First U.S. GPL lawsuit filed

[reyfer]

For the first time in the U.S., a company and software vendor, Monsoon Multimedia, is being taken to court for a GPL violation. Previously, alleged GPL violations have all been settled by letters from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) or other open-source organizations, pointing out the violation. http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3973290690.html

[angryfirelord]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

And thus the battle begins.....:)

[arkara]

only time will tell

[yabbadabbadont]

I sincerely hope that the SFLC has the money to handle all of the inevitable appeals. (Win or lose in the first round)

[starcraft.man]

I don't get what the company has to argue over. They are in breach of a binding license, what's there to argue? Can someone explain?

[macogw]

I sincerely hope that the SFLC has the money to handle all of the inevitable appeals. (Win or lose in the first round)
What's SFLC?

EDIT: nevermind


So how do they figure out if someone's violating the GPL without disassembling the code to see how their code works and if it matches GPL'd stuff and thereby violate the DMCA?

[yabbadabbadont]

What's SFLC?

EDIT: nevermind


So how do they figure out if someone's violating the GPL without disassembling the code to see how their code works and if it matches GPL'd stuff and thereby violate the DMCA?

Someone needs to read the article... :D

It states that the company in question, freely admits on their website that they use busybox in their embedded systems.

[Lacrimstein]

And so it begins... The Great Battle of our time... ~Gandalf (Lord of the Rings)

[Lord Illidan]

Didn't find anything on their website http://www.monsoonmultimedia.com regarding BusyBox ..but hope it gets settled in favour of the GPL.

[blithen]

I sincerely hope that the SFLC has the money to handle all of the inevitable appeals. (Win or lose in the first round)

lol@signature

On topic: This is an interesting suit. I'm excited to see what happens next.

[southernman]

One has to wonder that they knew it would appear as an infringement, but in his (owner of Monsoon Multimedia) aptitude as a lawyer did not find a loophole in the GPL. I hope that's not the case, not just for the developers of BusyBox, but everyone who uses and appreciates the GPL vision.

[Atreus12]

According to the title, it is the first GPL violation to go to court, but according to www.softwarefreedom.org, it is the first case by the SFLC to go to court.

Is this actually the first US GPL case?

[LookTJ]

Is this actually the first US GPL case?According to my google search, I think it is.

http://technocrat.net/d/2007/9/20/27216

[reyfer]

According to the title, it is the first GPL violation to go to court, but according to www.softwarefreedom.org, it is the first case by the SFLC to go to court.

Is this actually the first US GPL case?

Yes it is, and the link you provided says it too.

The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed the first ever U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL) on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.From the same link provided above, www.softwarefreedom.org

[Anthem]

I can't imagine that this will actually make it to trial. The company will fold.

[BoyOfDestiny]

<snip>
So how do they figure out if someone's violating the GPL without disassembling the code to see how their code works and if it matches GPL'd stuff and thereby violate the DMCA?

http://myhava.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3435&sid=076cc5ecf44769883abae8c3b5cdbe87#3435

"All I did to discover it was running Linux was do a port scan with nmap (which does not violate the EULA) and decompress the firmware image noticing the linux file system structure (which does not violate the EULA). I did not go any further to figure out how it worked. The last step was only to verify that it was running Linux. Decompressing the image is not mentioned under the EULA anyway unless you consider that reverse engineering (which would be incorrect). " - RyecoAaron

Simply brilliant. :)

Anyway, I hope the GPL shines in this U.S. court case.
I certainly count on it when it comes to getting good software :)

[Lord Illidan]

Also, if it turns out as a victory or loss, am I not wrong in saying that it will set a precedent if further lawsuits ensure?

[Ebuntor]

Also, if it turns out as a victory or loss, am I not wrong in saying that it will set a precedent if further lawsuits ensure?

I'm certainly no expert but yeah generally it does. I really hope they win this otherwise (I assume) the GPL could be in trouble.

[50words]

Precedent describes decisions of law. Matters of fact are for a jury (or judge sitting as factfinder) to decide, and juries are not bound by previous juries. There are two types of precedent: binding and persuasive.

Binding precedent comes from a court superior to the one deciding an issue of law. Because the court deciding this case is the lowest-level court--a district court--in the federal court system, no court will be bound by its legal decisions.

Persuasive precedent comes from any court anywhere. If this court issues a decision on a matter of law--the enforceability of the GPL, for example--that will become "persuasive" precedent, meaning it can be used to persuade other courts, but other courts are not required to follow it.

If the case goes up on appeal, however, the appellate decision will be binding on lower courts interpreting the same law.

This should be an interesting case, and the SFLC certainly waited for the right case before filing. Monsoon may very well give them the chance to establish the GPL in the courts.

[southernman]

Also, if it turns out as a victory or loss, am I not wrong in saying that it will set a precedent if further lawsuits ensure?

