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

81–90 of 233 posts

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

#81

Post by Nursie »

bluGill wrote: post #79
10165 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

As a patch or addition, your source code is likely to be considered a derivative work, regardless of whether you actually build it into a binary.

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

#82

Post by mark-r »

bluGill wrote: post #79
10165 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I'm not entirely sure that's correct. If you try to sell something that relies on GPL software, it's considered a derivative work even if you don't distribute the GPL software with yours.

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

#83

Post by qb45 »

delinka wrote: post #68
mjw1007 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you don't really mean 'iff' there.

Why not? Read it as "if and only if." If you disagree, then explain your disagreement.

I think the "only" part is dubious, i.e. a contract could possibly exist in various other circumstances as well :)

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

#85

Post by johncolanduoni »

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…

The specific person or entity has to have the copyright for the work in the first place (or the permission of that entity). In which case they're "taking" from themselves.

As for Stallman's intentions, he's talked about this exact model: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

Nursie wrote: post #76
10165 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by belorn »

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…

My intuition from listening on several of Stallmans talk would be that paying for exceptions are an acceptable strategy in some cases, through not ideal.

So while writing this comment I remembered the old case of QT and found this article (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions). To quote it similar to a "inferior choice, but it's not wrong".

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

#88

Post by otterley »

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.

It may seem like "splitting hairs," but it's basic legal analysis. Learning when a contract is formed (which is the question at issue here; it's not about the substantive terms of the contract) is covered in everyone's first year of law school. And learning how contract and copyright relate is covered in the second or third year of law school, depending on when you take the course.

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

#89

Post by merijnv »

mark-r wrote: post #80
10165 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm guessing Stallman is completely disgusted by the possibility of dual licensing.

You'd be wrong, though. He considers it a legitimate alternative to "not releasing source at all":

> I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

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

#90

Post by kevindqc »

ckastner wrote: post #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?

Nice! By that logic it means EULA are not enforceable! I just clicked Accept, I didn't sign anything! Or a cat could've clicked that Accept button, or a toddler
Post reply on HN