What is the Best Way to Handle a GPL Violation? 511
DeadSea queries: "When you find that somebody is violating the GPL by distributing your code or a derivative of your code as a closed source product, how do you go about handling it? I have found two violations of the GPL for my Java Utilities, in the last month. The Free Software Foundation says that the copyright holder is the only person empowered to act. If you are the copyright holder, how do you communicate with the offenders? I know folks here must have dealt with this before: Linksys, SCO, Castle Technology, United Linux, and others. Personally, I would like to believe that with a little nudging (and without lawyers), I can resolve the things. As such, I would especially appreciate any example letters or other documents that might be effective."
I hate to say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
DIY is great for things you enjoy doing. Writing letters to copyright infringers isn't fun for many people.
How do you DETECT a GPL violation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you gave the code away for Free (Score:2, Insightful)
They're earning money off his hard work - why does being "generous" mean you have to make them money? You can release code as public domain, and let people do what they will, but that's fairly obviously not his aim - (and pardon me if I've got this wrong) - he wants to share with those willing to reciprocate the sharing.
Maybe do some reading on the aims and goals of the GPL, and try and see what they're getting at. (And I also hope I'm not stirring up a hornet's nest here - just two (for now) nice, diplomatic posts :)
Bifurcati
My suggestion.... (Score:5, Insightful)
IF THAT FAILS,
2. Craft a letter. Be professional but firm.
IF THAT FAILS,
3. Get a lawyer. A good one but one that will take the case for a percentage of this company that you are about to own.
Re:If you gave the code away for Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Placing the code under GPL helps to build the code for the benefit for all and is less restrictive than propriatary means. The companies using the code without agreeing to the GPL are in violation of copyright law, period.
If the companies in question do not agree to the GPL, than do not use the code.
You are blaming the victim here for "asking for it".
And yes, you did mean to stir up a hornets nest.
Offer to sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Follow up with a letter in which you inform them that you have determined that your software appears in their code without a license. Offer to sell them a license for some reasonable amount. Point out that you have also offered them use of the software under the GPL license if they prefer.
Direct your letter to their legal counsel if they have one. Otherwise, look for someone near the top. The head of the salesforce is generally a good bet; they're very vocal within the company and will tend to get the necessary folks to deal with you.
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:1, Insightful)
People should do things they enjoy for free. Plenty of lawyers take interesting cases pro bono, and programmers work on fun projects and release them under the GPL. I program for a living, writing code that isn't always exciting. I also count programming among my hobbies -- but I only start projects I enjoy working on.
If a friend asked me to program something that wasn't fun, I probably wouldn't do it for free (I'd just say "no" -- unless they offered to pay). If I asked a lawyer friend to do uninteresting law work, I certainly wouldn't expect him or her to do it for free.
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, inform them that you are the author of the material that they are distributing, and that they have not fulfilled their obligations in order to obtain legal permission from you to distribute their changes to your code without making the source available, since the combined work (your code plus their changes) still contains your code and that code is still copyrighted by you and therefore still subject to your distribution requirements. They can comply with your copyright by removing every last line of code that you wrote or by releasing the source of their entire product. You can, at your option, also make alternative arrangements with them to grant them permission to distribute without the source in exchange for some compensation that you specify.
Doing it this way takes the focus off the fact that it's the "GPL", and it's viewed simply as a matter of straight copyright infringement, removing any possibility of potential discrimination against the GPL.
Sign your rights over to the FSF (Score:5, Insightful)
You are able to continue devlopment as before, since the code will still be GPL'd. You will have lost the right to sell your software under a license other than the GPL though.
Re:If you gave the code away for Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can Java be closed source? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with patent. This is a GPL violation. Get it straight.
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:4, Insightful)
With the GPL, what you are really protecting is the livelihood of the open-source community, which relies on sharing the improvements and additions to original code.
