Read more on Cloud Computing
March 18, 2005 8:12 AM PST
Defender of the Linux faith
- Related Stories
-
Open-source programmer alleges Linux misuse
March 16, 2005 -
Attorney: More disclosure will end GPL case
April 23, 2004 -
GPL gains clout in German legal case
April 22, 2004
(continued from previous page)
either include the source code when you distribute the binary program, or you can provide a written offer to provide the source code, which must then be provided to all third parties that request it. If companies are only using GPL-licensed software internally, they only need to distribute the source code to their employees.
What source code do companies need to release?
Welte: The free software parts that they have used and anything that is derived from that. If they write additional programs--for example, a front end that is not derived from GPL licensed code--they do not need to release the code for that.
What gives you the legal right to pursue the GPL violations?
Welte: Most of the violations we're seeing are happening in the embedded market. They are running the Linux kernel, and I have
Open-source programmer alleges Linux misuse
Everyone who writes code holds the copyright, unless they work for a company. Alan Cox is employed by Red Hat, so the copyright of the code he writes while at Red Hat is held by Red Hat.
You say on your Web site that you are hoping to get other free-software enthusiasts involved. How is this going?
Welte: It's hard to find people who want to get involved in the project. Most developers don't mind reverse-engineering code to show a lawyer that there has been GPL violation. But dealing with lawyers is something that most developers are not keen on. I myself don't like dealing with legal issues, as it keeps me from writing code.
What is the future of the project--will you keep running it independently, or will you try get the help of other organizations?
Welte: I'm still evaluating the options. I've been talking to my lawyer and to Free Software Foundation (FSF) representatives about this. There are two options--to do it within the FSF Europe, or to fund a separate not-for-profit organization.
Whatever organization it might be, if it gets involved legally, it will need to draw up an agreement with the copyright holder. Some developers might not want to sign an agreement with the FSF. I personally don't have any problems with the FSF, but some people think it's too religious. Some people wrongly think the FSF equals Richard Stallman (president of the FSF), and some people have an issue with Richard.
Some people have criticised the GPL for being business-unfriendly, what do you think?
Welte: I totally disagree.
How do you think the GPL compares with other licenses?
Welte: It's a philosophical question. The BSD licence allows you to integrate and modify without giving back modifications, while GPL expects you to give back modifications. These are two philosophies of how you develop software. Which you chose depends on the project. For example, if you have a new standard and want it to spread quickly, it's better to use the BSD licence, rather than the GPL.
Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London.
20 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
software they used de novo, they could have
licensed the iptables/netfilter software under
the GPL, they could license other code from a
third-party (if a comparable product existed;
otherwise contract with someone to build it), or
they could have contacted the author of the
GPL'd code to negotiate a license with different
terms.
The company chose to accept the terms of the GPL
and were contractually bound by it just as if
they had gotten the software from another
company. Rather than pay royalties and license
fees, their only obligation was that, should
they make modifications to the author's original
code and choose to distribute it, they would
provide the source code for those modifications.
In many parts of the world (not the US), this
right is implicit, and here it was explicitly
stated.
The company clearly made a business decision
that this was a great deal. In fact, it's an
awesome deal if you've ever been party to the
terms of licenses offered by commercial interest
(that not only include payments of license fees
and royalties, but also may contain "poison
pill" clauses, limitations on distribution an
types of uses, etc.). Moreover, the GPL is a
page long and the same regardless which of the
myriad software packages you license under it.
No need for a complex legal team to help you
plot out your business strategy -- the terms are
very few and unambiguous
The fact that the companies are in violation of
their contracts doesn't have any reflection on
the GPL or its suitability. What if Microsoft
made software that could do what iptables does?
They'd still have a license agreement, maybe
tying it to the use of other products,
co-branding, with royalties, clauses requiring a
defined commitment period with penalty for not
deploying, requiring renogiation of fees based
on unit sales or feature alterations,
requirements for compatibility with certain
other MS products, etc.
