Friday, January 9, 2009

FSF Motives in the Cisco Case

One of the comments I received to a recent post questions the motives of the Free Software Foundation ("FSF") in its complaint against Cisco, and whether the FSF is overreaching in the remedies it proposes. Specifically, the comments reference The Software Lawyer blog posting entitled Free Software Foundation Sues Cisco: Some Criticism. To summarize, the blog post questions whether the FSF would accept GPL compliance as a solution to the disagreement with Cisco and goes further to say that "[the FSF] wants to push Cisco around and it wants money."

I think these views are overly cynical of the FSF's motives. I also disagree that endorsing the FSF's actions results in granting a licensor power to choose substitute license terms. Below, I discuss my reasoning for these conclusions in more detail in hopes of illuminating the issues in the broader discussion around the meaning of license compliance and the role of license enforcement in the open source world. Please also note that I am not concluding that the FSF will be successful in its litigation either through a judgement on the merits of the case or a favorable settlement. Instead, my intent is to illustrate that the FSF's actions appear reasonable.

[Note: I have no knowledge of the FSF's or Cisco's thoughts, reasoning or internal discussions on these matters - all of my comments are based on the complaint and public statements by these entities and commentators.)]

FSF Motives

The views presented in the comments and blog post suggest that the FSF motives are pointed more towards self interest than support of the goals of the free software movement. To the contrary, the FSF's actions indicate that it is legitimately trying to enforce the principles of free software by ensuring that Cisco honors the freedom of its users to have access to source code. No doubt the FSF would like to make an example out of Cisco and would like to see onerous penalties (including monetary damages) imposed for failure to comply as a means of discouraging other potential infringers, but this is consistent with enforcing the principles of software freedom.

The commentary also cites the FSF's requirement that Cisco appoint an open source officer as a potential remedy outside the scope of the complaint. While this might seem unusual, it is consistent with a common litigation strategy in which plaintiffs ask for more than they might be entitled to from a court. This tactic helps push settlement discussions and alternatives to litigation remedies. In fact, FSF is not the first to use this approach. Similar terms have been agreed upon in the string of Busybox cases, which were also litigated by the Software Freedom Law Center. These actions indicate a good litigation strategy rather than impure motives or overreaching.

Motives of a Large Company as an Alleged Infringer


The commentary also assumes that large companies in Cisco's position, would necessarily do their best to comply with license terms as fast as possible, and that such a company would not continue shipping an allegedly infringing product unless absolutely certain of ability to comply. In turn, the commentary suggests that this indicates the FSF has unreasonably deemed Cisco's proposed compliance activities as inadequate. This conclusion is not supported in my view.

It is fair to assume that a company in Cisco's position would perform a risk analysis based on the FSF's stated concerns and could reasonably decide to respond by engaging FSF directly. This strategy would permit the company to work through compliance options over an extended time period. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, this approach seems more favorable than immediately pulling a product suspected of GPL infringement without first consulting the FSF, which would result in further difficulties. No doubt in the multiple years of discussion between Cisco and the FSF, both parties understood that some sort of compliance actions were appropriate, but they had differing interpretations on the types of remedies and time frames for resolution. As a result, it appears that the FSF likely has a reasonable basis for its conclusion that Cisco was not acting fast enough and the use of litigation was a way to stress the importance of compliance is justified.

Remaking the Rules

The claims that FSF's proposed remedies are "remaking the rules" and that it "gets to choose the terms of reinstatement" also are not warranted. The GPL and LGPL licenses immediately terminate once a licensee violates their conditions. Once termination occurs, a licensor can choose to enforce an infringement claim and use the threat of damages awarded by a court as leverage to negotiate a settlement that includes more than monetary damages. This is the approach the FSF is taking with Cisco and it seems consistent with good litigation strategy.

In fact, the FSF has also chosen to work with Cisco for several years to obtain compliance without litigation, which further indicates the reasonableness of its actions. The FSF's proposed remedies are separate and distinct from the rights available to Cisco and all other potential licensee under the GPL. The FSF could not remake the rules of litigation remedies even it wanted and it doesn't seem fair to conclude that the FSF is trying to remake the rules or make up substitute license terms.

In short, whether the FSF will be successful in reaching a favorable judgment on the matters in the complaint or obtaining a favorable settlement with Cisco remains to be seen. Even so, the FSF's motives and actions seem reasonable in the context of the allegations in the complaint.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

You claim, "The GPL and LGPL licenses immediately terminate once a licensee violates their conditions."

The suit is filed in the Second Circuit where:

"New York law does not presume the rescission or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has the burden of proving it". Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998), affirmed 2007 by the Eastern District:

“. . . rescission of the contract only occurs upon affirmative acts by
the licensor, and a breach by one party does not automatically result in
rescission of a contract. Id. at 238 (”New York law does not presume the
rescission or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting rescission or abandonment has the burden of proving it”).”; Atlantis Information Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc.,, 2007 WL 1238716 (E.D.N.Y. April 30, 2007).

Please explain your reasoning.

Gary Spiegel said...

I haven't reviewed the cases you cite, but it would be interesting to see if they addres the issue of termination in the case of a bare conditional license as opposed to a standard EULA or negotiated agreement. The Jacobsen v. Katzer case was in the Federal Circuit so it's not directly relevant to the 2nd Circuit, but I think it could be very persuasive if the identical issue were posed to the 2nd Circuit.

From a practical standpoint, the FSF must act as if the license terminates (as ANY licensor would do in this situation) to ensure it preserves the maximum possible scope of remedies. As a result, regardless of the law in the 2nd Circuit, I think the FSF's motives are consistent with good litigation strategy and the principles of free software.

Anonymous said...

The words of the GPL and LGPL evidence conditional licenses, not contracts.

