 
Boricua65
join:2002-01-26
Puerto Rico |  For once...
| |
|
 | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: For once... said by Boricua65  :open source is getting an upper hand. Hardly, you mean not getting the upper hand..
Not including source code so they sue, that the dumbest thing ever. Just because a very very very small percentage give a care about it, they make it harder for other customers.
This has happened before with major hardware vendors..know what they did? Just changed products so open source lost out anyways. | |
|
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: For once... said by markopoleo :This has happened before with major hardware vendors..know what they did? Just changed products so open source lost out anyways. And that costs more money that companies do not want to spend. They used GPL as a cheap way to get things done but they forgot to follow the rules which costs them more than if they did the right thing before. | |
|
| | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Nice attempt at a troll but if you don't agree to a particular license or choose to violate the terms of a license, then GPLed code is no different than anyone else choosing to sue for violating their license terms. | |
|
| | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Re: For once... Verison will sue everyone else, read VoIP, for TOS, Patient infringment, looking at them, farting out of turn, J Walking, etc. They want everyone else to play by the rules they should also.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
|
| | 
commonsense
@verizon.net
| Next time you make a shareware app someone tries to steal (decompile). Don't sue, big deal if they broke your shareware license. GPL works other way you can't hide or close and must share. Unlike the shareware model which comes in flavors of closeness. But it was not Verizon that made the product. Next time verizon may give up on this brand it cost them i think all opinion. | |
|
| | | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: For once... Then complain to the judge/court it seems regardless who made it, in this case the Judge found Verizon liable. If I hire you to write some code and you just happen to violate some license, at the very least that makes me culpable. | |
|
| | 
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by markopoleo :This has happened before with major hardware vendors..know what they did? Just changed products so open source lost out anyways. "Open Source" as a movement was already losing anyway. At least now Verizon is obligated to fulfill the terms of the license, and if they do drop the device from service they will be tasked with developing their own solution at their own expense. | |
|
| | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by markopoleo :said by Boricua65 :open source is getting an upper hand. Hardly, you mean not getting the upper hand.. Not including source code so they sue, that the dumbest thing ever. Just because a very very very small percentage give a care about it, they make it harder for other customers. This has happened before with major hardware vendors..know what they did? Just changed products so open source lost out anyways. When someone doesn't choose Open Source, Open Source doesn't lose. Open Source is not within itself a business. It is a software development model. The people who code for Open Source are the owners of its intellectual property. There is nothing radical about asking those who use it to respect the IP, just like if a company was pirating Windows for profit, or reselling music they didn't pay royalties for. The owners of Windows or of the music do not lose out because people are no longer redistributing their IP illegaly. | |
|
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA | Why did they go after verizon anyways? if actiontec made the router and put the programming on it shouldn't they be the only ones they can legally go after? | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Why did they go after verizon anyways? I believe it was related to the fact that Verizon are the ones distributing the router- though the description of the settlement makes it look like it was Actiontec that has to take most of the responsibility in the end. | |
|
| | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Why did they go after verizon anyways? said by EPS :the description of the settlement makes it look like it was Actiontec that has to take most of the responsibility in the end. Suing VZ was a publicity stunt by the SFLC. You'll note that VZ lost *nothing* but legal fees on this. Actiontec is the one paying up.
This of course is as it should be, VZ's posting of AT firmware on their site is apparently not enough for the SFLC to be confident of a win. | |
|
| |
| | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Re: Why did they go after verizon anyways? You can't go after actiontec. The part of the license violated is distributing the module without the source. In this case the distributor is liable. That would be VZ.
Actiontec can actually do whatever they want inhouse. Furthermore, Actiontec's customer is VZ and I assume VZ has access to the source from Actiontec.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
NbWY1
join:2003-05-23
Columbia, MD | VZ I have one of these stupid routers, never use it.. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | frickin lawyers Instead of looking out for their client, they like to play games and get some time in front of a judge. Verizon could have just stuck the source code on their bloatware CD that comes with the install kit and called it a day. | |
|
nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
clubs:
| Easily avoided Actiontec could have easily avoided this by obeying the terms of the GPL to begin with. It's not even a harsh requirement, just include some code and acknowledge that they use that particular open source project. They probably didn't even need to modify the code to get it to work on their device.
--
for all your Linux questions | |
|
| viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: Easily avoided said by nklb :Actiontec could have easily avoided this by obeying the terms of the GPL to begin with. It's not even a harsh requirement, just include some code and acknowledge that they use that particular open source project. They probably didn't even need to modify the code to get it to work on their device. Yea, but it's more fun for some to bash the lawyers rather than acknowledge a company violated the law, and they will scream bloody murder when you start talking about punitive awards. | |
|
| |
Meh37
@verizon.net | Re: Easily avoided Whack a mole lawyer... fun game! | |
|
| | DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| said by viperlmw :Yea, but it's more fun for some to bash the lawyers rather than acknowledge a company violated the law, and they will scream bloody murder when you start talking about punitive awards. No one violated the law. Product licensing is purely a civil matter. | |
|
| | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: Easily avoided said by DMS1 :said by viperlmw :Yea, but it's more fun for some to bash the lawyers rather than acknowledge a company violated the law, and they will scream bloody murder when you start talking about punitive awards. No one violated the law. Product licensing is purely a civil matter. There is a difference between criminal law and civil law, but they are still laws (remember OJ?). | |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08 | And the lawsuits continue Now Verizon is on the other side of the court room. | |
|
GeekNJ
Premium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ
1 edit | Verizon or Actiontec? Why is Verizon part of this anyway? The code should be distributed by the HW vendor which used the license. Verizon providing the hardware is somehow involved?
