For years, violations of the
Dan Ravicher, SFLC's attorney on the case, said the suit isn't part of a broader effort to give GPL enforcement a stronger legal foundation. But the action has repercussions for a much larger audience than just the single defendant.
"There still appear to be flaming examples of either indifference to or outright disregard for the GPL," said James Harvey, an attorney with Hunton & Williams who is not involved with the suit. "I think those flaming examples will increasingly be called to order by somebody, whether SFLC, a copyright holder or someone else in the open-source ecosystem."
After the SFLC filed suit on September 20, Moonsoon said it would comply with the GPL. But that's not enough to call off the lawyers.
"Simply coming into compliance now is not sufficient to settle the matter, because that would mean anyone can violate the license until caught, because the only punishment would be to come into compliance," Ravicher said, though he declined to say what other actions the SFLC is seeking.
And the SFLC doesn't want to be a pushover. "If you start getting a reputation for being a pansy, then people are going to conclude they don't have to do anything," he said.
Ravicher co-founded the SFLC along with one of the biggest legal guns in the free and open-source software arena--, the Columbia Law School professor who for years represented GPL creator Free Software Foundation and who also oversaw the creation of the new GPL version 3. The center initially was funded by the Open Source Development Labs--a consortium now called the --and also is sponsored by Linux open-source allies including IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Red Hat.
The center's willingness to sue Monsoon isn't the first recent example of legal assertiveness on the part of free and open-source players. In July, strongly worded statement. "We will ensure--and, to the extent of our resources, assist other GPLv3 licensors in ensuring--that Microsoft respects our copyrights and complies with our licenses," the foundation said., but in August, the Free Software Foundation--which the SFLC represents legally--countered with a
The Monsoon dispute involves software called BusyBox, a collection of utilities tailored for devices with tight memory constraints. It's governed by version 2 of the GPL, which permits anyone to see, modify and distribute the software, as long as modifications are also released under the GPL. This is the quid pro quo arrangement that attracted Linux kernel leader Linus Torvalds: anyone can benefit from a freely available software project, but changing it requires them to give back the fruits of their own labor.
The license also requires anyone distributing GPL software, in an executable form that a computer can run, to make the complete source code available. One example: Cisco Systems subsidiary Linksys, which shares the GPL software used in its wireless networking equipment.
Monsoon's Hava product line lets customers record video and watch it on multiple PCs or over the Internet. In August, a Hava Forum discussion began on whether the systems used Linux, which like BusyBox is governed by the GPL. A Hava support representative whose screen name is Gary-MM said in the discussion: "I have a little secret to let you in on--Hava runs Linux! Yes, much of the source is GPL."
But the interaction turned frosty. "Some of you appear to be violating the terms of the End User License Agreement," Gary-MM said of efforts to deduce whether GPL software was used in Hava. (Those efforts included finding the text "BusyBox" in the Hava software.) "Seems to me that some of you have just come out blatantly admitting you are reverse-engineering the firmware--or trying to."
Although Gary-MM later said he was just "pokin' a bit of fun at you" without intending any threat, "adversarial" forum postings and the company's lack of response to a September 11 letter from SFLC led to the suit.