It seems that those hoping for a GPL2 legal action before the US Courts may have had their wish granted after all. According to The Inquirer and Linux.com, the SFLC has issued a statement saying that:
"Simply coming into compliance now is not sufficient to settle the matter, because that would mean anyone can violate the license until caught, because the only punishment would be to come into compliance."
If Busybox genuinely attempted to settle this matter, SLFC is not displaying the sort of attitude that would be taken kindly to in the UK courts, where attempting to settle actions before trial is part of the system. However, the US has a very different litigation culture and system. (See for example, the Slashdot report on the US case where a family is suing Creative Commons over the unauthorised use of their daughter's picture in a Virgin Mobile Australia advert. To UK lawyers, this action seems utterly bizarre because Creative Commons has no causal link to the unauthorised use in question. Suing the service which was used to publish the picture - Flickr - would have been less bizarre but no more valid.)
Of course, we do not have enough information to assume that Busybox attempted to settle on realistic terms; if it did not then SFLC is acting reasonably.
Comments