GET IT STRAIGHT (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to guarantee that Freedom for your software, it is necessary to sometimes fight for it. Fighting for it usually means battling legal challenges to your rights as copyright owner. These fights will cost you money.
Freedom is not free. It is not even cheap.
Easy! (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's possible to take immediate recovery steps, offer to do so.
Offer to inform the developers of their mistake or oversight, and to them provide a detailed technical description of the violation and the steps leading to it, but don't make this last step mandatory. Privacy matters.
Oh... what's that... GPL violation? I thought it said GPF. I have no idea what to do about a GPL violation.
Re:How do you DETECT a GPL violation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I would suggest... (Score:4, Insightful)
From firsthand experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I had a lawyer call them. They rolled over.
The reason? I had an airtight case against them, and the fact that a lawyer was calling them meant I was WILLING to go to court, although I never actually had to. They'd lose badly in court, so they settled.
Call a damn lawyer.
Well, here's what to not do (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Don't complain about it on Slashdot (not saying the poster is). We see this all the time here. The offender probably isn't reading, and frankly doesn't care.
2. Don't email them or use a web contact form. This has no legal ramifications, and the person reading it will probably just delete it thinking you're a loon.
Now, for what to do. IANAL, etc.
1. Send a certified letter to their corporate legal counsel if you can find out who it is, otherwise an officer of the corporation. Outline what is infringing, and explain why you own it. For your first letter, no threats, just tell them (not ask: tell) to deal with the infringement within 30 days or so and to inform you when they've done so. Their options are to remove the code or GPL their product.
2. If that doesn't work, hire an attorney. He'll send a nastier letter.
My guess is that for 95% of the cases out there, the first letter will solve the problem. For another 4%, the attorney's letter will. You'd better be willing to go the distance for the other 1%. Note that the attorney may take it on contingency if the other party has enough money to make it worth his while.
Re:Send Them a Ceace and Desist Letter (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kiss my a## (Score:2, Insightful)
basic stuff, why did they copy (Score:2, Insightful)
GPL is fine, but my personal perference is Apache or BSD license. One that simply says, "give me credit".
Re:How can Java be closed source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Java, unlike perl, does not offer 20 ways to do every problem, so if ten people program a Base64 encoder, nine of them would probably do it the same way (they would read the RFC and translate the C code literally to Java). The tenth guy would probably do something else and break things in the process.
Re:How can Java be closed source? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Personally, I find the Ostermiller libraries incredibly helpful. I don't want to spend my time writing an Excel compatible CSV library, or fixing StringTokenizer bugs.
Green Eggs & Ham [amazon.com] isn't rocket science, either. But I bet someone would take offense to you misappropriating its content...
If it were the GPC (Score:3, Insightful)
Irony (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I would suggest... (Score:5, Insightful)
No money
No apology
No donations
No release of their source
Nothing
Just compliance with the GPL. Period. You will win, because hardly anyone's stupid enough to fight a clear copyright, and compliance is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.
Re:I would suggest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can Java be closed source? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about "because even though it's not rocket science, this code is useful to me, and I want other people to be able to use it rather than have to rewrite it"? I's not like violating the GPL would force a closed source company to release their source code -- they'd simply rewrite the offending bits ("ten minutes" right?).
The question I'd have is whether it's actually a GPL violation, or whether multiple programmers simply came up with the same solution to these fairly simple problems. It's a lot more likely (IMO) that a programmer would write trivial code in a similar manner than that they'd bother locating an open source solution and use it in their closed source application -- it's always more fun to write code than find and reuse it, and the "cost" of writing these things is pretty small. I'm not saying that it's impossible that it's a GPL violation, but my advice would be to make a pretty strong case that it's not just parallel development to yourself before sending any threatening letters.
