4 ms·
You could take their customers to small claims court one by one, they'd each be on the hook for the purchase price of their access points. This would go a long
by gnu8 12y ago
You could take their customers to small claims court one by one, they'd each be on the hook for the purchase price of their access points. This would go a long way toward generating publicity and forcing compliance.
- java-man 12y agoHas it worked in the past? Is this a valid approach? I don't think the customers are the guilty party here.
- gnu8 12y agoedit: all of the above is incorrect and I retract this. If Ubiquiti is in breach of the GPL then their customers cannot receive a license to the infringing work by Ubiquiti distributing it to them, so they're infringing too. I don't think this has been done before. It would definitely chill the acceptance of GPL software in general. edit: all of the above is incorrect and I retract this.
- trothamel 12y agoDo the customers need a license? I don't think so - the GPL covers distribution, not use.
- logn 12y agoBut you're getting copyrighted material in violation of the copyright. No different from downloading a song from bit-torrent.
- trothamel 12y agoPer GPL2, clause 4: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. As I read that, as long as you don't further redistribute, you should be good.
- th0br0 12y agoThe issue is, however, that the parties (customers) haven't received any copies or rights under the GPL2 as due to ubiquiti's license violation, ubiquiti didn't (and does not) possess the any right to the original software (including redistribution). Think about the licensing issue as a licensing chain / tree with each version having a separate license (instance).
- bonzini 12y agoAnd that's exactly what that paragraph avoids. It stops the revocation of the license tree at the first party who either correctly ships the full corresponding source, or doesn't redistribute the work at all. Basically those parties get a license directly from the copyright holder.
- 0x0 12y agoWouldn't the end users have to be re-distributing the software in question first?
- tbrownaw 12y agoEr, how? What have the customers done to violate GPL?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- JaggedJax 12y agoBesides not being practical, it sounds to me like this would mostly garner animosity towards the group bringing the lawsuit, not Ubiquity. I own Ubiquity hardware and (legality aside) if someone sued me or my company over this I'd view them as a copyright troll. I think public attention and shaming from sources like this article will produce much better results.
- likeclockwork 12y agoNo. Firstly, the customers aren't distributing the software so I don't see how they could be liable. Secondly, the customers are the ones who are actually being wronged here, because they've purchased devices based on GPL software--for which they are entitled to the actual source code. If anything, the customers should be the ones bringing suit.