This page is a summary of some GPL lawsuits who took place. Please do not consider this list as an exhaustive one.
USA
Linksys/Cisco (2003)
Plaintiff: there wasn't any actual suit in 2003 but some direct negotiations between Cisco and a coalition led by FSF.
When: March 2003
What was at issue: Since the terms of the negotiations are undisclosed, the facts are not clear. What follows is a recollection of data from second-hand sources (listed below) and should be treated as such. The WRT54G is a home router manufactured by Linksys; it included a Broadcom chip that shipped with some embedded firmware; development of such firmware was outsourced by Broadcom to some independent contractor. Apparently, the contractor used some code released under the GPL licence without informing Broadcom. Additions to the Linux kernel were made, in the form of statically linked modules. This aspect is relevant because there is doubt if non-essential kernel modules constitute a derivative work (thus allowing for binary modules subject to licences different from GPL). That was not the case, since the modules developed by Linksys/Broadcom/the subcontractor (author is not really clear) were necessary for the working of the product and thus hardlinked to the kernel itself. Unaware of these issues, Cisco bought Linksys and started selling the WRT54G router without releasing the firmware source code or providing the GPL text. Someone noticed the licence infringement and reported to the FSF which, in turn, asked Cisco to respect the terms of the GPL.
What was the result: Cisco complied in part. The availability of the source code enabled developers to create enhanced firmwares bringing to the WRT54G some functionalities that were peculiar of high-end devices. This (allegedly) damaged Cisco's market for high-end routers and pushed them to rewrite their firmware without software released under the GPL licence, to be able to maintain their original business model. A popular misconception is that the FSF vs Cisco case from 2009 is related to this case, but that was in fact for different devices.
Sources:
Reusing Open Source Code: Value Creation and Value Appropriation, by Manuel Sojer, p.2
Open Source and the Legend of Linksys, by Heather J. Meeker
Wallace v. FSF (2005) & Wallace v. IBM et al (2006)
Plaintiff: Daniel Wallace
Where: Southern district of Indiana
When: November 30, 2005
What was at issue: Wallace alleged that contributors to GPL-licensed software, including IBM, Red Hat, and Novell, were engaged in an anti-competitive conspiracy to fix the price of operating systems at zero.
What was the result: 7th Circuit: «GPL and open-source have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws». «[The GPL] acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation.» [1]. Wallace v. FSF was ruled out (apparently on the sole basis that the complaint of the plaintiff was "futile" [2] - this should point at how much such arguments are considered ridiculous in Court).
Sources:
Wallace vs FSF on Groklaw
FSF vs Cisco (2009)
Plaintiff: FSF
Where: NY District Court
When: December 11, 2008
What was at issue: Cisco was selling routers that shipped with software («GNU C Library, GNU Coreutils, GNU Readline, GNU Parted, GNU Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Binutils, and GNU Debugger» [3]) covered by the GPL and LGPL licences without providing «complete and corresponding source code or an offer for source code» [3]. The FSF contacted Cisco and notified the GPL violations. In some cases Cisco complied, but in others it did not provide any source code or provided outdated sources [3], thus continuing their GPL violations.
What was the result: The case was settled. «Cisco will appoint a watchdog for Linksys [which is owned by Cisco], people who bought the Linksys products in question will be informed of what the GPL means for them, a license notice will be added to Linksys' website, the relevant source code will be made available on its website, and an undisclosed amount of cash will be coughed up» [4].
Sources:
The Open Source trials: hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft, by Åse Stiller
The official complaint by the FSF
Cisco Settles, But Where From Here?, by Justin Ryan
Busybox vs Best Buy + 13 other companies (2009-2012)
Plaintiff: SFC (represented by SFLC)
Where: Southern NY District Court
When: Started on 14 dec. 2009
What was at issue: Bestbuy and others (Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC, JVC Americas Corporation, Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Robert Bosch LLC, Phoebe Micro, Inc., Humax USA Inc., Comtrend Corporation, Dobbs-Stanford Corporation, Versa Technology Inc., Zyxel Communications Inc., Astak Inc., and GCI Technologies Corporation), have distributed firmware – embedded in electronic products or by itself – that contains BusyBox or a derivative work of BusyBox «in a manner that does not comply with the License» [3]. The vendors have been contacted privately but didn't comply (or didn't comply in a way deemed sufficient by the Software Freedom Law Center). This is probably the first case of enforcement of the GPL in a court of law in the U.S. «Westinghouse attempted to impose terms more restrictive than those specified in the GPL, by limiting use of the software to “personal, non-commercial purposes only".» [4] «SFLC/SFC, took the position that the failure to provide source code as required by GPLv2 (a) automatically terminated the licensees’ right to distribute GPLv2 code, and (b) could not be cured simply by providing the corresponding source after the fact, but required the licensees to obtain the express permission of the relevant copyright holders. The SFLC/SFC and the copyright holders apparently demanded many concessions from the licensees before agreeing to reinstate the license, including the release of source code for a number of proprietary libraries and programs, as well as the right to review all of the code for new products prior to their release to ensure GPL compliance.» [5]
What was the result: Westhinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC filed for an alternative procedure to bankrupcy allowed under California law [6], thus exiting the main lawsuit. U.S.D.J. Scheindlin found «Westinghouse’s infringement to be willful and therefore awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000. The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff» [4]. All other companies reached an out of court settlement [7].
