On Oct 31, 4:42 am, Roy Schestowitz
wrote:
> BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit

I'm curious - were here any preliminary rulings prior to the
settlement?

Often, a defendant will ask the judge for preliminary rulings on
points of law before deciding on a settlement approach. If the judge
says "yes, you broke the law", in the preliminary ruling, there is no
need to procede with the case, only to determine how to properly
comply.

In most cases, compliance is pretty simple. Make sure your
proprietary code calls LGPL shared libraries (or other GPL compatible
shared libraries, then have those shared libraries call the GPL code.
Conversely, you can have the GPL code call proprietary shared
libraries as "plug-ins".

Many of those who have published the noncritical portions of their
source code have been surprised at how helpful the Linux community can
be. Linksys published their source code and OSS contributors provided
new code for things like adding SAN storage to routers via a USB port
or hub.

The OSS solution to DRM is to publish the source with a license which
provides source code but forbids modifications of elements related to
legal compliance - such as DRM or patent related code. This was the
solution that made it possible to view DVDs on Linux.

> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
> | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
> | lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox.
> `----
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...-monsoon-settl...
>
> And Just Like That, The Games End - First Ever GPL Lawsuit Dismissed
> http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/20...ike-that-the-g...
>
> Related:
>
> SFLC: Setting Legal Precedent Not the Goal of GPL Case
> http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=241
>
> GPL defenders say: See you in court
> http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-sa...2100-7344_3-62...
>
> First U.S. GPL lawsuit heads for quick settlement
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html
>
> New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations
> http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...48253&from=rss
>
> German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
> | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
> | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
> `----
> http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/0...onvicted-skype...

This may have also been significant. A well worded judgement in this
case would have had an impact on international copyright law. In this
case, the Judge would have been upholding the license provisions of
international copyright law. For the U.S. Judge to ignore this ruling
would have been "activist", judges legislating from the bench.

One can argue whether there should be restrictions on what can be
required in a copyright license, for example terms which require the
end-user to commit criminal acts, but under current US and
International Law, there are very few legal restrictions on what can
be required in a copyright license.

Altering this would mean the immediate collapse of Microsoft.

quoting rjack:

: The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
: federal court. After the plaintiff's filed a voluntary Motion to Dismiss
: it was inevitable that GPL supporters would trumpet "the GPL won in
: court". Magnanimous claims without the GPL so much as being read by a
: judge -- same old, tired FSF FUD story -- just a different day.

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
> | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
> | lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox.
> `----
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...on-settlement/

SFLC's pretense that plaintiffs can somehow "reinstate Monsoon
Multimedia's rights" (suggesting that Monsoon somehow lost something)
all by virtue of the copyright law, is not quite FUD but rather utter
legal nonsense.

Moglen made an attempt to trigger "automatic termination" in MySQL
case:

"Given my knowledge of the practices of programming and the
requirements of the GPL, I concluded that the license violation was
intentional. Whether intentional or not, any violation of the GPL
results under §4 in a termination of the right to redistribute. ...
Under GPL §4, I conclude, Progress Software Corp. lost the right to
distribute MySQL when it distributed NuSphere MySQL Advantage in a
fashion that violated GPL.

I declare under penalty of perjury and upon personal knowledge that
the foregoing is true and correct. "

http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html

(and Bruce Perens even "predicted" that "Moglen will get his
injunction" http://www.linux.com/articles/21439)

but Moglen's attempt failed miserably:

"I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach."

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opi...20software.pdf

Monsoon settlement adds nothing new to horrible track record of
GPL enforcement in courts.

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

On Oct 31, 4:42 am, Roy Schestowitz
wrote:
> German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
> | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
> | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
> `----

I did a little digging on this one and I'm not sure I agree with the
judge on this one. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that Skype
violated the license by not including the actual source code with the
packaging.

Skype's response was that they provide a URL in the handset's
documentation showing the location of the source code to the site.
This is a common practice among most Linux appliance manufacturers and
satisfies the requirements of the standard GPL licenses (all 3
versions). The publisher is required to make the source code
available. This can be either providing the source on media, or
providing a location from which the source can be freely downloaded.

Skype didn't even try to challenge the requirement that the source
code be published, they just didn't want to have to deal with the
extra cost of putting a CD or DVD in with each of their little
handsets. Remember, these packages are manufactured on an assembly
line and they would have to set up a whole line of robots to produce
the disks, package them, and insert them with the other packaging. It
could increase the cost by as much as $10 per item.

Supporting documentation provided by the Free Software Foundation
points out that providing the location where the source code can be
freely downloaded is a perfectly legitimate form of distribution.

> http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/0...onvicted-skype...

Let's hope that Skype wins the appeal, because otherwise it could have
a chilling effect on the popularity of the GPL in Europe.

"Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
news:47287FFB.F9F09CB@web.de...

