|
Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text |
|
Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT
|
Here it is, the complaint [PDF] in the first US copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of the GPL, as text. The lawsuit, Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Monsoon Multimedia Inc., case number 07-CV-8205, was filed today by the Software Freedom Law Center and will be heard by Senior District Judge John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It's a copyright infringement lawsuit, based on infringement of the GPL in that Monsoon, the complaint alleges, acknowledges that its products and firmware contain BusyBox but are not providing recipients with source code, as required by the license. The plaintiffs ask for the following relief: an injunction, damages, and litigation costs. And here is some information from LinuxDevices about the Monsoon Multimedia device in question, Hava.
Update: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at Linux-Watch has some interesting details: Monsoon makes consumer devices primarily for home multimedia users. Its line includes such products as Hava, a place- and time-shifting TV recorder similar to the SlingBox, and SnappySoft, Windows Media Center video capture software.
Interestingly, Monsoon Multimedia is run by a highly experienced lawyer named Graham Radstone. According to his corporate biography, Radstone has an MA in Law from the University of Cambridge, England, and held the top legal spot at an unnamed "$1 billion private multinational company." He also reportedly held a top management position with Philip Morris. I guess we can rule out a "what did I know?" affirmative defense, if he's a lawyer. Kidding. There is no such defense. And a lawyer will be assumed to know how to read a license, I think.
****************************
SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
Daniel B. Ravicher (DR1498)
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Erik Andersen and Rob Landley
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------x
ERIK ANDERSEN, an individual,
and ROB LANDLEY, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
MONSOON MULTIMEDIA, INC.
Defendant.
--------------------------------------x
Civil Action No. CV
COMPLAINT
____________________________________
This is an action by Erik Andersen, an individual, and Rob Landley, an individual, ("Plaintiffs") by and through their attorneys, the Software Freedom Law Center, Inc., to recover damages
arising from infringement of their copyrights by Monsoon Multimedia, Inc., ("Defendant") and to
enjoin Defendant's future infringement. Specifically, Defendant distributed and continues to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted BusyBox software without Plaintiffs' permission and despite the fact
that Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful activity. Since Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs'
copyrights, and since that infringement is ongoing, Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
1
THE PARTIES
1. Erik Andersen is a private individual with a residence in [redacted]. Rob Landley is a private individual with a residence in [redacted]. Erik Andersen and Rob Landley
("Plaintiffs") develop, market, distribute and license computer software in a professional capacity.
2. Upon information and belief, Monsoon Multimedia, Inc., ("Defendant") is a California
corporation with its principle place of business at 1730 South Amphlett Blvd. in San Mateo,
California. Upon information and belief, Defendant is engaged in the business of advertising, marketing and distributing computer hardware and software. Upon information and belief, Defendant
regularly transacts substantial business in this district, including at least through its website where
it sells and distributes its hardware and software products.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §501 and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(K)(1)(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and §§301 and 302 of the New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules because, upon information and belief, Defendant has conducted and continues to conduct
substantial business in the State of New York. This business includes owning and operating a
website at www.myhava.com for the purposes of directly marketing, selling and supporting various
multimedia devices to people in New York state, including residents of New York state.
5. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400 because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein arise in this district, and Defendants,
upon information and belief, are and at all times were doing business in this district.
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. Plaintiffs are authors and developers of the BusyBox computer program, and the owners
of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program that comprises
a set of computing tools and optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell
phones, PDAs and other small, specialized electronic devices. BusyBox is extremely customizable,
fast and flexible, and, upon information and belief, is used in countless products sold by more than
100 manufacturers all over the world, including IBM, Nokia, Hewlett-Packard, and Siemens.
7. Plaintiffs have distributed BusyBox since on or about November 4, 1999. They distribute
BusyBox in source code form, the human-readable form of a computer program that a programmer
must have in order to make changes to the program. Plaintiffs distribute BusyBox under a license
entitled the "GNU General Public License, Version 2" ("the License"). A copy of the License is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
8. Under the License, Plaintiffs grant certain permissions to other parties to copy, modify
and redistribute BusyBox so long as those parties satisfy certain conditions. In particular, Section
2(b) of the License, addressing each licensee, states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole
at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Thus, if a licensee redistributes a version of BusyBox, it may do so only under the terms of the
License.
