digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

GPL vs. Skype Back in Court

hackaday.com — Tomorrow the High District Court of Munich will hear Skype argue against the validity of the GPL.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • decet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+39I always wonder why commercial software vendors are against the GPL. If they do not want to comply with it, they are free to license some other, non-free software instead which does the same thing as the GPL'd stuff - after all, the consensus appears to be that free software is inferior and only copies commercially developed programs. I think it is only fair that open-source programmers may decide themselves what can and what cannot be done with their intellectual property, and if they decide to put it under the GPL, then so be it.
    • koicho, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3Normally you can obtain a license from the author directly. But it is virtually impossible to track down all the authors and ask / pay for a commercial license.

      I've heard of "surprize" authors showing up and asking for money after product has been released. Even though the origingal library creator has signed the rights away.

      • boot20, on 05/08/2008, -1/+10What the hell are you talking about? Please provide some proof of this.
    • JQP123, on 05/08/2008, -13/+2"I think it is only fair that open-source programmers may decide themselves what can and what cannot be done with their intellectual property..."

      Most people would probably agree; however, the GPL doesn't stop there. It also tries to dictate to others as to what they must do with *their* intellectual property ... and therein lies the issue at hand.
      • CiXeL, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2its a simple matter of the rich wanting to make legal stealing work others have done. its the same thing driving the orphan works act of 2008.
        i think its time we start killing the ruling class. they have infected the government way too much.
      • alexforcefive, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Those are the terms of the GPL. Accept it or don't use GPLed code. Once again, no-one is putting a gun to your head
    • maccam94, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Skype has already dropped the appeal, the GPL won, this is already old news.
  • akkibaba, on 05/08/2008, -0/+37Skype claims that the GPL is somehow in violation of anti-trust laws, but why? The source code is available to anyone and everyone to look at and use, how does that lead to a monopoly of any sort?
    • InfamousAtheist, on 05/08/2008, -0/+24It's just more spin from the lawyers. They're grasping at straws.
  • sexybobo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+20So Skype is using free GPL software on the phones with out obeying the gpl license and said the license is not valid? Then wouldn't they be infringing on the copyrights of the software they included?
    Kinda stupid they are saving lots of money on not having to license or right their own code due to gpl but they don't want to play by the rules?
    • fkr3, on 05/08/2008, -5/+3Is it Skype or the phone manufacturers though? I've got a Linksys iPhone that runs Skype, but doesn't appear to have any other relationship with Skype.
      • SealandRes1, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4"GPL vs. Skype Back in Court"

        Yup, it's that apparent.
        • fkr3, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Thanks Captain Obvious, what I was asking is is it really Skype's responsibility to see the end consumer - the people buying the phones that run Skype, but aren't made by Skype - gets the license. I would have thought it was the manufacturer's responsibility.
        • lysdexic, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1This is pure speculation on my part, but If that were the case, I'd think they'd make that the basis of their legal argument.

          Speculating even further, my thought is that the phone manufacturers use a code library, provided to them by Skype, which includes the GPL'd code in question.
    • kretik, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I think it would be just easier - and more importantly, cheaper - to comply with the GPS, but they might be doing this to set a precedent, just in case they ever find themselves on the receiving end of an FSF lawsuit.
  • ssam, on 05/08/2008, -1/+41The GPL won
    http://digg.com/linux_unix/GPL_wins_in_Skype_case
  • bumcheekcity, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1What a bunch of bastards. The RIAA should be suing them.

    Well, it'd certainly make for an interesting case.
  • koicho, on 05/08/2008, -14/+3I am pro open-source. It helps to have many eyes on the same code.
    However in my mind the GPL is more of a scam that only benefits lawyers.
    I don't see these lawsuits really helping human kind technological progress. It is counter-productive.

    Unless they make it so that the author provided an easy way to go on a site an register as the license owner and then be able to charge for the use of their work in a commercial product.

    It's a legal nightmare to deal with open source as you never know who's going to show up at your door claiming ownership of such and such part of a part of a library asking for money.
    • ssam, on 05/08/2008, -0/+19They are not asking for money. All they are asking for is that if you distribute a piece of GPL open source code, you must make the source code and your modifications availible.

      if they are not going to play be these simple rules, then they can't distribute other peoples code.
    • depro9, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6STFU shill!
    • Stonekeeper, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8Are you crazy? The GPL is not a legal nightmare. It has very clear, defined boundaries. If you don't want to play ball, don't cross them. It's that simple.
    • altjeringa, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8The idea driving GPL isn't that many eyes make a better product. The idea driving GPL is share and share alike. The matter of who is going to show up on your door step is simple to resolve. You build on something licensed GPL you GPL what you build. Simple. You pay for what you got by giving something back. If you fail to make payment and just steal somebody else's intellectual property you pay in court. There is nothing complicated about it.

      Some of us choose to give and the only payment we are willing to accept is that you give back, we don't want your money. My product, my price, my terms. We call this capitalism you don't like it go live in Russia. ( I've always wanted to say that! hee hee )
  • depro9, on 05/08/2008, -2/+14***** Skype, they will FAIL!
  • Matt2k, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5The link-to-word ratio on that site is mind blowing. And yet still, the one part I was actually interested in reading more about was the line: "GPL as a whole violates anti-trust regulation" which was sadly, only bolded.

    Can anyone explain Skype's argument how the GPL violates anti-trust regulation?
  • Atomic1fire, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Ironic would be Google buying skype and offering a library under gpl.
  • nusuni, on 05/08/2008, -11/+2The GPL is a bloated license anyway. It's too over controlling. There's many other license schemes out there that are much better (BSD, various modified BSDs, public domain, etc).
  • ha1f, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1This case is stupid, but so is the GPL.

    Got to love a license that changes its definition of freedom with every revision...
  • codeyman, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2http://digg.com/tech_news/GPL_1_Skype_0
    keep up with news folks..
  • AzureRise, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4I'll never buy anything associated to Skype. Ever.
  • ramsinks.com, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Should leave skype alone, they do GOOD for us.

    Would you rather not have them around?
    I'm not sure there is a real thought process happening here.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.