8 ms·

The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

161 points by mjg59 15y ago

larrik 15y ago
SFC enforces copyrights on others behalf's?? Isn't that where Righthaven failed because it isn't actually allowed?
- biot 15y ago
  Righthaven didn't own the copyrights on the material; they were simply "granted" the right to sue, which turned out to be bogus from a legal perspective. To enjoy the benefits of SFC enforcement, you must assign your copyrights to SFC thereby avoiding the Righthaven situation altogether.
- Zak 15y ago
  Looking at SFC's website, it appears that people actually assign their copyrights to SFC.
  - larrik 15y ago
    I can see why other projects are hesitant to join in.
- dedward 15y ago
  not exactly.... they are enforcing their own copyright, and by virtue of the license wording, using it as easy leverage to insist the infringing product is cleanly complying with similar licenses before granting a new license.
bediger 15y ago
So much for the Holy Sacrament of "Intellectual Property". When it suits a corporation, the Most Holy Eye Pee Must Be Protected By Any Means, Including Taking Away of Civil Liberties. But when it also suits a corporation, they get to take what, if they owned it, would be Most Holy Eye Pee. What a bunch of hypocrites. If BusyBox made Sony money, they'd fight an attempt to replace it tooth and nail, as AT&T did with BSD.
lunarscape 15y ago
>The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Wait what? This has actually happened?
- mjg59 15y ago
  Yes, it's part of the SFC's standard settlement.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  That's more than fair: you can use our code as long as you don't rip anybody else off either.
  - dedward 15y ago
    fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......
    - vidarh 15y ago
      If Sony has received licenses to software X, then there's no problem: > "you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution" If Sony has a different license from the copyright holders of software X that means they're not required to distribute source, presumably all they need to do is produce that license if their claim is challenged, or get said copyright holders to confirm it.
    - tnorthcutt 15y ago
      for all we know they decided to let sony have software X.... If they did, there should be evidence (a licensing agreement, perhaps) of that decision. If there's no formal agreement, the existing license has authority, and it's perfectly reasonable for the SFC to require adherence to the licenses of other packages used as a condition of re-licensing BusyBox to the infringing party.
jlarocco 15y ago
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasonable if it were for technical reasons, but it's not - it's explicitly stated that companies are afraid that Busybox copyright holders may force them to comply with the licenses of software they ship. If you ship this Busybox replacement instead of the original Busybox you'll be safe from the SFC. You'll be able to violate licenses with impunity." Wait, didn't GNU and the GPL start off for the completely non-technical reason that Stallman didn't like the original license? I'm also not sure I like the idea of using BusyBox as a backdoor to examine the rest of a product's source code. I didn't realize that was a condition of the GPL, but it makes me glad I've switched most of my projects over to the BSD and ISC licenses.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  The implication is that Sony is presently shipping software with Busybox and knowingly violating the licensing terms. If they rewrite Busybox in the interim they will be able to get away scot-free despite their years of flagrant copyright violation. Given the variety of devices Sony ships and their complete lack of respect for the GPL, their plan could very well work unless someone catches them red-handed. And the point is that the people who wrote Busybox don't want money if you're infringing their copyright - they just want to see exactly what you've done with their code, and get the chance to play with it. Which is pretty reasonable when you think about it.
  - kryptiskt 15y ago
    Sony is presently shipping a lot of stuff with Busybox in, but they are not violating the license terms. Here you can download a zillion Sony-patched versions of Busybox to your hearts content: https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/source_tv.shtml https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/source_tv.shtml
dman 15y ago
In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder - HDR-CX700V (Bought a Panasonic TM900 instead) d) Noise cancelling headphones - MDR-NC100D (Bought Sennheiser ones instead, dont remember the model number)
- astrange 15y ago
  Isn't S90 a compact camera? It's much worse quality than the NEX series. If you care about that, try Olympus E-P1 or some other mirrorless camera.
  - dman 15y ago
    Yes I know the S90 is a compact camera. Rather than go one down in the category, I decided to go one category down and buy the top camera in that category. fwiw here is a picture from the S90 and one from the Olympus E-P1 http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/samples/comparedto/studio/s90-ISO80-IMG_0099.jpg http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/samples/comparedt... http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/samples/comparedto/studio/olyEP1-50mm-ISO100.jpg http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/samples/compare...
    - pasbesoin 15y ago
      Another plus for Canon: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
    - wisty 15y ago
      Looks like the s90 has some barrel distortion, but you expect that with a wider zoom lens. Otherwise, there's not much to differentiate them. But the picture was taken in good light. The E-P1 has a much much larger sensor, and should be much better than the s90 in bad light. Also, you can get a nice 10mm prime for the E-P1 (20mm full frame equivalent, compared to the s90's 28 mm FFE at its widest), or a fast portrait lens, or a telephoto. On the other hand, u4/3 lenses are often insanely overpriced (at the moment), and the s90 fits in your pocket.
pyre 15y ago
As a thought experiment, it's funny to think about what GPL enforcement could have done with SOPA, had it passed. Especially if software/firmware updates were distributed via the web. On the one hand Sony is pushing for SOPA, but on the other hand Sony is violating the GPL. They could end up actively pushing through legislation that ends up significantly harming their bottom line.
- agravier 15y ago
