**UPDATE (11/28/07): On October 30, 2007, the parties settled their dispute.  Check out the press release issued by the plaintiff, the Software Freedom Law Center, here.
BUT: the SFLC just filed two more copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The defendants in the lawsuits are Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, LLC.

Stay tuned......


—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

It had to happen at some point.  If it didn’t, credibility would be lost.  The meaning of “free software” would be maligned, diminished, destroyed.  (Too dramatic?  Perhaps.  But read on.)

The first-ever lawsuit for copyright infringement based on the GNU General Public License (a/k/a “GPL”) was filed on September 19  in the Federal Court in the Southern District of Manhattan—the same venue that has brought us some of the most well-written opinions in the area of Technology Law (can anyone say “Zubulake”?)

Before I tell you about the lawsuit, let me tell you a little about the GPL.

GPL: This Isn’t Your Grandfather’s Software License
Most software licenses severely restrict what a user can do with the software covered by the license.  Want an example?  Take a look at the “terms and conditions” that you have to accept before you install software on your computer.  For example, if you’re interested, here is where you can download the license for Microsoft Vista—check out Section 8 of that license for some of the do’s and don’t’s.

But software licensed under the GPL is different.  The GPL provides that anybody who receives a copy of software covered under the GPL can modify, copy, and redistribute the software.  In other words, you can tweak the software, meddle with the software, even poke and prod it—go ahead, really, it’s ok.
In fact, the version of the GPL that covers the software used by Monsoon begins with the following message:

But there’s more—oh, so much more.  And this is where Monsoon may have problems.  The GPL requires that software covered under the GPL must be accompanied by a copy of the source code comprising the software.  In other words, if you want to use software covered by the GPL, you have to show the underlying computer code to the whole world, so people can tweak it.  Or poke it.  Or prod it.

Now Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Program…..
According to the plaintiffs, Monsoon should be required to publish the source code (i.e., the human readable code) to the HAVA TV product, since the product incorporates BusyBox.  Monsoon, however, refuses to publish the source code to the HAVA TV product. 

And there’s the rub. 

Want more specifics? Check out the complaint here.

What Will Happen?
At this point, it’s not clear what defense Monsoon will raise.  Maybe Monsoon will argue that the HAVA TV product isn’t comprised entirely of BusyBox and, therefore, only the portions that include or embed BusyBox are impacted by the GPL.  Maybe Monsoon will argue that they forgot to read the GPL.  Maybe Monsoon will settle out of court. (I’m betting on the latter).

Monsoon received an extension of time to answer the complaint, so we won’t know what its up to until October 22.  But stay tuned.  This ought to be interesting…..