DeadSea should stand up for his work. (Score:5, Insightful)
You reveal the root of your contempt, and it's resulting ridicule right here:
1. Java can be trivially decompiled, so I don't see how this can be regarded as "closed source" with a straight face.
It's obvious that you don't understand or have forgoten software freedom and have a very bad elitist atitude. The point of the GPL is that the others can read and understand code that you write or modify. The GPL demands distribution in HUMAN READABLE form, complete with all of the original notes. While you might think yourself above the need for comments, that's beside the point. The GPL does not require you to pander, it simply asks you to pass on what you recieved. Stripping information is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the GPL.
Your second insult should be aimed at the violators:
2. Your library does not look like rocket science to me.
If it was so easy, why was the code appropriated? When the company appropriated the code, why did they bother to strip information from it? Someone so uber-leet as yourself would never sink so low, would you? Real men like might not mind putting in long hours reinventing the wheel, but I do. When you use someone else's code, the least you can do is honor the license it's under.
Your final comments are the most insulting of all:
you only make yourself look bad and give SCO and Microsoft ammunition on why free software people are communists and morally corrupt people.
What a stupid blast. Just try reverse engineering something from Microsoft and distributing it. The answer you get will be most unreasonable. It's surprising indeed that someone from Germany would call someone a Communist, especially someone who would so fiercly advocates software freedom [www.fefe.de].
What could be more helpful to closed source than to convince free software writers to keep quiet about GPL violations? The losers obviously can't keep up. If we are silent and just let people have their way when our code is "stolen" we might as well take orders about software development straight from Redmond. It would be better to hand over your copright to anyone else.
Re:Sign your rights over to the FSF (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the second you assign your rights to them, you can not hire your own laywer to defend you. After all your code property of the FSF now.
Re:I would suggest... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they agreed to the GPL, they are violating the terms of the license. This is probably a contract dispute because they are not upholding their part of the bargin.
However, they can state that they did *not* agree to the GPL. In this case, they have no rights to distribute the work, but no responsibilities to uphold regarding it either. This would be a copyright dispute.
So whether they are breaking their contract or violating your copyrights is up to them.
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is something inherently wrong in that - there must be a better way to protect works that have been created for the benefit of others out there than having to pay to protect whats rightfully yours and whats given out in goodwill.
And yet, this doesn't just apply to programming. Suppose you were a brilliant--or just competent--sculptor. You do high quality work, and since you're such a nice guy you want to share your work with your community. You can't just put your sculpture on the lawn in front of your house. Some jackass is going to lift it.
You have to invest in at least some bolts to hold it down. If your work is really sought-after, then you're going to need to buy some security lighting, and maybe even hire a guard to watch your art. Unfortunate, but there are always a few people who will ruin it for the rest of us.
Other posters have noted that you may assign copyright to the FSF. That's like donating your sculpture to a museum--people still get to see your work and enjoy it, but now a central warehouse is paying for the guards (lawyers.)
Re:I would suggest... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Tips (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not just come right out and ask people to give up the copyright on their code and throw it into the public domain?
If that is what he wanted to do then he wouldn't be bothering to contact these companies at all. This guy has a copyright on his code. He obviously did not choose to throw it into the public domain. He has every right to file a lawsuit against companies that commit COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT. These two companies (presumably) BROKE THE LAW.
-
Slashdot copyright laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I would suggest... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact you would, as you would infringe their copyright by doing so. Remember that you have no right to their code.
Unlike what certain FUD-spreaders want you to believe, their creating a derivative work of your GPLed code and their own code does not force their code under GPL. All you can legally demand is that they remove your code (and possibly pay you damages). Of course, they may choose to release the derivative work under GPL, but you cannot force them to do so.
Re:Just say what you want. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing you can force them to do is stop distributing their version until they either remove the code from it or they comply with the GPL by releasing their code.
You also can sue them for copyright violation. I have heard you almost have to do this for money, not for any other remedy. I certainly don't think there is any case where the remedy for a copyright violation is that the guilty party is forced to give up all copyrights to a piece of their own work, especially if their work is significantly larger than the violated work.
