Munich Court Again Enforces GPL 311
BrianWCarver writes "Despite earlier concerns reported on Slashdot that the GPL might be particularly difficult to enforce in Germany, that country's courts now hold the distinction of having enforced it twice. The first enforcement came in 2004 when Harald Welte of the netfilter/iptables core team sought to enjoin Sitecom from distributing its WL-122 router, which used netfilter's GPL'd code, without also providing the source code and a copy of the GPL, as that license requires. The Munich Court granted Welte a preliminary injunction and then upheld that injunction (Court's decision in English pdf) and now Sitecom provides the source code from their website. Welte, who also now runs gpl-violations.org to track GPL violations, and who personally handed over warning letters at Cebit to companies not in compliance with the GPL, reported on his blog today that he has obtained a new preliminary injunction enforcing the GPL, this time against Fortinet for distributing their firewall products (FortiGate and FortiWiFi) that include GPL'd code while Fortinet refuses to release the source. Congratulations again to Welte and his attorneys!"
So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers? In both cases, they're intellectual property violations.
Are we only for the idea of intellectual property when it applies to GPL authors? I mean, why should I follow the GPL anyway? I'm told in one situation that copyright is flawed and evil, and in the next I'm told to follow GPL copyright.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL developers suing people who steal their code out of compliance == someone taking something free and making it prohibitive.
There's a fundamental difference in that those stealing GPL code are stealing from EVERYONE, not just from the author.
Re:So, basically (Score:2, Insightful)
Several upmodded posts in the past have stated that intellectual property is a flawed concept, as is copyright.
I just wanted to point out that the GPL is based on both the idea of intellectual property and copyright. Yet the RIAA is demonized for protecting that property while GPL authors are championed for it.
Again, devil's advocate. I think these are valid issues to raise.
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm arguing why one is good and the other is bad.
This is a personal moral decision, not a legal statement.
The RIAA has every right in the legal world to sue these people, that doesn't make it "right".
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I see commercial music as not at all different from Microsoft software. Both are focused entirely on selling the largest volume through advertising and marketing. Neither are of much interest to me.
I wish the RIAA the greatest successes in stopping the music pirates - because this will create the opportunity for a Creative Commons licensed music industry in the exact same way Microsoft's absurd prices for commodities creates the Linux/MySQL opportunity..
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
Being Pro GPL
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
1:) are you sugesting Britney spears or metalica(since "and justice")have a single good song on these albums
2:) meet the http://creativecommons.org/ [creativecommons.org] , The Creative commons is your FSF for the Arts
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA SHOULD stop copyright infringers just as FOSS groups SHOULD stop GPL violations.
But the RIAA collects coinicidental evidence for high volumes of people and, without nearly enough proof, accuses them all of breaking the law. Yes, alot of them are violators. But everytime you hear "RIAA sues another 200 people" in the headlines at least a handful of them are let off because the accusations were so outlandish compared to reality.
These GPL enforcements are neither broad nor hasteful. These people do their research. They take a suspected GPL violation. Research it until it is a LIKELY GPL violation. Research it until they have PROOF that it is a violation. They then contact the infringer and file for an injunction after fulfilling every RESPONSIBILITY that the ACCUSER should be required to fulfill.
Is copying and sharing music illegal? In most cases yes!
Should perpetrators be stopped? Yes!
Does the same apply to GPL violators? Yes!
It's not a question of legality or right vs. wrong. It's a question of ethics in the quest to stop the violations.
Maybe thats just my $.02, someone "correct" me if they have a different opinion.
Re:So, basically (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people have the opinion that there should be no intellectual property law. That "information wants to be free". These people would happily feel morally justified for trading music, and complying with the GPL.
On the other hand, some people think everything they do should be kept a secret, or someone else will make money off of it also. So, they want to sue anyone who breaks their IP rights, and happily feel morally justified for using GPL code outside of compliance.
Both don't care for IP laws, it's obvious. Just the two have a different modivation. Here at slashdot, we're far closer to the first group than the second.