I'm no expert on the law either, but this is how I see it... [edited]^^^^^^ took to long trying to explain it with my "Boston Legal" law degree[/edited/]

If they (busybox) wins, there will be a favorable precedent set that will surely lead to other violators being called on to the carpet. Although a favorable outcome here will send a message to other vendors using GPL that, once notified of infringement, compliance must be sure and swift... or else crack open the coffers.

If they loose, it should lead to a redrafting of the GPL, to block any loopholes found during discovery and litigation... and will cause for more careful scrutiny by future lawsuits based on the same premise as this one.

Purely speculative of course!

[reyfer]

If they loose, it should lead to a redrafting of the GPL, to block any loopholes found during discovery and litigation... and will cause for more careful scrutiny by future lawsuits based on the same premise as this one.

Purely speculative of course!

There is already a redraft. It is called GPL v3. If you read the article, the BusyBox is under GPL v2, and that's what is going to court. If they loose, they can always go with GPL v3 from now on.

[Naralas]

I don't get what the company has to argue over. They are in breach of a binding license, what's there to argue? Can someone explain?

Money > honor
Money > truth
Money > justice

USA "Law"

[southernman]

There is already a redraft. It is called GPL v3. If you read the article, the BusyBox is under GPL v2, and that's what is going to court. If they loose, they can always go with GPL v3 from now on.

I did read the article... as well as the petition filed by SFLC on Eric and Rob's behalf (of busybox). I am aware of GPL v3 and that it closed a loophole exposed by litigation with Microsoft.

It may be further discovered, that even v3 of the GPL wouldn't be able to hang a noose around Monsoon in this case... hence the comment of redrafting yet again, of the GPL.

From the outside looking in, it appears to be an open and shut case. Without being able to get into Monsoon's head and know if they know something nobody else has yet discovered. This will all come out soon enough (relatively speaking of course) though.

[Lord Illidan]

Since the owner is a lawyer, it seems like it's going to be a slippery eel to catch.

[reyfer]

And they caved:

Monsoon Multimedia tries to avert GPL legal showdown
(http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9783391-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1001_3-0-5)

Consumer electronics maker Monsoon Multimedia said Monday it intends to comply with the terms of the General Public License version 2--used in Linux and countless other open-source programs--to try to settle a lawsuit filed last week.

[southernman]

And they caved:

Monsoon Multimedia tries to avert GPL legal showdown
(http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9783391-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1001_3-0-5)
Hopefully it's legit. Something smells fishy to me though as I don't see why it takes "in the coming weeks" to post that code which you already have.


"Since we intend to and always intended to comply with all open-source software license requirements, we are confident that the matter will be quickly resolved," said Graham Radstone, CEO at Monsoon Multimedia.Oh really Graham? That's ironic, is it not?

It clearly was NOT their intentions.

[Atreus12]

Is providing the source code on a website enough to satisfy GPL? As soon as I read that I was thinking about hunting for windows drivers on the dell website. They are so hard to find I just give up...

I was under the impression source code must be provided with the software.

-Andrew

[happysmileman]

Is providing the source code on a website enough to satisfy GPL? As soon as I read that I was thinking about hunting for windows drivers on the dell website. They are so hard to find I just give up...

I was under the impression source code must be provided with the software.

-Andrew

They need to agree to provide them upon request, don't know how easy they have to make it to access them or whether they need to provide code or just link to it

[t0p]

Money > honor
Money > truth
Money > justice

USA "Law"

Indeed, and that is the danger in lawsuits based in the USA.

[angryfirelord]

Is providing the source code on a website enough to satisfy GPL? As soon as I read that I was thinking about hunting for windows drivers on the dell website. They are so hard to find I just give up...

I was under the impression source code must be provided with the software.

-Andrew
The source code must be available in some form, not necessarily with the binaries. They can either release it for free or charge for it. The charge must only include cost of the medium and shipping.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I can't imagine that this will actually make it to trial. The company will fold.

Good call.

"The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license."


http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html

:)

[swoll1980]

Maybe I'm paranoid, but maybe this is a decoy to drain the resources of the free software community, so that a "much larger corperation" can take advantage of it.

[az]

Is providing the source code on a website enough to satisfy GPL? As soon as I read that I was thinking about hunting for windows drivers on the dell website. They are so hard to find I just give up...

I was under the impression source code must be provided with the software.

-Andrew

No. If that were the case, the Ubuntu live cd would be three-quarters full of source code.

You only have to make is available. It does not have to accompany it.


Maybe I'm paranoid, but maybe this is a decoy to drain the resources of the free software community, so that a "much larger corperation" can take advantage of it.

That's what the SFLC is for (Software Freedom Law Center).

[atlfalcons866]

mpaa should be next

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=622590&highlight=mpaa

[Flying caveman]

That article was from September This is from October -->http://www.myhava.com/press_releases_busybox_developers_and_monsoon_mult imedia_agree_to_dismiss_gpl_lawsuit.html