Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal 123
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!"
Regarding the summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regarding the summary... (Score:4, Funny)
Waite, let's see wate the article says... hmm, it's Welte. How svelte!
Re:Regarding the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Important lesson: (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Important lesson: (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Oh, this is going to be in the computer news tabloid rags for weeks! The drama!
Re: (Score:2)
Ballmer would never stoop to throwing some measly cheap-ass metal folding chair. That would be like General MacArthur using Red Ryder wagons as armored cavalry and Roman Candles as artillery. No, CEO Monkeyboy only uses high-priced adjustable office chairs as ordinance.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you're not referring to svelte oak, leather upholstered executive chairs?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, he'd probably love those.
Also, there are some seriously heavy office chairs, like those made by Steelcase.
I'm sure Ballmer picks MS' chair vendors based on their suitability as weapons. He probably only buys Aerons for when he wants to express only minor dissatisfaction.
As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Informative)
"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)
Also,
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... you're Batman? [yimg.com]
Re:As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
But the traffic rules are made by our elected representatives; the GPL is made by Richard Stallman.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"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 /.)
And those who don't like restrictive copyright on music: you don't have to listen to it. Just write your own songs. But if you want to listen to copyrighted music, the restrictions come with it. It's a package deal.
(Not-so-oft-said on /. )
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But yes, there is a big difference between the GPL and regular/default copyright. The GPL tends to protect the rights of people like me; straight copyright tends to protect rich publishers. But my original post still applies: if you don't like the license, don't use the product. Of course most of us are only familiar with copyrighted music, so
So, do we get source code now? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:So, do we get source code now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
But the source code is not required to be available to anyone. Skype only has to make the source available to people who have the rebranded open moko phone. Of course, it is perfectly legal for those people to redistribute the source to anybody else and Skype cannot stop them.
Re: (Score:1)
I may be wrong but I believe that if you distribute the source code with the binary that you don't have to make it available to everyone else but that if you only distribute an offer than it has to be available to everyone.
Also, in this case, I believe that the code was available but the claimant wanted Skype to provide adequate notice (as demanded by the GPL) and that Skype wanted to provide only a URL and no mention of the GPL and the rights that came with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Does this allow reverse-engineering of the skype protocol?
It means that Skype used someone's code w/o a license. According to the law, that person is entitled to some compensation. Neither the GPL nor the law specifies that this compensation must be in the form of source code. The GPL is not viral. It does not force anyone to give up their source code, even people that infringe upon it.
IMHO, it would be very fitting to demand compensation in the form of source code and release that source code under
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the first remedy is to get an order forcing Skype to stop distributing the non-GPL-compliant package!
Then to request the court to order Skype to compensate for the damage.
This would normally be in the form of $$$ paid. Forcing Skype to release source code they don't want to release would be a highly unusual/unique remedy, unlikely, unless Skype does that as part of a settlement agreement
If they have source they don't want to release: they would argue that being forced to release it causes ir
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.secdev.org/conf/skype_BHEU06.handout.pdf [secdev.org]
What is the Software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is the Software? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What is the Software? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:What is the Software? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If they wanted to be complete dicks about it, they could charge a $50 distribution fee and only offer a printed copy by snail mail. Wouldn't that be legit w/ the GPL?
Is there another issue?
Re: (Score:1)
If they wanted to be complete dicks about it, they could charge a $50 distribution fee and only offer a printed copy by snail mail. Wouldn't that be legit w/ the GPL?
I think that it might be OK (50$ may be hard to justify) but then they'd have to put a procedure in place to provide the service. That would probably cost them more than the bandwidth. Also, being a dick doesn't do much good to your corporate image.
Also, I think they were already providing a URL. The problem was that they weren't informing their customers of their rights with regards to the GPL. If they offered a mail service, they would still have to provide this information.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would have incited Harald, if true, since he worked on that platform. But it's without the cellular chip, I guess, and bigger, and clunkier.
Bruce
Two thoughts on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Harald
Regards
Stirz
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The GPL is usually the only thing giving you permission to make copies of someone else's copyrighted work (unless your use constitutes Fair Dealing or you have separately-negotiated permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent); t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
In a sense... (Score:2)
And thanks to skype too, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just listened better, when the judge told them to STOP being a prick.
