SFLC Finds One New GPL Violation Per Day 187
eldavojohn writes "In July, the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) leveled the finger at Microsoft for a GPL violation but how often does this actually happen? Sunday, Brad M. Kuhn (tech director at the SFLC) stated in his blog that since August of 2009 he has been finding about one per day. So why is it that we have only covered a handful of these cases in the news? Brad offers sage wisdom; surprisingly, he recommends, 'Don't go public first. Back around late 1999, when I found my first GPL violation from scratch, I wanted to post it to every mailing list I could find and shame that company that failed to respect and cooperate with the software freedom community. I'm glad that I didn't do that, because I've since seen similar actions destroy the lines of communication with violators, and make resolution tougher.' Public shame is evidently not always the best answer. Ars has a few more details and notes that (in accordance with Brad's advice) lawsuits are usually a dead last resort."
Lets be civilized people. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oddly enough most companies even the Evil Microsoft will much rather fix the problem without having to fight it legally, and resolve the problem civilly. When you pre-poster aggressive towards your opponent they will do the same. And if you are Not for Profit organization and you opponent is a big multi-national company, you are going to be in for a big fight where if you were just to be polite and civil about it chances are you will get your objectives, they will quietly fix their problems and save face. Most of the time these GPL violations are not done deliberately but the GPL is a strict license and for a big company you will have people putting in things that they didn't even realize was wrong. Or worse say some GPL Code was cut as a segment for a help forum and was used from that. So yes they violated the code, they probably didn't mean too, if you are nice to them they will probably fix it. If you go all out and make yourself aggressive they will be aggressive too, and put you in a case even if you win you loose.
Going to court and going public (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really surprising that going to court and going public are really last resort sort of things. Court is expensive, and most people considering them to be a "roll of the dice". Actually negotiating with your counterparty in a contract dispute is always cheaper and more productive.
Going public, even after going to court, also sours the atmosphere, creating emotional contention that makes an actual agreement less likely. Look at out-of-court settlements with undisclosed terms and no party admitting fault. Once you get out of the public light, you can get people to sit down and discuss and actually come to a mutual agreement since the emotions have been toned down. If you're all fury and anger, you're not really in a position to negotiate someone into a corrective action.
Re:closed up (Score:5, Insightful)
open source project have violations too. Using someones patented ideas, calling a library that isn't GNU compatible. The program is performing a function that is illegal such as DRM disabling. That is why you need to be civil with dealing with people for violations. As chances are you have made a mistake and created a violation yourself.
Re:Behind the scenes or not (Score:2, Insightful)
I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.
Re:closed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Be civil and *document*. If it does come to court, your kind requests (in writing) to desist, as well as your flexibility in helping them identify and correct their violation will help make the case that you have taken the needed steps to protect your property without being an asshole. Their response, or lack thereof, will then be a building block in your case should it come to that.
Remember, civil court is usually just a judge and that judge may react somewhat differently if it is clear you are a jerk. While it is true that they may have to rule in your favor even if you are a jerk, they are unlikely to make it easy on you. There are many things judges can to to move things along that are at their discretion.
Treat every communication for violation as it it was going to be entered into evidence, but remember, court costs money and (more importantly) time. You are much better off if you are getting violators to comply without taking it to that level.
Re:Ah yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, another one of these stories. Expect to see some references to M$, people defending GPL and people advocating BSD. All in all, everyone will agree that respecting open source licenses is very important. Next thread, something about RIAA, same people demanding their right to download copyrighted music.
Pathetic.
Result of proper GPL usage: More software for the public to use.
Result of copyright abuse: Less content in the public domain.
One is about the world that is, the other is about the world that should be. What's pathetic is the lack of understanding you have of the people you're criticizing.
Lets be civilized -- Investigate before accussing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget, there might not be a problem in the first place. If you are looking around, and see someone else's GPL code in a proprietary product, make sure you find the original owner and talk to them before you go around shouting at the hill tops how evil the proprietary company is.
It is entirely possible that the code was appropriately licensed by the original owner. Just because something is GPL, does not mean that it can not also be licensed for a specific user, usually for money. Think Quake.