Sources:
The Open Source trials: hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft, by Åse Stiller
The official complaint by the Software Freedom Conservacy, Inc.
Free Software Comes at a Price, by Adam Kessel
Is BusyBox Too Dangerous To Use?, by Edward J. Naughton
BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again on Groklaw
The BusyBox page on Wikipedia
GERMANY
Welte vs Sitecom (2004)
Plaintiff: Harald Welte (gpl-violators.org)
Where: District Court of Munich
When: 2004
What was at issue: Welte was the author of software (netfilter/iptables) that appeared in Sitecom's routers. He filed an injuction against Sitecom, Sitecom appealed arguing that it had not accepted the GPL.
What was the result: The District Court ruled that Sitecom had, in fact, agreed to the GPL terms. Sitecom later published the GPL text on the FAQ website for the router [1].
Sources:
Open Source and the Legend of Linksys, by Heather J. Meeker
The Open Source trials: hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft, by Åse Stiller
Free & Open Source Software Litigation, by Catalin Cosovanu, Esq.
Welte vs Fortinet UK Ltd. (2005)
Plaintiff: Harald Welte (gpl-violators.org)
Where: District Court of Munich
When: 2005
What was at issue: Welte was the author of software (netfilter/iptables) that appeared in Fortinet's routers. He filed an injuction against Fortinet, Fortinet appealed arguing that it had not accepted the GPL.
What was the result: «Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results.» [1] to the Sitecom case.
Sources:
Open Source and the Legend of Linksys, by Heather J. Meeker
The Open Source trials: hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft, by Åse Stiller
Welte vs D-Link (2006)
Plaintiff: Harald Welte
Where: District court of Frankfurt, Germany
When: 2006 (judgement on September 6th)
What was at issue: D-link was accused to violate the GPL licence for one of this network storage device (DSM-G600). More precisely it failed to provide some modifications made in the source code of the Linux Kernel and it also failed in providing a copy of the GPL licence. In a first step, D-LINK corrected its errors but refused to cover disbursment for Mr. Welte for the trial and his investigations (legal fees, test purchase and reverse engineering). Then, the case shifted to the question of the binding character of the GPL licence : «Was using the software to be considered equivalent to accepting the terms in the license?» [1]
What was the result: The court ordered the reimbursement for legal expenses plus the costs of purchasing and reverse engineering. The court also clarified that D-Link was bound by the terms of the GPL v2 licence : «More importantly the court upheld the validity of the GPL in its ruling, currently available only in German, affirming that copylefted software can be defended using copyright laws.» [2]
Sources:
The Open Source trials: hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft, by Åse Stiller
GPL passes acid test in German court, by Mayank Sharma
D-Link Found to Have Violated the GPL by German Court, by Jason Haislmaier
Welte vs Skype (2008)
Plaintiff: Harald Welte
Where: District Court of Munich
When: 2008
What was at issue: Skype Technologies SA was selling a Linux-based phone on its website, allegedly without providing the source code and the mandatory references to the GPL text. Skype argued that both of them were available through a URL mentioned in the documentation. The Court, however, found this kind of reference insufficient under paragraphs 1 and 3 of the GPL v2 licence: «The license states that offering source code for downloading, is only applicable if and when the binaries are downloadable from the same place» [1]. The licence text and the source code should be included in the packaging itself. To paraphrase Welte : «If a publisher wants to publish a book of an author that wants his book only to be published in a green envelope, then that might seem odd to you, but still you will have to do it as long as you want to publish the book and have no other agreement in place». Skype appealed, arguing that the GPL was in breach of national antitrust law. Later, Skype dropped its appeal and accepted the judgement of the lower court.
