Slashdot Log In
Settlement Reached in Verizon GPL Violation Suit
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Mar 17, 2008 04:30 PM
from the lifetime-of-clicking-i-agree-on-licenses-brought-to-a-halt dept.
from the lifetime-of-clicking-i-agree-on-licenses-brought-to-a-halt dept.
eldavojohn writes "A settlement has been reached in the Verizon GPLv2 violation suit. The now famous BusyBox developers, Erick Andersen and Rob Landley, will receive an undisclosed sum from subcontractor Actiontec Electronics. 'Actiontec supplied Verizon with wireless routers for its FiOS broadband service that use an open source program called BusyBox. BusyBox developers Andersen and Landley in December sued Verizon -- claiming that the usage violated terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Verizon Being Sued for GPL Infringement 195 comments
darthcamaro writes "According to the SFLC, Verizon can be added to the list of companies infringing on the GPL. They filed a lawsuit in New York yesterday (pdf) alleging that the company is handing out routers using the GPL'd software 'BusyBox' without accompanying source code. Today the SFLC spoke to the media to lay out its case: 'The legal action against Verizon come as the fourth action that the SFLC has undertaken this year on behalf of BusyBox on GPL issues. The GPL is a reciprocal license that requires users of GPL-protected technology to make their source code available to end-users. To date, the SFLC has settled with one defendant out of court. Two actions, facing Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, are ongoing and Ravicher said he's optimistic about negotiations resulting in a resolution with each.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Cha-ching! (Score:5, Funny)
WOW (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really (Score:2)
Second, the costs for MS and even real times OSs are damn expensive on a per box basis.
Finally, it seems odd that neither company took care of this. For what was required was pretty minor, that is publish the source code.
Actually the software was free (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Actually the software was free (Score:5, Funny)
How does source code horde?
I have this image of millions of angry lines of code rampaging across the steppings, raping and pillaging peaceful programs, stealing their output and burning their execution platforms.
Oh, right. You meant "hoarding the source code". Sorry, my bad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually the software was free (Score:5, Funny)
Thats odd. Thats exactly what it says on the Windows ME warranty disclaimer.
Parent
Re:Actually the software was free (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure, but we know from experience that it's very difficult to get it to hurd.
Parent
Re:WOW (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a little disappointed . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah well. I'm sure that there were other details that were equally important in determining the outcome.
Re:I'm a little disappointed . . . (Score:4, Informative)
On a separate note, I just had to Digg [digg.com] this one. The more ways the news can get out about this, the better off the community as a whole is, and it increases visibility for the validity of the GPL. After all, if the case had no merit, why would a megacorp like Verizon settle? These stories need more exposure.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm a little disappointed . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure -- a lot of us would like to see the certainty (well, some certainty, anyhow) that a precedent would set, but I can't think of a single FOSS developer who is in it for the litigation. Harald Welte, the founder of gpl-violations.org, has stated several times that as important as it has been for him to address violations of the GPL, he really wants to get back to developing software, not spending time with lawyers and courtrooms.
Besides, we're the "good guys" -- even if it looks like a company should have known better, and even if it's pretty much a given that the company did know better (and is just trying to get away with not releasing source code), then we need to keep on taking the moral high ground and try to resolve the issue in a settlement out of court. At the end of the day, what most FOSS software developers want is to be recognized for their work and to have people respect the terms of the license under which they released their code.
If a company keeps on committing violations time and time again, then sure -- give ESR and RMS their swords and wish them Happy Hacking -- but otherwise, deal with the underlying gpl violation issue, and move on.
Parent
Re:I'm a little disappointed . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
in current Copyright law. It's a derivative works license. The royalty owed for the derivative work
you produce from the original protected work is to allow YOUR derivations to be available under the
same license and to provide an offer of the source code for any derivatives or mere copies of the
protected work.
Don't comply with the royalty arrangement, the agreement is invalidated. If you're not operating
under an agreement with the original works providers (in toto) you're guilty of the act of Infringement,
which is actionable just as if you'd illegally duplicated thousands upon thousands of Brittney's latest
album (though why anyone in their right mind would want to DO that is beyond me...
And, that is what you keep seeing here. People caught with their hand in the cookie jar, breaking
Copyright law and capitulating instead of facing the much worse penalties which are typically involved
with such a breach of law.
You don't NEED the GPL to be "validated", each settlement of this scope and scale (especially THIS one,
if you think long and hard about it...)- have already DONE so.
