What is Digg?26 Comments
- digmc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14This might be a good thing. It's about time we show the world that the GNU License has sharp teeth and does bite if provoked.
- Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Probably important enough to be duped.
Personally, if lawsuits needed to be thrown around, it's at Sveasoft. They've been in breach of GPL for years now, and everyone kicks up a huff but no-one seems to be bringing them to justice. For those that don't know, Sveasoft is reselling GPL'ed firmware for the Linksys WRT54G routers (and similar) without providing source-code. They've even gone so far as the threaten legal and illegal action against those who release the firmware publicly on the 'net. - drrlvn, on 01/18/2009, -1/+10I'm sure the people at the FSF will be delighted to hear it is referred to as an "open-source organization".
They rightfully make a distinction between "free" and "open-source" and I think it should be honored. - rizhun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And so it begins...
- BamaStangGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yay for the new digg. Now making it easier for duplicate stories to hit the mainpage at the same time!
- battletux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7As I understand it, It means that if you use any GPL'd code (ie busybox) you have to pass on the source code for that part of your product as GPL (including all modifications to the original code). Any part of the code that is your own work and not based on any GPL'd code does not need to be disclosed.
- ilobmirt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This is great. Like digmc said, It really shows that open source Software has teeth too.
The GPL SHOULD be recognized as one of the many copyright licenses in the United States.
It'd be depressing if the court thought otherwise and believed that this "copyleft" wasn't up to snuff with other copyrights. - chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I never did like the name "Free Software Foundation". it gives a confusing message.
(I know it's free as in speech) - Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I am worried about this. If it goes well this gives the GPL actual power and many companies who rip it off nowadays will think twice before doing it, but if its shot down then all hell breaks loose when it comes to open source.
- msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No...just no.
GPL does not mean it's public domain. GPL means the source code is open to viewing and use, and that you're welcome to incorporate it into your project so long as you adhere to the license. If you violate the license, you're no longer welcome to use the code. - somerandomnerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3One of the conditions of the GPL (Greater Public Licence) is that the conditions that you receive it under are passed on to anyone who received a copy from you. So any derivatives or modifications you make to software under the GPL are also covered by the GPL.
Another of the conditions is that the source code must be made publically available- whether that's downloadable on the internet or posted on a CD to anyone who asks for it. - kitchen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6dupe much? yeesh.
- cmdrNacho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"embedded embedded Linux-based devices, such Trolltech's Linux/Qtopia-powered Greenphone, Drew Tech's DashDAQ car engine computer, and Pinnacle Audio's Athenaeum music server."
Can somone explain. Does that mean that all the source code for the devices are free to anyone ? What if you use the source as is without modifying it, does this still require that all the source that uses busy box needs to opened up for anyone to see ? - bonked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2GPL is VERY specific that it is not PUBLIC DOMAIN - take 10 minutes to familiarize yourself by reading it before making such assumptions.
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Digg, your system breaks URLs. Please fix this in the next build. :-) Thanks.
- WindsorBoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Before anyone gets too optimistic on the chances that this suit will succeed, I recommend a thorough study of this recent recent court case: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/index.html and, in particular, the August 17, 2007 judgement found in this judgement (PDF document): http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf (see section 4 "State Claims, Counts Five and Ten, Are Also Preempted by Copyright Law"). In summary, Judge Jeffrey S. White pretty much threw out any justication for claims of copyright infringement for source code that is freely distributed and downloadable by anyone on the Internet. This obviously needs to be appealed, but for now his judgement stands and if it withstands appeals it means that the copyright protections claimed by the GPL are meaningless. He further states that a case could be made on the basis of a contract law, but since the software under dispute is available to anyone, at no charge there is also no basis for this sort of claim. So, if I was the FSF I think I'd be hoping that that a similar ruling doesn't occur in their case.
- matthekc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If the Gpl doesn't have to be obeyed than nor does any sofware eula they are all contractual agreements.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I heard of them a few years back. They release the source to customers, but also prohibit you to release it further if you want to continue to receive updates. An interesting end-run around the GPL, that the FSF concluded might be within the letter of the GPLv2, but certainly not within the spirit of the GPL.
- thomashauk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Technically source code only needs to be receivable by the people you are distributing it, or anything derived from it, to. But because they could then publicly release it generally it is in the first place.
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Many thoughts come to mind and here's one of them:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200707091 ... - fluxion, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1for some reason im a bit worried about this case. what if they dont win? it should be clear as day but there's so much slithering and squirming goin on in the legal world with this kind of stuff
- bangmalley, on 08/30/2008, -4/+1i thought Microsoft is being taken to court
- ronin691, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3On Behalf of BusyBox Developers, SFLC Files First Ever U.S. GPL Violation Lawsuit
The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed the first ever U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL) on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GPL version 2.
One of the conditions of the GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. On the company's own Web site, Monsoon Multimedia has publicly acknowledged that its products and firmware contain BusyBox. However, it has not provided any recipients with access to the underlying source code, as is required by the GPL.
"We licensed BusyBox under the GPL to give users the freedom to access and modify its source code," said Erik Andersen, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit filed yesterday in Manhattan Federal District Court. "If companies will not abide by the fair terms of our license, then we have no choice but to ask our attorneys to go to court to force them to do so."
The complaint filed by SFLC on behalf of the BusyBox developers requests that an injunction be issued against Monsoon Multimedia. It also requests that damages and litigation costs be awarded to the plaintiffs. A copy of the complaint is available at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/bu ...
"Free software licenses such as the GPL exist to protect the freedom of computer users. If we don't ensure that these licenses are respected, then they will not be able to achieve their goal," said Eben Moglen, Founding Director of SFLC. "Our goal is simply to ensure that Monsoon Multimedia complies with the terms of the GPL."
The lawsuit, "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Monsoon Multimedia Inc.," case number 07-CV-8205, will be heard by Senior District Judge John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
source: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/sep/20/bu ... - findhost32, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0This is great.
http://www.findhost32.com/company/midphase/index.p ...
http://www.findhost32.com/articles/index.php - captaincoconut, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2What a frivolous lawsuit. If code is released under the GPL it means the code is in the public domain and Monsoon Multimedia can do anything it wants with it. I am tired of all these linux zealots and their shareware.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is