license that is more free depends on whose freedom one is concerned about.
Re:I am conflicted. (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Cisco / Linksys set themselves up for a fall here. If they wanted code they could just rip off and use whilst largely ignoring the license, why on earth didn't they just use BSD code? These are large companies, presumably they have lawyers. But they're acting like some kid who downloads an image from Google Image Search and uses it on their webpage - "I downloaded it off the web for free so I can just use it right?"
Re:Hypocrisy in action (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! You'd almost think there are several people writing comments!
Re:This is why copyright laws are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong.
The BSD licence allows a developer to incorporate code into a proprietary project which may very well NOT be free (in any sense of the word) to use and which may well be under a licence (EULA) that very much covers use.
This is not to say that the BSD licence is flawed in any way, BTW: just that you're wrong and that the stated difference between the GPL and BSD licences is correct.
Not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not exactly "put some code on the web for download."
If you mean that Linksys/Cisco could have avoided this at any time in the past five years by releasing the code, you are probably right. The FSF is easy to get along with. It is anybody's guess what they need to offer the FSF now to make it go away.
Discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
The existence of this kind of discussion (regardless who has the reason) is what scares a lot to many managers that are not interested (or are not able) to get the correct-freedom-flavor philosophy, so they end avoiding free software as a whole....
In their minds, everything, if free, has a catch... well, the catch is that legalese with the freedom concept, that after a long time can return and "destroy" (that is, force to open your code) the competitive advantage secrets or whatever is called.
I'm really not sure at the end what approach will provide more benefits to the users, the developers, the proprietary software enterprises (yes, they pay the checks for a lot of people), or humanity as a whole.
Re:This is why copyright laws are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it, the free software community is just another company. We use each other's work, just like members of a company usually can, provided we agree on the ground rules. We work for communal benefit.
So let me ask you: If I get access to the windows source code via a contract (copyright) with Microsoft, should I be able to take Microsoft's work and sell it for personal profit? This is of course absurd. I see it as equally absurd that other companies should be able to take the open source community's work for free. They get the binaries and sources under a contract, they can follow it or their rights terminate.
A better example: Someone wrote a library that does something I want, and will license it to me for like $5 per copy for use in my software. Does this give me the right to take it for free (assuming I can) because I don't want to raise my product's prices to cover the increased cost? No. I can either accept their terms or not.
Of course I also don't buy all this omfg "free software good, bad software bad" crap. We're a company that works for its own interest, plain and simple. Just one that produces products far more to my liking, far more intuitive to my (granted, odd) mind, and far more useful in my line of work (CS research)
Re:This is why copyright laws are bad (Score:2, Insightful)
If I'm a developer and I receive a binary I want to modify, which helps me more? The BSD license or GPL? Under the BSD license there may be no way for me to get the code and make the necessary modifications. Under the GPL, I am entitled to the code. Point: GPL.
"Oh Jeez, not this shit again!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with that, but we don't need to hear it over and over and over again. Can't we just find an old subthread on the subject and link to that instead?
Re:It's about time (Score:0, Insightful)
...this has come about mostly because of Cisco's dedication to using as much H1-B/L1 labor as possible. It's been those guys who have mostly (not entirely) done this work in order to get things done quickly.
It sounds like you are trying to make foreigners the scapegoat for Cisco's unprofessional practices. This is completely unfair. Cisco should have in place proper processes for clarifying the licenses of the various software components they use. Trying to scapegoat one group of people based on them not being from USA is ridiculous and small minded.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
They can be forced to stop distributing their products, they can be sued for damages, but under no circumstance can they be forced to turn over code-- though that might be the easiest way to settle the lawsuit.
And also the easiest way to stay in business. If you wind up as a large scale GPL violator then the only sane option is likely to be releasing the code. If it's basically a choice between not distributing the code and going out of business or releasing the code and hoping it's all OK then a company can only really do the latter.
That's fine for hardware companies like Cisco and Nokia who mainly derive value from their hardware but I'm sure it'd kill a proprietary software company.
Re:This is why copyright laws are bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're joking, but you could just as easily say that copyright law is stifling innovation by preventing small, independent inventors from using the work of large American corporations without contributing in kind -- the law works both ways.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
That's fine for hardware companies like Cisco [...] who mainly derive value from their hardware
I was more under the impression that Cisco's business model was more like a software company that happens to sell expensive hardware dongles.