  I'm confident that regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Battle For Freedom on Internet and Intellectual Property, it will remain that the most wealthy most often gains financially from their own wrongdoings. The judiciary system will remain the warhammer of giants, way to heavy financially for most individuals and small companies.
fryguy 15y ago
So an analogy would be that Pirate Steve wants to put the entire criterion collection (http://www.criterion.com/library http://www.criterion.com/library) on the pirate bay. However, he knows that Fox is really litigious about their movies, so he replaces all of their movies with garage remakes (like "Be Kind, Rewind") so that he can safely pirate the rest of the movies since the other motion picture studios are lazy. Is my analogy correct at all? Essentially Sony wants to be able to pirate (that's what it's called when you're redistributing things that are copywritten), so they're removing the only project that actually litigates against them?
- thristian 15y ago
  That's the gist, yes.
- derleth 15y ago
  > copywritten Copyrighted. It's about rights, specifically the right to copy.
trotsky 15y ago
SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does. It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworkers. As noted elsewhere in the comments, Rob Landley regrets assigning them rights for busybox, and no other authors have been represented in the suits. The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Quoth wikipedia: On 7 December 2007, a case was brought against Verizon Communications over its distribution of firmware for Actiontec routers; this case was settled March 17, 2008 on condition of license compliance, appointment of an officer to oversee future compliance with free software licenses, and payment of an undisclosed sum. On about Aug 03, 2010, BusyBox won triple damages of $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865, and possession of "presumably a lot of high-def TVs" as infringing equipment in the lawsuit Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, etal., the GPL infringement case noted in the paragraph above. The suit against High-Gain Antennas was settled on March 6, 2008 with the company agreeing to comply with GPL and paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs. On October 30, 2007, an SFLC press release announced that the lawsuit had been settled with Monsoon agreeing to comply with the GPL and pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs. etc.
- mjg59 15y ago
  That's a somewhat misleading. The TVs were awarded to the SFC by a judge in lieu of costs and any other settlement - Westinghouse, the company involved, had declared bankruptcy and were no longer paying their lawyers. There was no settlement in that aspect of the case, and Westinghouse never came into compliance. And if a settlement doesn't involve any payment, congratulations - you've just spent a significant amount of money and you haven't got your costs back. Many kernel authors simply don't care. Many others are employed by companies who would prefer not to potentially scare off customers, or are contractors who work directly for companies that are concerned about increased enforcement. Some have performed all their work under work to hire conditions and are in no position to engage in any kind of enforcement. While I'm sure some do disagree with the SFC's actions, I'd be astonished if that's the overwhelming reason for a lack of involvement.
AmazingBytecode 15y ago
I'm not saying it's OK to violate the terms of open source licenses, but the GPL has never fit with my idea of what Free Software should be like. I see Free Software as a gift given to the world as a whole, regardless of what they plan to do with it. Thus I see GNU and the FSF as terrible gift-givers.
- rickmb 15y ago
  The GPL and the concept of keeping software free permanently embodies the very definition of Free Software. What you're saying is "the absence of color doesn't fit my idea of what black should be, I see black as having a little touch of yellow in it".
  - AmazingBytecode 15y ago
    Alright, Free Software isn't the appropriate term for the type of open-source license that I appreciate. I apologize for my poor choice of terms.
- HerraBRE 15y ago
  Free Software is not a gift. That is where you go wrong. Just because you want it to be does not make it so. Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others, is an attempt to remedy the ethical problems posed by closed source software, which has a strong tendency to lead to monopolistic behavior and unfair power balance between the consumer and the producer of a program. Free Software may be many other things as well, depending on who is writing the software and releasing the code, but it's almost never a gift. The developers almost always want something in return, whether that is recognition, assistance with development or support for their ideals. People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses. :-P Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work.
  - AmazingBytecode 15y ago
    "Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work." Of course. Authors are free to release software under whatever terms they like, and people who use the software are bound to abide by those terms. Let me be clear, I don't think that it's OK to violate the GPL. I was just saying that I don't really like the GPL.
dthunt 15y ago
This article mostly seems to be suggesting that vendors derive more benefit from GPLv3 - which is more focused on coming into compliance, rather than punishing companies that get it wrong. I'm not sure what this has to do with busybox, save that under GPLv2 there are vendors who are afraid to use them because they have actively been pursuing an aggressive course of action under GPLv2 for several years.
danielpal 15y ago
Someone should re-write this blog post and re-submit it to Hacker News. It's so confusing what the problem really is, or what the author is really saying. I had to read this about 3 times to understand it. He should just say: many hardware manufactures use several GPL projects on there embedded devices, one of those projects is BusyBox. Since BusyBox copyright holders allow SFC to defend their copyright, the SFC is able to force this manufactures to comply with the licenses of all the GPL projects they use. Sony and other manufactures are looking to have a BusyBox alternative so that they can infringe the other GPL product licenses they use, since they know no-one enforces this licenses. Those who own GPL licenses should contact the SFC and allow them to enforce there copyrights.

