OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 07/27/2007 8:00:08 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Skype has been found guilty of violating the GNU General Public License (GPL) by a Munich, Germany regional court, a decision likely to influence the way companies approach GPL compliance in the future.
The decision found that Skype had violated the GPL by the way it distributed a voice over IP (VoIP) handset, the SMCWSKP100, which incorporates the GPL-covered Linux kernel in its firmware.
The phone is manufactured by SMC, the target of a separate case that hasn't yet been decided, but the court noted that Skype was liable to fulfill the conditions of the GPL because it sold the phone on its website.
Skype violated the licence by its failure to supply a copy of the source code to users along with the phone, and by failing to provide a copy of the GPL itself with the phone, the court said.
Skype had responded to the charges by including with the phones a URL where buyers could access the GPL and the source code involved, but the court found this wasn't sufficient.
The GPL allows companies to distribute source code over the internet separately from shipped products, but only under certain conditions, and the court ruled that these hadn't been met. The GPL also stipulates that buyers must receive the text of the licence along with the product.
The decision reinforces that companies must adhere to the conditions of the GPL just as with any other contract, and that "inaccuracies" aren't to be allowed, according to the court.
It also emphasizes that organizations can be held liable for GPL violations even if they are simply distributing a product and don't themselves manufacture it.
Another implication is in the fact that neither of the two companies involved is German-- Skype being based in Luxembourg and SMC in Spain. The decision shows that companies may be held liable for GPL violations in any country, even if the GPL isn't upheld in their home country.
The case was brought by gpl-violations.org, a German organization run by open source software developer Harald Welte, which aims to force companies to take the GPL seriously. Welte has said he aims to settle most cases out of court, taking companies to court only if discussions fail to make them abide by the conditions of the licence.
In 2005, for instance, Welte obtained a court injunction against security software maker Fortinet, banning the company from distributing its products until it complied with GPL provisions. As a result, the company agreed to make some of its source code available.
This week's decision is likely to mean a fine against Skype and will force the company to adhere to the licence and source code distribution requirements of the licence.
I think Skypes link to SMC's site should have been enough per the GPL but the Judge thought otherwise.
OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
The GPL requires including a copy of the GPL itself, not just links to it. It's not a hard license to abide by, especially considering the onerous (and downright illegal) proprietary licenses out there. Companies just think that since it's free they don't have to.
Anti,
I was referring to the actual code on the phone not the license itself. Skype is redistributing an appliance and in this case pointing at the manufactures site is the best way to do it.
As to the license, you’re right that skype should make it come with the unit and, were I skype, I would ask the manufacturer to include it..
You just have to comply with the license, even if you are only the distributor. Even though copyright isn’t actual theft, there’s an equivalent in this that trafficking in stolen goods is still illegal, even if you’re not the one who stole the items. Distributor beware.
I don’t think Microsoft would just let me go if I were distributing Chinese-made systems with pirated copies of Windows on them.
But,
If you bought dells with windows installed and were reselling them do you think you would end up in court for not having the full microsoft license on your web site?
Those aren't the terms of the Windows EULA, so no.
I would think that would be enough too.
Perhaps there were kernel mods they implemented by SMC or Skype that weren't at the URL given.
As described by this article (and we know how accurate reporters generally are on tech stuff), the judge made a bad ruling. Just because you distribute GPL software doesn't mean you have to snailmail a CD of the kernel to anyone who asks. If it is a physical product that is shipped with a driver disk or something like that, it would make sense to perhaps include the kernel and relevant code with it. Otherwise, this ruling really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Maybe you should rethink your support of the GPL instead. Nah, never happen.
From what I see I agree with the article and you on that point. This should not have been considered a violation of the GPL by skype (maybe by smc)..
Take it up with the leftists that constantly threaten and often launch these GPL lawsuits constantly. This case is nothing new, but it is the first time I remember you not taking the side of the GPL fanatics forcing companies to hand over something.
You do realize I have you on ignore right? I see that you post but not the content..
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you ... give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.Providing a copy of the license for the included software is a requirement. A simple sheet of paper in the packaging with the license on it would have sufficed. They fulfilled their obligation to provide a the source code by giving a link to the web site according to b).3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
...b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code
Companies generally take so much care when distributing proprietary software, especially if they are distributing a derivative. They have lawyers pore over the licensing agreements to make sure they won't get screwed. Yet for some reason they don't comply with the simple, plain-text requirements of the GPL that cost them virtually nothing.
Stallman, and anyone who understands copyright, shouldn't be too happy with this statement. It's a license, not a contract.
You only say that because you have no answers, but you’ll cry to the moderator in a split second if you think I crossed some line protecting your right to spew BS.
It seems to hinge on the last paragraph of section 3, where it says you are covered if you offer both the binaries and source from the same site. It makes sense, the source is right there so the offer is obviously implied.
But the judge interpreted it backwards and restrictively, saying 3.b) (the offer to give source) only works as a link in the case of the last paragraph, where they are both distributed from the same site. It is an insane reading of the GPL.
Even the FSF would disagree with this, as they've consistently been happy with companies making source code available online. Even the plaintiff, Harald Welte (owner of netfilter/iptables and others), has been happy with online postings when he sued other companies that were illegally distributing his work.
Note for the trolls: This guy started suing because he noticed his copyrighted works being illegally distributed without license by companies who were profiting from his work. Now he's mad and is going after any company found violating the license for his software and software by others who have assigned him fiduciary duty (one of those companies even used encryption to try to hide the illegal infringement).
Reasonable to you and me but don't forget that this was a German judge; --those same wonderful people who brought you...
What I found notable was the fact that nowhere in the piece do we find the words "piracy" or "theft", but I guess that's only when we got individuals copying from corporations. Seems that when it's corporations copying from individuals it's all a harmless misunderstanding.
“This week’s decision is likely to mean a fine against Skype and will force the company to adhere to the licence and source code distribution requirements of the licence.”
This week’s decision is likely to cause Skype and others to switch to BSD software.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.