Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer. The below is only what I think is true based upon
stuff I have read. Some of that was on Slashdot, so do check your own
facts and get a real lawyer.
Jimen Ching wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:
q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want to integrate
GPL'd code should have to follow the GPL ruling that the derivative
source has to be released with the product. I think it makes it tough
on companies, but if they want the "free lunch" of using "free code"
then they should respect the licensing of that "free code".
Companies can use GPL code without deriving from it. Deriving from GPL
code means the GPL code is modified. You can develop a product from GPL
code unmodified. Then you have nothing to contribute back. Any
additional software in the product must be developped without 'including'
the GPL code. This is usually how Linux is used. You can write a
proprietary driver and use a standard Linux kernel. You don't need to
release the driver source code, but any modifications to the Linux kernel
must be released.
This is not entirely accurate. IIRC Linus Torvalds made the linux
kernel "GPL with one exception", that exception is binary-only modules
are allowed (but generally frowned upon).
Normally the GPL disallows keeping source code closed even if you
dynamically link to it, and cases like closed source linux kernel
modules are normally not allowed with pure GPL licensed stuff.
if someone violates your interest in that something, and you knowingly
allow them to do it, it kind of seems that it somehow nulls or damages
your case for maintaining that interest or ownership of something.
I have read that patents don't behave this way. You can knowingly allow
someone to violate your patent for years and then only file a suit after a
lot of money has been made from the patent. This is usually how patents
are used.
Yep.
For trademark violations, if you don't protect it, you lose it.
Yep.
I'm not sure about copyrights. I think it falls somewhere in the middle.
I think your copyright protections do not diminish if you don't enforce
them, but I heard of some complications in this. For example, if you
didn't know a copyright violation was happening for a long time but
suddenly discovered it, you can attempt to exercise that copyright. In
other cases where you KNOW the copyright is being violated but you do
not take necessary steps to mitigate damages, you lose some kind of
legal protection.
The latter case is a possible issue in the SCO case if the linux kernel
does contain SCO copyrighted material as SCO alleges. SCO while
claiming breach of contract and copyright
infringement completely refuse to say what parts of the linux kernel are
infringing, because they claim the community will remove and hide it in
order to hide wrong doing. This of course is absurd because all
development is wide open, and archives containing older releases will
not go away.
And so the FSF pretty much has to go after anybody they know who violates
the GPL, in order to maintain it's validity?
I don't know if they have to. But I know they do... Each time I see
someone mentioning a GPL violation, I see the FSF immediately going after
the violators.
(Read this on Slashdot on some point... I don't know if it is true.)
Some people criticize the GPL because it seems only the copyright holder
can sue for damages if the GPL is being violated. For that reason it is
recommended that people sign their copyrights over to the Free Software
Foundation so that they have the power to litigate, especially if the
individuals don't have financial resources to litigate.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
For this reason some have suggested using the OSL license instead which
does not have this problem. I *think* this link is the OSL.
For most companies on the receiving end of a possible GPL violation
lawsuit, the severe negative PR and FSF statement suggesting a lawsuit
has been enough to cause a resolution.
In this case it appears to me that Linksys/Broadcom/Cisco is trying very
hard to avoid playing by the rules. It is my personal opinion that if
they wanted to make a closed source product, they should not have used
GPL software. The GPL explicitly exists to prevent players from having
a free lunch without giving back to the community. It is audacious to
complain about not being able to steal intellectual property and calling
it your own, when the license disallows it.
Warren