161 points by mjg59 15y ago

larrik 15y ago

SFC enforces copyrights on others behalf's?? Isn't that where Righthaven failed because it isn't actually allowed?

biot 15y ago
Righthaven didn't own the copyrights on the material; they were simply "granted" the right to sue, which turned out to be bogus from a legal perspective. To enjoy the benefits of SFC enforcement, you must assign your copyrights to SFC thereby avoiding the Righthaven situation altogether.
Zak 15y ago
Looking at SFC's website, it appears that people actually assign their copyrights to SFC.
- larrik 15y ago
  I can see why other projects are hesitant to join in.
dedward 15y ago
not exactly.... they are enforcing their own copyright, and by virtue of the license wording, using it as easy leverage to insist the infringing product is cleanly complying with similar licenses before granting a new license.

bediger 15y ago

So much for the Holy Sacrament of "Intellectual Property". When it suits a corporation, the Most Holy Eye Pee Must Be Protected By Any Means, Including Taking Away of Civil Liberties. But when it also suits a corporation, they get to take what, if they owned it, would be Most Holy Eye Pee. What a bunch of hypocrites. If BusyBox made Sony money, they'd fight an attempt to replace it tooth and nail, as AT&T did with BSD.

lunarscape 15y ago

>The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Wait what? This has actually happened?

mjg59 15y ago
Yes, it's part of the SFC's standard settlement.
tikhonj 15y ago
That's more than fair: you can use our code as long as you don't rip anybody else off either.
- dedward 15y ago
  fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......
  - vidarh 15y ago
    If Sony has received licenses to software X, then there's no problem: > "you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution" If Sony has a different license from the copyright holders of software X that means they're not required to distribute source, presumably all they need to do is produce that license if their claim is challenged, or get said copyright holders to confirm it.
  - tnorthcutt 15y ago
    for all we know they decided to let sony have software X.... If they did, there should be evidence (a licensing agreement, perhaps) of that decision. If there's no formal agreement, the existing license has authority, and it's perfectly reasonable for the SFC to require adherence to the licenses of other packages used as a condition of re-licensing BusyBox to the infringing party.

