4 ms·
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits > The case was settled with release of the Monsoon version
by thaumaturgy 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
> The case was settled with release of the Monsoon version of the source and payment of an undisclosed amount of money...
> The Xterasys case [ed: separate case] was settled on December 17 for release of source code used and an undisclosed payment.
(I'm not including cases that were settled with a stipulation of "active compliance".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court
> Cisco settled the case six months later agreeing ... to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website.
Granted, that last one doesn't sound all that bad.
Given that the GPL does compel the release of source code for derivative works, and given that one of the FSF's tactics in lawsuit settlements is to ask for the release of source code, let's not go misapplying the FUD label, OK?
edit: I don't mean that to sound snarky. Rather, I'd like to see less "Bah, that's just FUD", and more explanation and clarity when responding to people's concerns about the GPL.
- tzs 16y agoThose companies settled because they wanted to continue distributing their products as is. Hence, they released source in order to be allowed to do that. They could have instead replaced the GPL code with non-GPL code, possibly paid some damages, and been done with the matter with their source remaining secret.
- caf 16y agoSettlements are agreements. No-one was forced to release source code, which is the language you used. It was their choice - they could have held out if they had wanted to. You can't force a GPL violator to release source. All you can do is offer them a deal where they release the source in exchange for less/no monetary damages.