Of course, I can always break this down to speed laws, and marijuana use, too. People do it, despite it being against the law, they know it's against the law, and they still break it. But they don't personally *feel* like it should be against the law. So they fight that they shouldn't have to respect the law, because they don't agree with it.
Not how the world works. Personally, I respect IP law, I don't listen to music that I don't have a right to listen to, and neither do I share movies in the same way. My friends laugh at me for buying DVDs, and I laugh at them for sharing them.
Both of us feel good. I because I'm following the law, and them because they're not paying anything.
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't listen to music that I don't have a right to listen to
There's no such thing as music you don't have a right to listen to. There's music you don't have a right to copy. There's music you don't have a right to broadcast. But there is no music that you don't have the right to listen to. Copyright regulates copying and broadcasting, it does not regulate use.
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
If all moralities are equally valid in their own context, then (according to the contexts, ie copyright law, RIAA and GPL)
o not sharing music is valid in the music world
o sharing software is valid in the software world
What is actually stated here is:
o not sharing music is *invalid* in the music world
o sharing software is valid in the software world
To rephrase the first statement to remove the double negative:
o sharing music is valid in the mus
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez. I have to assume you have heard the FSF party line by now: "Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".
That's not the way I've ever heard or read it. I've always read it just like that, but without the last sentence. Because that doesn't make any damned sense; why would the absence of copyright law make the GPL unnecessary? I can see how it would make it unenforceable, but it seems to me that in a world without copyright law companies would easily be able to take free (GPL) software and distribute it binary-only without releasing their changes or the source. Which is to say, the GPL would still be necessary if you want to accomplish its goals......it's just that the necessity would be unfulfillable, and it would simply be impossible to do the things that the GPL does. Well, without hired goons.
Why? Because copyright is a good thing. It just needs to be used for the right purposes. Enforcing the GPL is one of them.
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Informative)
Well, because the primary thing the GPL wants you as the user to be able to have is the ability to modify and share. Without copyright, you would always be able to modify any software you had a copy of, and you would be free to share that software -- with or without your modifications -- with anyone you chose. So without copyright the primary rights the GPL grants to you would be available all the time. The case we have here of a company t
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
If I break the window to your car, hotwire it, and then leave it in the middle of downtown so that anyone else can drive it, too, I'm taking something prohibitive and making
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
One: In a free market, things are worth what people will pay for them. I could spend years painstakingly making a car out of matchsticks. My exorbitant time and effort costs would NOT mean that my idiotic matchstick car is worth more to anyone who just wants a car to drive down the shops. Similarly, artists can rant all they want about how much time and effort they put into some work.
Two: If you break a window of my car, take it downtown so anyone else can drive it, etc. - I don't hav
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, this tortured analogy comes up evry time. There are fundamental differences between real property and "intellectual" property. The two are not comparable. The former is diminished by sharing, while the latter is not. The former is covered by laws about real property while the latter is covered by (in this case) copyright law, which has no relation whatsoever to real property law. So leave your analogies about stolen cars, walking into my living room, and transferring money from my bank account to yours, because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Namely, if there's GPL code out there, you have access to the source code. Then someone takes your code, makes some modifications and does not release it GPL. Everyone has lost rights in this situation, as no one is now able to get the source code.
I'm not speaking of a legal prohibition against using it.
Re:So, basically (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all RIAA are pimps going around bullying people and collecting money. That being said the intellectual property is not that of RIAA but actual artists most of whom don't even hold rights to their own creation
On the other hand GPL software is a creation of group of hard working individuals with profit being the last intent. In my books its completely differet.
Re:So, basically... Would be interesting indeed... (Score:2)
Would it be offensive to mshaft and RIAA acolytes for disguntled employees to dissolve their IP/NDA duties in the face of clear theft of GPL code?
Even more interesting would be if some disgruntled employees who leak it do it such a manner that it survives the sure-to-follow "inadmissible evidence due to illegal seizure and release of i
Re:So, basically (Score:2, Insightful)
So the RIAA doesn't own it, and the artists don't have rights to it? I guess it would make sense that it's essentially in the public domain then.
But let's analyse that claim:
(1) The artists have no rights to the music.
(2) Because the artists own the music, the RIAA doesn't own the music, so they have no rights to the music.
Therefore (3), neither of them have rights t
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
In the case described by this article, a group of lawyers is attempting to enforce IP rights on behalf of its clients.
Sure, it's a huge oversimplification, but at least it's devoid of hyperbole!
-h-
Re:Sorry... (Score:2)
I don't see this analogy as being even close to accurate. Do you think an artist walks into a studio all by him/herself and magically pops out a CD in a few days? It doesn't happen. Whether you like the RIAA or not, there are many people involved in the production and distribution of a single CD. Since all of the entities involved are are paid for their services, record companies quite obviously can't just give it away. It costs real money to produce the music that many people see fit to steal.
Second, I ta
Not the same at all (Score:2)
Re:False Analogy (Score:2)
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing a filesharer sees from the RIAA is a C&D letter demanding money. Welte tells the infringing companies "We know you use GPLed code in your products you sell. Clean up your act or we will do more than just remind you about it.". At this time, there is no fine to pay if the company complies.
The company in question, Fortinet, ignored him and did what all scumbags do then: they tried to hide the GPL violations by obfuscation.
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not asking for money, we're asking for a simple compliance. What the hell is wrong with you that you'd rather spend money paying lawyers to defend your belief that you can take GPL code and use it how you please, than not pay a lawyer, keep your money, and just comply.
Some of these GPL violators have to be idiots, or have idiot lawyers.
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
Because some companies figure paying a lawyer $100K is worth it, when they can pull in $200K from their non-downloadable GPL-infringing product?
Just a guess, though.
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the GPL, since everyone would play nice and information would be free. In the real world, the GPL (and similar licenses) are a compromise that safeguard our freedoms.
Therein lies the difference. It is not hypocritical to be in favor of GPL but be against conventional copyright, since the root ideology is very different in the two cases. If it were merely a legal issue, then it would be hypocritical to favor one over the other. However it is not merely legal: it is a matter of ethics and wanting the world to be a certain way. Put more simply: I can be favor of law and order and civilized society in general, but still be against certain laws in particular. This is not hypocritical.
I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is.
You either support a creator's right to control how his creation is distributed, or you don't.
If you don't support this right, then the RIAA is wrong, and so are the people that try to enforce the GPL.
If you do support this right, then the RIAA is right, and so are the GPL enforcers.
Oh, and if you think "information would be free" in your ideal world... then you *don't* support the right of the author/artist t
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
He is not asking for money, he is simply asking them to comply with the GPL.
So yes both a IP violations but the method of enforcement is vastly different.
Free != free (Score:2)
As has been discussed many times, GPL is a "viral" licence that "infects" anything it is joined to. Bolt GPL onto other code and it must be, or become, GPL too.
What is interesting/confusing is that there are exceptions specified in the GPL FAQ (not that you have to consider this binding since it is not part of the GPL). For instance, it is OK
Re:Free != free (Score:3, Informative)
And this to the trolls that cry wolf (Score:2)
Re:So, basically (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure freedom. If it wern't for the possibility that someone monopolist would take free code and use it to make obscene profits, while at the same time making that code incompatible with the free versions, most of the "open source" or "free software" work would probably have been Public Domain instead.
The reason RMS devised the GPL was as a great way to subvert the system to force freedom.
The RIAA on the other hand is an immoral, corrupt organization that keeps artists poor, charges obscene prices for music, while using those profits to lobby congress to get themselves infinite copyright against the intent in the US constitution, and stamp out any competing form of music distribution. I don't see any moral comparison at all.
Here is an excellent article that might inform you on the subject.
New Arguments Against P2P: The Phony Moral Debate [typepad.com]
Are we only for the idea of intellectual property when it applies to GPL authors? I'm told in one situation that copyright is flawed and evil, and in the next I'm told to follow GPL copyright.
