Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 233 posts

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#31

Post by mschuetz »

blauditore wrote: post #28

One 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 thi…

I believe there was a discussion about this in one particular open source project because someone found that the binaries of a proprietary software project contained lots and lots of symbols that were identical to that of the open source project.

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#32

Post by imanewsman »

rlpb wrote: post #25
imanewsman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're splitting hairs. The order says the license is a contract that exists, sure. Contracts are enforceable.

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#33

Post by DannyBee »

This happened a few weeks ago. But it's just a ruling on a preliminary injunction motion.

That is, it's not even a final decision of a court.

So while interesting, it's incredibly early in the process. The same court could issue a ruling going the exact opposite way after trial.

As someone else wrote, basically a court rule that a plaintiff alleged enough facts that, if those facts were true, would give rise to an enforceable contract.

IE they held that someone wrote enough crap down that if the crap is true the other guy may have a problem.

They didn't actually determine whether any of the crap is true or not.

(In a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's allegations are all taken as true. This is essentially a motion that says "even if everything the plaintiff says is right, i should still win". If you look, this is why the court specifically mentions a bunch of the arguments the defendant makes would be more appropriate for summary judgement)

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#34

Post by xorblurb »

rlpb wrote: post #22
iplaw wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

There is no such thing as an EULA attempting to limit your terms. Without a licence, you have no right at all.

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#35

Post by tialaramex »

emodendroket wrote: post #30
rlpb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In contract law it is essential that both sides get something of value out of the deal. If not, it's not a contract. This is called "consideration" and it's why e.g. you'll see on the news people pay a symbolic $1 for a failing business or a tumbledown building rather than nothing at all.

For example you can't make a contract in which I just pay you $50 per year. But you can have a contract in which I pay you $50 per year and in exchange you deliver me a girl scout cookie on the 7th of November every year.

The court doesn't (usually) care whether the deal made is a good idea, $50 for a girl scout cookie seems like terrible value, but it _is_ an exchange of two things of value.

Because the GPL spells out what you're getting and what you're swapping for it, it will always satisfy this idea of consideration. In contrast very often "click through" or "shrinkwrap" licenses don't really do so.

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#36

Post by __ddd__ »

imanewsman wrote: post #32
rlpb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're splitting hairs. The order says the license is a contract that exists, sure. Contracts are enforceable.

Not all contracts are enforceable. I would be surprised if the entirety of v3 is enforceable

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#37

Post by DannyBee »

imanewsman wrote: post #32
rlpb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're splitting hairs. The order says the license is a contract that exists, sure. Contracts are enforceable.

No. The order says that iff what the plaintiff says is true, a contract probably exists :)

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#38

Post by roel_v »

rlpb wrote: post #22
iplaw wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

What are you talking about? There is no such distinction. The GPL derives its enforcability from the same principle EULA's do.

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#39

Post by ninkendo »

emodendroket wrote: post #30
rlpb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, I would like to see some legal precident that proves GP's point.

Additionally, GPL only grants you "additional freedoms" if you're willing to reciprocate. If you want to use it in a closed source work, it very much limits your freedoms. The phrase "permissive license" exist for a reason, and it explicitly excludes the GPL.

Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case

#40

Post by empressplay »

blauditore wrote: post #28

One 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 thi…

one way is to engineer in obscure but reproducible behaviour, along the lines of A->B->C results in D.

people who are likely to steal code are unlikely to audit it sufficiently to identify esoteric behaviour.

Post reply on HN