The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement
mjg59.dreamwidth.org
mjg59.dreamwidth.org
Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take?
"A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasonable if it were for technical reasons, but it's not - it's explicitly stated that companies are afraid that Busybox copyright holders may force them to comply with the licenses of software they ship. If you ship this Busybox replacement instead of the original Busybox you'll be safe from the SFC. You'll be able to violate licenses with impunity."
Wait, didn't GNU and the GPL start off for the completely non-technical reason that Stallman didn't like the original license?
I'm also not sure I like the idea of using BusyBox as a backdoor to examine the rest of a product's source code. I didn't realize that was a condition of the GPL, but it makes me glad I've switched most of my projects over to the BSD and ISC licenses.
And the point is that the people who wrote Busybox don't want money if you're infringing their copyright - they just want to see exactly what you've done with their code, and get the chance to play with it. Which is pretty reasonable when you think about it.
https://products.sel.sony.com/opensource/
you'll see other products such as webkit with updates in 2011
They're not asking for this because they dislike Busybox'es GPL license. They're asking for it because they know Busybox actually goes to court to enforce it, and asks for the other GPL products to have their license respected too.
I'll spell it out more clearer: they want to get rid of Busybox, because its one of the only things whose license they cannot violate with impunity.
On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them.
On the other hand, if Sony would rather write it themselves than abide by the GPL then I'm not seeing the problem there, either. Again, it makes no sense, but it's their decision.
Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is often much more cost-effective. But if there's one company that doesn't give a rats ass, it's Sony.
Most free software developers also don't register their copyright (unlike Sony) and so aren't entitled to those fantastically high statutory damages. They have to prove actual damages. For free software.
Good luck.
On the other hand, more software that is not infected with a proprietary or copyleft license is always good.
Sony aside, I wondr if it is legally feasible for there to beaclass action suit against a large serial gpl violator, the class being developers only related by the license they chose to use.... copyright violation is illegal, after all, right?
Basically, Sony is admitting that they are doing this so that they can avoid complying with the GPL, meaning that it is their intent to violate copyright law, knowing that they probably won't get sued over it. Isn't this a criminal act on the part of Sony?
I realize that it isn't as cut and dry, but I do see some strong parallels.
Further, why are these companies so stupid as to not release the source for their BusyBox implementation without being sued? It seems like it would be much, much simpler than trying to hold onto it and then be forced into a situation of releasing the source for everything that's covered.
Nobody has a problem with Sony writing their own version of BusyBox - good for them if they can do it. But, if the reason they are writing their own version, is so they can, without worry, violate _everyone else's_ copyright - then that's somewhat shady behavior.
Ironically - from a "Game Theoretic" position, Sony's approach is entirely rational. Take out the opponent who can stand up against you, and crush those who can't.
So - I'm simultaneously impressed by their strategy while offended by their attitude.
Why is this a bad thing, other than that it weakens the importance of the GPL?
They want to switch to a mostly-GPL stack, except for the one component that causes them to have to live up to their GPL obligations.
If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.
> If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.
Your ability to do this also depends on the legal system, which makes it hard for the little guy with respect to a big corporation. This is why we have mechanisms like SFC.
If they're placing too high a monetary value on non-compliance with the license, then you could easily see why these companies would push back and seek these types of alternatives; or flat out deny the use of (L)GPL software in their products entirely. In the end, this is probably the opposite of what the SFC intended and may result in the loss of their greatest legal tool.
The companies who habitually violate the GPL contribute approximately nothing back to the wider ecosystem. The best you can say is that they gain brand awareness for Linux, but that's it. People release code under copyleft licenses because they want people to provide source to their downstream recipients. If they were more interested in brand awareness than source, they'd have used a liberal BSD-style license instead. Having vendors refuse to use GPLed code because they don't want to ship source is arguably a perfectly reasonable outcome.
It's sad, really. I can see a future where a terminal program or command is embedded in the linux kernel and cannot be removed, only to force companies to stay honest.
Busybox is the exception. The SFC actively enforces the license for busybox. In addition, once you lose your right to use busybox as a consequence of a license violation, the SFL will let you ship it again only if you come into compliance on for all of the GPL code you ship.
So they are making their own busybox as a way to continue to violate all the non-busybox GPL code they use.
If you comply with the busybox licence, you can continue to violate the licence on all the other GPL code. But violating busybox means you have to comply with all of your GPL code.
You never have to release your non GPL code.
The fact that a Sony guy wants to build a non-GPL Busybox is not evidence of any Sony violations of the GPL, now or earlier. There is some radical jumping to conclusions here.