I am for the original intent of copyright and patents in the constitution. Not what they have been corrupted into by mega corporations. Again, the GPL wouldn't need to exist if it wern't for the misbehavior of corporations. Copyright in its present corrupted form is flawed and evil. You should follow the GPL because its purpose is to ensure freedom. Your freedom even. The GPL is to ensure YOUR freedom to use and study the code.
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
I create a piece of music and release it
Case 1: Joe Schmoo Downloads , sends it to a couple of freinds,This while not totaly upstanding is no big deal really and may make me some more sales as his freind hear it and go "hey this rocks , im off to buy the CD"
Case 2: Joe schmoo Downloads it , releases it as Joe Schmoo sings "piece of music"
and makes money off it whilst not giving me credit.
Basicaly The people downloading the music are not making money off of my work and giving not
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Max
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
First, this type of action follows the time-honored tradition of only enforcing copyright violations where people are profiting from their infringement...the RIAA's suits against incomeless teenagers sharing music for free, while legally permissable, are looked at as extremely sleazy by the general public, because, well, they're extremely sleazy. They are also pretty much unprecedented in U.S. copyri
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
Who says it's different? (Score:2)
Who is saying it's different? I don't have anything against the RIAA suing copyright violators. That's HOW you protect copyright. Same with the GPL, FSF and other attorneys need to sue violators who steal GPL code. There is no difference.
OTOH, Digital Restrictions Management is NOT how you enforce copyright. The principal of first sale is at work here and DRM TAKES AWAY consumer
Re:So, basically (Score:3, Insightful)
> How is this different from the RIAA going after its infringers?
> In both cases, they're intellectual property violations.
Not even close, although it will take a bit to explain.
First, "Intellectual Property" is an oxymoron, a term used by those that wish to to make copyright, patent and trademark laws even more restrictive, for the purpose of drawing analogues between ideas and physical property and advocate ownership of ideas that would somehow make thought and expression restrictions palatable.
Re:So, basically (Score:4, Insightful)
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It is not, as the RIAA and MPAA would have us believe, to protect artists against those who would steal the fruits of their labor. Copyright is a contract which defines a balance of power between creators and the public to promote the common good. It does not exist to protect profits and revenues that are derived form coincidental past inefficiencies in production and distribution which brings me to my second point. These organizations also seek legislative protection against new technologies which threaten their entrenched business models when it is clear that no compelling reason exists for the Congress to override the overwhelming public interest in the beneficial economic process of creative destruction to artificially shelter, through legislative Fiat, the existing firms from the discipline of the marketplace. I am not against copyright, nor am I anti-business, but I feel that organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are acting in bad faith to the detriment of us all when they seek to beat the marketplace into submission with the cudgel of draconian, un-American, and unconstitutional legislation.
Re:So, basically (Score:2)
mirror of pdf (Score:4, Informative)
The rest, you can find on your own.
Wait a second... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm all for GPL enforcement, but I'd just assume eat a copy of Windows XP before I'll congratulate an attorney.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:4, Informative)
I think you mean you'd just as soon eat a copy of Windows XP
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Attorneys not good or bad, but amoral. (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, they'll defend the worst torturing serial killer with the same aplomb and indifference as they'll defend the most innocent child. It's in the nature of the profession, to do their utmost for their clients with total clarity and detachment.
It sounds good, but unfortunately, this is also why they prosecute 11-year olds and grannies on behalf of the RIAA.
If you're looking for morals and socially beneficial conduct, attorneys and their related legal brethren would not be the best place to start looking. An attorney with a personal agenda to do good (or bad) would be a corrupt attorney, unable to perform his legal duties fairly.
Like Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
A while back I had to bonk heads with my local school district because they were not living up to their obligations under my IEP (I have Asperger's Syndrome). We got an attorney who specalized in IEP law. While there essentially enough time left in my schooling at High School (I was a Senior) for the full knock-down-drag out fight to get them to live up to the agreement (and we did not necessarily have enough proof to convince the judge - the official minutes and reports of th
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Cute "Dept" Tag (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Cute "Dept" Tag (Score:2)
*pop* goes the brain (Score:2, Funny)
Here they did something GOOD.
