[ILUG] FortiOS & Linux

[kevin lyda]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:06:00AM +0100, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> The case taken against Forti was not based on their wholesale
> violation of the gpl, it was based on a specific violation of one
> developers rights under the gpl. Those rights in that case related to
> one specific item - initrd. The case was not a wholesale suage of
> Forti for all of their violations of the gpl.

and the legal reason this was done was explained.

> For all the court knows or cares, initrd was the only gpl'ed code 
> in Forti's codebase - they still granted the preliminary injunction.
> That is a huge victory, and something which needs to be 
> celebrated.

is that correct?  i'm not certain if copyright cases allow amicus briefs
or if the plantiff is allowed to bring in info regarding other infractions
to demonstrate intent.  i'm not a lawyer in any jurisdiction.

> On the other hand, it does allow Forti to wriggle, claiming it was
> one tiny part of their code. This wriggle room is then expanded 
> when the gpl-violation press release makes sweeping statements
> about the nature of the victory which are not backed up by real
> legal facts.

press releases are not legal documents.  they are not restricted by
legal rules.  the press release discussed fortinet's violation of the
gpl and did not get into nitty-gritty detail.  the reason for that is
that press releases are designed to be printed in the press.  the eyes
of journalists and editors would glaze over one sentence into a
discussion about copyright law, how copyright law applies to software,
the distributed nature of gpl software and how all that applies to this
case.

i got annoyed in the spiderman movie when jamison said that he wanted to
call the patent office and copyright the term "green goblin."  he wanted
a trademark, not a copyright.  and you don't contact the patent office
about copyrights.

but if you search online, not a single review of spiderman covers that.

the mainstream media doesn't come close to covering ip issues with any
level of detail.  the gpl-violations press release reflects that
reality.

> The legal facts are that gpl-violations successfully obtained an
> injuinction against Forti for their inclusion of gpl'ed initrd code,
> forcing Forti into a settlement. The statements at
> 
> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html
> and the Forti release are both spinning those facts.

it most certainly is not.

    "Fortinet offers a variety of Firewall and Antivirus Products (the
     FortiGate and FortiWiFi product series), on which Fortinet claims to
     run the "FortiOS" operating system. However, as the gpl-violations.org
     project uncovered, "FortiOS" is using the Linux operating system
     kernel and numerous other free software products that are licensed
     exclusively under the GNU GPL. This information was not disclosed
     by Fortinet."

is that incorrect?  they didn't say the court uncovered it, they said
they uncovered it.

    "As a result of this violation, the Munich district court has granted
     a preliminary injunction against Fortinet Ltd., banning them from
     further distribution of their products until they are in compliance
     with the GNU GPL conditions."

and that's an accurate description of the court case.

there is a legal reality about how a copyright case has to be pursued.
fortinet is exploiting that legal reality, not the gpl-violations press
release.

kevin

-- 
kevin lyda ~ dems for torture: salazar(co/10) landrieu(la/08) pryor(ar/08)
kevin at ie.suberic.net ~ nelson(fl/06) nelson(ne/06) lieberman(ct/06) 2/2/04
  Those who refuse to raise their voices against something as clearly evil
  as torture are enablers, if not collaborators.  --Bob Herbert, 2/11/04