5 ms·

By Eben Moglen's own admission[0], the GPL has never been successfully enforced in a court of law, even against criminal infringers. It seems toothless to me.

by na85 6y ago

By Eben Moglen's own admission[0], the GPL has never been successfully enforced in a court of law, even against criminal infringers. It seems toothless to me. A relic from a byegone era when companies cared about ethical behavior. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

colejohnson66 6y ago
The GPL has been used successfully in courts of law. It’s not common as most violators just open source when called out, or settle when sued, but it has worked before. A famous example is D-Link using the Linux kernel in their routers. After a lawsuit in Germany, D-Link had to release their changes.[0] I don’t understand this idea that a license that the author willingly released his code under is unenforceable, but EULAs are? [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073104/http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073104/http://gpl-violat...
- tracker1 6y ago
  Of course with all/most US routers generally taking only signed ROMs, it's mostly useless to even have the code. I wish they'd just create something closer to tomato than the flashy, less useful interfaces.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    That problem is called TiVoization. It’s addressed with the 3rd version of the GPL. Sadly, Linus is adamantly against that clause.
    - chii 6y ago
      > Linus is adamantly against that clause. oh i didnt know he was adamant against the clause - i thought that he didn't want to force it upon the many existing users of linux.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU He also has refused to release any of his projects under GPLv3 (or even “v2 or later”).
        kasabali 6y ago
        Which is too bad because CDDL is compatible with GPLv3 thus that would make integration of ZFS possible
    - tracker1 6y ago
      Unfortunately, it's come out from the FCC, not just the hardware companies in this case, and it really sucks... Raally need to drain the swamp in the FCC.
ASalazarMX 6y ago
Ahem https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
- na85 6y ago
  Have you actually read the essay to which you're linking? >Meanwhile, much murmuring has been going on in recent months to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. (implying it has never been tested in any court) >We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there. (Explicitly stating it has never been tested in court) >I have assisted free software developers other than the FSF to deal with such problems, which we have resolved—since the criminal infringer would not voluntarily desist and, in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators—by talking to redistributors and potential customers. And lastly, the money quote. In the cases of criminal, malicious infringement, they were not able to prosecute.
  - tripletao 6y ago
    Your implication that "untested in court" means "likely unenforceable" is quite wrong--unless you see lots of people openly violating a license in cases where it would be economic to pursue them, the more likely explanation for "untested" is simply that the accused infringers get competent legal advice, and comply without wasting their money on a losing court case. Though as other comments note, since the writing of that essay someone (D-Link) finally did refuse to comply without a court order, at which point Harald Welte took them to court and D-Link indeed lost. And what do you think "not able to prosecute" means? District attorneys (or non-USA equivalents) decide when to prosecute crimes, not private copyright owners. It's very rare for the criminal justice system to intervene in complicated white-collar stuff, especially when a straightforward civil remedy is available. A legal realist might say that means the GPL--and indeed most copyrights beyond those infringed by warez/torrentz sites--is effectively unenforceable criminally, and would in a useful sense be right; but it's enforceable civilly, so no one cares much.
ryukafalz 6y ago
Note the date on that essay: it's from 2001. It has indeed come up in court in the last 19 years. For example: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases

by na85 6y ago

colejohnson66 6y ago

The GPL has been used successfully in courts of law. It’s not common as most violators just open source when called out, or settle when sued, but it has worked before. A famous example is D-Link using the Linux kernel in their routers. After a lawsuit in Germany, D-Link had to release their changes.[0] I don’t understand this idea that a license that the author willingly released his code under is unenforceable, but EULAs are? [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073104/http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073104/http://gpl-violat...

tracker1 6y ago
Of course with all/most US routers generally taking only signed ROMs, it's mostly useless to even have the code. I wish they'd just create something closer to tomato than the flashy, less useful interfaces.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  That problem is called TiVoization. It’s addressed with the 3rd version of the GPL. Sadly, Linus is adamantly against that clause.
  - chii 6y ago
    > Linus is adamantly against that clause. oh i didnt know he was adamant against the clause - i thought that he didn't want to force it upon the many existing users of linux.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU He also has refused to release any of his projects under GPLv3 (or even “v2 or later”).
      - kasabali 6y ago
        Which is too bad because CDDL is compatible with GPLv3 thus that would make integration of ZFS possible
  - tracker1 6y ago
    Unfortunately, it's come out from the FCC, not just the hardware companies in this case, and it really sucks... Raally need to drain the swamp in the FCC.

ASalazarMX 6y ago

Ahem https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

na85 6y ago
Have you actually read the essay to which you're linking? >Meanwhile, much murmuring has been going on in recent months to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. (implying it has never been tested in any court) >We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there. (Explicitly stating it has never been tested in court) >I have assisted free software developers other than the FSF to deal with such problems, which we have resolved—since the criminal infringer would not voluntarily desist and, in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators—by talking to redistributors and potential customers. And lastly, the money quote. In the cases of criminal, malicious infringement, they were not able to prosecute.
- tripletao 6y ago
  Your implication that "untested in court" means "likely unenforceable" is quite wrong--unless you see lots of people openly violating a license in cases where it would be economic to pursue them, the more likely explanation for "untested" is simply that the accused infringers get competent legal advice, and comply without wasting their money on a losing court case. Though as other comments note, since the writing of that essay someone (D-Link) finally did refuse to comply without a court order, at which point Harald Welte took them to court and D-Link indeed lost. And what do you think "not able to prosecute" means? District attorneys (or non-USA equivalents) decide when to prosecute crimes, not private copyright owners. It's very rare for the criminal justice system to intervene in complicated white-collar stuff, especially when a straightforward civil remedy is available. A legal realist might say that means the GPL--and indeed most copyrights beyond those infringed by warez/torrentz sites--is effectively unenforceable criminally, and would in a useful sense be right; but it's enforceable civilly, so no one cares much.

ryukafalz 6y ago

Note the date on that essay: it's from 2001. It has indeed come up in court in the last 19 years. For example: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases