Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body

[Hardy, Allan]

I just wanted to make a comment on a point made in the blog.  I am a bit of a sick guiy in that I like discussing this legal stuff :) just for fun.



Where you said:



"However after a bit more investigation, it turned out that the Bluetooth Adopter membership was free which would remove the GPL violation."



Why is payment or $ the basis of your analysis?  The GPL doesn't stop anyone from charging $ for using a GPL product.  It may not be a smart marketing move to charge for something that your customers can turnaround and offer for free, but the GPL doesn't prevent that.



I would have thought the right conclusion would have been along the lines of 'freedoms' not free costs.  Is there anything about the act of registering that restricts my freedoms under the GPL, meaning it deny's me rights or makes me surrender rights.



Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the GPL seem the most applicable here.  I copied them below just for reference.



As I understand the GPL I can charge you say $1000 to acquire my GPL based software.  If you choose to pay you can then use the software under the GPL.  Meaning you can give it away for free.  (which makes me changing upfront sorta dumb business practice).



What I can't do is charge you $1000 and then tell you that you must also charge.  I cant override/change the rights the GPL affords you.



Same goes with registration.  I can offer you my GPL products and require you to register, for free or not, in order to get the download.  You can then offer the product to others under the GPL.



What I cant do is tell you that if you offer the product to anyone else, you must have then register at my site or even at some other site, even if its free registration.  That would be me adding a superset of requirements around the GPL, which the GPL tries hard to not allow.



So back to Zigby



You release a linux implementation of the Zigby specification.  What Zigby doesn't want is a hardware guy embedding that linux/zigby stack and charging for the hardware product, without them being a member of the zigby alliance (again free or pay doesn't matter)



What license can you release your ziby/kinux stack under?  BSD, GPL, ?  Doesn't matter, what ever it is it must carry the caveat that if you use zigby/linux in a product (software or hardware) you sell you have to sign up.  Basically you must put the zigby/linux product pretty much under the same terms as Zigby has spelled them out with the restrictions on commercial use.




So, the way I am looking at it - Zigby is an issue not because there is $ involved, but because it adds restrictions/requirements on top of GPL for any downstream users - which GPL doesn't allow or support.  That restriction could be a free registration or a paid one, doesn't matter, it's a restriction/additional requirement on use of GPL product.


I think whomever put up the issue a the linux kernel discussion got it confused in the areas of commercial or not.





As to why Bluetooth doesn't have the same issue, I'd have to see the Bluetooth license/terms to be sure, but if it is for trademark use and not software use, then it would be in a whole different ballpark.



Allan





>From GPL V2



4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.



6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.









-----Original Message-----
From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Akiba
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 2:02 PM
To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body



Hi Klaas.

I think one issue is that the USB-IF doesn't limit its use of the spec to

members. Anyone is able to use it. Only the use of the USB logo, trademarks,

and certification are for members. This is the major difference between

Zigbee. The similar situation exists between Bluetooth where the spec can

only be used by members, but the lowest tier of membership is free. I

believe that's why Bluetooth was allowed in the Linux kernel.

I've been mulling over this issue a lot, and have discussed it with people

on my blog. Unfortunately, I still haven't found a compelling argument that

the GPL can still be used. I appreciate the input though.



Akiba

FreakLabs Open Source Zigbee Project

http://www.freaklabs.org



-----Original Message-----

From: Klaas van Gend [mailto:klaas.van.gend at mvista.com]

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:36 AM

To: Akiba

Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org

Subject: Re: Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a

standards body



Hi Akiba,



To me, this case appears to have similarities to the USB gadget (device)

case and the (old) SD case - and the results are quite different.



You're not supposed to create/ship USB devices without a USB forum

membership (and registering official IDs), but that does not affect the

Linux drivers - they're GPL. The same is true for PCI by the way.

The membership is required to keep the standardization effort afloat and

pay for the organization - not to keep things secret.



The opposite example is the SD card forum.

My company (MontaVista) wrote a GPL software stack for SD back in 2004

and immediately got a cease-and-desist letter from the SD forum (and we

were a member of the forum!) because they did not allow a GPL version of

the code. Fortunately, that requirement has been lessened about two

years ago - and lately everybody happily ships Linux devices with real

SD support - not just MMC support.





Klaas






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090622/2d7ddd68/attachment.htm>