Let's look at this using another example. Verizon is providing a free LCD TV with some FIOS installs. If that TV (and they can) uses GPL'ed code, Verizon is responsible or the manufacturer of the TV? If it uses the code and the manufacturer is responsible and posts the source, Verizon ALSO needs to post the source because they provide the TV to the customer?
Edit: Reading the lawsuit (and I'm not a lawyer) it seems that because Verizon distributed firmware updates, they also need to distribute the source code. So this dumb ass rule likely means Verizon will pull the firmware and you'll have to go to the Actiontec site in which case Verizon is not involved? | |
|
| 
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
2 edits | Re: Verizon or Actiontec?
It is a Verizon branded product (at least mine is) and Actiontec is the OEM.
Therefore they both can be on the hook.
| |
|
| cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| said by GeekNJ :Why is Verizon part of this anyway? The code should be distributed by the HW vendor which used the license. Verizon providing the hardware is somehow involved? Let's look at this using another example. Verizon is providing a free LCD TV with some FIOS installs. If that TV (and they can) uses GPL'ed code, Verizon is responsible or the manufacturer of the TV? If it uses the code and the manufacturer is responsible and posts the source, Verizon ALSO needs to post the source because they provide the TV to the customer? Edit: Reading the lawsuit (and I'm not a lawyer) it seems that because Verizon distributed firmware updates, they also need to distribute the source code. So this dumb ass rule likely means Verizon will pull the firmware and you'll have to go to the Actiontec site in which case Verizon is not involved? Actually the viral GPL license is worse than that. All you need to do is "distribute" a product and you are responsible. So if you sold an actiontec router you got with your FIOS to me you are responsible for making the source code available. | |
|
| |
Jack2131
@comcast.net
| Re: Verizon or Actiontec? It means those scummy GPL lawyers are gonna SUE our local electronics retailers for $$$ to support their lavish lifestyles next. The retailers are on the hook if they import anything from Asia that does not distribute source codes w/ their GPL gear! And most retailers aren't software/firmware developers! | |
|
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Verizon or Actiontec? They can just download the source from the original software dev and distribute that. Also, if you're a big customer you can demand things like GPL source code. | |
|
| |
GeekNJ
Premium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ
| So based on being a 'distributor' then Best Buy, Circuit City, Amazon, Radio Shack, and every mom and pop that sells any router such as a Linksys that uses GPL code needs to provide the source code? Seems unlikely.
--
Tweaked your connection? | Mail Parse | Speed Converter | |
|
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Verizon or Actiontec? said by GeekNJ :So based on being a 'distributor' then Best Buy, Circuit City, Amazon, Radio Shack, and every mom and pop that sells any router such as a Linksys that uses GPL code needs to provide the source code? Seems unlikely. No. In the box (usually buried in the manual, but sometimes on a sheet of paper) you will find an offer to make available the GPL components of the firmware. Usually this offer consists of a URL.
That is all the GPL requires. Now, if someone were to distribute the router sans offer, that would be a different issue.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
mixmasta
join:2002-03-19
Ann Arbor, MI | Developers get paid... So why did the developers get paid? Is the way to get paid with GPL free software to sue for money when someone doesn't follow the rules? | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Developers get paid... The developers rights were violated when the infringement was made. The payment is compensation for the violation of rights. | |
|
| 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | like it or not, developers of GPL work definitely deserve an acknowledgment for their work. If VZ/Actiontec, sell and make profit off of a device that uses GPL code, then they should include the source code and acknowledge that code, even if the said laws didn't exist.
As to yock and marcopoleo's comments that open source was losing out, think again. Almost every server on the net uses some version of FreeBSD (aka Unix), or Linux (i.e. Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu), both of which are completely open-source operating systems. Hell, every router comes with some kind of linux distro powering it. Even Google's servers run linux. It's going to be a long time before Microsoft or Apple come up with something that comes even close to the Unix/Linux platform when it comes to stability, and something other than whizz-bang graphics effects..... | |
|
| |
Killer Max
@rr.com
| Re: Developers get paid... said by a333 :It's going to be a long time before Microsoft or Apple come up with something that comes even close to the Unix/Linux platform when it comes to stability, and something other than whizz-bang graphics effects..... Operating system developers have no intention of ever competing with dedicated appliance platforms. They are completely different dimensions of computing. | |
|
| | |
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: Developers get paid... bah, more anon posts..... looks like I've gotta turn on the ignore feature...
dude, if you actually took the tme to visit the BusyBox site, you'lle notice that BusyBox is a full-feature Linux distro that uses the full Unix command-line system. It's essentially a really scaled-down Linux/Unix distro.
