Source files of,,,,, and Contribute:
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

avm-gpl-violation.en.xhtml 10KB

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
  2. <html>
  3. <head>
  4. <title>AVM Vs. Cybits: the case so far</title>
  5. </head>
  6. <body>
  7. <h1>Summary of the case so far</h1>
  8. <h2><a name="summary"/>Short summary of the legal dispute</h2>
  9. <p>The dispute between "AVM Computersysteme Vertiebs GmbH" (AVM) and "Cybits
  10. AG" (Cybits) concerns all providers and users of Free Software which uses the GNU General Public License
  11. (GNU GPL). Berlin based company AVM is a major manufacturer of digital subscriber
  12. line (DSL) terminals, such as the FRITZ!Box router, and uses the Linux kernel
  13. as a part of their production firmware.
  14. Cybits distributes the Internet filtering software "Surf-Sitter DSL", which is
  15. intended to protect children from inappropriate media on the web. The Surf-Sitter
  16. application downloads FritzBox software to the user's computer, modifies it
  17. and then reinstalls it back on the FRITZ!Box.</p>
  18. <p>AVM took legal action against Cybits at the regional court of Berlin in
  19. order to prohibit Cybit from modifying the original firmware of FritzBox and
  20. loading it back to the DSL terminal – and as part of this legal action
  21. included software parts licensed under the GNU GPL.</p>
  22. <p>In the opinion of Mr Harald Welte, a programmer and one of the Linux Kernel's
  23. developers, AVM's claim is illegal. As both AVM and Cybits are his
  24. licensees, he joined the legal proceeding as an intervener, and <a href="/activities/ftf/avm-nebenintervention.pdf">filed a third
  25. party intervention (pdf, German)</a>.</p>
  26. <h2>The legal dispute</h2>
  27. <p>The preliminary case concerning this dispute has already been closed, and
  28. the outcome now depends on the currently pending main proceedings.</p>
  29. <h3><a name="preliminary"/>The preliminary case</h3>
  30. <p>In January 2010, AVM applied for preliminary injunctions against Cybits.
  31. Preliminary injunctions seek to find a temporary solution in a legal dispute;
  32. for urgent reasons, evidence is not taken but the parties involved must
  33. prove facts. In most cases, preliminary injunctions are chosen to force a
  34. rapid decision.</p>
  35. <p>AVM justified its request for preliminary injunctions against Cybits, with
  36. an alleged infringement of copyrights and competition law. The court accepted
  37. the request and Cybits lodged an appeal thereafter.</p>
  38. <p>Mr Welte, Free Software developer and founder of the website
  39. <a href=""></a>, learned of the case and joined the legal
  40. dispute as an intervener. The ability to join as an intervener is allowed by
  41. both AVM and Cybits being his licensees: both companies use the applications
  42. MTD and iptables/netfilter, which are included in the Linux kernel. In the
  43. opinion of Mr Harald Welte, AVM's legal action towards Cybits infringe on the
  44. GNU GPL as well as his personal copyrights.</p>
  45. <p>One of AVM's intentions is to prohibit Cybits from modifying
  46. the Free Software kernel and installing it back on the DSL terminal. AVM's request was:
  47. <blockquote>The defendant [Cybits] is obliged to refrain from supplying,
  48. distributing and/or operating the "Surf-Sitter-DSL" software, as far as this
  49. software edits and modifies the firmware, which is embedded
  50. in DSL-routers produced and distributed by the applicant [AVM], especially
  51. FRITZ!Box Fon [...], and <strong>as far as it further uses unmodified or
  52. modified parts of it.</strong></blockquote></p>
  53. <p>With this, AVM's intention is to judicially prohibit Cybit from modifying
  54. the GNU GPL licensed software on its DSL terminals. The GNU GPL requires that anyone
