Monsoon
Multimedia has settled the first US lawsuit over the
General
Public Licence (GPL).
The
Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) filed legal charges in September accusing the
consumer electronics vendor of violating the terms of the GPL in its products.
The settlement includes an undisclosed financial payment by Monsoon
Multimedia, which has also agreed to appoint a chief compliance officer to
monitor and ensure future compliance with the GPL.
Monsoon Multimedia announced its
intention to comply
with the GPL in September, but the case has only just been legally settled.
The SFLC offers legal aid to developers and users of open source software.
The group filed its legal claim on behalf of the two principal developers of the
BusyBox
application, a set of utilities published under the GPL.
Monsoon Multimedia distributed BusyBox with some of its consumer devices, but
refused to publish its source code as required by the licence.
"We are happy to put this behind us and move forward," Monsoon Multimedia
chief operating officer Graham Radstone said in a statement. "We will ensure
that we are in compliance with the agreement in the future."
Commercial vendors, such as
Cisco
Systems, have violated the terms of the GPL by
declining to
publish the source code.
Most cases are blamed on a lack of oversight, for instance when a
subcontractor includes GPL without the vendor's knowledge.
The open source licence has repeatedly been enforced in courts outside the
US. But the Monsoon Multimedia case marked the first time that GPL developers
asked a US court to enforce the licence.
The case could have provided a valuable clarification on the
legal status of open
source software which is currently unclear.
The SFLC argues that the GPL constitutes a copyright agreement, but a second
view regards the licence as a contract.
The status of the licence is pivotal to the legal remedy for a potential
violation. A copyright violation typically leads to an injunction that prevents
the violating party further distributing its products.
A breach of contract, however, typically leads to monetary damages.
Do you agree?
Have your say on this article