Honestly, few companies that select the GPL and
violate it do so intentionally and almost all do
the right thing when asked. They new the license
up front, they considered it, and they saw value
in it.
software they used de novo, they could have
licensed the iptables/netfilter software under
the GPL, they could license other code from a
third-party (if a comparable product existed;
otherwise contract with someone to build it), or
they could have contacted the author of the
GPL'd code to negotiate a license with different
terms.
The company chose to accept the terms of the GPL
and were contractually bound by it just as if
they had gotten the software from another
company. Rather than pay royalties and license
fees, their only obligation was that, should
they make modifications to the author's original
code and choose to distribute it, they would
provide the source code for those modifications.
In many parts of the world (not the US), this
right is implicit, and here it was explicitly
stated.
The company clearly made a business decision
that this was a great deal. In fact, it's an
awesome deal if you've ever been party to the
terms of licenses offered by commercial interest
(that not only include payments of license fees
and royalties, but also may contain "poison
pill" clauses, limitations on distribution an
types of uses, etc.). Moreover, the GPL is a
page long and the same regardless which of the
myriad software packages you license under it.
No need for a complex legal team to help you
plot out your business strategy -- the terms are
very few and unambiguous
The fact that the companies are in violation of
their contracts doesn't have any reflection on
the GPL or its suitability. What if Microsoft
made software that could do what iptables does?
They'd still have a license agreement, maybe
tying it to the use of other products,
co-branding, with royalties, clauses requiring a
defined commitment period with penalty for not
deploying, requiring renogiation of fees based
on unit sales or feature alterations,
requirements for compatibility with certain
other MS products, etc.
Honestly, few companies that select the GPL and
violate it do so intentionally and almost all do
the right thing when asked. They new the license
up front, they considered it, and they saw value
in it.
Most people have no idea what they are (unless
they've setup a firewall on a Linux system),
though most everyone that uses the internet rely
on the software.
The iptables/netfilter package handles realtime
stateful processing of network traffic (TCP and
UDP). It's an integral part of the Linux kernel
(for those using it on their desktop), and very
widely deployed embedded in network hardware
(particularly things like hardware firewalls,
cable and dsl routers, and commercial network
routers an appliances).
His software is so widely deployed, it's almost
a certainty that whatever you receive from the
Internet has passed through at least one thing
that uses it (a computer, router, switch,
cable/dsl modem, etc.).
Most people have no idea what they are (unless
they've setup a firewall on a Linux system),
though most everyone that uses the internet rely
on the software.
The iptables/netfilter package handles realtime
stateful processing of network traffic (TCP and
UDP). It's an integral part of the Linux kernel
(for those using it on their desktop), and very
widely deployed embedded in network hardware
(particularly things like hardware firewalls,
cable and dsl routers, and commercial network
routers an appliances).
His software is so widely deployed, it's almost
a certainty that whatever you receive from the
Internet has passed through at least one thing
that uses it (a computer, router, switch,
cable/dsl modem, etc.).
If you don't want to release the code, then don't use GPL'd code.
If you don't want to release the code, then don't use GPL'd code.
a long time. It's about time someone took them to
task for it. I think that the BSD's should take
Microsoft to task as well. You can't steal the code
and then claim it was your invention.
All I can say now is: Microsoft and all of its friends is suck. They just try to attack Linux by saying that Linux is unscalable and have many security risk. Just remember how bad MS-Windows are? How bad the stability and the security of Windows is? And how Microsoft drain all people's money by selling in high price? Many people wasting their money just to buy a very bad, very unsafe, very expensive Operating System. And now they (especially Microsoft) try to attack Linux as the free Operating System. Saying that Linux is bad? I'd use Linux for a long time and didn't have any problem with it till now. I can open the protected files (private files) in my harddisk, my NTFS harddisk which the OS is Windows XP SP2. It proof how bad the security of Windows is. And Windows have so many bug, security hole, broken things in it. PnP in Windows? Change it Plug and Pray. USB? My USB just become Universal Serial BUG in Windows. Microsoft just a plagiator, they take the concept of Mac Aqua MacOSX's LOOK N FEEL. Changing it to Luna Theme and get a popularity with it. How bad and how suck the way of Microsoft is. Lucky Apple didn't sue Microsoft at court for copying their concept. And now they say Linux is bla...bla... because they can't block the popularity of Linux nowadays. They (Microsoft C.S.) afraid of Linux will be the leader, so they try to make any bad issue about it. How a shame... Linux is the best!!!!!
