This is great - love or hate the GPL, it brings something unique to the table that no other license does and developers should have the ability to license their software under the terms that fits their motivation for developing it in the first place the best - the GPL does exactly that for many.
A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
21–30 of 233 posts
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#22> 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?
This is what happens when you hire short-sighted attorneys with an unreasonable expectation of success. What's funny is that Hancom is essentially arguing that shrink-wrap licenses (contracts) are unenforceable . Ghostscript was open sourced under the GNU GPL which states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL. Integrated the software int…
There is an enormous legal difference between shinkwrap licenses that limit your terms, and a license that grants you additional permissions. Your typical "EULA" is the former type. Copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL are the latter type.
A typical "EULA" attempts to reduce your rights, without any further consideration from you (you'll have already paid for it, etc). If you disagree, the authors like to claim that you are bound by their more restrictive terms anyway. That is what is legally dubious.
A copyleft license does the opposite: the software comes with an offer to grant you additional permissions should you choose to accept its terms. You have the option to decline, and nobody is claiming that your rights are in any way further restricted if you choose to decline.
Put another way, you are free to use GPL software without accepting the terms of the license. But if you don't accept the terms, then you violate copyright law every time you make copies of it.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#23> 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?
This is what happens when you hire short-sighted attorneys with an unreasonable expectation of success. What's funny is that Hancom is essentially arguing that shrink-wrap licenses (contracts) are unenforceable . Ghostscript was open sourced under the GNU GPL which states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL. Integrated the software int…
Shrink-wrap licences are unenforceable in many jurisdictions.
However, GPL still works in such jurisdictions since if you claim that you don't accept GPL then you're violating the copyright law by distributing without a licence to do so. General shrink-wrap licences can't use this logic because (in those jurisdictions?) using software or service doesn't require a licence, unlike copying.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what happens when you hire short-sighted attorneys with an unreasonable expectation of success. What's funny is that Hancom is essentially arguing that shrink-wrap licenses (contracts) are unenforceable . Ghostscript was open sourced under the GNU GPL which states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL. Integrated the software int…
> states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL Not quite technically! The way it works is: you have no permission by default under copyright. The only permission you have to copy is the GPL. If you obey it, fine. If not, you're just violating copyright like any other copyright violation. This can be an important point: it's a license, no…
A license is a contract. I don't understand the artificial distinction between the two, specifically in reference to GNU GPL.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#25"Corley denied the motion, and in doing so, set the precedent that licenses like the GNU GPL can be treated like legal contracts, and developers can legitimately sue when those contracts are breached." The GNU GPL was written on the basis that if someone does not accept its terms, then that without any other license from the copyright holder, redistribution puts that person in violation of copyright law. Suing for da…
In order to dismiss the motion, the court had to explain why the GNU GPL is an enforceable contract: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califo...
No. The plantiff made two key claims: breach of contract and copyright infringment. This is sensible, because the defendant has either accepted the GPL (and thus is in breach of contract), or has infringed copyright. This is key to the mechanism of copyleft. By suing for both, the defendant cannot just choose whichever is the most convenient and win on the technicality that the other was not considered by the court.
The judge ruled that the claim of breach of contract cannot be dismissed on the basis that the contract does not exist, because the defendant has effectively admitted that it did exist.
The judge also ruled that the claim of copyright cannot be dismissed on the basis of jurisdiction.
None of these things relate to the enforceability of the GPL in general.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#26Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#27Actually, a more accurate statement is thst a federal judge has ruled that a plaintiff in a case has alleged the existence of circumstances in which the GPL would be an enforceable legal contract.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#28One thing I often wonder is how a company providing such open source software can find out (and proof) if someone is using it in a closed-source project. All I can think of is "guessing" based on behavior of the downstream tool.
Also, the article doesn't say much about how that lawsuit came to be. Did Artifex approach Hancom beforehand to notify them about the license infringement or just directly sue? I guess in this particular case, Hancom knew what they were doing, but I can imagine some (smaller) companies not being fully aware of open source license specifics and unknowingly running into a lawsuit.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#29> 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?
This is what happens when you hire short-sighted attorneys with an unreasonable expectation of success. What's funny is that Hancom is essentially arguing that shrink-wrap licenses (contracts) are unenforceable . Ghostscript was open sourced under the GNU GPL which states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL. Integrated the software int…
A lawyer's job is ultimately to present the strongest case that they are able. If the strongest case they are able to present is not very strong I guess they're in trouble.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what happens when you hire short-sighted attorneys with an unreasonable expectation of success. What's funny is that Hancom is essentially arguing that shrink-wrap licenses (contracts) are unenforceable . Ghostscript was open sourced under the GNU GPL which states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL. Integrated the software int…
There is an enormous legal difference between shinkwrap licenses that limit your terms, and a license that grants you additional permissions . Your typical "EULA" is the former type. Copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL are the latter type. A typical "EULA" attempts to reduce your rights, without any further consideration from you (you'll have already paid for it, etc). If you disagree, the authors like to claim that y…
I don't think there is legally such a distinction.