Comments on: Linux defenders go after more alleged GPL offenders

The Software Freedom Law Center files two more suits on behalf of BusyBox developers for not making GPL-covered source code available.

[robwill53]

It's a broken model

The GPL is in conflict with the basic human motive for innovation, which is to earn a profit from a competitive advantage. GPL is a flawed concept that is destined to fail over time.

It's no surprise that for profit innovation in proprietary software from the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Google dwarfs anything the Linux community and GPL can offer. GPL is a "copy in diluted form" innovation model where one needs to ensure a high bug count and incomplete features in order to make money on the servicing side...or keep one's innovation proprietary and defy the GPL as these gentlemen have done.

[lefty.crupps]

Broken? Don't use it!

The point of the GPL isn't to give *companies* a competitive edge, nor to ensure that all software or hardware is the same. The point is to give *users* (consumers) rights which cannot be taken away.

If you want a competitive edge, either spend the time and money to create your own software under your own license, or continue innovating on top of the GPL-base-software faster than the project can release your innovations it to your competitors.

The software under the GPL is created to allow *users* to get things done, not companies to earn money. Earning money on Free software is a bonus for those who "get it."

[mbleasdale]

What's in Your Code?

While I can't intelligently comment on whether the GPL is good or bad, oppressive or otherwise, I will say that these lawsuits are proof positive that the purported "FUD" surrounding the importance of open source license audits is in fact, real. Although the conspiracy theorists would say that the whole thing was engineered by Microsoft, or Richard Stallman, or aliens, the fact that corporations are having to engage their legal teams, spend corporate dollars, and see their reputations put on display as questionable, shows that license enforcement is actually happening (albeit in small doses thus far). If you, as a corporation employing developers in any number, or as a developer accountable to your company, do not have a 360 degree, in-depth view of what open source code is in your code base, you might be next on the subpoena list. Palamida exists for that reason, to show you what open source is in your code, down to the actual line in the code base, and what licenses are associated with it (along with vulnerabilities). With this information you can remediate any issues long before the laywers, or the press gets wind of it.

Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale

[gumout]

A Broken Model

The SFLC recently alleged (in part) in a federal court complaint:

"8. Under the License, Plaintiffs grant certain permissions to other parties to copy, modify
and redistribute BusyBox so long as those parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section 2(b) of the License, addressing each licensee, states:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole
at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. . .

15. Upon information and belief, on August 5, 2006, Defendants were notified by a third
party of the relevant terms of the GPL and Defendant?s infringement thereof. This notification was provided via an e-mail requesting the complete and corresponding source code of the GPL-licensed software on an Infringing Product."


Now, the designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously "all third parties". Clearly the plaintiffs are "parties in privity" in the GPL contract and cannot be members of the class "all third parties." Therefore the plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made available to "all third parties".

The Supreme Court in 1975 ruled:

"Apart from this minimum constitutional mandate, this Court has recognized other limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts' decisional and remedial powers. First, the Court has held that when the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. Second, even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the "case or controversy" requirement, this Court has held that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties." Warth v. Seldin 422 U.S. 490 (1975)

http://72.41.57.74/standing.html

The only people with legal "standing" to complain about a violation of the GPL are the third party donee beneficiaries.

Sorry but the GPL model is broken. Bluffing in federal court only works until a defendant actually files a Motion to Dismiss.

ROFL :)