I'm suggesting that some companies would not want to let you analyze their trade secret modules on principle even when they aren't GPL-derived. I'd say that concern is unreasonable, but that doesn't mean some companies don't have it.
Let me put this another way: Do you think the developers behind editline wrote it because they wanted to violate the GPL? Or did they write it for some other reason?
Personally, I read the Sony post very differently. It sounds to me Sony, in part because of the aggressive stance SFC takes with busybox GPL violations, isn't happy with the business costs of using busybox (e.g. concerns among chip vendors and suppliers). They could easily be wrong in their assessment of the business costs (e.g. concerns from chip vendors and suppliers should not be taken seriously), but given that assessment, it seems to me that writing a busybox replacement is a reasonable response.
I would hardly call enforcing their license an "aggressive stance". When a company enforces their right against those that violate the terms of their proprietary license it's considered "normal" but if a Free Software developer does the same thing it's considered being "aggressive"?
Sony never originally intended to comply with the requirements of the GPL. They did violate the terms of the GPL. That isn't speculation. The reason they ever complied is because they were forced to.
For those saying that there isn't a problem as long as the original authors are not willing to go to court over the violation. Think about what you are saying for a minute. You are basically saying "it's OK to pirate someones work as long as they don't enforce their license on me personally". Yes it's "piracy" as the same companies have defined it -copyright infringement-.
Let me try an analogy: Suppose that, as part of a BSA settlement, they didn't just require you to come to terms with any BSA members whose licenses you were violating, but also with any non-BSA members whose licenses they judged you were violating. Having never had dealings with the BSA they may well do this (in the interests of drumming up new members or something). Nevertheless, I would characterize that in exactly the same way: not wrong, or even unreasonable, just aggressive.
Note that busybox is only used to obtain the source code of parts of the product for which source code is already required to be provided by the GPL or similar licenses. It's not used to get code which isn't covered by the GPL (although it could in principle be, or at least force the company in violation to choose between that and coming into compliance by removing all use of busybox)
This is based on one interpretation of the GPL: That if you violate the license, you lose the license to that software forever, including new versions of it, until you get explicit permission from the author. The SFC then made a condition of granting permission to BusyBox, that the violator come into compliance regarding all other GPLed projects.
But that interpretation is not a legal fact. Another interpretation - which seems much more reasonable to me, and was certainly the intention I had when I released GPL code myself - is that you lose the license when you violate it. But as the GPL states, you get a license when you download a new version of the software anyhow, so the problem goes away - unless you violate the GPL again. In other words, if you violate the GPL, you have no license to the code, but once you comply with it, you are fine.
The former interpretation always struck me as bizarre: If you lost the license when you violated the GPL, surely you lost that license to that particular software. But how can that prevent you from getting a new license to a new version of the software? How are those connected? Or how about a new version of the software that was rewritten from scratch, and has no code shared with the one you were temporarily in violation from? Is the mere name enough? How about forks of the project? If any of this were what the GPL originally intended, you would think it would have been specified in some way. The much more reasonable interpretation is the second one: You lose the license to the concrete software you were given a license to before. Download a new version, get a new license. Stop violating the license, and you are ok.
The FSF has stated that the additional wording in the GPL3 was to avoid confusion from other possible interpretations in the past. So I don't think the GPL3 wording proves either previous interpretation is right - it has been used to argue that either of the two is, actually - all it shows is that there was some lack of clarity.
They are connected in the way that the same people whose license you violated are the ones granting you the new license. And I'd say they have reasonable doubt as to whether you will comply with the new license, since you didn't before. They don't have to grant you a license to use it, you know. Using someone else's IP is a privilege, not a right.
I don't see where it says that the license being given is not to people that violated the license on previous software being released. Again, if you argue that, then you get into the problems with "is this the same as the software from before" that I mentioned.
They're connected because some of the originally licensed copyrighted material still exists in the new version. You would get a clear license to any new material that you hadn't previously licensed (and hence hadn't violated the license of), but that's not very helpful.
Or how about a new version of the software that was rewritten from scratch, and has no code shared with the one you were temporarily in violation from?
If it doesn't contain any material that you'd previously violated the license of, then you would seem to be in the clear.
Is my analogy correct at all? Essentially Sony wants to be able to pirate (that's what it's called when you're redistributing things that are copywritten), so they're removing the only project that actually litigates against them?
Copyrighted. It's about rights, specifically the right to copy.