Even if the project itself is not licensed for their use, maybe whoever wrote that part of the project re-licensed their contribution to a proprietary company.
Re:closed up (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, and the problem is...?
Re:Behind the scenes or not (Score:1, Insightful)
Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?
Given that the GPL puts no restrictions on *use* you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Re:Behind the scenes or not (Score:5, Insightful)
May I advance a humble proposal that any post along the lines of "GPL is better than BSDL" or "BSDL is better than GPL" is modded Flamebait and/or Troll on sight? Personally, I'm sick of these endless and pointless fights over nothing, where arguments boil down to who is "more free", with either side persisting in the claim that their definition of "free" is the One and Only True Free.
Re:closed up (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been involved in an open source project (FreeBSD) for a long time. There have been a number of complaints about GPL violations in the past. These complaints are usually made in private. That helps a lot. Often times the compaints are wrong (The GPL code that was alleged to have been taken and improperly included in FreeBSD turned out to have been taken from BSD 4.4lite and incorporated into the GPL code was the worst example). There have also been cases where the same code appeared in drivers in multiple places. Again, that wasn't a GPL violation because both places took the code from a common data sheet. Sometimes supposed violations are cleaned up out of an abundance of caution: it isn't clear the code is improperly included, but the code in question is easy to rewrite and/or icky to start with.
There are also times where GPL code is improperly imported code from BSD as well. Even when these are found it isn't always worth it to complain. Sometimes the gain from complaining is so small that it is easier to just let the folks use the code and not worry too much about it. Sometimes having the code out there and improperly licensed is better than getting it removed from the code base.
In general, I've found that most people that aren't lawyers don't know the law or the provenance of the code very well. By complaining in private, you get a chance to learn a bit about both. You also give people a chance to make it right. With large open source projects, the chances for accidental mistakes are high. The projects are generally keen to avoid the mistakes in the first place, and even keener on making sure that they get ironed out after the facts. Turns out most companies have a similar view and will do the right thing when asked (but sometimes it takes a little time, which is OK: the GPL never said instantly on demand).
Of course, this begs the question about the validity of the License to use GPL software after a violation has occurred, the scope to which license is lost, how to get it back, etc. GPLv2 is silent on the issue, while GPLv3 gives you one shot to fix it (but that's likely insufficient for large companies that have multiple product lines done by disjoint sets of people all of whom aren't educated on the finer points of incorporating GPL software into their products).
Re:Behind the scenes or not (Score:3, Insightful)
They lose the freedom to tinker with what would have been open, whatever it was that the company theoretically closed.
If that's the component they're struggling to fix it could be all-important.
I found a minor bug in Rubygems the other day simply by reading the source. If it wasn't available I'd still be wondering what was supposed to happen and tweaking my code trying to make it work.
Solitaire doesn't run better just because it's open sourced so many users might not even notice, but the ones who poke around or fix anything would. It's the difference between a usable machine and one completely covered into anti-tampering epoxy.
Re:closed up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL is about fixing public domain. (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit.
First: He naturally has copyright on his fix. Not on your code. And that is true regardless of the license. He has the same copyright if the product is GPL licensed.
Second: Why can none of my users fix the bug? What makes the other person so special?
Third: I still have the code. Why can't I expand and improve that?
And here is a nightmare for you:
- A serious bug is discovered in your service application which is distributed under GPL.
- Somebody makes a fix AND COPYRIGHTS THAT FIX.
- You can't import import the fix to YOUR version because they guy isn't releasing the source. He is not forced to because he doesn't distribute the code. He just makes loads of money by offering a better service than your product.
Re:How is not using GPL'd code difficult? (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like other optional files in libavcodec are GPL'd, and apparently you wish they are LGPL or other more permissive license.
Simply not including those files in the package build would also work. I don't have any of them enabled in my system. I have no expectations about being able to use GPL'd code. If you'd read and understood my post, you'd have noted that I specifically said that I was not using these files, nor was I distributing them. The problem is not mine, it belongs to downstream distributors who find that the GPL has snuck in via the actions of another package maintainer.