The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law

[Doug Mentohl]

"The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law", Rjack

Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought
and won such a case.

[chrisv]

Post by Doug Mentohl
"The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law", Rjack
Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought
and won such a case.

FFS, hasn't the "Rjack" troll had it explained to him enough times
already?

[Peter Köhlmann]

Post by chrisv

Post by Doug Mentohl
"The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law", Rjack
Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought
and won such a case.

FFS, hasn't the "Rjack" troll had it explained to him enough times
already?

You think he has the smarts to understand very simple things?

[amicus_curious]

Post by Doug Mentohl
"The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law", Rjack
Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought and
won such a case.

There was the case of Verizon, sued by the SFLC for violation of the GPL due
to their distribution of a router product based on Linux and BusyBox
utilities. To wit:

"WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against Defendant as
follows:
(1) That the Court issue injunctive relief against Defendant, and that
Defendant, its directors, principals, officers, agents, representatives,
servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all others in
active concert or participation with Defendant, be enjoined and restrained
from copying, modifying, distributing or making any other infringing use of
Plaintiffs' software.

(2) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' actual and
consequential damages incurred, in an amount to be determined at trial;

(3) That the Court order Defendant to account for and disgorge to Plaintiffs
all profits derived by Defendant from its unlawful acts;


6

(4) That the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action; and
(5) That the Court grant Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper. "




Verizon refused to do anything, noting that the case was bullshit and that
they would fight. The SFLC then filed a dismissal and nothing happened to
Verizon.

[Hyman Rosen]

The SFLC then filed a dismissal and nothing happened to Verizon.

Incorrect. Verizon chose to comply with the GPL, through the agency
of its router manufacturer.

The manual for Verizon's FiOS router, branded with Verizon and its
logo on the cover, can be found here:
<http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf>
On page 204, it now says
C.4 GPL (General Public License)
This product includes software code developed by third parties,
including software code subject to the enclosed GNU General Public
License (GPL) or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). The GPL
Code and LGPL Code used in this product are distributed WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY and are subject to the copyrights of the authors, and to
the terms of the applicable licenses included in the download. For
details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for this product and the
terms of the GPL and the LGPL, which are available on the enclosed
product disk and can be accessed by inserting the disk into your
CD-ROM drive and opening the “GPL.exe” file.

The router manufacturer, Actiontec, now displays a link on its support page
labeled "GPL Code Download Center" leading to <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
where the GPLed sources can be downloaded under the image of a smiling gnu and
penguin and a reversed copyright symbol.

When the result of a GPL enforcement action is GPL compliance, we call that
"victory".

[amicus_curious]

Post by Hyman Rosen

The SFLC then filed a dismissal and nothing happened to Verizon.

Incorrect. Verizon chose to comply with the GPL, through the agency
of its router manufacturer.
The manual for Verizon's FiOS router, branded with Verizon and its
<http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf>
On page 204, it now says
C.4 GPL (General Public License)
This product includes software code developed by third parties,
including software code subject to the enclosed GNU General Public
License (GPL) or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). The GPL
Code and LGPL Code used in this product are distributed WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY and are subject to the copyrights of the authors, and to
the terms of the applicable licenses included in the download. For
details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for this product and the
terms of the GPL and the LGPL, which are available on the enclosed
product disk and can be accessed by inserting the disk into your
CD-ROM drive and opening the “GPL.exe” file.
The router manufacturer, Actiontec, now displays a link on its support page
labeled "GPL Code Download Center" leading to
<http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
where the GPLed sources can be downloaded under the image of a smiling gnu and
penguin and a reversed copyright symbol.
When the result of a GPL enforcement action is GPL compliance, we call that
"victory".

When none of the elements of a lawsuit are attained, I call that a loss.
Verizon thumbed their noses at the GPL and nothing happened to them.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by amicus_curious
When none of the elements of a lawsuit are attained, I call that a loss.

The purpose of the FSF is to promote software that users may
run, read, modify, and share. For a significant period of time
before the SFLC filed its suit, Verizon was distributing FiOS
routers with GPLed code in violation of the GPL. After the case
ended, Verizon is now complying with the GPL, and users of its
routers may run, read, modify, and share the software it contains.

On <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/>, the SFLC says that
SFLC defends the integrity of FOSS licenses against both
adverse judicial interpretation and legislative interference.
SFLC accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US
copyrights and coordinates international copyright enforcement
efforts of represented works as necessary. SFLC also assists
clients and the general FOSS community in resolution of disputes
relating to the use and development of FOSS.

They defend copyrights. They do that through the normal litigation
process, which always involves maxing maximalist claims. Their
defense of the copyrights has worked so far, and therefore they may
properly claim victory.

Post by amicus_curious
Verizon thumbed their noses at the GPL and nothing happened to them.