*head explodes*
Re:*pop* goes the brain (Score:2)
Re:*pop* goes the brain (Score:2)
You can spread your bread with one or You can stab someone
In other words lawyers are total Tools
Unfortunatly
Re:*pop* goes the brain (Score:2)
From the C|Net article [com.com]:
Huh.
Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't mind releasing source and contributing changes/improvements back to the community, you can use the code for free. But, if you want to create a closed-source/proprietary project, you can buy a license that allows it. MySQL does this [mysql.com].
The GPL does not create an anti-business environment in and of itself. It merely a licensing option that can be part of a portfolio of licensing options developers make available to those who want to use their code.
- Greg
Re:Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Before the naysayers say GPL is anti-business (Score:2)
MySQL does this.
As well as Trolltech (the outfit behind Qt).
This is perfectly legitimate. If you want to develop a closed source project, you can either negotiate with the copyright owner to get a separate commercial licence... or avoid GPLed code altogether (and use [, support, and create more] BSD-licensed code).
The rules are known in advance. If I started developing software using GPL code, I should know what I'm doing. It's as simple as that.
Companies who think they could get away with using G
Some interesting differences. (Score:5, Informative)
You know of a number of GPL'ed projects which distribute under the GPL or a proprietary [gnu.org] license. The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a commercial license because business is done under this license. GPL-covered works are distributed for a fee. The GPL is in no way anti-business. Ironically, I've pointed out some significant ways in which the open source movement fails to speak to business interests as well as free software speaks to all computer users (the open source definition ignores any requirement for private derivatives, for instance).
The free software movement does not want to be confused with the open source movement and the open source movement works hard to distance themselves from freedom talk. Please reconsider trying to conflate the real and important differences between the two movements [gnu.org]. The open source movement deserves far less credit than it receives with regard to the GNU GPL, considering they had nothing to do with writing it, building a community around it, and that the open source movement doesn't frame anything in terms of software freedom. Their work in bringing people to freedom is to be commended, but I think when associating a movement with the license (particularly in an article focusing on the license itself), it's important that we give credit to the FSF and associate it with the free software movement.
GPL, what is there to test? (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright infringement vs. breech of contract (Score:2)
IANAL, but this is basically the way to go. The GPL (or another license) is the ONLY hole through the copyright-wall, so to speak. Without license, you are infringing copyright.
BUT if you don't follow the license terms on the letter, does that automatically mean that you are infringing copyright? You may be violationg some kind of contract (user agreement, license agreement), which is something completely different.
Violating terms of an agreement or a license doesn't automatically voide that contract, u
Interpretation (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how the FUDmeisters at C|Net translate the exact same story:
Shadow over open sourcei ctory/2100-7344_3-5671209.html?tag=nefd.lede [com.com]
German court ruling halts shipments of one company's Linux wares; license spat could soon hit U.S
http://news.com.com/Linux+programmer+wins+legal+v
c|net changed the story? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interpretation--story author replies (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interpretation--story author replies (Score:4, Interesting)
It is refreshing to see this, even if it is unfortunate that the first headline was put in place and it may point to a need to review editorial workflow so that it doesn't happen in the future.
Re:Interpretation (Score:2)
Soft on violators? (Score:3, Interesting)
If it were my GPLed code, I think I'd tell during negotiations (well, demands) prior to legal action that if they publish the source now, they can continue, but if I have to take them to court, they'll be forever forbidden from using the code. (The GPL explicitly allows this strategy.)
Re:Soft on violators? (Score:2)
Where? I don't see any ban on use at all. In fact the GPL states that use of the code is not covered.
I don't see a perpetual ban on distribution either. Only that you may distribute it if you accept the terms of the license.
I think that means when you accept the license terms you may distribute it. I don't see how past behaviour is a factor.
