mongre26
join:2004-02-04
| reply to R-1729
Re: Lawsuit is next!!!
"The GPL has stopped surprisingly few lawsuits, IMHO"
I am curious as to what you base your humble opinion on because from here its does not look like it is anything approaching facts.
The GPL has not stopped stopped lawsuits? I am not sure what you are trying to say but if I read the sentence on its face then I have to disagree. The GPL has in fact stopped many lawsuits. That is lawsuits where the owner of the copyright, who released their code under the GPL requests that a violator of the GPL comply with the terms of the license. The violator, understanding their rights under the license, presumably after consulting with attorneys has in all cases to date complied with the copyright holders request, without a lawsuit.
As for an example one need look no further than the very subject of this thread, the Linksys use of GPL'd Linux code. Linksys was in 2003 discovered to have used GPL code in their routers but had not complied with the GPL license and released their modifications in source code to the community. They were alerted to this fact and after some conversations with the copyright holders, a letter or two from the FSF and others Linksys complied with the GPL license and released the code. The GPL 100% had to do with preventing a lawsuit with Linksys as the defendent. This has happened many times before and the GPL will undoubtedly continue with its track record of stopping lawsuits in their tracks.
Also I a curious why you think you can sue for reverse engineering? You do know that reverse engineering is protected behaviour right? That you have the right to reverse engineer a product, produce a specification and then publish a work alike? Had this no been the case Compaq would never have been able to start the whole IBM clone business. Now it is true that your reverse engineered system could violate some patents, but then patents are public so you do not have to reverse engineer patented features, only license them, or create a work alike that does not violate the patent.
Now as far as patents and the GPL, yes if there is a patent then the GPL, a license, does not idemnify you from violating others patents. That is if you as the originator of a program violate some other entities patents. However if you actually would read the GPL you would know that the GPL specifically requires that any algorithms that the author of the software has patented and has placed in the GPL code they must, in order to use and/or comply with the GPL license provide royalty free rights to use said patent.
That is you cannot poison a GPL'd program with a patent. Eben is a smart guy, they thought of that one already. Section 7 of the terms and conditions if you are curious.
As a final word, does the GPL work? Resoundingly yes, here we have a case of a proprietary company using GPL'd code, as it is allowed to do, to create a product which is a successful product, they released their changes to the community and now others have taken it and improved on it again. Now Linksys can take those changes and re-integrate them back into their product.
Isn't it wonderful when your own customers implement a key feature that will help you hold or even advance more market share in home based wireless devices? Does it get any better?
If Linksys does re-integrate these changes then the circle will be complete and the superiority of the GPL license to continue to advance innovation in software will once again be demonstrated. |
