The plaintiffs are the two principal developers of BusyBox, a set of Unix utilities for embedded systems. BusyBox is open-source software licensed under GPL version 2. The defendant in the case is Monsoon Multimedia. The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan Federal District Court.

"We licensed BusyBox under the GPL to give users the freedom to access and modify its source code," Erik Andersen, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff, said in a statement. "If companies will not abide by the fair terms of our license, then we have no choice but to ask our attorneys to go to court to force them to do so."

Understanding the GPL

One of the conditions of the GPL is that redistributors of GPL software are required to ensure each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. On the company's own Web site, Monsoon Multimedia has publicly acknowledged that its products and firmware contain BusyBox. However, it has not provided any recipients with access to the underlying source code, as is required by the GPL, according to the complaint.

The complaint requests that an injunction be issued against Monsoon Multimedia. It also requests that damages and litigation costs be awarded to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit, "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Monsoon Multimedia," will be heard by Senior District Judge John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"Free software licenses such as the GPL exist to protect the freedom of computer users. If we don't ensure that these licenses are respected, then they will not be able to achieve their goal," Eben Moglen, Software Freedom Law Center's founding director, said in a statement. "Our goal is simply to ensure that Monsoon Multimedia complies with the terms of the GPL."

Opening the Floodgates?

The lawsuit is not a fluke, noted Brad Shimmin, an open-source software analyst at Current Analysis. He said it's a consequence of what happens when a company uses GPL software and chooses to ignore the terms of the license.

"If Monsoon chose not to distribute the open-source, GPL-based software it utilized, then the company deserves to be sued," he asserted. "The only tragedy is this is easily remedied. It's not as if one company is saying another company is stealing its intellectual property. It's really just a question of a company not adhering to the GPL."

Shimmin said that he doesn't expect the floodgates to open on free software lawsuits and that this case doesn't point to a flaw that has so far gone unnoticed. Rather, he said, it points to simple noncompliance with the GPL. He added that the suit will probably be settled out of court.

"This case points to the fact that open source is not the sort of Wild West that a lot of people make it out to be," Shimmin said. "It is a very well structured and closed environment in terms of what you can and can't do with the software you are utilizing. It's not just a free-for-all."