Posted on 09/21/2007 9:11:32 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
In what may be the first action of its kind in the U.S., the Software Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit to enforce an open-source license.
The SFLC filed the suit on Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Monsoon Multimedia Inc., on behalf of the developers of BusyBox, Erik Andersen and Rob Landley. The suit charges Monsoon with using BusyBox under the GNU General Public License version 2 but failing to publish its source code. Under the terms of the license, distributors of software that uses the licensed software must make their source code available. Failing to do so is considered copyright infringement.
BusyBox, members of the public and the SFLC legal team notified Monsoon of its responsibilities, but Monsoon has not yet published the code, said Dan Ravicher, legal director at SFLC. While it's relatively common for licensees to neglect to share their code, parties typically work through the issue without having to go to court, he said.
This case is a last resort after Monsoon failed to rectify the situation, he said. The suit is necessary because from a legal perspective, copyright owners can start to lose rights if they don't act to protect them, he said.
BusyBox is a lightweight set of Unix utilities used in embedded systems. Monsoon develops digital video products, including a Slingbox-like device that enables remote TV viewing.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
So Free Societies aren’t really Free ...because they carry some obligations?
Yes, I don’t have the same regard for copyLEFT as I do for copyRIGHT. Come to think of it there’s not really anything on the left I support as much as what’s on the right.
Uggg youre going to make me go to that unwashed moonbats site:
"The freedom to redistribute copies ***must*** include binary or executable forms of the program, ***as well as*** source code, for both modified and unmodified versions." -- http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
Everyone in the world except the insanely obtuse who read the license or his thoughts on the license get this..
Get them all to quit misusing the word “free” if you want fewer misconceptions about whether it’s actually “free” or not.
Umm one of the many definitions of free is "Unguarded in expression or manner; open; frank."...
Post 19 said nothing about copyleft. The developers own the Copyright and release it under a given license. You believe the copyrighted software released under a license you dont like are less equal to the copyright released under a license you do like. This is a *very* communist idea GE...
You’re actually “free” to think and do as you please. As for me, I don’t support radical leftists whether they promise me “free” stuff or not. Good thing too, since as we see hear it’s usually not free anyway.
So you ignore the copyrights or people you disagree with *and* dictionary definitions you dont like!
Wow...
hear = here
I don’t support radical leftists, nor do I trust them when they say something is free, when just as we see here it’s probably not. You’re welcome to do otherwise, even go so far as attacking me for not supporting leftists or believing their claims of what is truely free. Doesn’t matter, I’m still not going to defend them. Ever.
So you ignore the copyrights or people you disagree with *and* dictionary definitions you dont like!
I’ve already told you several times, when copyrights are used for copyLEFT, I don’t support it. Apparently you have a problem with that. Fine, I still don’t support it, just like I don’t support other leftist movements.
Because you don't believe in the principles of freedom and equality that our nation is founded on. You believe in selective rights for people you agree with.
Apparently you have a problem with that.
I dont have a problem with copyleft itself, it is a valid license. But even if I did have a problem with a license I support the copyrights holder to license it within the limits of what contract law allows.
/s/copyrights holder/copyright holders/
Uh, no.
More like, "you wanna use my stuff, give me something for it".
Well if you want to support every leftist nutcase out there based on their right to be leftist nutcases, that’s your right. I don’t support leftist nutcases though, sorry. My right, of course.
They shouldn't call it "free software" then, since it's not.
I support free speech for people I disagree with why would I not support their rights under contract and copyright law? I guess given your post I would ask should we not support the protection of rights for those we disagree with?
"Free" as in speech, not as in beer. The license terms are simple, straightforward, and made clear. I can't believe you're defending a company who committed theft of IP simply because you don't like the license the original authors used on their own code.
Seriously, if they just wanted to give it away for nothing, they could have released it under a BSD-style license, which would do exactly that.
By the definition of free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free)
“19. frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar.”
“23. that may be used by or is open to all”
“Free” can clearly what is commonly understood by it.
You're not new here, are you? ;)
Just because I expect something doesn't mean I still can't find it unbelievable at the same time.
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.