Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body

[Hardy, Allan]

Hi,
Perhaps.  I'd like to understand the differences, the devil is usually in the details.  Do you have access to the Bluetooth terms?  I went to Bluetooth.com and the latest spec document.  (see excerpt below) I'm am not seeing the requirements for membership if I use the linux drivers?

I am starting to wonder what exactly my obligations are under either products license.  I thought I had read the Zigbee terms to apply to not just the Specification but works derived from the specification.   I just went back to their site and re-read:

"No part of this specification may be used in development of a product for sale without becoming a member of ZigBee Alliance."

Ok, but if you build a driver for linux, offer it for free, it seems fine for you.  If I then take your product and use it - does that equate to me "using the specification for development?"  If I am a consumer of your  free implementation, that doesn't seem to make me a user of the specification.

So aim going to go back and challenge my original scenario.   If I use your free implementation, I don't seem to have any obligation to Zigbee?  I don't need to join zigbee if I just use/consumer of your free implementation.

Also Zigbee doesn't seem to force any restrictions on your  software license, other then make it free.  You can license your software under any license, with or without source code, etc?  If I use your software my only obligation is to you, as copyright holder.  I appear to have been completely wrong about my having any obligation to ZigBee?

Anyway that is the key question for me,  if you build it, and if I use it in a commercial hardware device, does that make me a user of the specification?  Right now I don't think so, which leads me to ask, what's the problem? : )

Thanks for making me think on this
Allan


Disclaimer and Copyright Notice
The copyright in these specifications is owned by the Promoter Members of Bluetooth SIG, Inc. ("Bluetooth SIG"). Use of these specifications and any
related intellectual property (collectively, the "Specification"), is governed by the Promoters Membership Agreement among the Promoter Members and Bluetooth SIG (the "Promoters Agreement"), certain membership agreements between Bluetooth SIG and its Adopter and Associate Members (the "Membership Agreements") and the Bluetooth Specification Early Adopters Agreements ("1.2 Early Adopters Agreements") among Early Adopter members of the unincorporated Bluetooth special interest group and the Promoter Members (the "Early Adopters Agreement"). Certain rights and obligations of the Promoter Members under the Early Adopters Agreements have been assigned to Bluetooth SIG by the Promoter Members.

Use of the Specification by anyone who is not a member of Bluetooth SIG or a party to an Early Adopters Agreement (each such person or party, a "Member"),
is prohibited. The legal rights and obligations of each Member are governed by their applicable Membership Agreement, Early Adopters Agreement or Promoters Agreement. No license, express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual property rights are granted herein.


From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Akiba
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 10:06 PM
To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body

Hi Allan.
According to your argument, then Bluetooth would also be incompatible since it requires that any users of the Bluetooth spec become members of the Bluetooth SIG. The membership is free at the lowest tier. However there is a Bluetooth Linux project and it looks like it has been deemed compatible with the GPL.

Akiba
FreakLabs Open Source Zigbee Project
http://www.freaklabs.org
________________________________
From: Hardy, Allan [mailto:allan.hardy at lmco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Akiba; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body

>> 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:

Zigbee terms are not GPL compliant we agree on that.
I respectfully disagree that it is because of a membership fee.  Requiring membership at all is enough to be in conflict with GPL.

Assume Zigbee membership is free:

If I took a standard GPL product and embedded it in my hardware Device what are my GPL requirements?  - Primarily to provide source code for the GPL components.

If I take a Zigbee embedded in a linux distro, then put in my device what are my requirements? -  To become a member of Zigbee alliance, to follow what ever additional requirements are put on members, and to provide source code for GPL components.

The Zigbee terms are not GPL compatible because it discriminates against a class of users, as example commercial hardware vendors, it puts additional restrictions on my ability to use the GPL product, takes away freedoms of use I had, etc.

The fact that it also involves $ is a secondary issue, imho, not the main issue.    Zigbee could drop their fee to $1 or $0 and it still would be GPL incompatible.

>> This was the central point in the issue that was discussed regarding the spec's compatibility with GPL'd software.

Discussed where?  Even if it was the central point of the discussion, it is not the central point of GPL incompatibility.
At least that's my central point.  : )

Allan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090623/84ccf93a/attachment-0001.htm