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

71–80 of 233 posts

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

#71

Post by qb45 »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #55
qb45 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> unless signed as a contract prior to the purchase, of course. Not quite. There is no need to sign anything, what matters is if the EULA was included in the sale contract (so, the buyer was aware that the willingness of the seller to sell you the product depended on the buyer accepting those additional terms as part of the contract). On the other hand, if you do indeed sign an additional contract afterwards on your…

> There is no need to sign anything, what matters is if the EULA was included in the sale contract (so, the buyer was aware that the willingness of the seller to sell you the product depended on the buyer accepting those additional terms as part of the contract).

Yes, it doesn't have to be literally signed, but it needs to be an agreement made at the time of purchase. If I agree to buy Windows under the condition that I won't use it for the development of nuclear weapons, so be it.

But it's still not clear why I would need Microsoft's license just to use a copy of Windows I have already bought, sometimes even as part of a computer, which is what parent seemed to claim.

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

#72

Post by mi100hael »

danschumann wrote: post #57

What happens if they claim they downloaded it from somewhere else that didn't include the license.txt file? There is no proof they ever were even notified of the license. (this is why we usually have people sign contracts)

> “Upon discovering Hancom’s abuse of the GNU GPL and infringement of Artifex’s valuable copyright in Ghostscript, Artifex demanded that Hancom cease its infringement and remit to Artifex a reasonable royalty for Hancom’s years of unlicensed use of Ghostscript,” the company said in its complaint. “Rebuffed by Hancom, Artifex turns to this Court to enjoin Hancom from further infringement and to seek relief and recovery for Hancom’s abuse of Artifex’s open source license.”

So the suit was filed only after Artifex had notified Hancom of the license and attempted to work out a solution out of court. There's no way to argue they didn't know about the license beyond a certain date, and it sounds like they willfully continued to infringe upon the license after said date.

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

#74

Post by beat »

A friend of mine, who is a software engineer turned IP lawyer, made a good point about the GPL - the reason it "has never been challenged in court" isn't about uncertainty, but about certainty. The GPL is based on the most simple, bedrock copyright law. Despite being a clever hack, there's nothing legally exotic about it.

Any judge in the country or anywhere else would laugh a GPL challenge right out of court. Any any IP lawyer reading it would tell their client that that's what's going to happen if they try to challenge it. That's why it's never been fully tested in court... no need.

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

#75

Post by delinka »

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.

"...I just think you're splitting hairs." And splitting hairs is pretty much what the legal system is about.

It matters. The difference is the defendant said "yes, we entered a contract" and not that the judge ruled "whether you admit it or not, you entered a contract." The former does not set legal precedent. The latter probably does.

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

#76

Post by Nursie »

10165 wrote: post #62
apo wrote: post #12

To use Ghostscript for free, Hancom would have to adhere to its open-source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL requires that when you use GPL-licensed software to make some other software, the resulting software also has to be open-sourced with the same license if it’s released to the public. That means Hancom would have to open-source its entire suite of apps. Alternatively, Hancom could pay…

Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available ? What happens when users discove…

Answer to stupid question: Nothing is stopping you doing that. As it would be a derivative work, your users/customers would be entitled to your source and have distribution rights.

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

#77

Post by dhimes »

ljfio wrote: post #52

This article seems to be declaring victory in war, when really only a minor battle in the war has been won.

No, the article is pretty clear that this isn't about the terms of the GNU GPL itself, just about whether there was a contract in this particular case.

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

#78

Post by dhimes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Actually, 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.

Basically: If you admit to having a contract, then you have a contract.

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

#79

Post by bluGill »

10165 wrote: post #62
apo wrote: post #12

To use Ghostscript for free, Hancom would have to adhere to its open-source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL requires that when you use GPL-licensed software to make some other software, the resulting software also has to be open-sourced with the same license if it’s released to the public. That means Hancom would have to open-source its entire suite of apps. Alternatively, Hancom could pay…

Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available ? What happens when users discove…

> If someone fixes or adds something valuable to GPL source code and wants to charge for it, then why not just charge for the patch or the additional code?

You can legally do this, but it will not be easy. You cannot distribute a binary in this way, if you do your patch becomes GPL so the first person who buys your patch can legally give it to everyone else. That means you have to sell the source code to your patch and your customers have to build the binary themselves. You need to ensure that your customers understand that they cannot distribute any binaries they make. (they probably can distribute it within their company but they need to have some process to ensure that their employees know they cannot distribute this)

If anyone is thinking about this, make sure all sales include your lawyer: you will need to ensure that your customer understands all the subtleties otherwise the courts might decide your patch is GPL.

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

#80

Post by mark-r »

10165 wrote: post #62
apo wrote: post #12

To use Ghostscript for free, Hancom would have to adhere to its open-source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL requires that when you use GPL-licensed software to make some other software, the resulting software also has to be open-sourced with the same license if it’s released to the public. That means Hancom would have to open-source its entire suite of apps. Alternatively, Hancom could pay…

Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available ? What happens when users discove…

I'm guessing Stallman is completely disgusted by the possibility of dual licensing. But the legal copyright holder has the right to establish whatever licenses they wish, whether Stallman approves or not.

As to your question, you've already agreed not to charge for your patch by the fact that you've utilized the GPL to access the code in the first place. That's one of the points of the GPL after all.

Post reply on HN