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

91–100 of 233 posts

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

#91

Post by kevindqc »

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 imagine if you use strings, like in

printf("Could not open ghostscript project %s", project)

You could find the "Could not open ghostscript project %s" part in the binary?

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

#94

Post by Arizhel »

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 going to disagree about Stallman. I suspect he would prefer all-GPL-everywhere, but I think he's pragmatic enough to think that dual-licensing (with GPL being one of them) is better than nothing, because it still means the software is out in the open, for anyone to download and use who wants to adhere to the GPL, so it's still a win for Free software. Some companies might choose to purchase a proprietary license so they can use it in closed-source software, but for others they're able to download and use it for free under the GPL.

Remember also, Stallman and co. did come up with the LGPL, which itself is a pragmatic compromise to allow GPLed libraries that can be used in non-GPL applications: under LGPL, you have to share any changes you make to the library itself, but the rest of your application can use a different and/or proprietary license.

It's better to have some GPL rather than no GPL.

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

#95

Post by bluGill »

qb45 wrote: post #43
xorblurb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

To use software you probably have to install it on your computer - this makes a copy of the software. Then when you run it you make another copy into your computer's memory, and additional copies in the the CPU's cache.

I don't agree with the above argument (I think fair use covers it), but I have heard it. It isn't hard to read the letter of the law and conclude the above is the correct interpretation. (you might need to see some money...)

I honestly do not know how to fix the letter of the law. There are too many special cases. If I have two computers can I install it on both? Can I install it for my family to use? When my computer fails can I install it on the replacement? The above are trick questions: I deliberately asked them to invite answers that imply I can install one copy of software on as many servers as I want for as many users as I want - this seems wrong.

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

#96

Post by sqeaky »

PeterisP wrote: post #23
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…

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.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think "Shrink-wrap License" is legal term. I am pretty sure contracts are valid regardless of the amount of copying and pasting used to make them.

"Post-purchase agreements" are not enforceable in many jurisdictions because they add terms that one side of the agreement did not agree to and many terms of service fall into the post purchase agreement category. It is hard to argue that open source licenses are "post-purchase agreement" because no purchase occurred.

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

#97

Post by fmihaila »

mark-r wrote: post #82
bluGill wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is a derivative work, but selling derivatives of GPL-ed software is entirely legal and not forbidden by the GPL. Distributing binaries (regardless if for free or not) of GPL-derived software without distributing the source from which the binaries were derived (or without offering a reasonable way of getting the source on demand) is forbidden by the GPL. Moreover, the source of the derivative work must be offered under the GPL.

(Edited to add the last statement above, for clarity.)

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

#98

Post by sqeaky »

emodendroket wrote: post #70
rlpb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...which otherwise you don't have. Why not? If I own a chair, I have the right to use it. If I own a copy of the software (that I paid for in a store, for example), then there is nothing in law that says that I cannot use it. I have rights over what I own. Nothing restricts that. Copyright law exists to protect software writers by providing them with a means to make money making software. This law restricts my abil…

Well obviously their contention is that you're buying a license to use the software and not the software itself. You're free to disagree but it's internally consistent.

They can disagree all they want, but it is on them to prove that I agreed to buy a license, when I am physically holding something I bought. I didn't have to sign a contract for it. Adding terms after the purchase makes it a post-purchase agreement and that is unenforceable in most western jurisdictions.

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

#99

Post by mark-r »

merijnv wrote: post #89
mark-r wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's interesting, thanks for the citation. I was basing my opinion on his well-known hate of proprietary software, and his desire to make all software free. Dual licensing works counter to that, because it allows someone to use GPL software without making their own derivative software available too.

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

#100

Post by AndrewKane »

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…

she was a waitress in a cocktail bar now she owns a jet... http://www.trends88.com
Post reply on HN