Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government GNU is Not Unix News Your Rights Online

Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal 123

Posted by kdawson from the green-enveloope dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal More

Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal

Comments Filter:

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

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

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

    by Dekortage ( 697532 ) on Friday May 09, 2008 @09:12AM (#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 @09:26AM (#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...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sm62704 ( 957197 )
        Go...Penguin ...Go...

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

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

        by Dekortage ( 697532 ) on Friday May 09, 2008 @10:21AM (#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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Have Brain Will Rent ( 1031664 )

          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

      • 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.

        But the traffic rules are made by our elected representatives; the GPL is made by Richard Stallman.

      • Go...Penguin ...Go...
        I'm all for supporting the topic but I absolutely must point out the faux pass on blaming any penguins for the GPL.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Chris Burkhardt ( 613953 )

      "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)

        by pxc ( 938367 )
        It's not the same kind of restriction. The restrictions you just mentioned are restrictions on users. The GPL does the opposite: it restricts distributors to protect the freedom of users. It would be more like "If you want to derive works from copyrighted music, the restrictions come with it."
        • Sort of. In context of a GNU GPL'd work, all distributors are users of the upstream source (and all users are potential distributors). There's not a clear distinction.

          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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does this allow reverse-engineering of the skype protocol?

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

      by allthingscode ( 642676 ) on Friday May 09, 2008 @10:21AM (#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:2, Informative)

        by infinite8s ( 106243 )

        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)

          by agbinfo ( 186523 )

          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.

    • 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)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        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)

      by aliquis ( 678370 )
      Part of the work have already been done here if you are intrested:
      http://www.secdev.org/conf/skype_BHEU06.handout.pdf [secdev.org]

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2008 @09:13AM (#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 ) <olivier.crete@oc ... .ca minus author> on Friday May 09, 2008 @10:15AM (#23349546) Homepage

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

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What GPL'd software did Skype use and how was it discovered that Skype was using it?
      The case is about a GPL violation of Skype, related to their sales of Wifi Skype phones based on the Linux operating system kernel.

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

      by jimmypw ( 895344 ) on Friday May 09, 2008 @10:21AM (#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

      • Re:What is the Software? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Daengbo ( 523424 ) <daengbo@gmail. c o m> on Friday May 09, 2008 @10:44AM (#23349976) Homepage Journal
        When they supplied a link, it didn't meet the licensing terms because they still didn't notify the receiver of his right to redistribute.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I can't believe they're getting nailed for providing a download link as the only distribution means.

        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)

          by agbinfo ( 186523 )

          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)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) *
        It's really an Open Moko design?

        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)

    by stirz ( 839003 ) on Friday May 09, 2008 @09:14AM (#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:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It doesn't have to be accompanied by the Source Code, but it does have to be accompanied by the text of the GPL -- which explicitly states that you are entitled to the Source Code and if you didn't find it included with the software, then you need only ask for it.

      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)

      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

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What steps should one follow to insure that the Visual Hub developer complies with the GPL?
        Tell gpl-violations.org about your concerns and see what they think.
    • ...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 @09:26AM (#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 @10:39AM (#23349896)
      Skype is owned by Ebay; prickdom is pretty much a given.
    • I'm sorry, I must have misheard you. Which part of Skype trying to claim that the GPL violates antitrust statutes doesn't sound like "being a prick"?

      They just listened better, when the judge told them to STOP being a prick.

      I am very disappointed with Skype, myself.
  • One option is remove GPL'ed code and use some closed source code. Other option: what if they release the code under GPL. Does this mean I can use it to make my own application for Skype network. what happens to the proprietary Skype protocol ?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dwater ( 72834 )
      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?
    • Skype used an embedded Linux operating system in a mobile phone device. The GPL applies to the Linux kernel and the system utilities they used, not to the proprietary Skype software (e.g. the client) that they also installed on the device. It's ok for the device to have both GPL'd software (Linux) and non-GPL'd software (the Skype client). The problem is that they didn't obey the GPL regarding Linux, by not advising the customers that about their rights regarding the free software on the device. At no p
  • 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 @11:31AM (#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.
        • You have no license to redistribute the code. Copyright says nothing about use (but personal usage in this case would be pretty useless).
          • Yeah I think it's safe to say that when someone says the word "use" in the context of code, like "if you want to use this code", that the implied "use" is of a kind that would in fact be a copyright violation.
    • 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.
  • And the forces of legalistic pedantry march on...

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close