What a bunch of hypocrites. If BusyBox made Sony money, they'd fight an attempt to replace it tooth and nail, as AT&T did with BSD.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canons90/samples/comparedt... http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/samples/compare...
The E-P1 has a much much larger sensor, and should be much better than the s90 in bad light. Also, you can get a nice 10mm prime for the E-P1 (20mm full frame equivalent, compared to the s90's 28 mm FFE at its widest), or a fast portrait lens, or a telephoto.
On the other hand, u4/3 lenses are often insanely overpriced (at the moment), and the s90 fits in your pocket.
P.S. For a multitude of reasons. E.g. attempting to rootkit my computer using a legally purchased CD.
Sadly, I am currently using a Sony Ericsson phone, though somebody gave it to me - I did not buy it.
[1] I have owned many Sony products in the past, including (but not limited to) the Playstation and Playstation 2 (and many many games for both of these), so I am definitely a lost customer and not someone who claims to be one but who never bought their products to begin with.
Things I have not bought because of this: a TV, an ultrabook, a tablet and an Android phone.
Wait what? This has actually happened?
> "you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution"
If Sony has a different license from the copyright holders of software X that means they're not required to distribute source, presumably all they need to do is produce that license if their claim is challenged, or get said copyright holders to confirm it.
If they did, there should be evidence (a licensing agreement, perhaps) of that decision. If there's no formal agreement, the existing license has authority, and it's perfectly reasonable for the SFC to require adherence to the licenses of other packages used as a condition of re-licensing BusyBox to the infringing party.
On the one hand Sony is pushing for SOPA, but on the other hand Sony is violating the GPL. They could end up actively pushing through legislation that ends up significantly harming their bottom line.
I'm not sure what this has to do with busybox, save that under GPLv2 there are vendors who are afraid to use them because they have actively been pursuing an aggressive course of action under GPLv2 for several years.
What you're saying is "the absence of color doesn't fit my idea of what black should be, I see black as having a little touch of yellow in it".
Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others, is an attempt to remedy the ethical problems posed by closed source software, which has a strong tendency to lead to monopolistic behavior and unfair power balance between the consumer and the producer of a program.
Free Software may be many other things as well, depending on who is writing the software and releasing the code, but it's almost never a gift. The developers almost always want something in return, whether that is recognition, assistance with development or support for their ideals.
People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses. :-P Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work.
Yes it is, that is what free means. Check a dictionary.
>Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others
The FSF doesn't actually get to re-define the word free to mean "mandates the set of restrictions we desire".
>People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses
Both of which are free software.
It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworkers. As noted elsewhere in the comments, Rob Landley regrets assigning them rights for busybox, and no other authors have been represented in the suits.
The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution.
Quoth wikipedia:
On 7 December 2007, a case was brought against Verizon Communications over its distribution of firmware for Actiontec routers; this case was settled March 17, 2008 on condition of license compliance, appointment of an officer to oversee future compliance with free software licenses, and payment of an undisclosed sum.
On about Aug 03, 2010, BusyBox won triple damages of $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865, and possession of "presumably a lot of high-def TVs" as infringing equipment in the lawsuit Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, etal., the GPL infringement case noted in the paragraph above.
The suit against High-Gain Antennas was settled on March 6, 2008 with the company agreeing to comply with GPL and paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs.
On October 30, 2007, an SFLC press release announced that the lawsuit had been settled with Monsoon agreeing to comply with the GPL and pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs.
etc.
Many kernel authors simply don't care. Many others are employed by companies who would prefer not to potentially scare off customers, or are contractors who work directly for companies that are concerned about increased enforcement. Some have performed all their work under work to hire conditions and are in no position to engage in any kind of enforcement. While I'm sure some do disagree with the SFC's actions, I'd be astonished if that's the overwhelming reason for a lack of involvement.
In the SFLC's own press releases on the subject they note that they (the SFLC) identified organizations not in compliance, set the terms for getting into compliance, and decided who and when they should sue. At least at the time, the director of the SFC was a paid staff member of the SFLC.
Doesn't really sound like entirely separate organizations to me.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/SFC-and-SFLC-sues-Sam...
EDIT: quote: Because many of its clients could benefit from the protections of having a legal entity as well as tax exemption status, but were reluctant to pay the fees associated with formation or dedicate the time necessary to start and maintain a tax exempt nonprofit, the Software Freedom Law Center has established The Software Freedom Conservancy. Since its launch in 2006, the Conservancy has grown to include free and open source software projects active in a wide range of fields.
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.h...