OSNews

They're using the same sort of relatively benign phrasing that most newscasts in the US use to refer to terrorists blowing themselves up with bombs in a crowd of people to murder them, calling them "suicide bombers" instead of what would more correctly signal their intent, "homicide bombers" because after all, the primary mission doesn't seem to be that of committing suicide, but that of killing infidels.

And let's face it, the licensing fights and development ideologies cause quite a few people to become zealots and fanatics to a similar degree as a lot of religions, with people doing things merely because they fit in with an ideology, and not so much because they're actually "good" in promoting desired outcomes.

I think these days many people are just too afraid to be politically-incorrect in their speech and writing, for fear of offending someone and perhaps getting sued. I'm not a pro-GPL zealot, and I'm not 100% against it, as it does have its place, but I can and will respect the rights of those that wish to use that licensing, and for that, I agree, it should be referred to as "piracy" of some sort.

"Since we intend to and always intended to comply with all open source software license requirements, we are confident that the matter will be
quickly resolved ... "

If this is the case, how come it came to a lawsuit? Hopefully we can chalk their initial lack of response up to intercontinental communication issues, but why weren't they complying with the license in the first place? Oh well, this seems to be settling out amicably at least

and in reply to the above,
"Homicide bomber" isn't a phrase I like at all. It's redundant. Bombing is about killing people. The thing that separates the stereotypical cafe-bombing terrorist's technique from that of someone in a bomber plane is that the terrorist is committing suicide.

ridiculously off-topic, but:

""Homicide bomber" isn't a phrase I like at all. It's redundant. Bombing is about killing people."

not necessarily. Many of, for instance, the IRA's bombing campaigns were not intended to kill people (they provided warnings reasonably far in advance of the explosions, which they obviously would not have done if they were trying to kill people). they were about causing disruption, achieving public profile, and reminding people of the *possibility* that the bombs could be used to kill.

Perhaps because the intent here was to merely get them to comply with the GPL, not tar and feather them and drag their name through the mud?

The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA are fully in attack mode on these things; I suspect the SFLC has no problem with Monsoon Multimedia as long as they follow the rules. There's a difference between wanting compliance and wanting punishment.

Monsoon DIDN'T distribute the code to their customers so the only way for them to comply was to make it available for download.

Not at all.

Firstly, the GPL does not require you to distribute the code to all your customers ... what it actually requires is that you make the source code available to anyone who asks for it (customers or not).

All that was required of Monsoon is to have provided the source code to the people who did ask for it.

Monsoon could have done that by making it available for download from a website, but just as easily Monsoon could have posted a CD with the source on it back to the few people who asked for it.

Actually, you are a bit wrong. You only have to provided code to people you distribute the software to. As in if you don't pay for my product, I don't have to give you a copy of the gpl code on it even if you ask.

Most companies distribute the code to everyone in good faith, but the gpl does not require it.


Edit:
Clear up a disambiguation

Edited 2007-09-24 20:15

You are almost right.

If you distribute the source with the binaries, then you have no obligations to third parties. This is section 3(a) compliance.

If you do not distribute the source with binaries, then you must make available to any third party the source. Or quoting directly from the GPLv2, section 3(b):

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,


(emphasis added). I'm unsure how you can conclude that this applies only to your customers. To me the plain language says what it means. Any means any.

section 3(c) compliance doesn't matter for this case, since this would clearly be commercial, and 3(c) is available only for non-commercial distribution.

Actually, that is wrong. Even if I don't pay for your binary product I'm still entitled to receive the source code. But you are of course free to charge me as you see fit.

Woot... another post modded down.

Why? Is it offensive? Or off-topic? Or spamming for a product?

3 x No. Is my post factually wrong? No.

So who are you, that group who's been modding me down since my spat with cyclops?

I just modded both of your posts up for pointing out where I was wrong. My misunderstanding was incorrect.

Must have mixed that up somehow with the web app loophole in the gpl. My bad.

No, not right. You have no right to receive anything, even if you are the issuer of the license.

The GPL only states that distribution of the (modified) software is not allowed if the licensee doesn't obey certain rules, like distributing it under the GPL and giving the source code.

In a way, this is sad, seeing the GPL tested in US court would have brought further credibility. Settlements, while good, don't prove anything legally.

That's what I thought when I read this, too.

At the same time it would be catastrophic if it failed in court.

I'd look at this the other way. The GPL is shown to have some force behind it. The outcome demonstrates that the GPL is not viral in that Monsoon don't have to reveal all the code in their hava device but rather only the source code for BusyBox. Monsoon get to continue selling their device, demonstrating the GPL software CAN be used happily in commercial devices, so that the GPL is shown to be in no way anti-business.

All in all, IMO a very good outcome in terms of dispelling anti-GPL FUD, and exactly the amicable outcome that is actually desired by software developers when people write GPL code in the first place.

Edited 2007-09-25 00:12

That's an optimistic view.

I still look at this as the GPL not being proven.

All it will take is someone figuring out a possible loophole, or someone with an axe to grind and we might all be in trouble.

I would feel far more confident in a proven license than one that people were simply afraid of.

Who is saying they where afraid of it?

Maybe they compared the cost of litigation vs providing the source code. It's not like they will have lots of intellectual property on Busybox, right? Probably they didn't even modify Busybox at all.