Parent
So how much was it? (Score:2)
Mixed Victory (Score:2)
Anyway, I wonder if this is a good thing for PR. If companies point to this to be even more reluctant to adopt F/OSS solutions, and make subcontractors indemnify themselves, and basically make everybody CTheirA even more tightly, it will likely be a bad thing for everybody involved; Open Source Software gets less support from the mainstream, services cost more (because of all that R&D pour
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Victory (Score:4, Insightful)
If a company can't have someone look over a license to see if they want to accept it, then they probably shouldn't be using GPLd code.
Or do companies just blindly accept any sort of contract you send their way?
This also means that if a company wants to release code under the GPL, there is some precedent for enforcing it against someone else that uses the code without releasing their changes.
Parent
Re:Mixed Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mixed Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
All they had to do was publish and make available the source code. they told them basically to go to hell, we dont have to do anything we are bigger than you.
The FSF forced the big bully to give them money because the big bully acted like asshats and refused to abide.
If it reduces the use of GPL code and apps in companies that like to act illegally or above the law, I see it as a good thing.
Parent
Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Now this pisses me off. Anderson you AIN'T GOT FULL COPYRIGHT OF BUSYBOX. I handled it for 2 years prior to you and Perens wrote the original. (And might I add I warned you about improperly changing copyright notices back then.)
Did you even bother to contact Perens on this?
If you sued to get them to abide by the GPL, that's one thing. But a personal payout without consideration for the other developers involved? Hell no...
Re:Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, were you a plaintiff in this suit? Did you make the effort of building the evidence and starting the fight against such a Big Scary Entity as Verizon?
Seriously, give us your part of the story. All of it.
Parent
Re:Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called, "Sour Grapes". He didn't think to get himself added to the list of litigants or viewed the whole process with disdain and didn't
get to be part of it. Now that they're settling with PART of the Copyright holders (Here's the key thing there- doesn't matter WHO does the
filing so long as they have standing. Sorry Diesel Dave, they had Standing, just like you did.) he's pissed off he wasn't in on the whole deal.
You may not LIKE it, Diesel Dave, but they bothered to litigate- YOU didn't. You all have Standing to sue the hell out of the Infringers.
Keep in mind, though, Actiontec settled the infringement matter with THEM, but not YOU unless you tacitly chose to allow them to do so.
Perhaps you can sue them too... It certainly wouldn't be the first time for a Legal "dogpile" on someone who was guilty of Infringement.
Also keep in mind that they actually brought the matter to the point of an actual trial being filed against them for Infringement- I would
consider it a matter that they pay SOMETHING back to me and possibly the community at large after the cute games they played. You don't
get to just publish stuff when you play the "I'm bigger than you are, go to Hell!" card on something like this.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no, it's not. The phrase "Sour Grapes" refers to one of Aesop's Fables, in which a Fox, unable to get his mitts on some nice, juicy grapes, grumbles that the grapes look sour. You've used a false analogy, because Diesel Dave isn't speculating that the reward wasn't worthwhile (sour). He's pissed off because he wasn't able to enjoy any himself, and therefore doesn't want Anderson and Landley to enjoy their winnings. That's more like the Dog in the Manger, a story abou
Re:Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you trying to suggest that a single contributor to an open source project can't sue for violation of their copyright?
If you want a cut, file your own lawsuit against Verizon.. you shouldn't have any trouble getting a settlement nor that Erick and Rob have done the hard work for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If Anderson and Landley claimed that busybox was 100% theirs, and its not, sue them for misrepresenting their copyright claims. There are substantial penalties for this. There might also be a case against Verizon for "receiving stolen property"?
2) If Anderson and Landley told Verizon they did not own 100% of busybox, write to Verizon and ask them to pay you your x%. A pretty good precedent has been set by their payout to Anderson and Landley. Perhaps someone should tra
Re:Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/4929/contributors [ohloh.net]
Parent
Re:Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The people involved Erik, Rob, SFLC have all donated much of their time over the years to advance the cause, im sure its about the principle, not the money.
2) They are enforcing the license, its been abused for years, its painful work and they are enforce it, successfully, its an important step in corporations to get past.
3) Getting the infringing company to pay _someone_ is the only punishment that might change their behavior, companies like this care more about the bottom line than they do about ethics.
4) Its not free money, the case has been going for months, and im sure they spent a lot of time on it.
5) SFLC was involved, im sure they have a lot of costs, and my guess is they got some of the settlement too.
6) Erik and Rob can enforce their contributions to busybox without requiring agreement from other copyright holders, the SFLC wouldnt stand by and let them do anything unethical.
7) Best not to jump and down about free money unless you know how much it is.
Having to pay an "undisclosed sum" to every open source coder they they have wronged must scare the crap out the corporate laweryers who are all to happy to roll the dice and advise a strategy of "do what we like until we get caught, then expect forgiveness".