  55. is authorised to use, study and modify software which is licensed under it,
  56. and to distribute it in an original or modified form. AVM thus utilises Free
  57. Software for its products, but violates the software's license terms.
  58. Therefore the license's termination clause comes into effect and AVM is no longer
  59. authorised to distribute the Free Software embedded in its products.</p>
  60. <p>AVM justified its position using three arguments. First, they stated
  61. that their whole product software must be regarded as an entity under AVM
  62. copyright, and that this entity must not be modified. The position Mr Welte
  63. took was that the whole product software would in that case be a derivative
  64. work according to the GPL, and thus the whole product software should be
  65. licensed under the GNU GPL. AVM then switched to a second argument: that
  66. the software embedded on its DSL terminals consisted of several parts. According
  67. to Mr Welte, AVM could then not prohibit anyone from modifying or
  68. distributing the GPL licensed software parts. The final argument by AVM was
  69. that the software on their DSL terminals is a composition of several different
  70. programs, which, due to the creative process, would be a protected
  71. compilation and thus under the copyright of AVM and not affected by the
  72. copyleft of the GPL.</p>
  73. <p>The Superior Court of Justice Berlin revised the original modification
  74. prohibition of the FRITZ!Box firmware, confirming it only as far as the
  75. modified software returning incorrect values, e.g. if the status of the DSL
  76. terminals displays incorrectly as being "online" or "offline". With this, the
  77. principle position of Mr Welte and FSFE has been confirmed.</p>
  78. <p>
  79. Related documents
  80. <ul>
  81. <li><a href="kg-avm-vs-cybits.pdf">Court decision 2nd instance (pdf, German)</a></li>
  82. <li><a href="avm-nebenintervention.pdf">Intervention by Harald Welte (pdf, German)</a></li>
  83. <li><a href="lb-berlin-versaeumnisurteil.pdf">Landgericht Berlin - judgement in coutumancy (pdf, German)</a></li>
  84. </ul>
  85. </p>
  86. <h3><a name="proceedings"/>Principal proceedings</h3>
  87. <p>AVM has furthermore filed principal proceedings against Cybits, which is
  88. currently pending at the Berlin regional court. The main proceedings aims at
  89. an ultimate settlement of the lawsuit. The court is not bound to the decision
  90. from the preliminary case as different facts can be taken as a basis due to
  91. the possibility of a more comprehensive chance to produce evidence. The
  92. hearing will take place on June 21, 2011.</p>
  93. <p>The arguments given by the parties in the main proceedings thus far refer
  94. to those given in the preliminary case. Because Cybits did not react to a
  95. legal document in time, a default judgement was given, prohibiting Cybits
  96. from modifying the software of the DSL terminals. Cybits lodged objections
  97. against this judgement.</p>
  98. <p>Again, Mr Welte submitted an application to the court to be admitted as an
  99. intervener.</p>
  100. <h4><a name="oh-20110621" />Oral Hearing - 21st June 2011</h4>
  101. <p>On June 21st, the District Court of Berlin held the first oral hearing in the
  102. law suit of DSL router manufacturer AVM against software producer Cybits. In
  103. the hearing, the parties and defendant’s intervenor, Harald Welte, discussed
  104. all three areas of law AVM bases its claims upon: Copyright, trademark and
  105. competition law.</p>
  106. <p>The focus of the hearing, however, lay less on the area of Copyright but more
  107. on trademark and competition law issues. AVM doesn’t deny that the GNU GPL
  108. licensed software installed on the routers may be changed by the users, but
  109. maintains the opinion that no altered software may then be reinstalled on the
  110. routers. AVM relied on two main arguments:</p>
  111. <p>AVM routers with the software changed by Cybits' software might possibly reach
  112. third parties who would have no knowledge of the firmware changes and who may
  113. therefore attribute possible router functional changes to AVM even if they were
  114. actually caused by the software of Cybits. Therefore, the trademark rights of
  115. AVM were infringed. This also constituted an act of unfair competition.</p>
  116. <p>Furthermore, AVM argued that routers are not normal computers on which users
  117. can install additional programs, but rather products designated to not being
  118. changed. Therefore, AVM did not need to tolerate a change of the router
  119. firmware, even of the kernel.</p>
  120. <p>The representatives of Cybits and Harald Welte explained that these arguments
  121. have no basis and that a trademark infringement should be ruled out because
  122. Cybits doesn’t use the trademarks of AVM. There was no unfair competition
  123. either, as Cybits was precisely permitted by Copyright to change the firmware
  124. kernel. In particular, the GNU GPL explicitly required that the reinstallation
  125. of changed software must be made possible. And, of course, a router was a
  126. computer, the lawyers explained, whose firmware can and may be changed by those
  127. interested as long as they have sufficient copyright authority (e.g. by the
  128. GNU GPL).</p>
  129. <h4><a name="oh-20110621" />Decision - 8th November 2011</h4>
  130. <p>On November 8th the Regional Court of Berlin [Landgericht Berlin] issued its <a href="/activities/ftf/lg-urteil-20111118.pdf">decision (PDF, German)</a>. The court has particularly denied that Cybits has infringed AVM's copyright by distributing its "Surf-Sitter DSL" software. According to the judge the AVM DSL router's firmware is a collective work. The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) clearly states that the GPL parts contained in the firmware can be lawfully modified and reproduced. Thus it is acceptable that these parts are downloaded from AVM and edited during the installation of the Surf-Sitter software.
  131. </p>
  132. <p>The trademark claims were also rejected. The fact that in the router's interface the trademark "Fritz!Box" is still visible after the installation of Surf-Sitter does not constitute an infringement. It also unfolds from the reasoning that a modification of the GNU GPLed parts of the firmware does not trigger any competition claims. The Regional Court therefore confirms that it is in general permissible to modify firmware parts under the GNU GPL and to newly install these modified versions.
  133. </p>
  134. <p>
  135. The granting part of the verdict which parallels last year's judgment of the Superior Court of Justice is mainly based on the idea that the customers impute wrongly displayed information about the internet connection and the status of the parental control to AVM. Cybits must remove this misinformation if they wish to sell their product. In contrast, modifications of the firmware as such are allowed.
  136. </p>
  137. <p>
  138. The verdict is not yet final. The parties can still appeal the decision.
  139. </p>
  140. <h2>Related news</h2>
  141. <tagged-docs/>
  142. </body>
  143. <timestamp>$Date$ $Author$</timestamp>
  144. </html>
  145. <!--
  146. Local Variables: ***
  147. mode: xml ***
  148. End: ***
  149. -->