9. The License permits a licensee to distribute BusyBox, or works based on BusyBox,
in object code or executable form, on the condition that the licensee gives recipients access to
the source code corresponding to what they distribute. The object code or executable form of a
3
computer program is the form that can actually be run on a computer, but which is not intelligible
to the human reader and thus is not practicably modifiable. Section 3 of the License states:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in
object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that
you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
used for software interchange . . . .
10. Plaintiffs have at no time granted any permission to any party to copy, modify or
distribute BusyBox under any terms other than those of the License.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes and sells various media devices and hardware (the "Infringing Products") that contain embedded executable software (the "Firmware").
Defendant also provides the Firmware itself for download via its website, at
http://www.myhava.com/support.html.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant's Firmware contains BusyBox, or a modified
version of BusyBox that is substantially similar to BusyBox, in object code or executable form.
Distribution of the Firmware, either as part of the Infringing Products or by itself, thus inherently
includes distribution of BusyBox and, as such, Defendant is required to have Plaintiffs' permission
to make that distribution. The only such permission available for BusyBox is the contingent one
granted under the License.
4
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant offers copies of the Firmware on its website,
but does not offer any source code corresponding to the Firmware. Upon information and belief,
since at least January 6, 2006, Defendant has distributed to the public copies of the Firmware in
its Infringing Products and via its website without providing source code to BusyBox. Defendant's
Infringing Products include Defendant's Hava line of video streamer products.
14. Section 4 of the License states:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License.
Therefore, under the License, any party that redistributes BusyBox in a manner that does not
comply with the terms of the License immediately and automatically loses all rights granted under
it. As such, any rights Defendant may have had under the License to redistribute BusyBox were
automatically terminated the instant that Defendant made non-compliant distribution of the Infringing Products or Firmware. Since that time, Defendant has had no right to distribute BusyBox,
or a modified version of BusyBox, under any circumstances or conditions.
15. Upon information and belief, on August 28, 2007, Defendants were notified by third
parties of Plaintiffs' copyright in BusyBox and of Defendant's infringement thereof. This notification was provided via a public forum on Defendant's website. Upon information and belief, on
September 5, 2007, via the same forum, Defendant's employee or agent, identified as "Gary-MM"
of "MyHAVA Support", confirmed that Defendant was redistributing BusyBox, but not providing
source code as per the requirements of the License.
16. On September 11, 2007, through their counsel, Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its
unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply with the License. Defendant has not responded
5
to Plaintiffs' notice and continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in violation
of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
COUNT I
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
17. Plaintiffs reallege and restate paragraphs 1 through 16 as if more fully set forth herein.
18. Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times have been, the copyright owners under United
States copyright law in the software program known as BusyBox.
19. Defendant's distribution of its Infringing Products and Firmware without approval or
authorization by Plaintiffs infringes Plaintiffs' exclusive copyrights in BusyBox pursuant to 17
U.S.C. §501.
20. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendant the amount of their actual damages
incurred as a result of the infringement, in such amount as is shown by appropriate evidence upon
the trial of this case. 17 U.S.C. §504.
21. Plaintiffs are also entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §502 and to an
order impounding any and all infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §503. Plaintiffs have
no adequate remedy at law for Defendant's wrongful conduct because, among other things, (a)
Plaintiffs' copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess,
(b) Defendant's infringement harms Plaintiffs such that Plaintiffs could not be made whole by any
monetary award, and (c) Defendant's wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Plaintiffs, is
continuing.
22. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 17 U.S.C.
§505.
6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the 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;
(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.
7
Dated: New York, New York
September 19, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.
By:______________________
Daniel B. Ravicher (DR1498)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Erik Andersen and Rob Landley
8
EXHIBIT A
9
The GNU General Public License Version 2, June 1991
Copyright c 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but
changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it.
