Comments on: GPL defenders say: See you in court

The Software Freedom Law Center files suit--and could roil the waters for more folks than just the single defendant.

[The_Decider]

Not quite right

If you make changes, that alone does not trigger the reciprocity requirement.

You also have to distribute it.

A company can take an OSS project, alter it for internal use and never have to release anything, unless they want to.

Really, is it difficult to get that right?

It is about time the FSLC take a hard line to those who try to steal others work.

[The_Decider]

whoops

Change OSS to GPL.

Maybe it is hard to get right :p

[mikalg]

Grammar

You mean WITH those don't you? Bad grammar yet again.

[ittesi259]

High Impact? Ok, but old news

Why wasn't CNET reporting on this last week when everyone else was?

[WJeansonne]

Those in Glass Houses...

and what goes around comes around. This group is propping up a baseless license, since the license itself violates over 235 know patents of Microsoft. They should count their lucky stars the Microsoft hasn't sued their constituency yet.

[The_Decider]

Truly clueless

1 MS hasn't offered a shred of proof.

2. The GPL is a license not software. Those non-existent 235 infringing patents is alleged against Linux, not the GPL. You do realize there is a difference, don't you? Why are MS astroturfers so bleeding ignorant?

Once again you show everyone that you don't have clue one about computing.

[`WarpKat]

Name them.

I challenge you to name any of the 235 patents the GPL license (v2 or v3) itself violates.

If you CAN, I won't post here for a month.

If you CAN'T, then YOU can't post here for a month.

Those are the terms.

[ralfthedog]

...over 235 known patents of Microsoft.

How can a patent be known if Microsoft will not disclose what patents are violated. It is quite well known that most if not all Microsoft patents have prior art. Microsoft knows that if they publish the list of patents they claim are violated, those patents will be invalidated.

The solution to this problem is to invalidate all of Microsoft's IP. The OSS community as well as companies like IBM and Red Hat are acquiring IP that preexists Microsoft patents to use if Microsoft is stupid enough to bring any of this to court.

The next step would be to show Windows infringed the GNU license and force Microsoft to publish its source code.

[Phillep_H]

Put up or shut up

(nt)

[ibmorjamn]

M$

If M$ had the laws in force at the time of it's inseption with IBM the software obtained would have certainly been in violation.

The code from Linux came from Unix not M$.M$ may claim those accusations of 235 pattents but they have not specified them.There intelectual property is broad and vague at best.

[Penguinisto]

Name 'em.

Not even MSFT can do that.

QED: there are no violations until someone does, and can prove them.

/P

[Shankland]

the 235 patents don't relate to the GPL

I've covered the 235 patent issue extensively; the Microsoft patents in question have nothing to do with the GPL itself but rather with some open-source projects that are in some cases are governed by the GPL. For example, the Linux kernel violates 42 patents, Microsoft argues. Don't expect them to tell anybody what the patents are, though; such information typically shows up only in lawsuits or confidential licensing discussions.

[`WarpKat]

Retract Your Statement

First of all, since you obviously can't tell the difference between a license and source code, your statement is about as truthful as available beach-front property in Utah; and no, lake shores don't count.

Secondly, Microsoft is ALLEGING that the Linux kernel violates 235 of its patents. Which leads us to:

Thirdly, Microsoft has yet to prove, let alone provide a list of, any of its 235 patents that have been violated.

And since you've not accepted nor declined my challenge, I can safely assume that you will retract your statements as they are completely baseless, to coin your choice of words.

[alflanagan]

Re: Glass Houses

Great trolling! You've got a lot of people worked up about a statement that's ridiculous on its face. You couldn't possibly be that ignorant.

[gumout]

The SLC tactic

This lawsuit isn?t even a copyright case. It is a breach of contract claim. The complaint
states, ?Defendant has distributed to the public copies of the Firmware in its Infringing Products and via its website without providing source code to BusyBox?. That is a breach of contract claim since ?failure" to distribute source code is not a violation of the Copyright Act.

The complaint states, ?As such, any rights Defendant may have had under the License to redistribute BusyBox were automatically terminated the instant that Defendant made non-compliant distribution of the Infringing Products or Firmware.? Here is what the federal courts say about New York law concerning this claim:

?. . . rescission of the contract only occurs upon affirmative acts by the licensor, and a breach by one party does not automatically result in rescission of a contract. Id. at 238 (?New York law does not presume the rescission or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has the burden of proving it?).?; Atlantis Information Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc.,, 2007 WL 1238716 (E.D.N.Y. April 30, 2007).

-- so much for ?automatic termination?. The plaintiffs named in the complaint have no standing to bring this action because the GPL requires distribution of source code to ?all third parties?. The plaintiffs are obviously not ?third party? beneficiaries to the GPL and hence have suffered no personal ?injury-in-fact? which is required for standing in a lawsuit.

This lawsuit is simply a propaganda move by the SFLC. The SFLC will file for dismissal of this action before any F.R.C.P. Rule 12 (Motion to Dismiss) is ever filed with the Court, since they would appear very foolish when the Court subsequently dismissed the case. The SFLC will dismiss and then trumpet ?The GPL won in court !?
Not.

[The_Decider]

Yeah, not

If the GPL can't pass legal muster, then neither can the draconian licenses that slime like MS uses.

The SFLC is not pulling an SCO.

[McBlayde]

I don't think so

"This lawsuit isn?t even a copyright case. It is a breach of contract claim."

There was no contract, so there is no breach. It is clearly a copyright case, it isn't anything else.

The defendant used copyrighted material in a manner not permitted by the copyright. Period. How hard is that to understand?