jlarocco 15y ago

Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad. Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take? "A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasonable if it were for technical reasons, but it's not - it's explicitly stated that companies are afraid that Busybox copyright holders may force them to comply with the licenses of software they ship. If you ship this Busybox replacement instead of the original Busybox you'll be safe from the SFC. You'll be able to violate licenses with impunity." Wait, didn't GNU and the GPL start off for the completely non-technical reason that Stallman didn't like the original license? I'm also not sure I like the idea of using BusyBox as a backdoor to examine the rest of a product's source code. I didn't realize that was a condition of the GPL, but it makes me glad I've switched most of my projects over to the BSD and ISC licenses.

lukeschlather 15y ago
The implication is that Sony is presently shipping software with Busybox and knowingly violating the licensing terms. If they rewrite Busybox in the interim they will be able to get away scot-free despite their years of flagrant copyright violation. Given the variety of devices Sony ships and their complete lack of respect for the GPL, their plan could very well work unless someone catches them red-handed. And the point is that the people who wrote Busybox don't want money if you're infringing their copyright - they just want to see exactly what you've done with their code, and get the chance to play with it. Which is pretty reasonable when you think about it.
- kryptiskt 15y ago
  Sony is presently shipping a lot of stuff with Busybox in, but they are not violating the license terms. Here you can download a zillion Sony-patched versions of Busybox to your hearts content: https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/source_tv.shtml https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/source_tv.shtml

dman 15y ago

In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder - HDR-CX700V (Bought a Panasonic TM900 instead) d) Noise cancelling headphones - MDR-NC100D (Bought Sennheiser ones instead, dont remember the model number)

astrange 15y ago
Isn't S90 a compact camera? It's much worse quality than the NEX series. If you care about that, try Olympus E-P1 or some other mirrorless camera.
- dman 15y ago
  Yes I know the S90 is a compact camera. Rather than go one down in the category, I decided to go one category down and buy the top camera in that category. fwiw here is a picture from the S90 and one from the Olympus E-P1 http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/samples/comparedto/studio/s90-ISO80-IMG_0099.jpg http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/samples/comparedt... http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/samples/comparedto/studio/olyEP1-50mm-ISO100.jpg http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/samples/compare...
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    Another plus for Canon: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
  - wisty 15y ago
    Looks like the s90 has some barrel distortion, but you expect that with a wider zoom lens. Otherwise, there's not much to differentiate them. But the picture was taken in good light. The E-P1 has a much much larger sensor, and should be much better than the s90 in bad light. Also, you can get a nice 10mm prime for the E-P1 (20mm full frame equivalent, compared to the s90's 28 mm FFE at its widest), or a fast portrait lens, or a telephoto. On the other hand, u4/3 lenses are often insanely overpriced (at the moment), and the s90 fits in your pocket.

pyre 15y ago

As a thought experiment, it's funny to think about what GPL enforcement could have done with SOPA, had it passed. Especially if software/firmware updates were distributed via the web. On the one hand Sony is pushing for SOPA, but on the other hand Sony is violating the GPL. They could end up actively pushing through legislation that ends up significantly harming their bottom line.

agravier 15y ago
I'm confident that regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Battle For Freedom on Internet and Intellectual Property, it will remain that the most wealthy most often gains financially from their own wrongdoings. The judiciary system will remain the warhammer of giants, way to heavy financially for most individuals and small companies.

fryguy 15y ago

So an analogy would be that Pirate Steve wants to put the entire criterion collection (http://www.criterion.com/library http://www.criterion.com/library) on the pirate bay. However, he knows that Fox is really litigious about their movies, so he replaces all of their movies with garage remakes (like "Be Kind, Rewind") so that he can safely pirate the rest of the movies since the other motion picture studios are lazy. Is my analogy correct at all? Essentially Sony wants to be able to pirate (that's what it's called when you're redistributing things that are copywritten), so they're removing the only project that actually litigates against them?

thristian 15y ago
That's the gist, yes.
derleth 15y ago
> copywritten Copyrighted. It's about rights, specifically the right to copy.