If this news gets around, corporate lawyers might even take the time to read the GPL.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or
Shut the fuck up, you whining pile of horse shit.
Re:Andersen and Landley - You don't have copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. Shut up. If you own part of the copyright, go sue verison yourself. See if you too can't get a nice share of it all. If you don't, you're part of the problem - not the solution.
SERIOUSLY. Shut up. Those guys may sue as much as they want for breach of their copyright. If you've got a different copyright, or didn't licence it under the GPL but under something else - then you might have a suit against both verizon and against those guys. If you licenced it under the BSD licence, you're just So Out Of Luck (Or maybe not, I'm not entirely certain about this GPL BSD thing).
Parent
A little history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Informative)
Except in this case the license is *right there* in the code they used. Also, they weren't prevented from writing something functionally similar to BusyBox.
Basically, Patents != Copyrights.
IP is "Imaginary Property" that doesn't actually exist or have any laws on it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it different from a patent troll? The patent troll doesn't bother with that pesky "create" step.
Parent
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can use busybox on the same hardware with proprietary software without getting sued or having to pay royalties. It's the same as having proprietary software running on a Linux box even though Linux kernel is GPLed.
Follow a few simple rules. The main ones are don't link to busybox(or any other GPLed software) and you must offer the source of busybox to people you distribute that binary to.
Busybox is an executable. Your program may be an executable. Simply because they exist on the same filesystem doesn't make your software GPL'ed. It's a 'mere aggregation'. I've a programmer who viewed the GPL as a threat to the point he wouldn't write Linux software. After I explained a few things to him he started using it as a tool.
People who don't read the GPL before using it gives the GPL a bad name.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious? A GPL'd program is labeled as such, with conditions for redistribution. If you don't like the conditions, don't distribute it. Using patented technologies these days is as simple as thinking up something obvious and uncomplicated, without reference to what is patented. Searching for every patented technology before using obvious ideas would be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the whole problem with patent trolling is that this isn't all that simple any more. Obvious and uncomplicated things get patented with alarming frequency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How are those similar?
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nothing like a patent troll. They provided software and said you could use it in your product if you follow a simple set of rules. The people making the product didn't follow the rules, and didn't bother to correct this till they were sued.
A patent troll doesn't provide squat. They just wait for someone to come up with an idea the troll might have already patented and then attempts to extort that person after they've managed to implement the idea and make it profitable.
This isn't even apples and oranges. It's apples and school bus yellow race cars.
Parent
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Funny)
You've managed to create a car analogy without really creating a car analogy. This is almost as good as recursion.
Congrats!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huge difference.
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the biggest difference is that it is 100% UNLIKE a patent troll because it is a COPYRIGHT case, not a patent case. But lets look at this from a more philosophical perspective.
Patent trolls don't create any new intellectual property. Almost the entire energy of a patent troll business like Acacia is to buy up obscure patents, often of questionable validity, for ideas that are already widely implemented. Once the patent is bought they then go out and sue the pants of the people who actually did the real "creating". In this case, the authors of Busybox worked hard and have dedicated countless hours of time supporting and improving their creation and have been courteous enough to offer their creation under very generous terms. Instead of a monetary obligation in return for the right to use Busybox, they instead asked that any derivative works or redistributions require the obligation of source code redistribution.
Patent trolls rely on deception and hidden information as their business model. They look for "hidden treasures" where a little known patent could potentially be broadly applied across a huge number of implementations developed by unsuspecting inventors. Busybox is most definitely NOT obscure, and its terms-of-use are most definitely VERY well known and even more easily understood than most EULAs used in the industry. The authors of Busybox and the SFLC did nothing at all to deceive anyone or trick them into using the software improperly.
This is basically an example of why intellectual property rights are so important. The Free software community needs to have the same tools (weapons) at their disposal to defend the freedom of their software as the "mafIAA" wield to try to restrict and control information.
Parent
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Funny)
It is different from a patent troll in much the same way a football is different from space rocket - by having no properties in common!
Parent
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:5, Funny)
Much like a patent troll.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now I object to that. It simply isn't true. They have lots in common
The rocket is made of matter, and the football team is made of matter.
The rocket has no brains and neither does the football team.
The rocket overcomes the enemy (gravity) by means of brute force and so does the football team.
The rocket going up may generate interest among females, and unlike the typical slas
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm not disappointed (Score:4, Interesting)
It wouldn't just be a problem for businesses that illegally use open source software and pass it off as their own, it might also give an air of business legitimacy to OSS in general (not that most businesses don't use OSS every day, but they don't necessarily know that they do). I can think of a few business models that might be put under pressure if that happened.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)