Verizon now properly complies with the GPL, just as they are required
to do if they wish to distribute GPLed software. The Verizon-branded
manual
<http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf>
contains a GPL section, and the router comes with a GPL software disk.
You may believe that this constitutes Verizon thumbing its nose, but
people who are not warped by their unreasoning dislike of the GPL
will have a rather different opinion.

[Rjack]

Post by amicus_curious
When none of the elements of a lawsuit are attained, I call
that a loss.

The purpose of the FSF is to promote software that users may run,
read, modify, and share. For a significant period of time before
the SFLC filed its suit, Verizon was distributing FiOS routers
with GPLed code in violation of the GPL. After the case ended,
Verizon is now complying with the GPL, and users of its routers
may run, read, modify, and share the software it contains.
On <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/>, the SFLC says that
SFLC defends the integrity of FOSS licenses against both adverse
judicial interpretation and legislative interference. SFLC
accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US copyrights
and coordinates international copyright enforcement efforts of
represented works as necessary. SFLC also assists clients and the
general FOSS community in resolution of disputes relating to the
use and development of FOSS.
They defend copyrights. They do that through the normal
litigation process, which always involves maxing maximalist
claims. Their defense of the copyrights has worked so far, and
therefore they may properly claim victory.

Post by amicus_curious
Verizon thumbed their noses at the GPL and nothing happened to them.

Verizon now properly complies with the GPL, just as they are
required to do if they wish to distribute GPLed software. The
Verizon-branded manual
<http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf>
contains a GPL section, and the router comes with a GPL software
disk. You may believe that this constitutes Verizon thumbing its
nose, but people who are not warped by their unreasoning dislike
of the GPL will have a rather different opinion.

The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. law. The SFLC has never
successfully prosecuted a GPL copyright infringement lawsuit.

GNU fans never lose, they just chaaaaaaaaaaaaange the result to an
outcome they desire.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Rjack
The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. law.

That is your incorrect theory. In the MySQL case, a judge directly
read the GPL and did not find anything objectionable in it.

Post by Rjack
The SFLC has never successfully prosecuted a GPL copyright infringement lawsuit.

The SFLC has successfully led each infringement case to proper
compliance with the GPL.

Post by Rjack
GNU fans never lose, they just chaaaaaaaaaaaaange the result to an
outcome they desire.

You should be so lucky.

[Rjack]

Post by Hyman Rosen

Post by amicus_curious
The SFLC then filed a dismissal and nothing happened to
Verizon.

Incorrect. Verizon chose to comply with the GPL, through the
agency of its router manufacturer.

Hmmm... now it's through "agency" of someone not even named in the
lawsuit as a defendant.

GNU fans never lose, they just concentrate on mooooooooooving the
goalposts. Sorta' like shiftin' the blame to your little cousin
Humperdink who isn't there to defend himself. That's efficient to
say the least.

Post by Hyman Rosen
The manual for Verizon's FiOS router, branded with Verizon and
<http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf>
On page 204, it now says C.4 GPL (General Public License) This
product includes software code developed by third parties,
including software code subject to the enclosed GNU General
Public License (GPL) or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).
The GPL Code and LGPL Code used in this product are distributed
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY and are subject to the copyrights of the
authors, and to the terms of the applicable licenses included in
the download. For details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for
this product and the terms of the GPL and the LGPL, which are
available on the enclosed product disk and can be accessed by
inserting the disk into your CD-ROM drive and opening the
“GPL.exe” file.
The router manufacturer, Actiontec, now displays a link on its
support page labeled "GPL Code Download Center" leading to
<http://opensource.actiontec.com/> where the GPLed sources can be
downloaded under the image of a smiling gnu and penguin and a
reversed copyright symbol.
When the result of a GPL enforcement action is GPL compliance, we
call that "victory".

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Rjack
Hmmm... now it's through "agency" of someone not even named in the
lawsuit as a defendant.

It's the agency which builds the routers that Verizon supplies.
Those routers ship with a Verizon-branded manual which has a
section on the GPL, in red and white:
<http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf>
Those routers also ship with a GPL software disk.

Post by Rjack
GNU fans never lose, they just concentrate on mooooooooooving the
goalposts.

You have incorrect legal theories about why the GPL is not enforceable.
On the other hand we have many instances where the GPL was successfully
enforced - after the action, the defendants complied. So while you might
be right in theory (but you are not), outcomes have never gone your way.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Doug Mentohl
"The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law", Rjack
Produce any citation where a recipient of GPL code successfully fought
and won such a case.

Why would you angle for a Pyrrhic victory? "Ok, you don't accept the
GPL and it can't be enforced." Perfectly reasonable and quite
plausible. "So the GPL is not the topic of our case. What was it again
that made you think you were entitled to redistribution of the
software?"

Of course no defendant has an interest in a court decision _against_ the
GPL on its merits, because the merits are _for_ the defendant. So if
neither plaintiff nor defendant are interested in a decision against the
GPL, the court will never get to a verdict relevant for the GPL.