By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and
change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License
applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors
commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library
General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public
Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software
(and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you
can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or
to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if
you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give
the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get
the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license
which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands
that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and
passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
10
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger
that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for
everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION and MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the
copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or
translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output
from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
(independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends
on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive
it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy
an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that
refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option
offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work
based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms
of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed
the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains
or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge
to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must
cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print
or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that
there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may
11
redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that
work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections
when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as
part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work
written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution
of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of
another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the
Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work
under the scope of this License.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object
code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do
one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which
must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,
a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute correspond-
ing source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and
only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer,
in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to
it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules
it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system
on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated
place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
12
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the
source along with the object code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided
under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the
Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their
licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing
else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These
actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance
of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient
automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the
Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing
compliance by third parties to this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other
reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order,
agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you
from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously
your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence
you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended
to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property
right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of
protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by
public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of
software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system;
it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through
any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the
rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by
patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program
13
under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those
countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In
such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public
License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version,
but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version
number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published
by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this
License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution
conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving
the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse
of software generally.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WAR-
RANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR
OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY
MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA
OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR
THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY
OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
14
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
There are instructions in red for prettyprinting in HTML, with clicky links if
you have them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tuxi on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
Please place corrections, if any, here.
---
tuxi[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grouch on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
Please include the headline in the title.
Thanks!
--- -- grouch
"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."
--PJ, May 2007
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Snow Job!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 07:06 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
It would be nice if the judge ordered Monsoon to stop selling their product
until they made source code available; but declined to order anyone to pay
anyone else's legal bills.
The integrity of the free software distribution system needs preserving. But we
really do not need to encourage lawsuits.
Engineers and scientists will collaborate to improve the world, if allowed to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- Just being fair. - Authored by: wholeflaffer on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 09:52 PM EDT
- Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, The Busybox Complaint, as text - Authored by: Stefan Wagner on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 10:49 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
I worked with Eric on GnomeHack, a Gnomified version of Nethack, the One True
Game.
Eric's a very good guy. His work is top-notch. More importantly, he is a man of
great integrity. I hope he and his cohort prevail.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Is this the first time a suit like this has been filed in the u.s?
Specifically with regard to the GPL?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
Does anyone know why Monsoon Multimedia is even fighting this?
Do they have a rational reason for not following the GPL?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: raynfala on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
I saw this article on the newspicks column, and then did a little follow-up.
Specifically, I went to the myhava forums, searched for "busybox", and
read the thread that seemed to center on the GPL issue.
Based on what I saw in the thread, there didn't seem to be much there that
warranted the filing of a lawsuit at this stage. As recently as September 5th,
it looked like Monsoon was in the process of trying to get something put
together. Granted, they didn't come across like getting the source code
together was Job #1, but it wasn't like the thread ended with them telling
everybody to get lost. It sounded like they were in the midst of getting their
act together when this lawsuit was launched.
So what am I missing here? It just seemed like a lawsuit was premature.
--Raynfala
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: gvc on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: eggplant37 on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: landley on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- Change in SFLC policy? [repost] - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: ZachPruckowski on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- Not necessarily - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 10:33 PM EDT
- Oh, I took your car - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- This quest for compliance is NOT new - Authored by: mdarmistead on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
Their EULA has the standard insulting "you don't own this" kind of
language:
"... The HAVA Software is licensed not sold to you. This means you have a
right to use the HAVA Software but do not own it. Snappymultimedia and its
licensors retain all ownership of the HAVA Software and all intellectual
property in the HAVA Software. ..."
So it sounds like they just decided to steal some GPL software, right?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fraud? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- The EULA doesn't mention GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Don't know that it matters who uses what, but here's a thread anyway.
I'll start.
Sony, Bravia HDTV[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
They notified defendant on Sept 11, 2007, and now are suing? Isn't that awfully
quick?
I would expect the authors/plaintiffs would have tried to contact defendant and
make them aware of their GPL infringement.
Somehow, I suspect that there is much more to this story than simply notifying
defendant on Sept 11 2007 and now suing them.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
Mind you, i'm not implying or suggesting anything, but
seeing busybox does make me curious:
- busybox is a 'light-weight version' of a load of
linux utilities.
- busybox is traditionally used as part of an embedded
linux system
It could well be that busybox is the only 'transgression'.
But: in a system using busybox, i'd also expect glibc or
uClibc, tinylogin, a linux kernel and a lot of other oss
software.
