4 ms·

You just need the copyright owners to sue now. The copyright holders can also ask the SFLC do it for them, I'm sure they would love it.

alecco 15y ago
It's a hard place. If they sue, they will be blamed as hardcore radicals. Remember most of the tech journalists depend on advertising.
- ekidd 15y ago
  If you hold copyrights on your software, it's not radical to ask people to refrain from republishing it without a license. That's the central goal of copyright law, and not a new idea invented by the FSF.
- perlgeek 15y ago
  Mr. Welte's approach so far has been to talk to the companies first, and only sued if there has been absolutely no (or negative) response. I think the blog post is part of the "not yet suing" process too, it tries to build a bit of pressure on Apple in the hope that no lawsuit will be necessary.
mechanical_fish 15y ago
One doesn't have to start with a lawsuit. One starts with a nice polite letter, on actual paper, to Apple's legal department reminding them of their LGPL obligations and pointing out that they're past deadline and perhaps they should poke the relevant engineering team? Then if that gets no satisfaction you have your lawyer send the same letter. Then a nastier letter. Only then do you begin to think about preparing a lawsuit, which is expensive and probably overkill. What you don't do is put up a passive-aggressive blog post. This post doesn't even tell us how many letters have been sent, or by whom, or to whom, or when. Have we even asked the support folks or the engineers, let alone Apple legal? I can barely find the stomach to blame Apple's engineering team for prioritizing strict and timely license compliance somewhere below: Making their boss Steve Jobs happy, releasing features that paying customers care about, and sleeping. Fortunately, it is not my job to blame them. It is the job of Apple's legal department to blame them. Has anyone asked Apple's legal department?
- gatlin 15y ago
  "I can barely find the stomach to blame Apple's engineering team for prioritizing strict and timely license compliance somewhere below: Making their boss Steve Jobs happy, releasing features that paying customers care about, and sleeping." Sleep is an important function the brain and body must perform to survive; I would never advocate sleep deprivation. However, no, Mr Jobs and everyone else can wait as there is a legally binding license governing the release of the code. This is a rare completely black and white issue. The binary is released without the source -> license violation.
- kalleboo 15y ago
  If they don't want to spend their time complying with the software license, then they're free to not use open source licensed code in their products. Microsoft do just that, and they never have to worry about compliance issues. I don't think Apple would appreciate it if I downloaded iWork and instead of paying them said "Promoting strict and timely license compliance falls somewhere below sleeping".
  - mechanical_fish 15y ago
    It is true: Apple will not appreciate it at all if you pirate iWork. But will they sue you? Does anyone have a news story about Apple suing the (many, many) Apple software pirates? So far as I've heard, they don't even send very many nasty letters. Presumably not because they don't believe in paying for software, but because it's strategically unwise. Anyway, if Apple fails to respond in timely fashion to a series of inquiries they can, indeed, eventually be sued, and maybe that will even be the best move. Perhaps a suit against Google will proceed at the same time: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/25/google.not.sharing.android.3.source.to.public.yet/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/25/google.not.sha... Though in that case, as well, I doubt it will come to that. (One of the many virtues of starting your own business is that you soon learn all about the practical limitations of contract law. People violate the letter of your contracts all the time. What are you going to do about it? The law is a relatively blunt instrument; it is expensive and difficult to bring it into play, often more difficult than your unpaid invoice is worth.)

alecco 15y ago

It's a hard place. If they sue, they will be blamed as hardcore radicals. Remember most of the tech journalists depend on advertising.

ekidd 15y ago
If you hold copyrights on your software, it's not radical to ask people to refrain from republishing it without a license. That's the central goal of copyright law, and not a new idea invented by the FSF.
perlgeek 15y ago
Mr. Welte's approach so far has been to talk to the companies first, and only sued if there has been absolutely no (or negative) response. I think the blog post is part of the "not yet suing" process too, it tries to build a bit of pressure on Apple in the hope that no lawsuit will be necessary.

mechanical_fish 15y ago

One doesn't have to start with a lawsuit. One starts with a nice polite letter, on actual paper, to Apple's legal department reminding them of their LGPL obligations and pointing out that they're past deadline and perhaps they should poke the relevant engineering team? Then if that gets no satisfaction you have your lawyer send the same letter. Then a nastier letter. Only then do you begin to think about preparing a lawsuit, which is expensive and probably overkill. What you don't do is put up a passive-aggressive blog post. This post doesn't even tell us how many letters have been sent, or by whom, or to whom, or when. Have we even asked the support folks or the engineers, let alone Apple legal? I can barely find the stomach to blame Apple's engineering team for prioritizing strict and timely license compliance somewhere below: Making their boss Steve Jobs happy, releasing features that paying customers care about, and sleeping. Fortunately, it is not my job to blame them. It is the job of Apple's legal department to blame them. Has anyone asked Apple's legal department?

gatlin 15y ago
"I can barely find the stomach to blame Apple's engineering team for prioritizing strict and timely license compliance somewhere below: Making their boss Steve Jobs happy, releasing features that paying customers care about, and sleeping." Sleep is an important function the brain and body must perform to survive; I would never advocate sleep deprivation. However, no, Mr Jobs and everyone else can wait as there is a legally binding license governing the release of the code. This is a rare completely black and white issue. The binary is released without the source -> license violation.
kalleboo 15y ago
If they don't want to spend their time complying with the software license, then they're free to not use open source licensed code in their products. Microsoft do just that, and they never have to worry about compliance issues. I don't think Apple would appreciate it if I downloaded iWork and instead of paying them said "Promoting strict and timely license compliance falls somewhere below sleeping".
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  It is true: Apple will not appreciate it at all if you pirate iWork. But will they sue you? Does anyone have a news story about Apple suing the (many, many) Apple software pirates? So far as I've heard, they don't even send very many nasty letters. Presumably not because they don't believe in paying for software, but because it's strategically unwise. Anyway, if Apple fails to respond in timely fashion to a series of inquiries they can, indeed, eventually be sued, and maybe that will even be the best move. Perhaps a suit against Google will proceed at the same time: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/25/google.not.sharing.android.3.source.to.public.yet/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/25/google.not.sha... Though in that case, as well, I doubt it will come to that. (One of the many virtues of starting your own business is that you soon learn all about the practical limitations of contract law. People violate the letter of your contracts all the time. What are you going to do about it? The law is a relatively blunt instrument; it is expensive and difficult to bring it into play, often more difficult than your unpaid invoice is worth.)