BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- Subject: [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- From: bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:57:21 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CANaytcdPj-8VKtYpViVXbZ2VBes0WZP4WD7+e=n1h2o39Y0kfA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <55256757.4030806@gmail.com> <CANaytcdPj-8VKtYpViVXbZ2VBes0WZP4WD7+e=n1h2o39Y0kfA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) <greg at freephile.com> wrote: > I contacted Riley to see if he's brought this to the FSF or Software > Freedom Conservancy for help. > > It's good to ask people politely to comply with the law; and good to out > them when they persistently refuse. I agree with this, but if you have been following the news related to VMware being sued in Germany; you will know that a company will string you along forever if they feel it is in their best interest to not comply. One big problem with getting companies to comply is that only the copyright holder can actually sue. An end user has no legal standing to bring suit as they are not a party to any contract/license between the offender and the copyright holder. In many cases, that would mean that an individual is personally responsible for finding and paying a lawyer in order to bring suit. In the VMware case, the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) is helping to fund the case; but isn't legally a party to it. That is why I think it is so important to fund organizations like FSF or the SFC. Without them, enforcing GPL would be a David and Goliath battle. David may have won in the Bible, but in real life that doesn't happen so often. Also, I don't know if it is deliberate or not; but the FSF in the early days required copyright assignment in order to accept contributions and I think that puts them in a much better position to actually enforce the GPL against the inevitable violators. On the other hand, copyrights in the Linux kernel are generally held either by individuals or by for profit corporations. Individuals typically don't have the resources to enforce their copyright and corporations have an odd relationship with the GPL. They like access to the code, but get worried when people start enforcing the GPL. What if someone comes after them at some point? People from the SFC have publicly stated that they are a bit worried about donations from corporations drying up as a result of this. Hopefully that won't happen, but if it does I'm not sure the community will step up to fill the gap. Unfortunately, we can't depend on organizations like The Linux Foundation to engage in enforcement activities. They are a industry trade association. Essentially bought and paid for by corporations. VMware is even a member. Bill Bogstad P.S. I am not a lawyer so consider that when reading any of the above as legal advice. It is true to the best of my knowledge
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- From: greg at freephile.com (Greg Rundlett (freephile))
- [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- References:
- [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- From: greg at freephile.com (Greg Rundlett (freephile))
- [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Boston Linux Meeting reminder Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - SoC Update : How embedded Linux is changing the PC ecosystem
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Ubiquiti Networks is creatively violating the GPL
- Index(es):