What was the result: settled out of court
Sources:
The Open Source trials: hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft, by Åse Stiller
Skype agrees to obey GPL, by Peter Judge
OSS Enforcement in the European Union, by Diego Fernández
Welte in AVM vs Cybits case (2011)
Plaintiff: AVM (Welte as a third-party)
Where: Regional court of Berlin
When: 2011
What was at issue: AVM is a manufacturer of digital suscriber line (DSL) terminals (i.e. the FRITZ!Box router) which uses the Linux kernel as part of its firmware. Cybit, on its side, provides an internet filtering software named "Surf-Sitter DSL". This software downloads the FritzBox firmware, modifies it and installs it back on the FritzBox. AVM tried to stop this practice, requiring that «The defendant [Cybits] is obliged to refrain from supplying, distributing and/or operating the "Surf-Sitter-DSL" software, as far as this software edits and modifies the firmware, which is embedded in DSL-routers produced and distributed by the applicant [AVM], especially FRITZ!Box Fon [...], and as far as it further uses unmodified or modified parts of it.» Harald Welde, as a Linux Kernel's developer, argued that the AVM's claim was illegal and joined the legal proceeding as an intervener. It was able to do it because both Cybits and AVM were his licensees (they used MTD and iptables/netfilter). For Welte, «the legal action towards cybits infringe on the GNU GPL as well as his personal copyrights». Thus, the core problem became if a GPL software embedded in a device's firmware can be still used, modified, studied and distributed. The following arguments were made:
- AVM: the whole software must be regarded as a singular entity under AVM copyright and, as such, can not be freely modified.
--> Welte: in this case, the whole product should be seen as a derivative work and thus licensed under the GPL.
- AVM : the software embedded in its product consisted of several parts.
--> Welte: in this case, anyone can modify and redistribute the parts licensed under the GPL.
- AVM: the software in their DSL terminals are a composition of different programs and so a creation protected by copyright.
- AVM: the whole software must be regarded as a singular entity under AVM copyright and, as such, can not be freely modified.
What was the result: The Court firstly closed the preliminary case, confirming the position of Mr Welte as long as the modified software doesn't return incorrect values. In its next decision on November 8th in the principal proceedings, the Court denied that Cybits had infringed AVM's copyright: Cybit had the right to download the GPL parts of the AVM firmware in order to modify them.
Welte vs Fantec (2013)
Plaintiff: Harald Welte
Where: Landgericht Hamburg
When: Decision on 14 June 2013
What was at issue: Fantec, a hardware manufacturer, had integrated a version of netfilter/iptables in one of its media players (FANTEC 3DFHDL). Fantec did provide the source code, but Welte argued that it was outdated and in an incomplete form. Fantec replied that the software and source code were provided by their Chinese subcontractor, along with assurances of software integrity. For this reason, in Fantec view, responsability for GPL compliance should fall on the contractor.
What was the result: The Court rejected Fantec's argument, ultimately deeming them responsible for the compliance of their own products. This means that they should have tested the software for infrigement. Proceeding with the examination of the case, the Court found that Fantec violated the obligation in the GPL v2 to provide a "complete corresponding source code" because of the absence of the iptables code in the sources that Fantec was distributing. However, it seems that the Court didn't rule on Welte's second argument [1], thus leaving the issue of the exact meaning of "complete corresponding source code" open.
Sources:
The Fantec decision: German court holds distributor responsible for FOSS compliance, by Mark Radcliffe
GPL License Reaffirmed by German Court, by Hans Graux
OSS Enforcement in the European Union, by Diego Fernández
FRANCE
AFPA v. Edu4 (2001)
Plaintiff: AFPA
Where: Court of Appeal of Paris
When: first degree judgment started circa 2001, appellate judgment arrived in 2009
What was at issue: AFPA asserted Edu4 didn't comply with the contract they had in two different ways. First, by providing inadequate software (because threathening personal security (?) and because dependant on a GPL-protected software), and second, by striping it of copyright notices and references to the GPL.
What was the result: Edu4 was deemed in breach of its contractual obligations. This is not a case of GPL enforcement since the Court just passed by the GPL witouth raising any issues.
Sources:
Case law report: A look at EDU 4 v. AFPA, also known as the “Paris GPL case”, by Martin von Willebrand.
Free/Iliad (2007)
Plaintiffs: Harald Welte, Rob Landley and Erik Andersen
Where: Paris Regional Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris)
When: November 2007 - legal notice procedure from the FSF. October 2008 - summon from Welte, Landley and Andersen.
What was at issue: Free/Illiad is an ISP; the routers they distribute (the Freebox) contains software under GPL, but Free/Iliad doesn't provide the source code nor the GPL text. Apparently, Free/Illiad's argument is that the routers are their property (not sold to customers) and still on their network (as a terminal network component), which would not amount to "distribution" in the terms of the GPL.
What was the result: A secret extra-judicial agreement was reached in July 2011 - Free has released the source code and informed users of the GPL software in their routers [3].
Sources:
Free assigné pour violation présumée de la licence GNU GPL, by Yoann Ferret
Free & Open Source Software Litigation, by Catalin Cosovanu, Esq.
FSF France article (the page won't load at this time, but it's available in google cache).
Free publie enfin ses patchs sur les logiciels libres, by Victor Stinner
Gnu GPL v2 : accord de paix confidentiel entre Free et le libre, by Marc Rees