Have these gentlemen used busybox 'out of its traditional
context'? Is busybox the only component that they've not
made source available for? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "only" busybox -- why not? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- only busybox? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- only busybox? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- only busybox? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT |
Funny, I've met Rob Landley and worked with him on the Penguicon Gnu/Linux &
SciFi Conference held here annually in the Detroit area each April/May. He's a
nice guy but a bit cantankerous. I wish him extremely well on this endeavor.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Just to put the record straight that not all companies are like this, and need
to be hauled into court to get to follow the rules on what the GPL means (and
what using other peoples 'free' software to an advantage is taboo).
A
few years ago I bought a Netgear router. The router came, along with all the
usual bits & bobs, a _printed_ copy of GPLv2!. (Netgear use Busybox
also)
And Netgear have a downloadpage too:
HERE
N
ow, there is not much documentation in the source when you do get it, but it is
all there (patches too) for you to meddle as you wish.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
I'm not sure that in fact this is the right thing to be suing for. I understand
why
that is sought, but the plaintiffs missed out on the alternative theory
available to
the defense.
The defendants have a license to distribute BusyBox,
they just have not
complied with the terms
of that license. Seems to me that
could be breach of contract, not copyright
infringement. The relief sought
should be for specific performance, I would
have thought.
J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
Hava Forum discussion
on the GPL issue. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
They're distributing copyrighted code on their website without a license... SFLC
needs to send their ISP a DMCA takedown notice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yea! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: caladil on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
After reading one too many overlength BSF filings, it was sure a refreshing
change to see a 14 page filing. Wow! And 6 pages of that is Exhibit A (the
GPL).
PJ, could you keep your eyes open for Monsoon's reply?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
It goes something like this:
Sony BMG contracted with an outfit in I believe the UK. Regardless of whether or
not it was the UK. The company was the one who installed the famous Sony rootkit
stealth software.
It was later determined by some hackers that the rootkit software also contained
LAME code.
The LAME software people did not want to sue, but posted on the front page of
their website that they expected Sony BMG to make things right in terms of the
alledged infringment.
Did Sony BMG ever address this issue and make it right? I don't think they did.
I don't suspect they would without attorneys and threats of suits, etc.
Also, for those with better memories than myself, please fix any errors in my
post with your replies. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
I think this is as close as he'll get to apologizing
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyo
ns_print.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
the support guy does not just admit teh use of busybox but of a whole load of
other programmes.
He ementions madwife, wpa_spplicant, linux etc etc.
Maybe more law suits to come?
http://www.myhava.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=499[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gkp00co on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
It seems to me that there are multiple layers to this.
Specifically, having read the forum discussion at the Hava support website, the
support guy was miffed that by examining the code (perfectly acceptable under
the GPL) the soon-to-be-plaintiffs had apparently violated Hava's EULA. Put
another way, Monsoon wrapped the GPL inside their own license agreement.
This is contrary to the GPL, which states in crystal clear language that you
cannot substitute your licensing language for the GPL.
Therefore it seems to me that, since this is above and beyond other violations
of the GPL that are outstanding, even if Monsoon had started giving away
gold-plated CDs with all their source code on them, there would still be the
issue of incompatible licensing; Monsoon would still be distributing BusyBox,
et.al, contrary to the terms of the GPL, their license to distribute would be
null and void, and might well presently be in the same boat that they now are
in.
GKP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Multiple layers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 03:23 AM EDT
- Multiple layers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2007 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
If the suit goes forward (which I doubt) the District Court will dismiss due to
failure to state a claim.
Failing to provide source code is a contract breach and not a violation of scope
of use under copyright law.
1.) There is no “automatic” contract rescission under New York law.
“. . . recession of the contract only occurs upon affirmative acts by the
licensor, and a breach by one party does not automatically result in recession
of a contract. Id. at 238 (“New York law does not presume the rescission or
abandonment of a contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has
the burden of proving it”).”; Atlantis Information Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc.,,
2007 WL 1238716 (E.D.N.Y. April 30, 2007)
2.) Federal Courts will not hear copyright license rescission claims.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a contract rescission in federal court
concerning copyright infringement is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301.