Under the written terms set forth in those documents, the license grant terminates upon any attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the licensed code other than as expressly provided therein.

The questions, of course, are (i) Does it make sense for a public free software license to include a termination provision? (ii) If so, can it be restated? (iii) If so, can/should a single licensor be entitled to reinstate on more burdensome terms?

Gary Spiegel said...

On (i), enforcement and integrity of the license would be impossible unless the rights end upon breach.

On (ii) and (iii), think of "reinstatement" as applying only to the specific copies of software that infringe rather than all use of that software. If you take that view, then reinstatement only applies to the licensor's decision to litigate for copyright infringement damages. It has nothing to do with other copies. This is why I say that the FSF is not trying to change the way copyright law works or the principles of free software.

Anonymous said...

Gary, I think that you and The Software Lawyer (TSL) Robert Pierce --who you curiously don't refer to by name-- could be talking past each other. He may be vitreolic in his conclusions, but you may misapprehend his primary point. I'll take the liberty of restating and refining his position here.

TSL does not care to speculate about what Cisco is thinking or how diligently it has (or has not) acted. This does not matter. Nor does he really care about what has happened between FSF and Cisco thus far. The facts of the case don't matter. As far as he is concerned, FSF is very welcome to seek money damages under US copyright law and to also seek an injunction to the extent that Cisco continues to distribute FSF code without complying with the conditions of the GPL/LGPL, as written. He would not have a problem with FSF asking that Cisco perform even the most bizarre of circus acts in settlement of a claim of copyright infringement. Instead, TSL's comments are pointed at a particular legal theory FSF is pushing in its complaint, one that he feels is unprincipled and unnecessary. Indeed, dangerous to the free software system.

The most telling paragraph in the FSF complaint is the following:

"As such, any rights Defendant may have had to redistribute any Program offered under any of the Licenses were automatically terminated the instant that Defendant made a non-compliant distribution of the Program in its Infringing Products or Firmware. Since the first such violation of each Program's License, Defendant has had no right to distribute that Program, or a modified version of the Program, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS."

You see, FSF is taking the position that compliance with the GPL/LGPL is not enough. If all FSF is interested in is respect for, and availability of, its code, it need not have included the second sentence above. It could, rather, simply sue Cisco for damages for all past infringement and seek an injunction preventing all future distributions to the extent that those distributions do not comply with the GPL/LGPL, as written. This would give FSF all the leverage it needs, and it is consistent with free software principles. There would be no reason to argue that Cisco's rights under the GPL/LGPL had evaporated.

The only reason I can see for FSF making the argument it is making is that it wants to be able to claim down the road that the terms of the GPL/LGPL no longer apply. As a result, even if it turns out that Cisco completely cured non-compliance with the licenses a long time ago, it must, nonetheless, come begging FSF for a new license that includes additional requirements. How outrageous can FSF make those requirements and still get the respect of the people in the free software community who really care about structure? FSF needs to get over itself.

This is more than a litigation technique. It is a problematic theory.

Public licensing schemes do not allow for creative punishments by licensors. Allowing individual licensors to yank rights just does not work in a system that relies upon multiple independent contributors, each holding rights in a code set. All FSF should be entitled to under the GPL/LGPL licensing scheme and the US copyright law is (i) money damages for past infringement resulting from non-compliance and (ii) an injunction against ANY FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, AS WRITTEN. Once it released its code under a public license, FSF may not thereafter withhold that license, as written, from any party. This is fundamental to the whole system. To allow a single contributor to unilaterally choose who may use the code would disrupt the system because it would potentially disrespect the desires of the other contributors.

FSF may continue to make formalistic arguments about the text of the GPL/LGPL, but its approach is very short-sighted and damaging to confidence in the system.

Anonymous said...

Gary, let's copy our comments under your year end post here to your fsf motives post. more people will read here.

Anonymous said...

"On (i), enforcement and integrity of the license would be impossible unless the rights end upon breach."

Licenses are not enforced. Contracts are.

Licenses are not breached. Contracts are.

This case does not take us into contract land.

Powerful remedies for past and ongoing infringement are not blocked or made harder by allowing the conditional license to continue operating uninterrupted.

Gary Spiegel said...

Again, I say that TSL - Robert Pierce - and the commentor (if it's not the TSL himself) are missing my point - I understand your point of view completely. My point is that you are reading too much into the complaint. If A licensee (Cisco or anyone else) complied with the GPL/LGPL then they are permitted to distribute the software. To say the FSF disagrees with this is reading something into the complaint that isn't there. Saying a license terminates (regardless of whether that is in fact true under the law) is perfectly consistent with the free software principles. Copyright holders do not give up all right just because they use an open source license to proliferate software. Public domain and relenquishment of rights is the way to accomplish true public software without strings and the FSF has not chosen that route specifically because it wanted to preserve a right to prevent abuse of free software in whatever way the law might allow.

I am OK with agreeing to disagree here. Thanks for the enlightening discussion!

Gary Spiegel said...

Also, as you propose, I will add this thread to both blog posts since it crossed over into both comment sections.

On the technical points you raise on my use of terms like "enforce" and "breach", replace them with "ability to access the strongest remedies" and "violation of a license condition". Note that the contract/license distinction is not settled. In any case the thrust of my point is the same regardless of which of the above terms we use.

Anonymous said...

The FSF's position is that the GPL is a license, not an agreement. This is clear from their pleadings and it is Moglen's position. I can probably dig it up from the GNU site.

Anonymous said...

Here you go.

Moglen on license v contract.

http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html

Clear as mud. But I 100% understand their position is that the GPL is not a contract. So it is not unsettled as far as the GPL is concerned. Other licenses, yes. Unsettled.