Re:Soft on violators? (Score:3, Interesting)
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
OK, it is less explicit than I remembered. Your rights are terminated once you've violated the GPL. They do not automatically become restored if you belatedly come back into compliance.
I've read how the FSF has used this threat as a big stick
Re:Soft on violators? (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn pro-business GPL haters (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me be clear... the GPL is anti-bad business. GPL is pro-good business and pro consumer. And remember businesses are consumers too, the bad businesses are primarily the huge bureaucratic companies which turn out buggy lame software that doesn't always do what you expect it to do.
Now let me define what is bad business. Bad business consists of companies who do their best to create software libraries and intellectual property manifests with the sole purpose of maybe, possibly, making money. That information is sealed and protected so that in order to get at it, you have to pay someone for it.
This is based on the idea that companies have make something tangible to make money. Proprietary software is tangible enough to make money from the masses because they often buy it as tangible.
Big businesses build up this repetoire of "intellectual property" and sit on it for years. It's okay to benefit from a good idea, but copywrite laws these days take it too far. Copywritable material now has an age of 90 years, it used to be 20! Current copywrite laws therefore allow companies like disney to sit on their repetoire and continue to make money off it and don't encourage them to make new material. These businesses are not sensitive to consumer wants and needs, and stifle competition because having huge amounts of Intellectual property that no one else can ever touch is an unfair competitive advantage.
Customers who use GPL are forced to be more creative, because everyone has access to the same software! Consumers win because companies have to be more competitive. Microsoft can sit on their ass right now and say "You want an office package? Great, here's our package for $600 a person. What, you don't want to pay that price? Lick my ass n00b, you can't do shit without my software, we 0wnz j00r ass!"
Here's another way to look at it. Before the internet, most networks were proprietary. Closed off and not communicating with each other. Companies had their own networks, colleges has theirs, and some of them even tried to create VANs (value added networks) to perform EDI (electronic data interchange). Most of those attempts were novel but they sucked. When the internet came out, everyone was suddenly connected. Now EDI is easy, because as long as your computer is on the internet, I can build something that communicates with you seamlessly.
I believe I once read in an article that innovation is increased when you unbundle functions of a system. For example, if IBM owned the internet, and you had to pay a fee to use it, this would stifle innovation because not everyone would be able to or want to pay the fee. Think about the internet vs phone networks. Phone networks have features like call waiting and call blocking and voice mail and caller ID. However, phone networks can only be used for phone calls (without DSL of course). The internet is simply build on a protocol of information transfer from point a to point b, but it has unlimited uses. You can take phone calls over the internet now, and not use the phone network at all. what's even greater is that if you have 5 ISPs to chose from, you can take your VoIP to any of those ISPs and use it seamlessly, because each ISP implements a standard internet connection. They compete on service!
I'm getting off topic but it all has to do with competition. Competition has been lacking in the last several decades, because people think it's okay for big companies to hold big power. The GPL is simply taking current overly controlling law and turning it against itself by guarenteeing that information released under it is free.
Re:Damn pro-business GPL haters (Score:5, Funny)
We need more guys like Welte (Score:4, Informative)
"Without access to the underlying source code, Welte often has to work hard to find out if GPL software is used in a product. In Fortinet's case, the use of GPL software was unusually difficult to verify, because the company had encrypted it, Welte said. It took 40 hours of work to ferret out the information, he said."
And finally, the just reward.
"The court said Fortinet would have to pay a fine of five to 250,000 euros and that employees would face up to 6 months imprisonment for violation of the injunction. In addition, the company is responsible for Welte's legal fees. "
I can't wait to see more of these cases here in the US so that we can slowly build a nice stack of precedents that will serve to solidify even further the legal standing of the GPL.
Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s (Score:4, Informative)
DrewTech vs SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
DrewTech developed some GPL code, and SAE said that they owned it and refused to release the source, and were charging money for it.
SAE gave up on their claims of ownership and released the source.
I feel it's more of an issue of the SAE debating the origin of the code than actually contesting the GPL, though.
