300 lines
12 KiB
TeX
300 lines
12 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[11pt]{beamer}
|
|
\usetheme{default}
|
|
%\setbeamertemplate{frametitle}{}
|
|
\newenvironment{myline}
|
|
%{\usebeamerfont{frametitle}\usebeamercolor[fg]{frametitle}\vfill\centering}
|
|
{\usebeamerfont{frametitle}\vfill\centering}
|
|
{\par\vfill}
|
|
|
|
\usetheme{Warsaw}
|
|
\usecolortheme{whale}
|
|
|
|
\title{GNU GPL enforcement cases in Germany}
|
|
%\subtitle{Subtitle}
|
|
\author{Harald~Welte}
|
|
\date[June 2019, Seoul/Korea]{Public Domain \& Open Source Conference, June 2019}
|
|
\institute{gpl-violations.org}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}
|
|
\titlepage
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Outline}
|
|
\tableofcontents[hideallsubsections]
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{About the speaker}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice
|
|
\item Free Software developer for more than 20 years
|
|
\item Used to work on the Linux kernel from 1999-2009
|
|
\item By coincidence among the first people enforcing the GNU GPL in court
|
|
\item Since 2009 developing FOSS in cellular communications (Osmocom)
|
|
\item Living and working in Berlin, Germany.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\section{History: First GPL enforcement in German court}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{History leading to the case (2003)}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Linux started to get used in consumer DSL/WiFi routers
|
|
\item 2003 Linksys WRT54G enforcement in US / FSF-led coalition
|
|
\item some dissatisfied at slow progress / little results
|
|
\item more similar devices are showing up in German market
|
|
\item I was head of netfilter/iptables development back then
|
|
\item companies disrespecting our development model made me very upset
|
|
\item I did some research on the legal situation and was looking for a competent lawyer
|
|
\item Luckily I found Dr. Till Jaeger, who had already published extensively on FOSS back then
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Welte vs. Sitecom (2004)}
|
|
Timeline
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item March 18, 2004: Warning Letter to Sitecom
|
|
\item March 22, 2004: Sitecom asks for extension of deadline, granted by plaintiff
|
|
\item March 30, 2004: No declaration to cease+desist received
|
|
\item April 1, 2004: Request for grant of preliminary injunction filed
|
|
\item April 2, 2004: Injunction granted by district court Munich
|
|
\item April 13, 2004: Preliminary injunction served to Sitecom
|
|
\item April 20, 2004: Sitecom files appeal against injunction
|
|
\item May 19, 2004: Court issues ruling, upholding injunction
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
LG München, Az~21~O~6123/04
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Welte vs. Sitecom (2004)}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Timeline reflects standard procedural code in copyright infringements in Germany
|
|
\item preliminary injunction can only be requested in {\em urgent} cases, which typically means {\em no less then 30 days after plaintiff knows about infringement}
|
|
\item short amount of time for declaration to cease and desist and fixing GPL compliance
|
|
\item if product is sold (or firmware downloadable) all over Germany, all courts are competent, plaintiff can chose
|
|
\item District court of Munich (LG München) didn't show any doubt about validity of GPL under German law
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Welte vs. Sitecom aftermath}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Sitecom did some half-hearted attempts at fixing that one first product we found
|
|
\item preliminary injunction is not on a single product, but on the software netfilter/iptables
|
|
\item Unfortunately, Sitecom didn't change their habits / processes
|
|
\item April 20, 2005: Sitecom has to pay 5000 EUR to the court for a GPL violation in another product (WL-111), infringing the preliminary injunction.
|
|
\item May 22, 2006: Found another incompliant product: Warning notice about WL-105i
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{After that first German case}
|
|
more lawsuits
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Welte vs. Fortinet (2005)
|
|
\item Welte vs. D-Link (2006)
|
|
\item Welte vs. Skype (2008)
|
|
\item gpl-violations.org slows down from 2008 onwards
|
|
\item Welte vs. Fantec (2013)
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
many more out of court enforcements (hundreds) with companies ranging from Siemens to Sun
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{gpl-violations.org becomes dormant}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item I'm an engineer. Anything except writing code or designing electronics is a distraction
|
|
\item Legal work of license enforcement with gpl-violations.org took a lot of time
|
|
\item It was a great team working with Armijn Hejmel, Till Jaeger and colleagues
|
|
\item Ultimately, I am personally liable in all copyright lawsuits
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Requires deep personal involvement in lots of details
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\item We had successfully demonstrated to the industry the GPL is upheld by court, and GPL compliance matters
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item at least parts of the industry began to change their habits
|
|
\item mission accomplished
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\item gpl-violations.org became dormant / inactive
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{}
|
|
fast-forward to 2016
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\section{Enforcement by Patrick McHardy}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Patrick McHardy GPL enforcement caeses}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Patrick McHardy was another German Linux Kernel developer starting GPL enforcement
|
|
\item by coincidence he was also involved with netfilter/iptables
|
|
\item he started his enforcement around the time he stopped contributing actual code
|
|
\item enforcement process is similar to what was described before
|
|
\item unfortunately, enforcement doesn't seem to be compliance-centric but profit-driven
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Patrick McHardy GPL enforcement caeses}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Patrick secluded himself from Linux and netfilter developers
|
|
\item for many years he refuses to respond to any of our inquuries
|
|
\item his enforcement often seems to emphasize on minor infractions or grey areas like requiring a German translation of the GPL
|
|
\item he's not publishing his actions, but acting in secret
|
|
\item many assume he's largely financially motivated
|
|
\item suspended from netfilter team as a result
|
|
\item other netfilter core team members sign {\em principles of community oriented GPL enforcement}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{McHardy vs. Geniatech (2016-2018)}
|
|
From a high level, pretty similar to other infringement cases
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item test purchase is made
|
|
\item warning notice is filed
|
|
\item no declaration to cease and desist
|
|
\item preliminary injunction applied for at LG Köln; granted (Az~14~O~188/17)
|
|
\item appeal against preliminary injunction turned down
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{The details matter}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Scope of preliminary injunction is very broad:
|
|
\item Defendant shall cease and desist from
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item ever publishing, selling, offering for download any version of Linux (whether Patrick McHardy has any copyright in that or not)
|
|
\item putting hyperlinks on their website to any version of Linux
|
|
\item asking users to download ant version of Linux
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Appeal at OLG Köln (2018)}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item More than 1000 pages of filings of the parties (!)
