There have been several lawsuits over the past 2 years, and it is starting to look like a trend!
Both the cases settled out of courtand the court rulings have favored the plaintiffs, ie, the advocates of open source. The court rulings state that the license obligations are enforceable and valid. Further, it appears that the original commercial software developer and the company that distributes this commercial software are both liable if the open source inside the commercial software comes with license obligations that are not fulfilled.
Most of the settled cases have driven the appointment of an Open Source Compliance Officer. Creating such a post is something Gartner Group has recommended for some time, and it looks like the trend to create this type of post is accelerating.
So it is becoming clear that companies using open sourceinside their commercial software should appoint an open source compliance officer to create and enforce their open source policies.
Details of the last 9 court cases is below:
-Verizon, the telecom provider, was sued by the Free Software Foundation. The suit alleged that Verizon was distributing Busybox in its FIOS routers (which were made by Actiontec Electronics). The suit was settled after Actiontec Electronics agreed to 1) appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer 2) publish the BusyBox source code on their website 3) and notify all of their customers of the obligations posed by the GPL. Actiontec Electronics is also paying an undisclosed sum to the Free Software Foundation.
-Diebold, a maker of voting machines, was sued by Artifex, copyright owner of the Ghostscript open source package.
-Skype, the phone conferencing software provider, was sued by GPL-Violations.org in a German court. Skype was distributing a third party VoIP phone from SMC Networks (the WSKP100) which used a version of Linux. Skype was found to be not providing an adequate mechanism for the user to get an alternative copy of Linux. While the infraction is relatively minor, this ruling upheld the general principle that the terms of an open source license are enforceable, and in this case, enforceable in Europe.
-D-Link, maker of various routers, was sued by GPL-Violations.org in a German court. The German court found that "D-Link is not entitled to dismiss GPL's legality on the one hand, while at the same time enjoying the use of code licensed under it." D-Link has signed a cease and desist agreement, published firmware on its site, and informed customers. In addition, the court found D-Link liable for the expenses incurred by GPL-Violations.org.
-Fortinet, a small firewall maker, was sued by GPL-Violations.org in a German court for distributing Linux without following the terms of the GPL.
-Monsoon Media, was taken to court by the Free Software Foundation. The suit alleged that Monsoon was distributing Busybox, which is licensed under GPL, inside its products, while not honoring the terms of the GNU General Public LIcense.
The suit stated that Xterasys Corporation was distributing Busybox, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License, inside its products, while not honoring the terms of the GPL. Xterasys agreedto pay the Free Software Foundation an undisclosed sum, while also publishing the GPL licensed code and informing its customers. Xterasys also agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer.
-High Gain Antennas, was taken to court by the Free SW Foundation. The suit stated that High Gain Antennas was distributing Busybox, which is licensed under GPL, inside its products, while not honoring the terms of the General Public License. High Gain Antennas settled this out of court by agreeing to pay the Free Software Foundation an undisclosed sum, while also publishing the GPL licensed codeand letting its customers know.
Per the suit, Cisco had incorporated several GPL and Library General Public License licensed components including the GNU GCC and the GNU User Stack, both essential components of Linux, and Cisco has repeatedly failed to fulfill the GPL obligations which include disclosing that their products include GPL licensed code and offering to make that source code freely available to customers. This suit was settled out of court, with Cisco agreeing to the usual conditions, ie, paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiff and agreeing to honor the terms of the license while appointing an Open Source Compliance Officer.
Click here, to learn more about how to manage and
trackopen source inside commercial software.
