[Foundation-l] re GFDL publisher credit

Mon Jul 17 15:38:20 UTC 2006

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been 
>>following the FSF and
>>their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt 
>>away like chaff in the wind
>>on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch 
>>GPL code then use it.
>>
>>They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think 
>>they know if this thing got in front
>>of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up 
>>... just a theory.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>A few points to note here....   The biggest known "abuser" of GPL'd 
>software is Tivo (the set-top real-time video recorder).  The company 
>openly admits to be using Linux as the OS for their products but doesn't 
>give copies of "modified" software they have been using within the 
>devices that they sell.  The problem here is, are they selling devices 
>that happen to have GPL'd software "embedded" in the device, not 
>re-selling software.  The GPL is ambiguous if this is even a violation, 
>and other companies that you are talking about also view pinching GPL'd 
>code under the same light.  I guess this is one of the "classes" of 
>violators you are talking about.  Some of this is also a mistaken belief 
>that the GPL requires "giving back to the community" any changes to 
>software that you make.  It does not, and Tivo has decided to keep their 
>changes as trade secrets.
>
>The other known major abuser of copyleft software was none other than 
>Microsoft itself, who copied the TCP/IP software from BSD Unix for the 
>Windows NT operating system network routines.  The problem here is that 
>it was not the GPL, but rather the BSD license that this software was 
>released under, and the FSF has no copyright claim on any of these 
>routines either.
>
>BTW, the exact opposite view is sometimes applied, where you will not be 
>hired by some software development groups if you have ever been exposed 
>to GPL'd software source code.  The reason is that they don't want to 
>have their software "contaminated" by GPL'd software specifically 
>because they don't want to deal with the viral nature of the GPL and 
>being forced to release all of their software under the GPL.
>
>Of course the most famous court case for testing the GPL is SCO vs. IBM, 
>where it was originally seen as a major test of the GPL (with IBM 
>backing of the GPL in a weird twist of events).  Instead it looks as if 
>the case is going to spin into a stock fraud case and turn from civil 
>litigation into a criminal matter.  Where the SEC will take this, I'm 
>not sure, but I'm certain that the GPL will be the least of the problems 
>for the CEO of SCO.  This case did air out some of the legal issues 
>regarding the GPL in court and did deal with many copyleft issues in 
>general, but it doesn't look like the GPL will be significant for any 
>precedence to use this case in future GPL-related litigation.
>
>I'm curious what other major copyright violators of the GPL that you are 
>talking about that the FSF didn't litigate against?  The real issue that 
>the FSF has been facing is that major violators of the GPL havn't 
>necessarily been violating the use of GNU/Hurd software or anything else 
>with a copyright claim by the FSF.  I guess this is another "class" of 
>GPL violations, but if they don't have a copyright claim, the FSF can't 
>really file as a plaintiff and enforce the copyright.  There is also the 
>issue of statutory vs. actual damage claims that I raised earlier that 
>also apply to software under the GPL, making even a positive judgement 
>(for the GPL) something that is essentially a moot point and effectively 
>unenforcable.
>
>  
>
Novell, Microsoft, and HP.

Jeff