
Open source law firm sues over GPL violations - dreemteem
http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/open-source-business/news/index.cfm?newsid=18026
======
CWuestefeld
Apparently the claim isn't that anyone copied their code, misrepresented it,
or anything like that. The claim is that the defendants didn't make the
original source code available. As I read the OP, the source code they're
talking about isn't a modified version of the original package, but simply a
direct usage of the exact package.

 _"You have to provide the source code, whether or not you modified the
program," Williamson said. "Just distributing the program, even if you haven't
made any changes yourself, you still have an obligation to provide the source
code."_

Sheesh. It's so important that an _additional_ copy of the original source is
published, that there needs to be a lawsuit over it.

I thought that the open-source movement was supposed to be about freeing
information and code. But every day, it seems more and more like a passive-
aggressive means of control.

~~~
viraptor
Not entirely silly. They also have to publish any modifications they make and
any part of the software that is directly based on busybox - which is the part
that is of interest to the authors and foss community. Anyways... it's not
passive-aggressive: companies used the software, so they should respect the
license - noone forced them to use this particular application. Busybox people
probably sued the largest number of users over GPL so far - you'd think that
big companies would know better than to repeat the mistake.

Why is that good? If someone ports busybox, or libc, or the compiler, or some
other software to a new architecture / environment / ..., everyone gets that
port / patch back for free. You're also more likely to get a stable custom
firmware for that device once it's known what is running on the original box.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_They also have to publish any modifications...everyone gets that port_

While the article doesn't quite make it explicit, it strongly implies that
there are no modifications. It seems to be purely a question of providing an
additional archive of the source.

 _You're also more likely to get a stable custom firmware for that device once
it's known what is running on the original box_

No more so than simply documenting what packages at what revisions were used.
How does the source itself help? (Yes, I can think of edge cases, like the
project goes away, but in such a case there's no one left to defend the
licensing terms anyway)

 _companies used the software, so they should respect the license_

Yes. There's no question that they should. The license is the license, they
chose to use it, and they are now obligated to live by its terms. If they're
not doing so, the court must penalize them. That's life in the real world.

My complaint is with the terms themselves, and the enforcement of them. First,
I don't see how an additional archive somewhere out there, that no one is ever
going to look at anyway. is of any benefit. Second, I don't see how a lawsuit
to enforce this is of any benefit (yes, they have the right to do so, but that
doesn't mean they're not jerks).

~~~
viraptor
Well... there are two ways to ensure that there are no modifications to the
original software. One is to ask politely. The other is to enforce the
license. I get the impression that if it was never enforced, there would be
some companies who simply say - "yeah, we're using the original source, go
away" whether they modify it or not. Since publishing the unmodified source is
neither hard, nor time consuming, I think it's perfectly reasonable to enforce
it on everyone.

~~~
weaksauce
What about the case where the company modifies the code and then publishes the
original unmodified source as their work? How is "yeah, look at our unmodified
source repo," any better than "yeah, we're using the original source, go away"

------
moron4hire
They have to provide it _on request_. The GPL does not say that the source
code has to be provided in the box. They just have to furnish it whenever
asked.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I believe you either have to provide it or provide a written offer to supply
it on request.