>
> Monsoon settlement adds nothing new to horrible track record of
> GPL enforcement in courts.
>

Until a settlement or a judge's ruling has an adverse financial impact on a
GPL violator's business, the GPL will not have been tested. The notion of
suing people to force them to publish original or even modified source with
no commercial value is rather pointless, since the source is so readily
available from others.. The day that a company has to release source and
project build information for a product that it had built up a successful
business in regard to selling the binary code licenses has not yet arrived.

Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 4:42 am, Roy Schestowitz
> wrote:
> > German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
> > | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
> > | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
> > `----

The morons from the German district court Munich I should better
learn what "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU speak) is
about. To quote Appellate Judge Hoeren from the Copyright Senate
of Düsseldorf Court of Appeals,

http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/fe...3_20040903.pdf

"The ignorance of the Munich court as to the opinio communis can
also be demonstrated in connection with the problem of exhaustion.
If the GPL is regarded to be binding even in cases of the transfer
of software to a third person, the concept of exhaustion might be
violated. The European Software Directive has provided that the
exhaustion of the copy of a program is applied Community-wide by
a first sale of that copy in the Community with the consent of the
right-holder; once an author has sold a copy of a work, he or she
loses the exclusive distribution right with respect to that work.
A contractual limitation of this principle is held to be invalid,
at least in Germany and Austria. The Munich court obviously did
not know of these developments; instead it simply stated that the
German copyright legislator had once expressed its support for
Open Source. However, this support has been given only in other
legislative debates regarding mandatory rights of creators to
adequate remuneration. But even if the legislator generally likes
Open Source, it does not at all mean that the legislator supports
and considers every rule of the GPL as legally effective."

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8939845710.html

"In response to inquiries regarding a German court's ruling that
Skype had breached the GPL, the company told LinuxDevices.com
today that it "has not acted improperly." The alleged violation
was associated with the method by which Skype "distributed" GPL-
licensed source code with a Linux-powered VoIP handset.

A July 24 posting by Dr. Julia Kueng on the website of the
Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source reported
that Gpl-violations.org, a Germany-based group headed by software
developer Harald Welte had recently prevailed in a lawsuit it
brought against Skype for allegedly violating an aspect of the
GNU GPL (GNU General Public License).

The violation reportedly involved the manner in which Skype
distributed a third-party product, a VoIP handset with an
embedded Linux kernel and supplied by SMC Networks as model
WSKP100 (depicted on the right). The suit alleged that Skype
failed to supply a copy both of the source code and of the GPL
license itself -- as required by the GPL -- along with the
handset to its purchasers.

Skype reportedly defended itself against the suit by noting
that URLs provided within the handsets' documentation pointed
customers to where they could download both the GPL and the
relevant source code. According to Dr. Kueng, the German court
denied the sufficiency of Skype's defense, and ruled that Skype
had breached section 3 of the GPL.

In an email received this morning by LinuxDevices.com, Imogen
Bailey, director of global PR, stated:

"Skype is surprised by the recent decision and believes that it
has not acted improperly. At this time, we cannot comment further
because Skype is considering its options in relation to appealing
this regional judgment."

According to Dr. Kueng's posting, SMC Networks -- which
manufacturers the WSKP100 -- is the target of a similar case that
remains to be decided."

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

____/ Rex Ballard on Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:54 : \____

> For the U.S. Judge to ignore this ruling
> would have been "activist", judges legislating from the bench.

Don't forget the Wallace case in the US. /That/ must have established some kind
of constitutional validity as well.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | "My signature is never intended to be offensive"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 247716k used, 1262352k free, 105720k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[...]
> Don't forget the Wallace case in the US. /That/ must have established some kind
> of constitutional validity as well.

Wallace case established that

1.) [FOSS contributors can't charge -- no software commerce] "Thus
the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision:
neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or
improved version, may charge for the software or allow any
successor to charge. ... Linux and other open-source projects have
been able to cover their fixed costs through donations of time"

and

2.) [FOSS is junk] "People willingly pay for quality software even
when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is
a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and
presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has
many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the
proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion's share of the market."

and

3.) [FOSS is doomed] "The number of proprietary operating systems
is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues
quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future
availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots."

EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit.

Ha! "The number of proprietary operating systems is growing..."

Judge Easterbrook sure got that one right. By simply querying any
software outlet for their vast selection of proprietary operating
systems aside from Linux (to wit: Windows and OS X) we know
competition is flourishing. No need to ever contemplate antitrust
charges against Microsoft again!

I wonder where Judge Easterbrook shops for his software...

FOSS advocates danced in the street with the Wallace v. IBM et al
ruling... utterly oblivious to the fact that it was the best
antitrust news that Microsoft had heard in years. Thanks in part
to Easterbrook's ruling, Microsoft can now threaten FOSS without
worrying about the DOJ.

Sleep easy Steve and Bill there IS a tooth fairy. :-)

[end quoting Wallace]

regards,
alexander.

