The page says that a u-boot copyright holder asked for source and got nothing. Perhaps they could bring this case to the Software Freedom Conservancy and file a lawsuit if necessary?
Can the copyright holder take them to small claims court? He/she ought to be able to file one without needing a lawyer and for minimal costs. At the very least the court may force them to release the source code.
He/she probably could. However this isn't some small claim - it's probably a very large claim, given UBNT's size. If they get wind of a single developer or a one man army lawyer launching these lawsuits, they will put up a fight and hope they will either settle or quit before they run out of money. Suing someone is expensive, even if your case is a winner from the outset.
If there is one reason I'd ever consider becoming a lawyer w/my CS background, this would be it. I would set up some kind of a subscription model to which lone developers/copyright holders would pay my firm an ongoing subscription for as long as they wish, and in response get legal representation.
"If there is one reason I'd ever consider becoming a lawyer w/my CS background, this would be it."
I am both and I have investigated this, and discussed partnering with firms etc. - I have looked at this seriously, and from many angles. There is no way this can be made viable. How much will an OS/single developer pay for this? 10$/month, max, the most motivated ones? OK great, after one year, they've paid for 30 mins hour of legal representation, not enough to read the first 2 emails that lay out the first issue they have (and those who pay 10$/month will find issues, they'll make a sport out of finding anything that remotely looks like they could get their money's worth).
Furthermore, the added value of a CS background in the legal profession is tiny - as in 'worthless for all practical purposes'. At best, you'll be the Word and Excel wizard in the office - which is basically a career-limiter, rather than propellant. I can count on the fingers of one hand (even if I would have had a serious wood-chopping accident involving that hand) the top people in the legal profession (in my market) who get a real value from their technical background (the one I do know has been blogging for going on 20 years on the intersection of law and technology, so even there the advantage is indirect).
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that in US law statutory damages are $750 to $30,000 at the discretion of the court. Per infringement. Willful infringement increases that maximum limit, up to a max of $150,000.
Multiply by the number of infringements here, and the history of not complying with the license despite many opportunities to do so, and there is no way that this belongs in a court whose maximum potential penalty is $10,000.
Ding ding ding... all the uboot copyright owner needs is a desire to to sue and a lawyer that would take the case on a contingency basis. The company does about 600 million in revenue... so there's a lot of money there.
It's a crazy amount of liability. If a company doesn't comply with the GPL them they don't have a license to the code, and without permission from the copyright owner they're at risk of being found to be infringing. And worse, this risk doesn't go away if the company corrects the behavior (i.e. the period of time where they weren't in compliance with the GPL doesn't just disappear because they are _now_ in compliance).
This might actually work. Even though the potential monetary loss for the offender is munite, the fact of legal loss may cause the change in internal policy. Any public shaming would help as well.
You could take their customers to small claims court one by one, they'd each be on the hook for the purchase price of their access points. This would go a long way toward generating publicity and forcing compliance.
Firstly, the customers aren't distributing the software so I don't see how they could be liable. Secondly, the customers are the ones who are actually being wronged here, because they've purchased devices based on GPL software--for which they are entitled to the actual source code.
If anything, the customers should be the ones bringing suit.
Besides not being practical, it sounds to me like this would mostly garner animosity towards the group bringing the lawsuit, not Ubiquity. I own Ubiquity hardware and (legality aside) if someone sued me or my company over this I'd view them as a copyright troll. I think public attention and shaming from sources like this article will produce much better results.
edit: all of the above is incorrect and I retract this.
If Ubiquiti is in breach of the GPL then their customers cannot receive a license to the infringing work by Ubiquiti distributing it to them, so they're infringing too.
I don't think this has been done before. It would definitely chill the acceptance of GPL software in general.
edit: all of the above is incorrect and I retract this.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
As I read that, as long as you don't further redistribute, you should be good.
The issue is, however, that the parties (customers) haven't received any copies or rights under the GPL2 as due to ubiquiti's license violation, ubiquiti didn't (and does not) possess the any right to the original software (including redistribution).
Think about the licensing issue as a licensing chain / tree with each version having a separate license (instance).
And that's exactly what that paragraph avoids. It stops the revocation of the license tree at the first party who either correctly ships the full corresponding source, or doesn't redistribute the work at all. Basically those parties get a license directly from the copyright holder.
Mounting a legal offense is expensive. The current system favors battles between corporate giants. It's not often that a lone software engineer wins in court.