Re:Good news, but we need some US court rulings 1s (Score:2, Insightful)
SAE gave up on their claims of ownership and released the source.
But did this involve an actual penalty or ruling from the court or was it settled ex parte (and thus not belonging to the body of US law)?
And also, was this a district court, state supreme court, federal court (e.g. 7th), or federal appeals court?
Work For Hire ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Let us say Company A hires Developer B to come up with some data manipulation software, WidgetWare, for use inside Company A. If it works out, perhaps it will be repackaged and marketed.
Developer B immediately realizes WidgetWare is very similar to an abandoned GPL'd project from 3 years ago. Developer B, without Company A's knowledge, grabs the GPL'd code, makes lots of updates, then hands it over to Company A. Naturally the source is included, as it would be in a work for hire situation A
Re:Work For Hire ? (Score:2)
Company A is not complying, because they're releasing the code against the terms of the GPL.
Assuming Company B was in compliance of the GPL, they would have had to disclose to Company A that the code was licensed under the GPL, and then recommend that Company A read up one what the GPL means.
Functionally, it's difficult to prove that Company B didn't notify Company A of the GPL origins of t
Reason /. is so slow (Score:4, Funny)
First, someone needs to notice it, and get emotionally involved.
Next, someone needs to care enough to trade sexual favors.
Then, someone actually has to shag one of the
Finally, the article gets posted for all the
I've been to Munich! (Score:2, Funny)
I got drunk in Munich! (Score:2, Funny)
It's München you umbs (Score:2)
München in Bavarian? (Score:2)
If you knew German you'd know that ;)
Uhh... but Munich is in Bavaria. You may know a bit of German, yet be totally helpless when confronted with that strange bavarian dialect! :-)
A propos bavarian dialect: does anyone know of a bavarian "translation" of the (german translation of the) GPL?
Re:München in Bavarian? (Score:2)
Sometimes he'll post something on our guild forums, and I'll say, "Can someone translate that to German for me?"
Re:Mod ME up, I can TYPE Münich (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I live here (in MUC -- the city, not the airport). I'm not from here. See some of my earlier posts or the "journal".
Anyway, German courts are really screwy. A decision in one court does not necessarily influence another court at the same, higher or even lower level. Just because the high court in the state of Sachsen finds A, B and C, it doesn't mean that the Bavarian high court is bound to accept that as precedent.
Precedent don't mean dick here. Not even when the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, similar to SCOTUS) hands down a decision. It's kind of freaky, really.
woof.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sveasoft (Score:2)
Re:Preliminary Injunctions are not enforcement (Score:3, Informative)
Here [slashdot.org] you can find a Slashdot story about a German court ruling upholding an older injunction in a similar matter.
Now I'm not an expert on German law, but this sure sounds like a proper upholding in a trial to me.
Eternal Preliminary Injunction (Score:2)
Suing a company into following the GPL is tricky, since the company at any time could try to just say "Hey, look we just forgot to put the source code online, here is it". On the other hand, if they choose not to follow the GPL, there is no way to force them to do so except threatening to sue them for damages(!=following GPL) and getting an injunction.
Re:Preliminary Injunctions are not enforcement (Score:2)
Re:I am also curious .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is kind of ironic, actually. Since Welte didn't write initrd - he just bought the copyright from someone else's. In a way, it makes him like the SCO of the free software world.
(Of course he didn't actually "buy" the copyright with real money. I guess he bought it with magic smoke, or whatever it is that fuels the economy of the free software world.)
-a
Re:nice try (Score:2, Informative)
Re:nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is How Open Source Damages Business (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO is right. The GPL is FUNDAMENTALLY about attacking and destroying companies and their employees. Amazingly enough many people still fall for the GPL "freedom" lie.
GPL is a form of copyright, or rather a license to use some copyrighted code. If you do want to abide by the GPL you can write your own code, even if it does the exact same thing as code that is under the GPL license. Software patents on the other hand would prevent you from doing anything even remotely similar