Also, you, and many others, missed the main point completely. I was merely responding to posts that downplayed the importance of GPL'd software, bet it OS's or applications. The point is, there's a reason big corps use open-source software instead of that POS known as Windows Server | |
|
| | |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by Killer Max :
Operating system developers have no intention of ever competing with dedicated appliance platforms. They are completely different dimensions of computing. Bzzrt. There are plenty of "dedicated appliance platforms" that use open source software. | |
|
| | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| said by a333 :like it or not, developers of GPL work definitely deserve an acknowledgment for their work. If VZ/Actiontec, sell and make profit off of a device that uses GPL code, then they should include the source code and acknowledge that code, even if the said laws didn't exist. As to yock and marcopoleo's comments that open source was losing out, think again. Almost every server on the net uses some version of FreeBSD (aka Unix), or Linux (i.e. Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu), both of which are completely open-source operating systems. Hell, every router comes with some kind of linux distro powering it. Even Google's servers run linux. It's going to be a long time before Microsoft or Apple come up with something that comes even close to the Unix/Linux platform when it comes to stability, and something other than whizz-bang graphics effects..... The problem is that the GPL is viral, it requires that when I sell my linksys router to you I have to distribute source code. Strict enforcement like the cases that have occurred will push companies away from using GPL based products.
Also your example isn't quite right, BSD and many open source products avoid the GPL virus with their own licensing terms. | |
|
| | |
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Developers get paid... I'm not sure why verizon/actiontec couldn't just include the source code in their routers, or even their bloatware-filled CD's. Considering that they're using completely free software, I don't understand why it's such a pain to just distribute the source code with the rest of all the bloatware on those CD's........ It's not really that much that BusyBox is asking for, you know.... | |
|
| cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| said by mixmasta :So why did the developers get paid? Is the way to get paid with GPL free software to sue for money when someone doesn't follow the rules? The busybox developers seem to need money right now, they have been paid sums of money from everyone of the SFLC settlements and busybox seems to be the only GPL product suing. I actively eliminate Busybox from any open source project I am involved in. | |
|
| |
Anahn
@rr.com | Re: Developers get paid... Don't do us any favors. Thank God for the GPL. | |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ | And the message is... Don't use GPL software. Develop your own. You'll be better off in the long run.
--
We messed-up, but we looked great doing it! | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: And the message is... said by Bobcat :Don't use GPL software. Develop your own. You'll be better off in the long run. I believe the message is "comply with the licensing terms of software you use." Sort of like you have to pay a license fee per copy of Windows or VxWorks. If you fail to do so, you may just find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit. In fact, many people have. The BSA sues companies that fail to pay for all their copies of member's software on a regular basis.
The GPL just requires a different form of payment, that of distributing the source code with the software. That's far cheaper than paying for VxWorks, unless you fail to do it, but again, that's no different than not paying for VxWorks.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: And the message is... said by wierdo :The GPL just requires a different form of payment, that of distributing the source code with the software. That's far cheaper than paying for VxWorks, unless you fail to do it, but again, that's no different than not paying for VxWorks. You do NOT need to distribute the code with the product only make it available upon request (and acknowledge its use in your product). IOW: If I distribute a product (as in this case) or program, I must document its use and, at least, supply a URL to download the source. There is no requirement to supply the source with the product. There is one additional requirement - If I modify the source (as opposed to using it as-is/unaltered) I must make my changes available either as an update/patch (with the original source as a URL) or as a post-updated version. GPL allows use so long as you acknowledge your use and your making available for free any modifications your make to the source. | |
|
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: And the message is... said by RARPSL :You do NOT need to distribute the code with the product only make it available upon request Well, sort of. You have to include an offer, not just respond to requests. Obviously, the cheapest way to do that is to include the source on the CD you're shipping anyway.
Unlike the traditional BSD license, however, there's no attribution requirement. (the "new" BSD license has removed said attribution requirement)
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
Rjack
@comcast.net
1 edit | Settlement ... what a voluntary dismissal with PREJUDICE means?
»www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLU···SSAL.pdf
"A voluntary dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits and has a res judicata effect. Harrison v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores, Inc., 924 F.2d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice 'is a complete adjudication on the merits of the dismissed claim.')"; The Travelers Insurance Company v. AlliedSignal TBS Holdings, 2001 FED App. 0357P (6th Cir.)
THE SFLC LOST THEIR CASE AND WAS RUN OUT OF COURT !!!!!
Andersen and Landley are forever forclosed from attempting to enforce ANTHING against Verizion or Actiontec concerning the BusyBox code --- EVER AGAIN.
| |
|
|
|
|
GPL Lawsuit Against Verizon, Actiontec Settled
