A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
1–10 of 233 posts
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#2Excellent news.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#3Excellent news.
Yeah few more contributions to GPL projects from companies or/and removing GPL code base from some products using GPL without contibuting back.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#4"GNL GPU", must be Nvidia's new line of graphics cards.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#5while an important step, the last line of the article makes it clear it is still pretty early in this process.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#6This was a ruling that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant existed, not on the validity of the contract (which is the GNU GPL license).
Defendant (Hancom) was trying to say that because they didn't sign anything they didn't have a contract.
But Hancom "represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU"
Therefore, the Judge ruled that in their own words they publicly acknowledged the contract.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#7I wonder if this applies to non copy left licenses as well.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#8Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#9> That happened when Hancom issued a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the company didn’t sign anything, so the license wasn’t a real contract.
... so they admitted to the court that they willfully used the software without a license to do so?
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#10I wonder if this applies to non copy left licenses as well.
Probably. In the previous case they mention, the license was the Artistic License, which isn't copyleft, and it was considered infringement.