●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byjkrise ( 535370 ) writes:
For failing to release the code under GPL for a period of 5 months after they were notified of the violation? Will the SFLC do anything about it?
twitter
facebook
bymdwh2 ( 535323 ) writes:
Note that even if they release the code, that doesn't help them - they've still violated copyright law. Just as if someone is sued for sharing mp3s - saying that you'll stop won't help you.
Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?
bysilent_artichoke ( 973182 ) writes:
Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?
Gentlemen, start your FTP clients!
byspitzak ( 4019 ) writes:
Because the copyright holder can say "I will ignore your copyright violation if you do this..." and they agreed. "this" is typically "release the source code" in GPL cases, but it does not have to be. It could instead be "pay me $10000" or .
The fact that the typical settlement in GPL cases is equivalent to what the infringer could have done earlier to avoid breaking the copyright is confusing people here. The settlement could be anything that the copyright holder demanded and the infringer agreed to.
I think
byjamesh ( 87723 ) writes:
For failing to release the code under GPL for a period of 5 months after they were notified of the violation? Will the SFLC do anything about it?
Who would that benefit, aside from the lawyers?
byFrankieBaby1986 ( 1035596 ) writes:
I personally, would have a warm, happy feeling inside knowing the tables were turned for once when it comes to copyright bullshit.
bymolnarcs ( 675885 ) writes:
They won't. It has always been the policy of the FSF to try to work out GPL violation problems behind the scenes, then if it fails, go public (unless the public finds out first about the violation) and finally seek legal remedies. I don't know any cases that reached this final stage.
What really bothers me is the marketing spin they put on what is essentially complying with copyright laws. "Today, in a break from the ordinary, Microsoft..." yada yada - break from the ordinary my ass! This is what happened:
●Code was found in violation of the GPL by Stephen Hemminger - the main engineer at the open-source networking vendor Vyatta
●Hemminger approached Greg Kroah-Hartman, who agreed that there is a problem and worked behind the scenes to rectify the situation.
●MONTHS later Microsoft ended its copyright violation by finally releasing the code and complying with the GPL.
Then they went on with another spin:
"We arrived at the decision to release the drivers to the community under the GPLv2 through this process. Both Greg K-H and Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation have reiterated that this is the same process that other companies follow when deciding how to release new device drivers to the Linux community."
This is so typical - there are some half-truths in there. It isthe normal process the FSF has pursued for getting violators in complience with the GPL, however, it is NOT the NORMAL process for those companies or individuals who genuinely want to donate code to the FSF or the linux kernel. "Today in a break from the ordinary..." yeah, well you can say this is a break for the ordinary, for usually it takes far more time to get Microsoft to comply with laws and regulations. 5 months only - amazing!
Parent
twitter
facebook
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...