So do not say anything stupid about them being forced to release their code. That is false, no matter how much Billy at Microsoft wants people to think otherwise.
The Author Himself Is Violating the GPL! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Your advice is similar to "ask a sales clerk" in response to "what wireless card is better for Linux on G5 laptop?". He is asking for personal experience, not for legal advice.
Not to mention that lawyers cost money and are not necessarily necessary, as there are many ways to deal with the violation informally.
Reporting possible 3rd party violations (Score:2, Insightful)
At my previous employers we evaluated the Sledgehammer NAS from Maximum Throughput [max-t.com], which is Dell server running a modified (heavily tuned) linux kernel. They appear to make no attempt to adhere to the GPL, ie distributing their code.
What they've done is impressive if you compare it to a stock kernel running on the same box, but how do you go about checking whether what they are doing is legal? I found it difficult to find a way of raising the issue without pissing off my boss, suppliers, etc & appearing like a Open Source Zealot.
Learn a lesson from SCO, and other bits of wisdom (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from that, if it does come to court, you should make sure your lawyer is competent to demonstrate that just because a few lines are different doesn't mean that it wasn't copied and then "tweaked" for purposes of legality. A decent lawyer should be able to demonstrate to the judge the different ways of accomplishing the same complex task, overall coding style, etc. And failing a decent lawyer, you may find yourself needing to explain it to said indecent lawyer.
I would, above all else, urge you not to waste time. Send them a friendly email, and make it clear that you expect a response within a reasonable amount of time, and failing that response, or if you should get a dismissive response, your next communication with them should be through a lawyer, on your lawyers letter head, through good old fashioned US Mail.
Pre-emptively, you might gather any and all access logs available to you. Then see if you can find out what IP range the company owns. If you can demonstrate that one of their employees accessed it, that will give you a more direct link. You could always try subpoening the home IPs of the "authors" of this code, but that will be hella hard and take a lot of time.
Best of luck to you!
If you are serious, talk to a lawyer (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be naive. If you are serious, you should establish a relationship with a lawyer immediately, then discuss your "little nudging" with him/her.
I applaud your desire to resolve this out of court, but you need to establish a strong trail of documentation of your discovery and attempts to resolve the problem without resorting to legal action. A lawyer is the person who should keep that trail for you.
Re:I would suggest... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a good question. But if you by that argumentation can avoid paying damages, then how about this one: All the people copying music and software for their own personal use shouldn't pay damages either. Because they are copying stuff they would never have bought if they had to pay for it. Thuss there are no damages here.
If you think about it, there isn't much difference. Both cases you can buy/make the copies legally if you comply with a license. And in both cases we are dealing with people who would never comply with that license, and (illegaly) make copies anyway.
I will argue, that there are in fact damages, even though the software being copied could have been gotten for free. Why? I have indirect costs from the widespread usage of closed source software, in particular Windows. Illegal copies of free software will weaken it's position in the market and to some extent strengthen closed source software. Here are a list of indirect costs:
- I have to pay for software I don't need when I buy a new computer.
- I have to spend a lot of time dealing with people using me using Linux as a bad excuse for not wanting to fix their own systems.
- I have to spend a lot of time dealing with hardware, either because of missing drivers, defective hardware that the supplier refuse to repair because I run Linux.
- I sometimes have costs of buying extra hardware because of previously mentioned problems.
- Right now I'm facing the need of switching to a different bank because the current one will not fix their home banking system. That is not without cost to me.
- The value of my own software gets smaller. Since I decide to give the software to a lot of people, who are also affected by the problem, the total damage is larger. The fact that I give some of the value I earn to other people shouldn't count as a reason for the company not to pay damages.
And finally the software does have a price (free means freedom, not that you don't have to pay), I expect to get something in return for the software, that is full source for the modifications. As Linus pointed out, the value of expecting to get software in return is explicitly mentioned by copyright law in some country.