Re:Hypocrisy in action (Score:4, Insightful)
"Slashdotters" want the software to be freely distributed, freely used, and freely modified. Corporations use copyright to prevent that, so Slashdotters are against them. The FSF uses copyright to promote that, so Slashdotters support it. That's not hypocritical at all: in all cases Slashdotters are trying to work towards the same goal. You only thought it was hypocritical because you weren't looking at the whole issue.
Re:FSF lawsuit could make GPL to risky. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
Would it? How about compared to a similar scenario where they based their product on unlicensed proprietary software?
With the unlicensed GPL software they have one more option, so they're strictly less screwed than if it were unlicensed proprietary software.
Re:Am I mistaken? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now try that with a Siemens router... clearly running Linux, yet they go to even less effort than Linksys to comply with the license (which is to say, getting source is impossible). Why is Linksys in trouble while Siemens gets ignored?
Re:It's about time (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because its gpl doesnt mean that releasing the code NOW fixes your violations in the past.
That would provide zero incentive for any company to release there gpl additions untill they get caught.
Re:Am I mistaken? (Score:1, Insightful)
Cause the FSF with its limited resources can only focus on litigating one costly major case at a time? If it wins against Cisco and collect damages, then it can go after other big name violators. However, as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the FSF would prefer compliance with the license over litigation. For all you know, the FSF may be in negotiation with Siemens right now.
It's the FSF's first lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco.
I know you're just trying to be funny, but what's worth noticing is that this is the FSF's first lawsuit:
[...] Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF. "In the fifteen years we've spent enforcing our licenses, we've never gone to court before. We have always managed to get the companies we have worked with to take their obligations seriously.
Isn't that interesting? I'm not sure whether Cisco decided to call the FSF's bluff or whether they have some other thinking behind their decisions; but I know that this is going to be interesting to watch.
IIRC, the GPL has been upheld in court before, so (depending on the details of Cisco's actions) the FSF is probably in a good position to win.
It's shorthand (Score:3, Insightful)
The title of the article is erroneous.
Not if "GPL violation" is a common shorthand for "infringement of copyright in a work ordinarily distributed under the GNU General Public License".
Re:Be patient... (Score:2, Insightful)
They went back to VxWorks. Their claim is it's smaller, so they can put smaller (cheaper) flash chips, and less RAM in the systems. But I seriously doubt the cost savings amounts to what they have to pay Wind River in licensing.
Both OpenWRT and DD-WRT produce fully opensource firmwares for a number of systems, including the crippled 54g v5+. All of my linksys toys run dd-wrt (well, except the uber-ancient WAP11, but it's just an atmel microcontroller with a PCMCIA wireless card bolted to it.)
Re:Cisco still pirated (Score:1, Insightful)
Cisco still pirated
If the allegations are true, then they really are pirates in that they committed widespread unauthorized commercial distribution of copyrighted software for profit.
There, fixed it for you.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. I actually *do* work at Cisco, and we are all required to take lengthy open source training that teaches us about the GPL, LGPL, and BSD licenses. Cisco is taking this very seriously.
The saying "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" comes to mind.
Cisco is not some evil corporation trying to piss off GPL people, contrary to 90% of the comments on here.
There are, what, 40k engineers at Cisco? They have many products and it is hard to keep every engineer from pasting some GPL code into their project.
Cisco is very proactive about this. As I said, we are required to take lengthy training and be quizzed on it.
Also, Cisco has Linux kernel contributers (on my team) on the payroll--so we certainly give back.
FSF need to seek damages, not just compliance (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand FSF wants to be the good guys,they have principles and ethics, but Cisco is fighting from a different rulebook, one where the winner is the one with the most money, not the highest morals.
The only way Cisco and other similar companies will accept defeat is you beat them on their own turf, playing by their own rules. That means take their money, as much as you can get.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why people keep repeating this.
A judge has it within his or her power to order the release of source code under the GPL, if he or she determines that it would be the best way to remedy the problem.
If it's a large amount of GPL code, and the plaintiff is willing to accept the GPL release as a resolution to the dispute, there's no reason a judge wouldn't issue an order like that.
I suppose the company could still refuse to release the code, but judges have pretty broad contempt of court powers, so there could conceivably be a "release the code GPL, or you can sit in jail until it's released" order issued.
Re:RTFC: (Complaint) FSF IS seeking damages (Score:3, Insightful)