Settlement Reached in Verizon GPL Violation Suit 208
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.'"
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.
Re:Now that they have the money.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Shut up and go away kid... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:I'm a little disappointed . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
On one side, you a loose collection of individual developers who distribute their software freely, with the restriction that if you also distribute it or a derived version, you must distribute it under the same terms.
On the other side, you have a company who knowingly infringes the copyright of the first group.
What else would you call the first group but "good guys"?
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.
A little history (Score:5, Interesting)