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

41–50 of 233 posts

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

#41

Post by ticviking »

xorblurb wrote: post #34
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…

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

In general the claim is that you have particular rights under common law when you purchase something, but the shrinkwrap terms attempt to restrict those rights.

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

#42

Post by cygx »

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.

Premise: You have legally obtained a copy of some software.

Status quo: You can use the software. You're not allowed to redistribute copies or modified versions of the software.

EULA: You may only use the software if you agree to additional terms. Usage rights are restricted.

GPL: You may redistribute copies as well as modified versions as long as distribution happens under the terms of the GPL. Distribution rights are granted.

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

#43

Post by qb45 »

xorblurb wrote: post #34
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…

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

> Without a licence, you have no right at all.

On what grounds do you have no right to use a copy of software you bought without obtaining an additional license from the vendor?

As for copying it's copyright, obviously, but I never understood what's the matter with merely using. IANAL but AFAIK in some EU countries it is recognized that there is no legal basis for EULAs and they officially are void, unless signed as a contract prior to the purchase, of course.

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

#44

Post by tialaramex »

xorblurb wrote: post #34
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…

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

The First Sale doctrine gives people who _buy_ something all rights needed to make use of it.

It is... disappointing that modern courts have allowed the First Sale doctrine to be watered down so that today there's every chance you will buy something, paying good money, and then be confronted with new "terms" for how you may use the thing you purchased. But it's not in general clear that such an approach is legal.

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

#45

Post by cryptarch »

xorblurb wrote: post #34
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…

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

What if the EULA applies to a software product you have bought for money and have received a copy of?

If it does not include an EULA, are you not allowed to use it? Does the same hold for computer games with an EULA?

Or does the existence of an an EULA hold your rights hostage until you agree to it?

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

#46

Post by boomboomsubban »

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 can imagine some (smaller) companies not being fully aware of open source license specifics and unknowingly running into a lawsuit

This is not a real problem until there are licensing trolls, where their sole purpose is to make money off of breaches.

If a company receives a lawsuit, they can claim ignorance and start to comply with the contract. This would change it into a minor breach of contract, where they would only be liable for actual damages caused. Actual damages would either be nothing or fairly impossible to prove, so the lawsuit would likely be dropped.

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

#47

Post by cryptarch »

empressplay wrote: post #40
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.

That's a good idea, very similar to map makers hiding small deficits to find copiers.

That gets awfully close to DRM, though.

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

#48

Post by pas »

roel_v wrote: post #38
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…

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

Umm, so when you buy a copy of a proprietary software, why don't you have to sign and/or agree to the EULA?

Also, does the seller have to reimburse you if you decline the license (and of course return the copy)?

So you pay for the copy but not for the license, and you got the license free if you paid for the copy, right? (But of course that license comes with a lot of restrictions, just like the GPL.)

But the important thing seems to be that the GPL binds distributors. It's a contract between developers and distributors. (Sure, it's a contract between anybody that acquires a copy.)

Is there a coherent legal overview of this?

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

#49

Post by qb45 »

ninkendo wrote: post #39
emodendroket wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you want to use it in a closed source work, it very much limits your freedoms.

It's the copyright law which prevents you from using GPL software in closed source works, not the GPL. GPL doesn't care about proprietary software at all, leaving it at the mercy of status quo. It only grants some additional rights to users and developers of free software.

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

#50

Post by emodendroket »

cygx wrote: post #42
emodendroket wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is legally such a distinction.

Premise: You have legally obtained a copy of some software. Status quo: You can use the software. You're not allowed to redistribute copies or modified versions of the software. EULA: You may only use the software if you agree to additional terms. Usage rights are restricted. GPL: You may redistribute copies as well as modified versions as long as distribution happens under the terms of the GPL. Distribution rights a…

What about the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability?
Post reply on HN