laforge-slides/2005/gpl-enforcement-reboot2005/gpl-enforcement-reboot2005.mgp

474 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext

%include "default.mgp"
%default 1 bgrad
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
%nodefault
%back "blue"
%center
%size 7
reboot 7
Enforcing the GNU GPL
Copyright helps Copyleft
%center
%size 4
by
Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Contents
About the speaker
The GNU GPL Revisited
GPL Violations
Past GPL Enforcement
Typical case timeline
Success so far
What we've learned
Problems encountered
Future outlook
Thanks
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Introduction
Who is speaking to you?
an independent Free Software developer
who earns his living off Free Software since 1997
who is one of the authors of the Linux kernel firewall system called netfilter/iptables
who IS NOT A LAWYER, although this presentation is the result of dealing almost a year with lawyers on the subject of the GPL
Why is he speaking to you?
he thinks there is too much confusion about copyright and free software licenses. Even Red Hat CEO Matt Szulik stated in an interview that RedHat puts investments into 'public domain' :(
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Disclaimer
Legal Disclaimer
All information presented here is provided on an as-is basis
There is no warranty for correctness of legal information
The author is not a lawyer
This does not comprise legal advise
The authors' experience is limited to German copyright law
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Ideas and Goals of the GNU GPL
Free Software
Software that has fundamental freedoms:
to use it for any purpose
to "help your neighbour" (i.e. make copies)
to study it's functionality (reading source code)
to fix it myself (make modifications and run them)
Copyleft
Is the legal idea to
exercising copyright to grant the above freedoms
assure that nobody can take away the freedom
The GNU General Public License
Is a legal instrument to apply they copyleft idea on software
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
What is copyrightable?
The GNU GPL is a copyright license, and thus only covers copyrighted works
Not everything is copyrightable (German: Schoepfungshoehe)
Small bugfixes are not copyrightable (similar to typo-fixes in a book)
As soon as the programmer has a choice in the implementation, there is significant indication of a copyrightable work
Choice in algorithm, not in formal representation
Apparently, the level for copyrightable works is relatively low
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Terminology
Public Domain
concept where copyright holder abandons all rights
same legal status as works where author has died 70 years ago (German: Gemeinfreie Werke)
Freeware
object code, free of cost. No source code
Shareware
proprietary "Try and Buy" model for object code.
Cardware/Beerware/...
Freeware that encourages users to send payment in kind
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Terminology
Free Software
source code freely distributed
must allow redistribution, modification, non-discriminatory use
mostly defined by Free Software Foundation
Open Source
source code freely distributed
must allow redistribution, modification, non-discriminatory use
defined in the "Open Source Definition" by OSI
The rest of this document will refer to Free and Open Source Software as FOSS.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
The GNU GPL Revisited
Revisiting the GNU General Public License
Regulates distribution of copyrighted code, not usage
Allows distribution of source code and modified source code
The license itself is mentioned
A copy of the license accompanies every copy
Allows distribution of binaries or modified binaries, if
The license itself is mentioned
A copy of the license accompanies every copy
The complete source code is either included with the copy (alternatively a written offer to send the source code on request to any 3rd party)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Complete Source Code
%size 3
"... complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
Our interpretation of this is:
Source Code
Makefiles
Tools for generating the firmware binary from the source
(even if they are technically no 'scripts')
General Rule:
Intent of License is to enable user to run modified versions of the program. They need to be enabled to do so.
Result: Signing binaries and only accepting signed versions without providing a signature key is not acceptable!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Derivative Works
What is a derivative work?
Not dependent on any particular kind of technology (static/dynamic linking, dlopen, whatever)
Even while the modification can itself be a copyrightable work, the combination with GPL-licensed code is subject to GPL.
No precendent in Germany so far
As soon as code is written for a specific non-standard API (such as the iptables plugin API), there is significant indication for a derivative work
This position has been successfully enforced out-of-court with two Vendors so far (iptables modules/plugins).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Derivative Works
Position of my lawyer:
In-kernel proprietary code (binary kernel modules) are hard to claim GPL compliant
Case-by-case analysis required, especially when drivers/filesystems are ported from other OS's.
Sources within IBM told me that they now have a general policy to not ship any binary-only kernel modules to their customers, apart from very few cases where it is clearly no derivative work.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Collected Works
%size 3
"... it is not the intent .. to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works ..."
%size 3
"... mere aggregation of another work ... with the program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work und the scope of this license"
GPL allows "mere aggregation"
like a general-porpose GNU/Linux distribution (SuSE, Red Hat, ...)
GPL restricts "collective works"
grey area
important: actual form of distribution (as seperate works or not)
no precendent so far
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
Non-Public modifications
Non-Public modifications
A common misconception is that if you develop code within a corporation, and the code never leaves this corporation, you don't have to ship the source code.
However, at least German law would count every distribution beyound a number of close colleague as distribution.
Therefore, if you don't go for '3a' and include the source code together with the binary, you have to distribute the source code to any third party.
Also, as soon as you hand code between two companies, or between a company and a consultant, the code has been distributed.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
The GNU GPL Revisited
GPL Violations
When do I violate the license
when one ore more of the obligations are not fulfilled
What risk do I take if I violate the license?
the GPL automatically revokes any usage right
any copyright holder can obtain a preliminary injunction banning distribution of the infringing product
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Past GPL enforcement
Past GPL enforcement
GPL violations are nothing new, as GPL licensed software is nothing new.
