Best Buy, Samsung Named in Copyright Lawsuit
Best Buy and Samsung are just two of fourteen companies charged with copyright infringement.
The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) reports that Best Buy and Samsung are just a few consumer electronics companies named in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed today in New York. The SFLC, a non-profit law firm that provides services to Free and Open Source Software developers, represents principal developer Erik Andersen, the Software Freedom Conservancy, and the popular Linux software application, BusyBox.
According to the law firm, the defendants are violating the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) by selling products containing BusyBox. The application currently resides in many products including Best Buy's Blu-ray player, Samsung HDTVs, and eighteen additional devices. The problem is that the companies aren't providing the source code to customers as required by the terms of the GPLv2.
Under the terms of the GPLv2, anyone can view, modify, and use the program for free on the condition that they distribute the source code to customers.
Apparently, the law firm contacted all parties and was thus ignored. Bad move. "We try very hard to resolve these types of issues privately with companies, as we always prefer cooperation," said SFLC counsel Aaron Williamson. "We brought this suit as a last resort after each of these defendants ignored us or failed to meaningfully respond to our requests that they release the source code."
The SFLC uploaded the official complaint that can be found here (pdf). The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and will be heard by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Ooof!
Get more tech and gaming news by hitting me up on Twitter here.
- Best Video Games of the Year at the VGA 2009
- Sony: PS3 Slim Could Have Been Slimmer, But Nah
- Fuse Shows What Next-Gen Touch Phones Are Like
- VIDEO: Lights+Guitar Hero = Christmas Light Hero
- Study: iPhone Users Are Delusional
- Chinese Couple Sell Baby to Buy Cell Phone
- Best Man Rigs Newlywed's Bed to Tweet Sex
- Report: Israeli ISPs Are Blocking P2P Traffic
- Verizon Waives Teen's $21,917 Data Fee
- Hacked Nook Reveals MMS, Speech Recognition
- Toshiba's 64GB NAND May Come to iPhone
- Teardown Shows PS3 Slim Still a Sony Loser
- Google and Facebook Aim to Shorten Your URLs
- iPhone Flashmob Aims to Cripple AT&T Network
- Gartner: Hackers Defeating Tough Authentication
- Court to Rule on Text Message Privacy at Work
- Popular Author Gives Amazon Exclusive eRights
- id Software Nuking Ports from Android Market
- Nintendo Trademarked Zii, Cii, Bii, Oii, Vii Names
So more suing eh? Will America never learn? We probably wont. =p
The code is freedomware but the GPL requires that source code be available from the distributor. It's not a cost issue, it's a license management issue usually caused by lazy software engineers who don't comply fully with the license of the code they use. These law suits are usually the result of corporate bureaucracy being too slow to respond with a simple license compliance request.
The source code is probably being with-held because the manufacturers don't want any possibility of their products running altered versions of it....
Can you imagine the consumer backlash if the vendors comply? "Here is your new Blu-Ray player. You must take this CD of software with it. No, really, sir. You cannot leave the store without this source code."
OTOH, the GPL is absolutely clear. And reasonable. "You can use my stuff for free if you only sell it under the conditions that I impose" is a pretty generous offer.
Maybe the solution is not to include the free software in consumer products, period. The manufacturer has to balance the utility of the software, and the great price, against the "cost" of "forcible" distribution of the source code. In my opinion, the legal action is reasonable. Someone is giving away great stuff for free, in return for the company that benefits from it playing by his/her rules - seems like a good bargain.
And now, The Perfect Solution (ta-da). The items described, TV and Blu-Ray player, have menu interfaces that display on a TV screen. Make a menu option to display the source code. If the GPL will consider this distribution, it seems fair. The 99.9% of consumers who don't give a rodent's posterior aren't inconvenienced, and the condition is met. Mention it in the printed manual, if there is one: "Some applications provided under the GPL. Source code is available through menu item zed-seven."
This fails if the distributed source code has to be compilable - reading it off the screen wouldn't count. OTOH, so many of these devices have a USB port; maybe it could appear as a drive to your computer and present the source?
To summarize, I think that the demand for compliance is reasonable if the vendor benefits from the use of the code. The code distribution mechanism should probably be as unobtrusive as possible. Imagine if it were like those FBI warnings: every time you start to play a movie, you have to watch the entire source code first!
I think its interesting that these products contain busybox at all! how many "normal" consumers ssh/telnet into their devices?
wyomingKnott, no the source code is WAY too much to view on a TV screen, not only that but it has to be distributed along with the binary. It does not have to be on the device its self, but it must be made available somewhere. This means in the zip file containing the firmware, you have to have:
1.)The source code (actual source, not just a link or reference to the source)
2.)Copy of the GPLv2 liscense
3.)The compiled binary
If what they say is true and violated the GPL license then all the companies involved need to comply with what the GPL license says. They must release the source code. If Apple, M$, or any other company found out their closed source code was being distributed they would and have sued for violating the license, terms of agreement or what have you in a heart beat. If these companies used source code that is under the GPL they must abide by it. Otherwise they show their own hypocrisy. They cannot just pick and choose.