|
|
| BusyBox and Monsoon Settle Litigation with GPL Compliance Achieved |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 01:16 PM EDT
|
I've just heard from the Software Freedom Law Center that the BusyBox-Monsoon Multimedia GPL-enforcement litigation has been settled on the following terms:As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the
GPL, Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source
Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Monsoon
Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. The
settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial
consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs. It was filed on September 19th, so that's a happy ending and now everyone can move on amicably. You'll notice that Monsoon had to have its GPL rights restored. It's not automatic under GPLv2.
Here's the meat of the press release:
****************************
BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit
Productive and Amicable Negotiations Lead to Settlement of Copyright
Infringement Case
NEW YORK and SAN MATEO, Calif., October 30, 2007 -- The Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL
enforcement lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal
developers of BusyBox.
BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used
in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under the GNU
General Public License (GPL) version 2. One of the conditions of the
GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that
each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the
program. Monsoon Multimedia uses BusyBox in its HAVA TV place-shifting
devices.
As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the
GPL, Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source
Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Monsoon
Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. The
settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial
consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs.
"Although we really hated having to ask our attorneys to file a
lawsuit to get Monsoon Multimedia to abide by the GPL, we are
extremely pleased that they worked so hard and so fast to come into
compliance," said Rob Landley, a developer of BusyBox and a named
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
"Going forward, we are confident that Monsoon Multimedia will be
upstanding members of the open source community and we wish them the
absolute best of luck with their business," said Erik Andersen, the
other BusyBox developer named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
"We are happy to put this behind us and move forward," said Graham
Radstone, Chairman and Chief Operating Officer at Monsoon Multimedia.
"The fact that Monsoon Multimedia and BusyBox have reached an
agreement amicably shows that settlement is far better than costly
litigation. We will ensure that we are in compliance with the
agreement in the future. Monsoon Multimedia is a highly innovative
company and occupies a leading position in the emerging place-shifting
market; therefore it is essential that we set an example for
compliance for others."
The lawsuit, "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Monsoon Multimedia
Inc.," case number 07-CV-8205, was filed September 19th in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
About the Software Freedom Law Center
The Software Freedom Law Center -- directed by Eben Moglen, one of the
world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software --
provides legal representation and other law-related services to
protect and advance Free and Open Source Software. The Law Center is
dedicated to assisting non-profit open source developers and projects.
Visit SFLC at http://www.softwarefreedom.org.
About Monsoon Multimedia
Monsoon Multimedia provides advanced, standards based multimedia
products and technologies for the PC and Consumer Electronics
industries. Monsoon Multimedia licenses highly optimized multimedia
solutions comprising applications, drivers, frameworks, middleware and
reference designs. Monsoon Multimedia also distributes and sells its
revolutionary TV place shifting device under its own "HAVA" brand.
HAVA lets you watch live home TV or your own recorded content in
multiple rooms around the home, at work, or around the globe. Monsoon
Multimedia's customers and partners are semiconductor companies, PC
manufacturers, software suppliers and consumer electronics companies.
Founded by the founders of Dazzle and Emuzed, the company is
headquartered in Noida, India with offices in California and
Russia. For more information, please visit www.myhava.com and
www.monsoonmultimedia.com.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
please provide some indication as to the nature of the correction in your post
title.
thanks.
sum.zero
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
please make those clinks lickable [yum!] and preview is your friend.
sum.zero
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
the thread for all things news pickish.
sum.zero
ps the trifecta. oh yeah!
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
| that's Terekov's head exploding. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: russm on Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
This could be a good example of how cost FREE compliance can be with
Open Source.
Just post the source on your web site so everyone can
recieve it, if they wish.
No never never plan of a license fee draining
your budget annually.
Just post it and keep it in date. How easy is that
?
In the UK a never never plan is a open ended
hire-purchase scheme which with interest and a low payment means you will never
pay it off.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nlewis on Tuesday, October 30 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
You'll notice that Monsoon had to have its GPL rights restored. It's not
automatic under GPLv2.
Just out of curiosity, who would have the
authority to do that, and how so...? Keeping in mind it's been *years* since I
last read the full text of the license, of course. :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31 2007 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
"You'll notice that Monsoon had to have its GPL rights restored. It's not
automatic under GPLv2."
That is where an authority that can authorize the restoration of rights is so
important. Presumably the organization that bought the suit to begin with.
Kind of a scary thought, sorry if it sounds like a troll.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31 2007 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
You'll notice that Monsoon had to have its GPL rights restored. It's not
automatic under GPLv2.
That actually seems like a strength of
GPLv2 to me.
Suppose I write some software and release it under GPLv2.
Some EvilCompany comes along and modifies and distributes my software without
sources, and refuses to do so until "encouraged" by interactions in a courtroom.
I will most likely allow them to distribute once again, but I will be wary of
them. They have already broken my trust.
If they do it again, then
perhaps regardless of the restitution they make, I may not want them to ever
distribute my code again. Period. Or perhaps after a time that I deem
suitable, I can then give them another chance. But it should be at my own
discretion, not automatic.
Under an automatic provision, I would have
to constantly keep watching them to make sure they stayed within compliance. I
don't necessarily have that amount of time nor would I be willing to put forth
that much effort.
-M
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
