$B0MMj%a!<%k(B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@h!W@)$r:NMQ$7$F$*$j!"[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(B $B$&$N$G$9!#(B $B!!$3$N%a!<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>R2p$9$k;v$K$D$$$F!"[EMAIL PROTECTED](B ($BAa:d(B $BKcH~$5$s(B)[EMAIL PROTECTED]@$1$KAw$i$l$F$$$k%a!<(B $B%k$J$N$G!"4|BT$KEz$($F$"$2$F$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B $B!!!V(BN$B!&(BY$B$K(B3$BG/4V=;$s$G$$$^$7$?!#;~4V$,$"$l$P=5$K#22s$O%8%`$KDL(B [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;6$7$F$$$k$N$G$9$,!"CK(B [EMAIL PROTECTED]/$*$D$-$"$$$r$7$F$$$J$$$;$$$+Le!9$H$7$?F|!9$rAw$C(B $B$F$$$^$9!#(B $B:#$N<+J,$K$ONx$OI,?MMW$J$$;W$H$C$F$$$k$N$G$9$,!"(B $B$3$N5$;}$A$r$I$&$K$+$7$?$$$G$9!#%2!<%`$N$h$&$J6n$10z$-$r$7$?(B $B$/$O$"$j$^$;$s!#$*8_$$%9%H%l!<%H$K$$$-$^$7$g$&!#(B $B!!7P:QE*$K;d$KG$$;$F2<$5$$!#1g=u$H$$$&[EMAIL PROTECTED]<+BN7y$$$J$N$G!"l9g$O(B http://www.jumpb8.net/?profile $B$+(B $B$i$*4j$$CW$7$^$9!#$b$A$m$s4iA0(B([EMAIL PROTECTED](B)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/F~NO$9$k$h$&$*4j$$$7$^$9!#(B $B!!"($*6b$+$1$J$/$F$b=http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] > http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html I like this: Some of Welte's targets have complied voluntarily, but one suspects that is because they were simply unaware of the problem. Welte apparently has no authority to enforce these copyrights. These actions are not really legal enforcement -- more the equivalent of picketing companies that use cheap overseas labor. It is an attempt to embarrass, not enforce. It is also impossible to avoid observing that Welte often proceeds without the benefit of legal analysis. For instance, he targeted AOpen, which responded, that he "should have directed that letter to their Taiwanese mother company, since the products that I claim are in violation of the GPL are not sold in Germany. They don't get it. Its their problem if they don't comply with the license. Its they who are liable for copyright infringement. I don't care which particular subsidiary of a multinational corportation [sic] is responsible. It is in the best mutual interest of any subsidiary to assure that they comply with license conditions." Actually, AOpen's point was probably that there was no action under German law because lack of an infringing product in Germany meant it was not within German jurisdiction. But, it so happened, that AOpen was actually compliant, having offered the source code on a German Web site, as Welte later noted in his blog. Nevermind. This kind of stuff gives lawyers the willies, on the one hand. Lay commentators who post on blogs or bulletin boards about open source legal issues without the benefit of legal reasoning are a dime a dozen, but at least they don't usually sue people. On the other hand, who would you rather be sued by: Welte or the FSF? Given that most of Welte's complaints would fail in the U.S. on procedural grounds that would allow a defendant to jettison the case quickly, he is my plaintiff of choice. Other enforcement of the GPL has been of less note. The MySQL case, which is the only lawsuit ever filed in the U.S. regarding GPL code, was disposed of on unrelated grounds. The FSF has conducted regular informal enforcement, but none has garnered quite the press of the Linksys matter. In 2002, the FSF engaged in a GPL enforcement action against OpenTV, a San Francisco company that ships a set-top box containing Linux. According to Forbes, OpenTV ended up paying the FSF $65,000. But OpenTV also reportedly complied by making available the requested code, so the purpose of the payment is unclear. The FSF's stated mission is not to demand money damages for GPL violations. Meanwhile, we are all waiting for the other shoe to drop. And while rumors occasionally circulate that lawsuits will be filed -- as in the case of OpenTV -- there is a big difference between making threats and filing lawsuits. So, get used to standing on one foot, while legend of Linksys lives on. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Isaac wrote: [...] > >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html> > >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html> > > > > These cases really do not appear to be on point These cases are not really "cases" to begin with (that's apart from fact that orders were limited to netfilter/iptables code only, and said absolutely nothing about larger combined work as a whole). Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (law suit). http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html It's a Small Welte After All Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router until it complied with the GPL. Well, the injunction was about "netfilter/iptables code" and nothing else. No word about the router. http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117 Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, Sitecom's objection (not really "appeal") to the injunction had really nothing to do with the GPL. And the subsequent ruling by the same district court "discussing" the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney) was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside for a moment. and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results. Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) See also: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/1e07a593e5e09d59 http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/3bdfe293b33c6b6e regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:13:36 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] > GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very > likely to make it a derivative work. "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written does not compel the release of source code for independently authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." -- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, unpublished draft 10th June 2005. >>> >>> Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like >> >> Which court decisions are in disagreement with Mr. Edward's position? > >http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html> >http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html> > These cases really do not appear to be on point and seem to deal with non controversial aspects of the GPL and copyright law. I'm not really questioning your position at this point, but I am questioning your statement that the issue of component usage has been settled by court decisions. I think your overstated things a bit. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Bruce Lewis wrote: >>> [...] GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very likely to make it a derivative work. >>> >>> "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies >>> with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and >>> do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when >>> exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, >>> notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written >>> does not compel the release of source code for independently >>> authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs >>> through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the >>> software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this >>> basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the >>> assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front >>> ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." >>> >>>-- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, >>> unpublished draft 10th June 2005. >> >> Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like > > Which court decisions are in disagreement with Mr. Edward's position? http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html> You'll find that all other violations reported on the first site were resolved by the perpetrators agreeing to follow the rules of the GPL, and that includes Fujitsu-Siemens, not exactly a company with a small legal department. Anyway, see http://gpl-violations.org/> for more examples also of ongoing cases. There is actually a dearth of reported cases since almost all perpetrators prefer to settle out of court. Note that in particular the netfilter cases concern code in modules that is linked into complete products: nevertheless they were able to obtain injunctions and settlements for the complete products involved. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