I am very disappointed with Skype, myself.
What might skype do now... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
This isn't about the Skype client (Score:2)
This is the story... (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But yes if it is "if you want to use the code to this compiler".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Coincidence?
It taking some time for the news to cross the language boundary, and still further time to show up on
Skype/Ebay we won't forget (Score:2)
I know ebay treats the customers and seller poorly, but this shows what is really inside that corp. Nothing but greed.
Sigh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, we're talking about copyright infringement here, not theft. Just because the music industry seems to get them mixed up doesn't mean we should follow suit...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Does all code have to have a license now?
Just curious...
Re:This is a victory? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Yes (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what copyright treaties they and your country are a party to. This List of parties to international copyright treaties [wikipedia.org] but you will get a quicker overview of the situation by looking at this map [wikipedia.org] showing countries that are parties of Berne Convention. The blue ones are. There is a link on that page to the wikipedia article on the Berne Convention.
Answer: If what you want to use is from a co
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I think others have also explained this, but just to make crystal clear, at least in Berne Convention countries, this is totally dead wrong. Everything you create -- including your Slashdot posts, for instance -- fall under copyright protection automatically, without you having to do anything (post a copyright notice, register them with the Copyright Office, etc.). In the case of your Slashdot posts, or things on the Internet generally, your use of the medium involves giving other people permission to re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, come on. Don't shy away from the fighting words. This is Slashdot — a forum, where not a week without an (accepted) submission from somebody calling themselves "IDontBelieveInImaginaryProperty", and where somebody else (NewYorkCountryLawyer) is often seen rationalizing away violations of intellectual property rights — mostly on the basis, that it is not exactly the same as theft...
The vast Slashdot hyp
Re: (Score:2)
The submissions by NewYorkCountryLawyer tend to illuminate abuses of the legal process on the part of attorneys and investigators working on behalf of the RIAA. Regardless of how you feel about copyright, and whether or not you feel ideas are the same thing as physical property and should be treated as such, I would hope we all can agree that evidence should be gathered in a legal manner by people who are properly licensed to do so in the place t
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that is simply not true. All of his submissions — and discussion-board arguments — show perfectly explicit opinion, that **AA's very premise is wrong — not just their methods, but their goals of enforcing their (intellectual) property rights are bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody were to copy music and release an album and claims that they wrote and performed it, thus denying the original author the credit, then it would be equivalent.
Conversely if somebody complained because a person copied a GPL program from one machine to another then it would be equivalent.
Technically the GPL is violated ALL THE TIME, millions of times a day. For instance a bittorrent client is violating it, as it likely
Re: (Score:2)
* violating the wishes of software creators â" bad (unless the creator is a big corporationy corporation);
* violating the wishes of music creators â" Ok, free muzak!
Creators of anything have the right to impose their wishes on other people to the extent of the law. This is fine.
For example, the Linux kernel is a copyrighted work (actually: large collection of copyrighted works) and you are not allowed to distribute it without being granted
just TRY to not use gcc (Score:1, Insightful)
Tell me about how all thos iPhone apps are infected.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
While glibc indeed gets linked in, too, gcc itself contains some support code which also gets linked into the executable. That code is not part of the compiler proper, but part of the gcc distribution (unlike glibc, which is a separate project).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you're absolutely correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
I was actually really amazed that Skype was doing this... (I mean, how dumb can you be ?) They lost the case last year, and now they argued that the whole GPL is invalid... It sounds more like a 5-year old not getting what he wants and then making a scene... Luckily the judge ' convinced' them.... Good work !
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's true that the GPL is a broken licence that makes open source less useful for business - you have to accept that some people are going to want to charge money for software and that's a legitimate thing. Why should software be so different from other forms of labor that it should be immune from being paid for? (Yes I know that GPL'd stuff can be sold but no one can make a profit without exclusivity). I'm sure most people who contribute to open source don't even particularly like G
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be arguing that most people wouldn't have contributed to free software if they weren't arm-twisted into doing so by the viral licensing terms. I don't think that is the case. Of course one should ideally test t