4 ms·

They say that aren't litigating, so it's moot for now, but I wonder... If they do want to sue, they will have to find someone with standing in order to do so.

They say that aren't litigating, so it's moot for now, but I wonder... If they do want to sue, they will have to find someone with standing in order to do so. I suppose that won't be difficult for them, but I'm curious how they might go about it.

pabs3 7y ago
Conservancy represents various Linux kernel and other developers who hold copyright on parts of the Linux kernel and other projects. In other cases developers reassign their copyright directly to Conservancy. Then Conservancy performs copyleft compliance actions, aimed at code release, with lawsuits being a very last resort reserved for wilfully non-compliant organisations. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
pjc50 7y ago
Buy a device? Costing a few minutes of lawyer time.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  I was wondering: what if I am able to extract the firmware from a device, or download the firmware from their website? Should I then also be able to ask for the source? AFAICT, the answer to this question is: Yes.
  - toyg 7y ago
    IANAL but yes, distribution is distribution. If one distributes GPLed code, one is subject to GPL terms towards whoever received such software. I guess the exception would be malice or misrepresentation, e.g. faking you are a customer in order to download the firmware, or hacking servers and grabbing stuff. In that case the vendor is not wilfully distributing, and hence not subject to GPL terms. In the case of extracting firmware, though, one might run afoul of anti-reverse-engineering provisions in laws like DMCA.
PeterisP 7y ago
They don't have to buy a device - Ubiquity has distributed a a device with a copy of the copyrighted thing without fulfilling the GPL conditions (since neither the code nor a legally binding offer to provide the code was attached). That's a simple copyright violation (making and distributing copies without a valid license to do so), and since Conservancy represents copyright holders (some of the developers) whose copyright has been violated, they have standing to sue.

pabs3 7y ago

Conservancy represents various Linux kernel and other developers who hold copyright on parts of the Linux kernel and other projects. In other cases developers reassign their copyright directly to Conservancy. Then Conservancy performs copyleft compliance actions, aimed at code release, with lawsuits being a very last resort reserved for wilfully non-compliant organisations. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

pjc50 7y ago

Buy a device? Costing a few minutes of lawyer time.

Fnoord 7y ago
I was wondering: what if I am able to extract the firmware from a device, or download the firmware from their website? Should I then also be able to ask for the source? AFAICT, the answer to this question is: Yes.
- toyg 7y ago
  IANAL but yes, distribution is distribution. If one distributes GPLed code, one is subject to GPL terms towards whoever received such software. I guess the exception would be malice or misrepresentation, e.g. faking you are a customer in order to download the firmware, or hacking servers and grabbing stuff. In that case the vendor is not wilfully distributing, and hence not subject to GPL terms. In the case of extracting firmware, though, one might run afoul of anti-reverse-engineering provisions in laws like DMCA.

PeterisP 7y ago

They don't have to buy a device - Ubiquity has distributed a a device with a copy of the copyrighted thing without fulfilling the GPL conditions (since neither the code nor a legally binding offer to provide the code was attached). That's a simple copyright violation (making and distributing copies without a valid license to do so), and since Conservancy represents copyright holders (some of the developers) whose copyright has been violated, they have standing to sue.