5 ms·

Has it worked in the past? Is this a valid approach? I don't think the customers are the guilty party here.

gnu8 12y ago
edit: 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 ago
  Do the customers need a license? I don't think so - the GPL covers distribution, not use.
  - logn 12y ago
    But you're getting copyrighted material in violation of the copyright. No different from downloading a song from bit-torrent.
    - trothamel 12y ago
      Per 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        And 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 ago
  Wouldn't the end users have to be re-distributing the software in question first?

gnu8 12y ago

edit: 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 ago
Do the customers need a license? I don't think so - the GPL covers distribution, not use.
- logn 12y ago
  But you're getting copyrighted material in violation of the copyright. No different from downloading a song from bit-torrent.
  - trothamel 12y ago
    Per 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        And 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 ago
Wouldn't the end users have to be re-distributing the software in question first?