Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body

Tue Jun 23 03:02:50 CEST 2009

The issue is that the GPL requires that software must be provided free of
licensing fees as mentioned in clause 2-c of the GPL v2:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you
also meet all of these conditions:

    * a) The modified work must itself be a software library.
    * b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
    * c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
all third parties under the terms of this License.

The Zigbee membership requirement for commercial projects becomes an implied
licensing fee because what you're doing is paying the membership fee in
order to gain permission to use their IP. If the lowest tier of membership
had no charges attached to it, even if other tiers did, then people who
wanted to make a commercial product based on GPL'd software would not need
to pay the Zigbee Alliance to license their IP. Hence clause 2-c is
satisfied. This was the central point in the issue that was discussed
regarding the spec's compatibility with GPL'd software. 

I'm a member of the Zigbee Alliance, but I can't expect my users to be. So
the membership requirement would constitute a restriction placed on the
software, since it uses Zigbee's IP. As far as we can see, this is a
violation of (at least) the spirit of the GPL. Regarding software using the
Zigbee protocol to be allowed to use the GPL, we're still trying to get a
definite answer on this. However, at best, it looks like it's ambiguous.

Akiba

FreakLabs Open Source Zigbee Project

http://www.freaklabs.org

  _____  

From: Hardy, Allan [mailto:allan.hardy at lmco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:24 AM
To: Akiba; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a
standards body

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/20090623/2e8b939f/attachment.htm>