--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

Rex Ballard wrote:

Citations please for these statements of yours ...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...d44043ede488d8

"Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
news:472886A7.5F8123EE@web.de...
>
>
> A July 24 posting by Dr. Julia Kueng on the website of the
> Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source reported
> that Gpl-violations.org, a Germany-based group headed by software
> developer Harald Welte had recently prevailed in a lawsuit it
> brought against Skype for allegedly violating an aspect of the
> GNU GPL (GNU General Public License).
>
> The violation reportedly involved the manner in which Skype
> distributed a third-party product, a VoIP handset with an
> embedded Linux kernel and supplied by SMC Networks as model
> WSKP100 (depicted on the right). The suit alleged that Skype
> failed to supply a copy both of the source code and of the GPL
> license itself -- as required by the GPL -- along with the
> handset to its purchasers.
>
> Skype reportedly defended itself against the suit by noting
> that URLs provided within the handsets' documentation pointed
> customers to where they could download both the GPL and the
> relevant source code. According to Dr. Kueng, the German court
> denied the sufficiency of Skype's defense, and ruled that Skype
> had breached section 3 of the GPL.
>
> In an email received this morning by LinuxDevices.com, Imogen
> Bailey, director of global PR, stated:
>
> "Skype is surprised by the recent decision and believes that it
> has not acted improperly. At this time, we cannot comment further
> because Skype is considering its options in relation to appealing
> this regional judgment."
>
> According to Dr. Kueng's posting, SMC Networks -- which
> manufacturers the WSKP100 -- is the target of a similar case that
> remains to be decided."
>
Another red herring/tempest in a teapot. What telepone user would ever be
moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone in order to
make it more efficient and be thwarted in that task by not having Skype
deliver a set of source files?

amicus_curious wrote:

>What telepone user would ever be
>moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone

Dumb****. It's not only users, but producers, who may be interested
in the code.

amicus_curious wrote:

> Until a settlement or a judge's ruling has an adverse financial impact on a GPL violator's business, the GPL will not have been tested ..

Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.

"As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the
GPL, Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance
Officer .. the settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
financial consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs"

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...71030130750322

Doug Mentohl wrote:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> Until a settlement (snip)
>
> Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.

Exactly. Why he thinks he can lie like a rug one day, and get taken
seriously the next, is beyond me.

--
"Why would you suggest a non-perfect solution?"
- Erik Funkenbusch

"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:fgah27$ita$3@news.datemas.de...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> Until a settlement or a judge's ruling has an adverse financial impact on
>> a GPL violator's business, the GPL will not have been tested ..
>
> Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.
>
> "As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
> reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL,
> Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer
> .. the settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial
> consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs"
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...71030130750322

I said "on a GPL violator's business", silly. Paying legal fees or such
isn't anything but a lawyer enrichment scheme played in the courts.

"chrisv" wrote in message
news:cm9hi3dapfm2hsbc1hudqk64rgss1ijstp@4ax.com...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>What telepone user would ever be
>>moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone
>
> Dumb****. It's not only users, but producers, who may be interested
> in the code.
>
And someone interested in the Linux OS needs to get it from Skype? You
would have to be a dumb**** yourself to think that way.

After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>> Until a settlement (snip)
>>
>> Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.
>
> Exactly. Why he thinks he can lie like a rug one day, and get taken
> seriously the next, is beyond me.

I blame Ghost in the Machine.

> --
> "Why would you suggest a non-perfect solution?"
> - Erik Funkenbusch

Arroo?

--
Tux rox!

____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 31 October 2007 21:29 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> | Stay tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will
>> | see here in the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL.
>> | `----
>
> It would've been better had it gone to court, at least that would've set
> a legal precedent. Oh well, it'll happen eventually.

'However, for those looking for legal precedent, all may not be lost. “Stay
tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here in the
U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL,� notes Haislmaier.'

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensou...d-opportunity/


--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 220280k used, 1289788k free, 83580k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

wrote
on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:36:54 GMT
:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Until a settlement (snip)
>>>
>>> Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.
>>
>> Exactly. Why he thinks he can lie like a rug one day, and get taken
>> seriously the next, is beyond me.
>
> I blame Ghost in the Machine.

ObHuh: Did I miss something here? :-P

I personally like to lie over the top for humorous
effect. :-) But that's just me.

>
>> --
>> "Why would you suggest a non-perfect solution?"
>> - Erik Funkenbusch
>
> Arroo?
>

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

amicus_curious wrote:

>"chrisv" wrote in message
>news:cm9hi3dapfm2hsbc1hudqk64rgss1ijstp@4ax.com...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>What telepone user would ever be
>>>moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone
>>
>> Dumb****. It's not only users, but producers, who may be interested
>> in the code.
>>
>And someone interested in the Linux OS needs to get it from Skype?

The issue is Skype's code, not "the Linux OS", dumb****.

clone of fuddie amicus_curious wrote:

> I said "on a GPL violator's business", silly

That's the bits where you a) were dishonest and b) still don't count.
You see, an anonymous WinTROLL don't get to define what is or is not a
valid test of the GPL ...