|
|
\item Linux kernel development model makes McHardy {\em modifying author}, not {\em co-author}.
|
|
\item modifying author can only ask for cease and desist on those portions he wrote, not entire work
|
|
\item McHardy did not sufficiently show what exactly his contributions were and how they were forming themselves copyrightable works
|
|
\item McHardy did not substantiate what copyrightable contributions he has made outside of netfilter/iptables
|
|
\item McHardy decided to withdraw his case at this point, avoiding the higher district court to ever get to issue a verdict on the case.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Legal concept: Miturheber vs. Bearbeiterurheber}
|
|
German copyright distinguishes between
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item {\em Miturheber} (co-author)
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item multiple authors plan and create a work together
|
|
\item any of the co-authors can claim cease+desist for the full work
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\item {\em Bearbeiterurheber} (modifying author)
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item a pre-existing work gets edited/modified by another author
|
|
\item the modifying author can only claim cease+desist on his part
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
This turns out to be one of the more important legal formalities discussed in recent GPL enforcement cases.
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\section{Enforcement by Christoph Hellwig}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Hellwig vs VMware (2016-2019)}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item not a classic (embedded) Linux GPL violation case
|
|
\item Linux kernel not used as a whole / as OS kernel
|
|
\item parts of Linux, such as SCSI-mid-layer, USB stack, radix tree and tons of device drivers used inside proprietary ESXi vmkernel
|
|
\item no preliminary injunction involved
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{First court case at LG Hamburg (Az~310~O~89/15)}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item initial lack of understanding of the court on how the parts are pieced together
|
|
\item large focus on legal formalitiies such as standing
|
|
\item co-authorship (Miturheberschaft) vs.\ editor authorship (Bearbeiterurheberrecht)
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Second court case at OLG Hamburg (Az~5~U~146/16)}
|
|
Hearing on Nov. 28, 2018
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item court has difficulties understanding which functionalities / code Hellwig is basing his claims on
|
|
\item court states Hellwig cannot claim editing copyright (Bearbeiterurheberrecht) on Linux as a whole
|
|
\item court believes the ruling at the previous court is a valid ruling based on the filings made
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item editing copyright only on the part edited
|
|
\item no rights on the original program
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Second court case at OLG Hamburg (Az~5~U~146/16)}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item general statements and pointers to public sources are insufficient to prove authorship/rights
|
|
\item the concrete copies of code sections must be pointed out
|
|
\item it is insufficient if only an expert witness can show something
|
|
\item in some of the code, copyright statements hint that co-authorship might exist, while the claims were all based on editing authorship
|
|
\item difficulties with "what is a work". If the entire vmkernel+vmklinux and linux derived portions are one work, then Hellwig's parts are proportionally small.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Second court (OLG Hamburg): Case dismissed}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item case was dismissed entirely based on formal grounds
|
|
\item court claims Hellwig didn't demonstrate clearly enough that his copyrighted work ended up in VMwares product
|
|
\item court didn't actually have to rule on the merits of the case
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Why is this happening all in Germany?}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item no copyright registration required
|
|
\item preliminary injunction must be applied for very quickly
|
|
\item preliminary injunction granted without hearing defendant
|
|
\item preliminary injunction doesn't require injunction bond
|
|
\item lots of precedent primarily due to the 2004 to 2008 cases
|
|
\item legal costs are regulated and not as insanely expensive as some other jurisdictions that shall not be named
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Further Reading}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item gpl-violations.org cases
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tiny
|
|
\item \url{http://gpl-violations.org/} (News section)
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\item McHardy cases
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tiny
|
|
\item \url{https://www.netfilter.org/files/statement.pdf}
|
|
\item \url{https://netfilter.org/licensing.html}
|
|
\item \url{https://blog.fossa.io/patrick-mchardy-and-copyright-profiteering-44f7c28c0693/}
|
|
\item \url{http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20180307-mchardy-gpl/}
|
|
\item \url{https://ifosslr.org/index.php/ifosslr/article/view/128/246}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\item Hellwig / VMware
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tiny
|
|
\item \url{https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html}
|
|
\item \url{http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20151029-vmware_gpl/}
|
|
\item \url{http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20160225-vmware-gpl/}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\item List of judgements / verdicts (not only) in Germany
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\tiny
|
|
\item \url{https://ifross.github.io/ifrOSS/Cases}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\begin{frame}{Thanks}
|
|
Thanks for your attention.
|
|
|
|
You have a General Public License to ask questions now :)
|
|
\end{frame}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|