Cisco discovers the FSF wasn't joking
When I read that the Free Software Foundation is suing Cisco Systems over alleged violations of the GNU General Public License (GPL), my first reaction was, "Put that subpoena back in your pocket, FSF." A copy of the complaint is available on PDF.
After all, I figured that it was yet another BusyBox claim and, while I believe that everyone - including open-source developers - has a right and duty to protect its intellectual property, it has seemed lately that the open-source world is becoming as litigious as the proprietary world, and that's not a good thing.
However, reading OStatic's summary of the suit reminded me that for the FSF has never been particularly litigious, never visiting the courtroom in 15 years of license enforcement. For the FSF, through the Software Freedom Law Center, to take this action suggests that things must be very bad.
The FSF has been working with Cisco since 2003 to ensure compliance of its Linksys routers, but five years later, Cisco still apparently can't get its open-source act together. Cisco claims to be "disappointed" by the legal action, but it can't pretend to be surprised. I know Eben Moglen of the FSF and Software Freedom Law Center reasonably well: he's not the sort of person to sue unless he has exhausted all other avenues of mediation.
Brett Smith, licensing compliance engineer at the FSF, explains:
We began working with Cisco in 2003 to help them establish a process for complying with our software licenses, and the initial changes were very promising. Unfortunately, they never put in the effort that was necessary to finish the process, and now, five years later, we have still not seen a plan for compliance. As a result, we believe that legal action is the best way to restore the rights we grant to all users of our software.
In a statement, Cisco indicated that it believes itself to be in "substantial compliance" with the GPL, but that's like saying it's almost a virgin. Either you are, or you're not. In this case, given the FSF's nonlitigious track record, I suspect that Cisco is not, in fact, in compliance with the GPL. This, however, is easy to fix: release the code.
It's not that hard, Cisco. You benefit from open source by modifying freely available open-source software and including it in your products. When you distribute those products, you have an obligation under the very same licenses that gave you the code in the first place. Time to brush up on Open Source Licensing 101.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
If it were a commercial company with paid licensing you can bet they would not wait so long or be so patient or conciliatory in gaining compliance.
The sad fact is, lots of commercial software companies are using free software of all types of licensing and failing to comply with the licensing. Even with the most liberal licensing of simple acknowledgement. (MIT type licenses)
Ironically, the use open source (without permission), yet jealously guard their IOS source and have no open source (that I know about anyway).
Cisco has a history of stealing open source."
If Cisco is using open source and profiting from it then they should release the code or comply with any open source rules and policies that apply in an expedicious manner. The courts, if necessary, will determine if Cisco is doing this or not and that will be the end of it.
Cisco, however, does not have a history of stealing open source as danxy calims in his post above. They do have a history of purchasing companies (somewhere north of 200 in the past 20 years) and using the source of those acquired companies to increase their industry foot print. But purchasing source is not stealing source.
Panasonic does it with their TVs, and they use more than just Busybox. My Netgear router came with a little note that tells me that they use GPL technologies and where to get the source code for it. I can appreciate that Cisco would make heavy modifications and would need some time to get it all separated from the proprietary things that they license, but five years is just too long for that process.
Unfortunately the FSF doesn't really have a carrot, so if a vendor doesn't even cooperate with the FSF they need to bring out the stick.
- by Aus_Engineer December 14, 2008 10:54 PM PST
- after cisco, are they going to go after Google ?? i wonder, or is google too scary for FSF to enforce their viral GPL against.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by hawkeyeaz1 December 15, 2008 9:28 AM PST
- There is no legal grounds to go after Google. What product do they release that is closed source but based on Free/Open Source Software? None!
- Like this
-
(13 Comments)There is a good reason why GPL has not been tried in the courts, and im sure will be shown by this one, if its not settled out of court.
All you will do in further marginerlize FOSS more and more, and become the untrusted bad boys of software.
Its NOT OPEN or FREE, if you cry and complain about people using the software.
Dont forget FOSS is based on theft and copying in the first place its not like you do anything innovative, you copied UNIX and everyone elses appls, and you call it your own.
its just a cheap knockoff, which is a real shame for FOSS
The GPL has been tried in court, both German and US courts, within the past 5 years even. Both courts found the GPL valid and enforcable.
There is a difference between Open, Free and public domain. Open and Free (usually) refer to open, as in you can legally see everything w/o an NDA, and free as in freedom (though sometimes as in price) and you can do what you want to with it w/o worry about contracts or lawsuits.
FOSS has similarities with Unix, but they are as related as you are with your cousin. *nix, ( BSD, Unix, Linux) have all innovated in the last 15+ years, it just so happens many of the innovations are shared back and forth, cross pollination style.
Unix from it's origin was FOSS, it was the Bells and Microsoft that propriatized things. Unix's roots is where the GPL came from--it was the ethos Unix was written under that Stallman set in stone.