trotsky 15y ago

SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does. It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworkers. As noted elsewhere in the comments, Rob Landley regrets assigning them rights for busybox, and no other authors have been represented in the suits. The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution. Quoth wikipedia: On 7 December 2007, a case was brought against Verizon Communications over its distribution of firmware for Actiontec routers; this case was settled March 17, 2008 on condition of license compliance, appointment of an officer to oversee future compliance with free software licenses, and payment of an undisclosed sum. On about Aug 03, 2010, BusyBox won triple damages of $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865, and possession of "presumably a lot of high-def TVs" as infringing equipment in the lawsuit Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, etal., the GPL infringement case noted in the paragraph above. The suit against High-Gain Antennas was settled on March 6, 2008 with the company agreeing to comply with GPL and paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs. On October 30, 2007, an SFLC press release announced that the lawsuit had been settled with Monsoon agreeing to comply with the GPL and pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs. etc.

mjg59 15y ago
That's a somewhat misleading. The TVs were awarded to the SFC by a judge in lieu of costs and any other settlement - Westinghouse, the company involved, had declared bankruptcy and were no longer paying their lawyers. There was no settlement in that aspect of the case, and Westinghouse never came into compliance. And if a settlement doesn't involve any payment, congratulations - you've just spent a significant amount of money and you haven't got your costs back. Many kernel authors simply don't care. Many others are employed by companies who would prefer not to potentially scare off customers, or are contractors who work directly for companies that are concerned about increased enforcement. Some have performed all their work under work to hire conditions and are in no position to engage in any kind of enforcement. While I'm sure some do disagree with the SFC's actions, I'd be astonished if that's the overwhelming reason for a lack of involvement.

AmazingBytecode 15y ago

I'm not saying it's OK to violate the terms of open source licenses, but the GPL has never fit with my idea of what Free Software should be like. I see Free Software as a gift given to the world as a whole, regardless of what they plan to do with it. Thus I see GNU and the FSF as terrible gift-givers.

rickmb 15y ago
The GPL and the concept of keeping software free permanently embodies the very definition of Free Software. What you're saying is "the absence of color doesn't fit my idea of what black should be, I see black as having a little touch of yellow in it".
- AmazingBytecode 15y ago
  Alright, Free Software isn't the appropriate term for the type of open-source license that I appreciate. I apologize for my poor choice of terms.
HerraBRE 15y ago
Free Software is not a gift. That is where you go wrong. Just because you want it to be does not make it so. Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others, is an attempt to remedy the ethical problems posed by closed source software, which has a strong tendency to lead to monopolistic behavior and unfair power balance between the consumer and the producer of a program. Free Software may be many other things as well, depending on who is writing the software and releasing the code, but it's almost never a gift. The developers almost always want something in return, whether that is recognition, assistance with development or support for their ideals. People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses. :-P Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work.
- AmazingBytecode 15y ago
  "Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work." Of course. Authors are free to release software under whatever terms they like, and people who use the software are bound to abide by those terms. Let me be clear, I don't think that it's OK to violate the GPL. I was just saying that I don't really like the GPL.

dthunt 15y ago

This article mostly seems to be suggesting that vendors derive more benefit from GPLv3 - which is more focused on coming into compliance, rather than punishing companies that get it wrong. I'm not sure what this has to do with busybox, save that under GPLv2 there are vendors who are afraid to use them because they have actively been pursuing an aggressive course of action under GPLv2 for several years.

danielpal 15y ago

Someone should re-write this blog post and re-submit it to Hacker News. It's so confusing what the problem really is, or what the author is really saying. I had to read this about 3 times to understand it. He should just say: many hardware manufactures use several GPL projects on there embedded devices, one of those projects is BusyBox. Since BusyBox copyright holders allow SFC to defend their copyright, the SFC is able to force this manufactures to comply with the licenses of all the GPL projects they use. Sony and other manufactures are looking to have a BusyBox alternative so that they can infringe the other GPL product licenses they use, since they know no-one enforces this licenses. Those who own GPL licenses should contact the SFC and allow them to enforce there copyrights.