“Because Santa Rosa seeks rescission of his contract, if we were to grant him
the relief that he sought, we would be required to determine his ownership
rights by reference to the Copyright Act. In such a case, there is little
question that we would be merely determining whether Santa Rosa was entitled to
compensation because of "mere copying" or "performance,
distribution or display" of his recordings. Data Gen. Corp., 36 F.3d at
1164. As such, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a) preempts Santa Rosa's rescission claim.”;
Santa-Rosa v. Combo Records, 05–2237 (1st Cir. Dec. 15, 2006)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 04:41 AM EDT |
Radstone has an MA in Law from the University of Cambridge,
England
Actually that doesn't mean anything. You can automatically
get an MA at Cambridge 3 years after your first degree (which is always a BA
regardless of subject). You just turn up on a degree day, pay a small fee (£2
when I did it) get a free lunch and collect your MA degree. It's not "in"
anything and neither BA or MA certificate says anything about what subject(s)
you did. (I'll put mine up for people to see if they want).
He might
have done Law as one part of whatever course he did. But you can't call yourself
a lawyer on the strength of the degree even if it's 100% Law - to be one you
have too go on and do a "real" course at a Law School.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Radstone a Lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 06:00 AM EDT
- Radstone a Lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- Radstone a Lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- Radstone a Lawyer? - Authored by: jmc on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- Agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2007 @ 07:50 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 05:59 AM EDT |
It isn't the "first" either - there was MySQL v NuSphere, and also
another one relating to a minor standards body that I can't lay my hands on
right now.
If the SFLC think its a first I don't think much of their dilligence before
filing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
Yaaaawn.
The resolution of this case is very easy to predict. The SFLC will move to
dismiss long before the suit actually is heard by the Court. The lawsuit is a
tactical maneuver to intimidate Monsoon Multimedia.
The SFLC will never allow a court to actually review the merits of the GPL
license.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
Considering all the bashing, disregard, and poopooing the
GPL has received lately, this cause of action may be quite
appropriate. It makes a publicly known that the GPL really
does have teeth. I believe that Eben Moglen prefers quiet
resolutions, but sometimes it is good to raise these things
to some level of public awareness.
Also, does this guy Radstone have a JD, and has he passed a
state bar exam? IANAL, but I would hardly think of him as a lawyer if he
hadn't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
I think we can expect Mr Radstone to be amply capable of grokking the
GPL:
Currently has his own legal consultancy, advising on
commercial and company matters, with a particular focus on IP/IT and
technology-related issues.
Source: http://www.emuzed.com/bod.html-
-- (c) assigned to PJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
I seem to recall earlier this year or late last year the copyright office was
soliciting suggestions for exemptions to the bypassing provision of the DMCA.
Does anyone know if license compliance copyright compliance is currently
exempted in the DMCA? There's no mention of it here:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ewilts on Friday, September 21 2007 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
Toshiba also violates the GPL with its HD DVD A2 player.
The Toshiba A2 HD
DVD player uses busybox. See the manual - page 61 notes that busybox is included and also adds the
license. So far, so good. I haven't seen anywhere on their web site where the
software can be downloaded but I did not contact them to ask for a copy to see
if they comply.
Toshiba does add restrictions to the license that clearly
violates the GPL. On page 67, they add "Reverse engineering, disassembling,
decompiling, dismantling, or otherwise attempting to analyze or modify the
software included in this product is prohibited".
When a firmware update is
downloaded (which I assume includes busybox), additional restrictions must be
agreed to. the restrictions.
.../Ed
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JesseW on Saturday, September 22 2007 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
To search for the case in PACER, it should be written as: "1-07-cv-8205"
rather than "07-CV-8205". BTW, the URL for this particular court's PACER site
is: http://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov.
---<
br>(Contact me for comment licensing, e.g. GPL, CC, PD, etc.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
For completeness, although most have moved on, Monsoon have issued a press
release which reads in part
"Monsoon Multimedia today announced efforts to fully comply with the GNU
General Public License (GPL). Monsoon is in settlement negotiations with BusyBox
to resolve the
matter and intends to fully comply with all open-source software license
requirements. Monsoon will make modified BusyBox source code publicly available
on the company web-site at http://www.myhava.com in the coming weeks."
Looks like the GPL is as shaky and unclear as ever ;-). (that's intended to be
ironic btw)
-------------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|