As we've said many times here, the normal community understanding on contribution licensing is inbound=outbound, which is to say that contributors agree for their contributions to be licensed under the project's existing licence.

In the case of copyleft licences, as the linked question says, this is actually a requirement of the licence. In the case of the permissive licences like MIT, however, it's just a community understanding. Unless the project required a CLA from you, you could make an argument that you never licensed your contributions to the project at all, but I'd expect it to be a hard, uphill business to convince a judge of that (indeed, as Bart points out (thank you, Bart!), given GitHub's embedding of in=out in their TOS, it will likely be next to impossible).

But the project is completely entitled to change to a proprietary licence, and unless you can convince a judge that you never agreed to licence your contributions, you have no right to demand they stop using your contribution. One of the many advantages of copyleft licensing is that, once contributions have been accepted, the project can no longer unilaterally relicense. The permissive licences don't give the same protection, and this is generally understood, so what they've done, though not nice, is neither unlawful nor unethical.

One thing you can do is to take the copy of the MIT-licensed source you've found, and make sure it's available from your website (or at least, not solely from your github account). You have every right to do that, and as the search engines pick it up, you may hope that their proprietary-licensed version is supplanted by the free version.

Months later, according to the SFC, AVM provided all the relevant source code and scripts, but the suit continued. AVM ultimately paid Steck's attorney fee. The case proved, once again, that not only are source code requirements real, but the LGPL also demands freedom, despite its "Lesser" name, and that source code needs to be useful in making real changes to firmware—in German courts, at least.

"The favorable result of this lawsuit exemplifies the power of copyleft—granting users the freedom to modify, repair, and secure the software on their own devices," the SFC said in a press release. "Companies like AVM receive these immense benefits themselves. This lawsuit reminded AVM that downstream users must receive those very same rights under copyleft.". //

At the top is perhaps the best-known case in tech circles, the Linksys WRT54G conflict from 2003. While the matter was settled before a lawsuit was filed, negotiations between Linksys owner Cisco and a coalition led by the Free Software Foundation, publisher of the GPL and LGPL, made history. It resulted in the release of all the modified and relevant GPL source code used in its hugely popular blue-and-black router.

The backstory, such as it exists from reports and retrospectives, is that Cisco bought Linksys, Linksys outsourced certain chipset development to Broadcom, and Broadcom outsourced firmware development to an overseas developer. Everybody up the chain ended up with a lawsuit once people started looking.

Cisco made history yet again in 2007 when it was the first entity to be actually sued by the FSF over GPL violations, which started in 2003 and continued to come up with new hardware products. Cisco settled the case with the FSF in 2009, making a donation to the FSF and appointing a Free Software Director at the company to keep track of its licensing obligations.

According to the SFC, GPL/LGPL lawsuits have tended to focus on copyright enforcement, but Steck's claim was about user rights. "There is now no doubt that both GPL and LGPL mandate the device owner's ability to make changes to the software in the flash memory so those changes persist across reboots," the SFC said. //

Denver Gingerich, director of compliance for the SFC, told The Register that this is the first time to his knowledge that the LGPL has been successfully litigated.

"The AVM lawsuit is an excellent example of how users can make practical use of the courts to receive the freedoms owed to them by the companies that sell devices to them," he said. //

50 mins
rgjnk
Reply Icon
Re: Stretching
The LGPL might mean the manufacturer have to publish their modifications to the source code but that's still not "mandate the device owner's ability to make changes to the software in the flash memory so those changes persist across reboots"

The GPL license doesn't even come close to what's claimed there, especially what's very specifically described.

They apparently claim a right to be able to reflash a device and the GPL has nothing to do with that. An implemented right to repair may grant that in various forms (often in reality very limited by other legislative concerns) but the GPL is about the 'source code' only and nothing more.

I can only hope something has got lost in translation from German and they didn't actually say anything about a mandate at all. //

hr
PyLETS
Choice of jurisdiction and distributors
In this case a German developer went though German courts to get redress from a German company. Not all software access claims will be so easy in relation to local law where the manufacturer operates. However, for consumer electronics containing free software with enforceable licenses, these apply to distributors also, and effective cease and desist demands against distributors until conditions are met will force the manufacturers hand if distributors decline to distribute the offending product otherwise.