Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 13:19 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
In July of 2007, Skype lost a court case over their failure to include a copy of the GPL in their WSKP100 VoIP phone - it ran Linux, GPL software, which means a copy of the GPL license must be included. The case was started by the gpl-violations.org group. Skype decided to appeal against the decision, but it has decided to withdraw that appeal.
Thread beginning with comment 313672
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: where does the money go?
by Adurbe on Sat 10th May 2008 20:47
in reply to "RE: where does the money go?"
Member since:2005-07-06
It wasn’t a case brought on to win money, all they sought was compliance with the licence the code was licensed under (GPL).
and if money IS won, where does it go?
That I can see they are not even a registered charity..
If I am wrong, please show me a link proving otherwise
RE[3]: where does the money go?
by Valhalla on Sat 10th May 2008 23:12
in reply to "RE[2]: where does the money go?"
Member since:2006-01-24
you seem confused. there is no "money won", because they are not suing for damages, they are suing for compliance and a 'cease and desist' until conditions have been met.
should the actual copyright holders want to sue for damages then they would have to prove that they have lost money due to the gpl violation, and if they would do so then naturally any money awarded would go to the copyright holders since they would be the plaintiff.
is it clear now?
RE[3]: where does the money go?
by lemur2 on Mon 12th May 2008 10:40
in reply to "RE[2]: where does the money go?"
Member since:2007-02-17
"It wasn’t a case brought on to win money, all they sought was compliance with the licence the code was licensed under (GPL).
and if money IS won, where does it go?
That I can see they are not even a registered charity..
If I am wrong, please show me a link proving otherwise "
In all copyright cases ... any funds are due to the holders of the copyrights.
Normally, this is the authors of the code ... unless the authors have transferred (in writing) the copyrights to someone else.
Software is just like a book ... if you write it, then as the author you enjoy the copyrights.
If you didn't write it and you publish it to make some money for yourself ... then you had better have the author's permission or you are in all sorts of legal trouble if you don't.
In this case, the authors permission is readily given ... as long as you give out the source code with the product when you distribute it. Without giving out the source code ... you have no permission to distribute from the authors.
PS: Open source software is more like a book than normal software. If you reprint a book without the copyright holder's permission, then you are in trouble ... even though the text of the book itself is out there in the open (in bookstores) for anyone to read or buy a copy.
PPS: In fact, you must publish something in order to have a copyright on it. In the case of proprietary software, the source code is not published, so it cannot have copyrights. Therefore, it is illegal only to copy the binary executable without the copyright holder's permission in that case.
Edited 2008-05-12 10:51 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-06
It wasn’t a case brought on to win money, all they sought was compliance with the licence the code was licensed under (GPL).