On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Gerald Combs wrote:
> - We have several options available, litigation-wise. We can seek an
> injuction against ClearSight which would prevent them from shipping
> CSA in its current form. We can seek damages. We can try to have
> the source for CSA opened under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license.
I think that first and foremost we should maintain that we want ClearSight
to respect the licence that we all provided our work under.
Having said that, I think that I would prefer the same approaches that
Joerg has already articulated:
1. Release CSA under a compatible open source licence, or if that is not
possible,
2. Seek an injunction to prevent them from shipping CSA in its current
form, and we should seek some nominal level of damages (to be donated to
some open source fund or whatever).
I also think that we should put something on the web site that points to
the issues involved when companies try to use GPL'd software without
respecting the licence.
> - Should we decide to seek an injunction, it would likely cost 25,000
> to 30,000 USD.
OK, so that means we need to establish a legal defence fund, and start
calling for donations. I for one am willing to donate some money (like
$100) but then there is also the cost associated with establishing such a
fund and getting a bank account and so on.
> - He is willing to assist us in the case. However, he can't do pro
> bono work in California (CA), which is where it makes the most sense
> to file a case.
That is a pity, but it does make more sense to file in CA.
> - An officially registered copyright is apparently a prerequisite for
> copyright litigation in the US. I preemptively sent in a
> preliminary application to the US Library of Congress (LOC) a couple
> of weeks ago in case litigation came sooner rather than later. We
> will have to file an amended application at some point since I
> didn't have everyone's full name, address, and year of birth.
I will send in a separate email these datils.
> - He stressed several times the importance of unanimity from
> Ethereal's copyright holders. It is much better to have a united
> front than to have several (possibly conflicting) claims against
> ClearSight.
I could not agree more.
> Questions for copyright holders.
>
> In order to proceed with this, Ethereal's copyright holders need to
> agree on a final objective. Do we simply want ClearSight to stop
> infringement? Do we want them to open the source of Analyzer? Do we
> want damages? Should they be allowed to keep doing what they're
> doing, provided they pay a licensing fee?
I think that a licencing fee will be far to hard to administer, and that
damages can become a problem as well, while a donation to some open source
software organization seems like a better step.
The should definitely stop infringing, and it would be good if they
released LCA under an open source licence ...
> We must also definitively establish who has a legal claim on
> Ethereal's copyright. There are _many_ people (and companies) listed
> in copyright notices in all of the files in the source code. There
> are many more listed in the AUTHORS file. Anyone who paid these
> people to write the code that's in Ethereal may have a copyright claim
> on a work-for-hire basis. Getting Ethereal's copyright status
> formally established is going to be a chore. I'll dedicate whatever
> time is necessary to do this.
OK, what we did in the Samba team is ask that all copyrights be to
individuals. This worked for Samba, and even IBM allows those employees
who work on Samba to copyright their stuff in their names.
> I'll try to set up a communication channel for Ethereal's copyright
> holders in the meantime. This will probably be in the form of another
> mailing list.
That will be good.
Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