appreciate the fact that you are angry about MS,
but, this story was about the enforcement of GPL'd
software. Perhaps you meant to bring focus on the
fact that MS is closed source and professes
indemnity, yet it is sued more often than open-source
vendors who have nothing to hide. Perhaps that is
what you were referring to?
Its a great idea when not abused by money-hungry companies looking for a cheaper way to produce their products.
Read my post to the original article.
I agree with the GPL. I participate in it on the Windows, Netware and Linux platforms. It hurts no one and it fairly simply a very unrestrictive to people looking to do the right thing. People who feel threatened by the GPL are usually trying to get something for nothing from other well-meaning, hard-working developers. Lets be fair. Innovation and combined knowledge of technologists everywhere move us ahead.. not money. You can pay anyone to try to solve a problem, but someone motivated by skill and knowledge will always come out ahead.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=5463&messageID=33563&start=-1" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=5463&messageID=33563&start=-1</a>
I welcome everyones comments and suggestions. This is not a dig to anyone.. simply a statement to be fair in an industry that is ever becoming corrupted by money-hungry, greedy corporations.
Bob.
Its a great idea when not abused by money-hungry companies looking for a cheaper way to produce their products.
Read my post to the original article.
I agree with the GPL. I participate in it on the Windows, Netware and Linux platforms. It hurts no one and it fairly simply a very unrestrictive to people looking to do the right thing. People who feel threatened by the GPL are usually trying to get something for nothing from other well-meaning, hard-working developers. Lets be fair. Innovation and combined knowledge of technologists everywhere move us ahead.. not money. You can pay anyone to try to solve a problem, but someone motivated by skill and knowledge will always come out ahead.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=5463&messageID=33563&start=-1" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/5208-7344-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=5463&messageID=33563&start=-1</a>
I welcome everyones comments and suggestions. This is not a dig to anyone.. simply a statement to be fair in an industry that is ever becoming corrupted by money-hungry, greedy corporations.
Bob.
a long time. It's about time someone took them to
task for it. I think that the BSD's should take
Microsoft to task as well. You can't steal the code
and then claim it was your invention.
All I can say now is: Microsoft and all of its friends is suck. They just try to attack Linux by saying that Linux is unscalable and have many security risk. Just remember how bad MS-Windows are? How bad the stability and the security of Windows is? And how Microsoft drain all people's money by selling in high price? Many people wasting their money just to buy a very bad, very unsafe, very expensive Operating System. And now they (especially Microsoft) try to attack Linux as the free Operating System. Saying that Linux is bad? I'd use Linux for a long time and didn't have any problem with it till now. I can open the protected files (private files) in my harddisk, my NTFS harddisk which the OS is Windows XP SP2. It proof how bad the security of Windows is. And Windows have so many bug, security hole, broken things in it. PnP in Windows? Change it Plug and Pray. USB? My USB just become Universal Serial BUG in Windows. Microsoft just a plagiator, they take the concept of Mac Aqua MacOSX's LOOK N FEEL. Changing it to Luna Theme and get a popularity with it. How bad and how suck the way of Microsoft is. Lucky Apple didn't sue Microsoft at court for copying their concept. And now they say Linux is bla...bla... because they can't block the popularity of Linux nowadays. They (Microsoft C.S.) afraid of Linux will be the leader, so they try to make any bad issue about it. How a shame... Linux is the best!!!!!
appreciate the fact that you are angry about MS,
but, this story was about the enforcement of GPL'd
software. Perhaps you meant to bring focus on the
fact that MS is closed source and professes
indemnity, yet it is sued more often than open-source
vendors who have nothing to hide. Perhaps that is
what you were referring to?