[News] Ethics Policing Free Software, Not Litigation - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Ethics Policing Free Software, Not Litigation - Linux ; Proprietors not as friendly to infringers as Free Software copyright holders ,----[ Quote ] | Quite to the contrary, the SFLC is using litigation as a last resort: I doubt | any well-known proprietor would take all the steps the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: [News] Ethics Policing Free Software, Not Litigation

  1. [News] Ethics Policing Free Software, Not Litigation

    Proprietors not as friendly to infringers as Free Software copyright holders

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Quite to the contrary, the SFLC is using litigation as a last resort: I doubt
    | any well-known proprietor would take all the steps the SFLC has taken to
    | remedy the infringement without publicity or lawsuit. Eben Moglen has
    | enforced the GPL for many years and says that “compliance with the license,
    | and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals”, which
    | meant Moglen was in private talks with many infringers, rarely requiring from
    | them public admission of wrongdoing. This is, Moglen says, a big reason why
    | the lack of GPL court cases shows how strong the GPL is: it’s rare to find
    | anyone who wanted to test the waters...
    `----

    http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2007/...right-holders/
    http://tinyurl.com/3yp37e

    Darl Ballmer on the other hand:

    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons...2&mode=classic


    Related:

    Second Round of GPL Infringement Lawsuits Filed on Behalf of BusyBox Developers

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed two
    | more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of its clients, two principal
    | developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License
    | (GPL). The defendants in the lawsuits are Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain
    | Antennas, LLC. BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities
    | commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under
    | GPL version 2. * * *
    `----

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ov/20/busybox/


    Is the Monsoon settlement a missed opportunity?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Certainly more was hoped for from the first US GPL lawsuit. “This case is
    | very important because it will establish what type of remedies (either
    | contract or copyright) are available to licensors for breach of the GPLv2,”
    | wrote Mark Radcliffe at the time the complaint was filed. *
    |
    | 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/


    Do Microsoft's EULAs have any real legal basis?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Microsoft has no special exemption from the sale of goods act." Well,
    | no, probably not - but it might still be selling you "services"
    | instead of "goods". But the real point to remember is that it doesn't
    | matter a jot what the "logical" position is, it is what the courts
    | decide that matters.
    |
    | As far as I know, no one has tested Microsoft's EULAs in a UK court
    | and, until someone does, Microsoft will just go on assuming that they
    | work. And I don't fancy the risk of taking on Microsoft's expensive
    | lawyers in court myself...
    `----

    http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/0...icrosoft_eula/


    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/


    And Just Like That, The Games End — First Ever GPL Lawsuit Dismissed

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In the agreement to dismiss the lawsuit, the SFLC is reporting that Monsoon
    | Multimedia has agreed to appoint an “Open Source Compliance Officer” within
    | its organization “to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source
    | code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its web site,
    | and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox
    | from Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. * *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | 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.
    `----

    http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/20...uit-dismissed/


    SFLC: Setting Legal Precedent Not the Goal of GPL Case

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Software Freedom Law Center co-founder Dan Ravicher says the Center’s
    | copyright infringement case against Monsoon Multimedia on behalf of the *
    | creators of BusyBox is not about setting legal precedent for the use and
    | interpretation of the GNU General Public License. *
    `----

    http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=241


    GPL defenders say: See you in court

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The license also requires anyone distributing GPL software, in an executable
    | form that a computer can run, to make the complete source code available. One
    | example: Cisco Systems subsidiary Linksys, which *shares the GPL software
    | used in its wireless networking equipment. *
    `----

    http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-sa...3-6210837.html


    First U.S. GPL lawsuit heads for quick settlement

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | 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


    New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "A paper to be presented at the upcoming academic conference Automated
    | Software Engineering describes a new method to detect code theft and could be
    | used to detect GPL violations in particular. While the co-called birthmarking *
    | method is demonstrated for Java, it is general enough to work for other
    | languages as well..." *
    `----

    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...#comment-27057


    German GPL defender claims legal victory
    *
    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Open-source programmer Harald Welte said Thursday he won a civil court
    | case in Germany centered on the General Public License (GPL). The license
    | governs many open-source projects and permits anyone to use software
    | covered by it, but requires that companies incorporating GPL software
    | make the underlying source code available.
    `----

    http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-611...3453&subj=news


    gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | D-Link Germany GmbH, a subsidiary of D-Link Corporation, Taiwan R.O.C.,
    | distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage (NAS) device which uses a
    | Linux-based Operating System. *However, this distribution was incompliant
    | with the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers the Linux Kernel and
    | many other software programs used in the product.
    `----

    http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060...frankfurt.html


    Wallace's Appeal Firmly Rejected - GPL Has Nothing to Fear [pdf]

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | PJ: "Just so you know, Daniel Wallace's appeal of the ruling
    | against him in his pro se quest to overthrow the GPL on antitrust
    | grounds, one of SCO's daydreams too, has been firmly rejected by
    | the appeals court, as I knew it would be."
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceAppealRejected.pdf


    Would Dostoevsky Use the GPL?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I get nervous whenever large software shops talk up the virtues of a license
    | with fewer protections of developer and user rights. In the linked articles
    | above, there is talk of permissive licenses being the path of least
    | resistance, with the premise that it's "easier" to gravitate towards them. My
    | question is - easier for whom? Easier for the developers or easier for the
    | companies who wish to make use of it without those annoying obligations to
    | the greater free software ecosystem? As is often mentioned by others smarter
    | than me, a scenario where developers gravitate towards permissive licenses
    | makes it easier for companies to avoid community reciprocity. * * * *
    `----

    http://tinosc.blogspot.com/2007/09/w...y-use-gpl.html

  2. Re: [News] Ethics Policing Free Software, Not Litigation

    * Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:

    > Proprietors not as friendly to infringers as Free Software copyright holders
    >
    > http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2007/...right-holders/


    "Some of the biggest proprietors fund a group which conducts raids to
    collect evidence of copyright infringement. Suspected infringers have
    already accepted the terms of a license which grants the proprietor
    or their agents physical access to the premises for the purpose of
    verifying license compliance."

    --
    http://www.appscout.com/2007/07/bsa_...llar_bount.php
    Earn $1M by turning your friends in.

  3. Re: [News] Ethics Policing Free Software, Not Litigation

    ____/ Linonut on Monday 03 December 2007 02:03 : \____

    > * Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Proprietors not as friendly to infringers as Free Software copyright holders
    >>
    >>

    http://www.digitalcitizen.info/2007/...right-holders/
    >
    > "Some of the biggest proprietors fund a group which conducts raids to
    > collect evidence of copyright infringement. Suspected infringers have
    > already accepted the terms of a license which grants the proprietor
    > or their agents physical access to the premises for the purpose of
    > verifying license compliance."


    The guy who posted here as "Jim" (Moore?) had the BSA enter his shop to demand
    an audit, despite the fact that he only stocked SUSE. So, the question is, how
    does the BSA (biggest proprietors being a multiple-times convicted abusive
    monopoly of course) actually *know* that someone pressed OK on some Windows
    EULA in the first place? Can they assume all shops sell Windows? That's why
    the BSA has too much control and the Microsoft Nation is introducing a new
    police nation.

    A comment from Slashdot that I saw earlier said something like:

    "Microsoft is an abuse company and it uses its software to pass on this abuse."

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "This sig seemed like a good idea at the time..."
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Mem: 515500k total, 444276k used, 71224k free, 1344k buffers
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

+ Reply to Thread