

AVM violating license of the Linux kernel - biafra
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20110620-avm-cybits.html

======
bryanlarsen
This is much more than your typical license violation -- AVM is suing Cybits
because Cybits exercised their GPL rights. So this is a very important case to
legitimize the GPL.

more information on Harald Welte's blog:
[http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/06/20/#20110620-avm_...](http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/06/20/#20110620-avm_cybits_gpl_violation)

------
zbowling
If AVM is trying to stop Cybits from reusing the code from AVM that was under
GPL in their own stuff, fat chance at that lawsuit.

If AVM is trying to stop Cybits from running modified versions of the GPL code
on AVM hardware, then it's not really illegal directly for Cybits to do, but
AVM could enforce code signing DRM requirements in their hardware (like TIVO
does) to prevent anyone with fiddling with it.

Really AVM could just give up warranty and support for customers that change
their software to run Cybits, or if it really bothers them, put signing
requirements in their firmware.

------
SoftwareMaven
If AVM were to win this case, could the copyright holders of the Linux source
withdraw their license to AVM? Could the license be wielded as a sword and not
just a shield?

~~~
cube13
If you could get every single person that has ever made an accepted change to
the Linux kernel to agree, sure. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure how that
would work out.

~~~
wheels
You can't retroactively change the license on the software once it's already
been released. You can only change the license for future releases.

------
jonhohle
> "Ironically, by preventing others from enacting the rights granted by the
> GNU GPL, AVM itself is in violation of the license terms. Therefore they
> have no right to distribute the software" says Till Jaeger.

Is there any more to this than the quote above? The GPL is viral. Sure, you
own the copyright to any changes you've made to GPL'd software, but you give
up a lot of those rights the moment you distribute. Don't like it? Look for
something BSD/MIT licensed to modify and distribute.

~~~
stonemetal
It depends on the grand complexity that is derivative work. A while back some
kid wrote an EverQuest FanFic that someone found objectionable. Sony was able
to sue for copyright violation because it was a derivative work. So no you may
not own the copyright to changes you make to GPL software(any software really,
nothing GPL specific there), because the court may rule it a derivative work.
Wikipedia has a few more interesting examples, see Pygmalion towards the
bottom. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work>

~~~
mbreese
But the GPL gives you the right to make derivative works. I highly doubt Sony
did the same with respect to EverQuest. So I'm not sure how applicable that
example is.

~~~
alextingle
Absolutely nothing prevents you from making derivative works. You can write
Everquest fan fiction until the cows come home.

Copying and distributing that derivative work _is_ restricted, however.

~~~
mbreese
True... perhaps it would be better stated as the GPL gives you the right to
_distribute_ derivative works.

I always thought that fan fiction lived in a legal gray area that was
tolerated by some and not others. So in my opinion, it's a bad example to use
in this case. GPL is very explicit as to your rights and responsibilities.

~~~
stonemetal
Some GPL projects sue for copyright infringement others don't. Does that make
GPL violations a grey area?

