Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a standards body

Tue Jun 23 07:48:06 CEST 2009

Yeah, there seems to be some kind of recursion in the issue which twists
your brain the more you think about it. I've emailed the SFLC (software
freedom law center) and am currently getting legal advice on the matter. The
main goal is to give the Zigbee-Linux developers some peace of mind so they
can start developing again. Once I hear back from them, I'll post it on the
mailing list and the blog.

Akiba

FreakLabs Open Source Zigbee Project

http://www.freaklabs.org

  _____  

From: Hardy, Allan [mailto:allan.hardy at lmco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Akiba; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: RE: Question regarding GPL and membership requirements for a
standards body

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/20090623/8a846910/attachment.htm 