Comments on: Linux programmer wins legal victory

German court supports effort to enforce the GPL, which governs countless projects in the free and open-source software realms.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

gpl clarification

" when they ship such a product."

it is "when they distribute modified versions of the product (derivative works)"

[Shankland]

author replies: Well, sort of

The GPL requires source code to be available even if it's not modified, and i's not clear exactly what Fortinet did. Section 2 of the GPL governs derivative works, but in cases where a company distributes code--modified or not--in executable form, Section 3 kicks in:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

--Stephen Shankland

A shadow?

A shadow over open source, or a careless developer's product? Please. This was a case of the developer either not paying attention or not wanting to abide by the terms (attempting to plagiarize/obtain free development work from others).

Is news.com ignorant of GPL requirements? They aren't complex, but like any license, somebody needs to pay attention. A company that uses external code without understanding the licensing terms is shooting their own foot. A company that tries to weasel out of their obligations after repeated requests deserves the cloud over their derivative products.

Thanks

News.com, thanks for the "shadow" headline change.

[David Arbogast]

SCORE

"You didn't give your work freely to the community!"

Score one for the socialism police.

The GPL is simple.

It is not, however, a declaration of carte blanche or public domain status.

Pay attention, give credit where due, and enjoy the numerous benefits. Simple stuff for those not looking to plagiarize.

[pcLoadLetter]

More FUD

If they didn't want to abide by the terms of the license, they should not have used it.

The company in question was trying to get a free lunch, by climbing on the backs of others without having to abide by the terms. They wanted the quid without giving a bit of quo.

You socialist comment was unintelligent and unnecessary.

Socialist?

OSS software under the gpl is no more socialist than broadcast television. You get to watch it free, yes? Are they socialistic? Certainly not. They sell commercials, but not the broadcasts. They make money from a "free" broadcast.

The same thing happens with software under the gpl. At a bare minimum, they are getting access to everyone else's work who used their product. That has value even if dollars don't change hands. Some companies sell service and support for their gpl products. How can that be socialistic in any fashion?

[TheMidnightCoder]

Well, you OSS guys do tend to sound a bit

Socialist once in a while. Generally I think your living in a wonderful fantasy land. I would love to live there too, but I have bills to pay. Music should be free, movies should be free, heck, and I wish my car was free too. OSS will probably disappear once the Evil Nemesis M$ is no longer king. Then the major hardware companies that support OSS so much really won't need to anymore (great for marketing). I know, I'm evil too.

[unknown unknown]

reply

No one is forced to use GPLed code or software. Companies who don't want to turn over their source shouldn't use GPLed code in their projects. It's really very simple. It might be socialism, but it's opt-in. Those who opt-in are expected to comply with the terms.

Fortinet are dumb as bricks

"Fortinet recently became aware of Mr. Welte's allegations and has, in good faith, been diligently working with him to resolve this matter outside of the German court system"

Fortinet knew they were taking GPL code and reselling without distributing their source code. To act all surprised is a ruse. Welte's legal actions are to wake up companies that think they can get away with this.

If Fortinet is a real company they would have had their lawyers read over the GPL license before using it. Fortinet is a tech company selling a computer firewalls, for crying out loud! For them to have never heard of the GPL license is simply a lie.

[David Arbogast]

Not a Victory by a Longshot

I call it... shooting yourself in the foot.

Fortinet may have broken the rules, but if you call this a victory for GPL or OSS you are pretty foolish. Fortinet wanted to make a profit, and probably realized that *giving away their software* would make that very difficult. Now that they have been smacked upside the head by the GPL-Police, you can bet they'll find a new approach. Proprietary software anybody? One less GPL contributor. One more win for closed-source software. I'm sure Fortinet isn't too broken up about it. They obviously have no desire to *Give Away Their Hard Work For Free."

[pcLoadLetter]

Give away their hard work for free?

That is amusingly ignorant considering that much of their 'hard work', is nothing more then using others hard work that was free.

You FUD spreaders need to get it through your head that free does not have to mean free of cost.

[TimeBomb]

You mean psuedo-opt-in

There is nothing "opt-in" about using GPL code without being aware of it, because it was imbedded in a product you obtained.