Fortinet settles GPL violation suit
Summary: Fortinet has decided that complying with the GPL is a relatively small price to pay for using the Linux kernel in its products
Security vendor Fortinet has agreed to make some of its source code available, following accusations that it violated the GPL, the company said on Tuesday.
Earlier this month, gpl-violations.org founder Harald Welte obtained a court injunction against Fortinet, banning the company from distributing its products until it complied with the conditions of the GPL. Welte claimed that Fortinet not only misused GPL-licensed code, but also tried to hide its use of GPL code by using cryptographic techniques.
Fortinet has now agreed to provide the source code of the Linux kernel and other GPL-licensed components to any interested party. The code is available on request, for the cost of distribution, from the Fortinet Web site. The company has also agreed to modify its licensing agreement to include the GPL licensing terms with all Fortinet shipments.
This is the latest in a string of victories for the gpl-violations.org project. Since starting the project in 2004, Welte has negotiated more than 30 out-of-court settlement agreements.
ZDNet UK recently spoke to Welte about his methods and the motivation behind gpl-violations.org. You can read the full interview here.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Fortinet had the *option* of publishing some of their product's source code - specifically their modifications to the Linux kernel - to comply with the GPL.
They had other options, including withdrawing the product, re-engineering the product to be compliant, or anything else they could negotiate with the launchers of the suit.
In other words, they were not simply forced to open up their code - they chose that as the least problematic course of action to fix a legal problem they had got themselves into by ignoring the license on the source code they were using.
It's just the same as if you ignore the license on a commercial library - for example, licensing it for just one product then using it in another. You must fix the problem - you can license the library, remove it from your code, etc, as negotiated with the rights holder.
The GPL can not magically "make your code GPL" - but you can do that yourself if you decide it's the best way out of an infringement. It sounds to me like that's what Fortinet did.
Of course, all this is just my understanding of the situation as an IT professional. I'm no lawyer, and you'd be a fool to take my words for more than a personal viewpoint.
Fortinet should've been fined severely for their willful attempts to hide their license violation. I certainly wouldn't buy anything from them.
Seriously, though, they tend to be actually rather clueless about what actually IS going on in the industry and what actually IS reality in general. There's a reason why Didio has picked up the pet name "Didiot"- she's pretty damn clueless about the bulk of what she's commented on (especially about the SCO trial proceedings...) and keeps spouting off even though she's been shown to be completely clueless time and time again. I've been alternately amazed and appalled for years at the fact that execs of companies even listen to these moronic twits in the first place.