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

141–150 of 233 posts

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

#141

Post by sqeaky »

emodendroket wrote: post #132
sqeaky wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Somebody should inform all the companies selling enterprise software whose entire model depends on selling seats, then.

Most of those have agreements at the time of purchase. Those are some of the most legitimate dealings in software sales.

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

#142

Post by rlpb »

bighi wrote: post #133
rlpb wrote: post #16

"Corley denied the motion, and in doing so, set the precedent that licenses like the GNU GPL can be treated like legal contracts, and developers can legitimately sue when those contracts are breached." The GNU GPL was written on the basis that if someone does not accept its terms, then that without any other license from the copyright holder, redistribution puts that person in violation of copyright law. Suing for da…

But if for some reason some court rules the GPL invalid, doesn't it mean that the companies using the GPL'ed software are violating copyright? Because the GPL license is the only thing granting them the rights to use that intellectual property, right?

> ...doesn't it mean that the companies using the GPL'ed software are violating copyright?

It may be a technical violation. This wouldn't in itself make any difference to anything, however. It would only matter if a court would then award damages to copyright holders as a consequence of the violation. A violation in civil law doesn't mean anything in practice except when damages are awarded (and only changes behaviour when damages could be awarded).

Damages are awarded based on harm done. I think a copyright holder would struggle to show that any harm was done by the defendant, especially as the defendant would have been acting in good faith. Of course this depends on the details of the reason the court ruled the GPL invalid, so it's not really possible to speculate on your hypothetical further.

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

#143

Post by tzs »

DannyBee wrote: post #33

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 en…

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

Is "preliminary injunction" the right terminology here? It sounds like it was a motion for dismissal.

Anyway, it's appalling how often the press confuses pre-trial motions like this with substantive rulings on the issues of the case.

...and it is also, sadly, no surprise that they also think that this sets precedent. Why is it so hard for them to understand the difference between trial courts and appellate courts and which set precedent?

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

#144

Post by qb45 »

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.

Your customers are only entitled to the source if you accepted the terms of the GPL and technically you can claim that you didn't accept them and that you simply distributed the derived work illegally.

If your customers wanted the source, they would have to ask the original authors to sue you and have the court force you to accept the GPL post-factum. It's not clear how this would turn out because afaik such line of "defense" has never been tried by violators so far. A few such lawsuits settled out of court, usually with source code being part of the deal.

A ruling in this kind of case, where the violator stubbornly refused to comply and maybe tried to escape with just paying damages or some other trickery, that would be interesting.

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

#145

Post by Spivak »

iplaw wrote: post #24
davidgerard wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL Not quite technically! The way it works is: you have no permission by default under copyright. The only permission you have to copy is the GPL. If you obey it, fine. If not, you're just violating copyright like any other copyright violation. This can be an important point: it's a license, no…

A license is a contract. I don't understand the artificial distinction between the two, specifically in reference to GNU GPL. http://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract

Because, as your article points out, in the US there is a requirement for consideration. Sure, the GPL might be a contract somewhere outside of the US but who cares? The ruling was in California.

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

#146

Post by matt4077 »

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…

It appears that Rosen's "reciprocity" is simply another term for the "infectious", or "copyleft" nature of GPL. In that case I fail to see the significance. There isn't really any remaining doubt about the enforceability of GPL, which may actually be the reason for the relative dearth of case law.

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

#147

Post by djsumdog »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #134
err4nt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my ignorance too - but I don't think the intended goal of the GPL is to allow you to dual-license, I think Stallman would (I'm guessing) not want people to license code as anything other than GPL, so I imagine he'd discourage paying for non-GPLed code.

Not necessarily. "I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software." Read his full text for some boundaries he sees. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

Hm. I did not know he held that view.

It does make sense. It sounds like he's against things like Magento/Gitlab/Alfresco which have totally open source versions and commercial/enterprise versions with closed extensions. (I realize those aren't the best examples as they're not GPL).

With the dual licensed product, you simply have two licenses for the exact same code base. If you want to reuse it, you can, but you need to release your derivative works back to the community. But the people/organisation behind the tools still have to live in this capitalist world that's far from the free software paradise of the FSF. Developing under a dual license can provide a revenue stream back to the writers to help keep that work going.

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

#148

Post by Nursie »

qb45 wrote: post #144
Nursie wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your customers are only entitled to the source if you accepted the terms of the GPL and technically you can claim that you didn't accept them and that you simply distributed the derived work illegally. If your customers wanted the source, they would have to ask the original authors to sue you and have the court force you to accept the GPL post-factum. It's not clear how this would turn out because afaik such line of…

I agree, a real, thorough test of this in court would be a great precedent.

And yes, if you refuse source to your customers that's where you are - software copyright violation. Just the same as if you did this with proprietary stuff. Someone with standing would have to start the ball rolling.

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

#149

Post by sounds »

beat wrote: post #74

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 an…

Ah, if only.

To the first point: the GPL is not used nearly as much as it should be. Thus there's still a strong selection bias on court cases in general being about the GPL, since the GPL is not selected very often. (And there's a reason it is avoided: legal counsel to large companies frequently describe the GPL as "untested." This happens still today, which is frankly ridiculous in the light of all that the Software Freedom Law Center, FSF, etc. have done)

To the second point: any court proceeding introduces a huge amount of uncertainty. Costs are up-front, payback may come in a decade or more after all routes of appeal have been exhausted. Judgments are frequently overturned on technicalities; even if the technicalities are flawless the GPL is not unassailable.

On a personal note, I am unequivocally in favor of using Free Software further and wider than it has been used. In every potential conflict of interest, I think there is much to be said for attempting to settle with a "GPL violator" using amicable means, even if it takes a long time. I view "GPL violations" as free advertising -- don't be shy about publishing the proceedings, though doing it with some taste may help the party come into compliance, their actions should speak for themselves!

People use GPL software, extensively.

Any use of GPL software is a compliment to the software authors.

Any contribution back to the software will improve it for everyone.

etc.

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

#150

Post by smichel17 »

kevindqc wrote: post #90
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

Courts -- at least US ones -- generally treat digital signatures the same as physical ones. Not sure off hand whether clicking accept is the equivalent of signing if you don't type your name.
Post reply on HN