However, the recent GNU/Linux hype made GPL licensed software used more often
The FSF enforces GPL violations of code on which they hold the copyright
silently, without public notice
in lengthy negotiations
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
The Linksys case
During 2003 the "Linksys" case drew a lot of attention
Linksys was selling 802.11 WLAN Acces Ponts / Routers
Lots of GPL licensed software embedded in the device (included Linux, uClibc, busybox, iptables, ...)
FSF led alliance took the usual "quiet" approach
Linksys bought itself a lot of time
Some source code was released two months later
About four months later, full GPL compliance was achieved
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
The Linksys case
Some developers didn't agree with this approach
not enough publicity
violators don't loose anything by first not complying and wait for the FSF
four months delay is too much for low product lifecycles in WLAN world
The netfilter/iptables project started to do their own enforcement in more cases that were coming up
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Enforcement case timeline
In chronological order
some user sends us a note he found our code somewhere
reverse engineering of firmware images
test purchase to verify device ships gpl-incompliant
sending the infringing organization a warning notice
wait for them to sign a statement to cease and desist
if no statement is signed
contract technical expert to do a study
apply for a preliminary injunction
if statement was signed
try to work out the details
grace period for boxes in stock possible
try to indicate that a donation would be good PR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Sucess so far
Success so far
amicable agreements with a number (35+) of companies
sdome of which made significant donations to charitable organizations of the free software community
preliminary injunction against Sitecom, Sitecom also lost appeals case
court decision of munich district court in Sitecom appeals case
three more preliminary injunctions
more settled cases (not public yet)
negotiating in more cases
public awareness
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Cases so far (1/3)
Allnet GmbH
Siemens AG
Fujitsu-Siemens Computers GmbH
Axis A.B.
Securepoint GmbH
U.S.Robotics Germany GmbH
Netgear GmbH
Belkin Compnents GmbH
Asus GmbH
Gateprotect GmbH
Sitecom GmbH / B.V.
TomTom B.V.
Gigabyte Technologies GmbH
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Cases so far (2/3)
Sun Deutschland GmbH
Open-E GmbH
Siemens AG (second case)
Deutsche Telekom AG
Hitachi Inc.
Tecom Inc.
ARP Datacon GmbH
Conceptronic B.V.
D-Link GmbH
Adaptec Deutschland GmbH
Belkin Compnents GmbH (second case)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Cases so far (3/3)
Siemens AG (third case)
TARGA GmbH
Medion AG
naviflash GmbH
Maxtor Inc.
Cisco Deutschland GmbH
Fortinet
naviflash GmbH
iRiver Europe GmbH
Cisco Deutschland GmbH (second case)
Acer Deutschland GmbH
some more not public yet
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
What we've learned
Copyleft-style licenses can be enforced!
A lot of companies don't take Free Software licenses seriously
Even corporations with large legal departments who should know
Reasons unclear, probably the financial risk of infringement was considered less than the expected gains
The FUD spread about "GPL not holding up in court" has disappeared
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Future GPL Enforcement
GPL Enforcement
remains an important issue for Free Software
will start to happen within the court more often
has to be made public in order to raise awareness
will probably happen within some form of organization
talks have started with the FSF Europe
What about Copylefted Content (Creative Commons)
probably just a matter of time until CC-licensed works of art are infringed
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Problems of GPL Enforcement
Problems
distributed copyright
is an important safeguard
can make enforcement difficult, since copyright traditionally doesn't know cases with thousands of copyright holders
distribution of damages extremely difficult
the legal issue of having to do reverse engineering in order to prove copyright infringement(!)
only the copyright holder (in most cases the author) can do it
users discovering GPL'd software need to communicate those issues to all entitled parties (copyright holders)
infringers obfuscating and/or encrypting fres software as disguise
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
gpl-violations.org
The http://www.gpl-violations.org/ project was started ~ 1 year ago
as a platform wher users can report alleged violations
to verify those violations and inform all copyright holders
to inform the public about ongoing enforcement efforts
At the moment, project is only backed by the author
more volunteers needed to investigate all cases
something like 170 reported (alleged) violations up to day
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Make later enforcement easy
Practical rules for proof by reverse engineering
Don't fix typos in error messages and symbol names
Leave obscure error messages like 'Rusty needs more caffeine'
Make binary contain string of copyright message, not only source
Practical rules for potential damages claims
Use revision control system
Document source of each copyrightable contribution
Name+Email address in CVS commit message
Consider something like FSFE FLA (Fiduciary License Agreement)
Make sure that employers are fine with contributions of their employees
If you find out about violation
Don't make it public (has to be new/urgent for injunctive relief)
Contact lawyer immediately to send wanrning notice
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%page
GNU GPL - Copyright helps Copyleft
Thanks
Thanks to
KNF
for first bringing me in contact with linux in 1994
Astaro AG
for sponsoring most of my netfilter work
Free Software Foundation
for the GNU Project
for the GNU General Public License
Dr. Till Jaeger
for handling my legal cases
Intranet Engineering
for doing expert witness reports
%size 3
The slides of this presentation are available at http://www.gnumonks.org/
Further reading:
%size 3
The http://www.gpl-violations.org/ project
%size 3
The Free Software foundation http://www.fsf.org/, http://www.fsf-europe.org/
%size 3
The GNU Project http://www.gnu.org/
%size 3
The netfilter homepage http://www.netfilter.org/
%% http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/management/04/05/31/1733229.shtml?tid=85&tid=4