German Court Convicts Skype For Breaching GPL 309
terber writes "A German court has once again upheld the GPLv2 and convicted Skype (based in Luxembourg) of violating the GPL by selling the Linux-based VoIP phone 'SMCWSKP 100' without proper source code access. (Original is in German, link is a Google translation.) Skype later added a flyer to the phones' packaging giving a URL where the sources could be obtained; but the court found this insufficient and in breach of GPL section 3. The plaintiff was once again Netfilter developer Harald Welte, who runs gpl-violations.org. The decision is available in German at www.ifross.de (Google translation here)."
Correct terminology (Score:5, Informative)
Misleading or incomplete summary. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conflict and Chaos in the Hive Mind! (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is permissive, and thus turns the usual function of copyright on it's head.
In other words, usually when people violate copyright it's through an act that increases the spread of the information, and prosecuting them for it would restict that spread. In contrast, when people violate copyright by failing to abide by the GPL, they themselves are restricting the spread of the information and prosecuting them restores it.
If one (e.g., a "loyal drone") consistently believes that spreading information is good and restricting it is bad, there is no contradiction.
Source Code (Score:5, Informative)
Can also check out this link for more info here [wifiphone24.com]
You are all wrong (Score:2, Informative)
This is opposed to items (say a CD) which says that you may not copy them, which is a lie since it is LEGAL to copy things for personal use. What you may not do, is to distribute them for your gains.
Re:You are all wrong (Score:3, Informative)
'for your gains' is not a required condition.
Re:You are all wrong (Score:3, Informative)
The court said including a website address to where the source could be downloaded wasn't good enough. I'd like to know why that wasn't good enough. Is it only because the text of the GPL wasn't included?
This doesn't look like a win for the GPL. This looks like a major pain in the ass. I didn't even know that distributing a copy of the GPL was a requirement. I've never read it fully, but I guess I just assumed that as long as you make the source code available, everything is fine.
Umm I think they misread one part (Score:3, Informative)
Rough translation (but better than google):
"Later a note was included with the device, which said it used GPL software and a URL where the source code is available - but this was not enough for the court. The GPL only permits this for software that is delivered over the Internet."
Doesn't that get covered by 6 b) 2):
"6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
(...)
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (...) or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."
Or maybe it didn't come as a permanent offer, in which case they might be talking about 6 d):
"d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. (...)"
Re:Only if copying is not fair use (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You are all wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Section 1:
"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
Re:Only if copying is not fair use (Score:5, Informative)
It's not fair use, because copies of software that are made for the purpose of using it are not covered by copyright in the first place. The law is explicit about this [cornell.edu]:
In short: It's not fair use (that's a different set of exemptions), but it is legal.
Support your local GPL enforcer! (Score:2, Informative)
So, instead of talking about the GPL on
Re:Hooray for Harald! (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, did you drink some SCO FUD? Copyrights are never nullified because of lack of enforcement, and I dare you to find an example. Not enforcing them may limit your ability to collect damages, but at any time you can send an injunction to make them stop.
What's needed is enforcement of copyright law:
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.
(1) In general. Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
(a) Any person who violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
If you're using a substantial amount of GPL'd code beyond the rouge developer taking code, that should be enough to know you're willfully infringing. Being a for-profit company should be enough to prove "for commercial advantage". At which point they should be strung up on criminal charges and sent to jail like with SOX regulations. That's how it should be, note there's no minimum amount to make (3) go into effect and send them away for a year, even at a $0 "retail value" as long as you can prove *they* earned money on it.
Re:Conflict and Chaos in the Hive Mind! (Score:3, Informative)
No, because under copyright law, you never had that right in the first place. The GPL gives you *more* rights than you had, it just doesn't give you the right to not give the same rights to others.
Re:Only if copying is not fair use (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Definitions... (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly.
Provided that you (the copyright holder) generate them (by running the compiler/linker/etc.), certainly, they are included as part of the original copyrighted work (or perhaps another copyrighted work, the distinction is probably unimportant in most cases, though for copyright time limits it may be important if the source is recompiled differently at a later time.)
An infinitely large number. But copyrights aren't patents, so if someone else happens to generate the same executable from their own independently developed source that I developed from my copyrighted source, we could both have copyright on our own soure, and each have a independent copyright to the identical executable.
Copyrights do extend to things that don't exist at the time the original work is created; all derivative works, for instance, by definition do not exist when the original work is created, yet are covered by copyright.
No, because while identical, the code is not in fact derived from your original expression. This is where copyrights differ from patents (aside from the kind of things they apply to), because the latter covers even independent inventions, while copyright only protects copies, not coincidences.
It applies to both, but not to independently developed works, however similar (though proving that a work is independently developed may be a challenge if the similarities are so strong as to make coincidence seem unlikely.)
You did create a new, different work. However, it is a derivative work, and thus probably violates copyright unless some special exception applies.
No, not really.
Given your admitted ignorance of copyright,
Skype was NOT convicted (Score:3, Informative)
They convicted SMC, who makes a Skype phone, of the GPL violation because they didn't include the source code with the phone. NOT skype
how can every slashdot mod and user be completely wrong?
Re:Slashdot Downloads. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Damn (Score:3, Informative)
"You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange."
The thing is that Skype sold a physical produt (a phone), and according to the wording of the GPL the code needs to be distributed on a durable physical medium with this product.
Re:Skype is good? (Score:3, Informative)