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

201–210 of 233 posts

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

#201

Post by s73ver »

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…

"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.)"

Probably not. Although from what I've seen, he was rather short on explaining how devs would make money to support themselves under GPL.

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

#202

Post by orbitingpluto »

singlow wrote: post #120
Nursie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that is true, as part of a derivative work, your users would have your source under GPL terms. Absolutely you can sell, but your can't restrict user rights

This is correct - you not only must include the source code for your binary, you also must include it under the same terms as the original source code.

So if someone just happens to distribute the source code for Hancom Office before this is resolved in the courts, would he or she be in the free and clear?

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

#203

Post by sova »

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…

Groundbreaking yes, but also just really good.

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

#204

Post by boomlinde »

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…

> Stupid question: 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?

Nothing stops anyone from charging for the GPL code in the first place.

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

#205

Post by memmcgee »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #202
singlow wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct - you not only must include the source code for your binary, you also must include it under the same terms as the original source code.

So if someone just happens to distribute the source code for Hancom Office before this is resolved in the courts, would he or she be in the free and clear?

Probably not. It's unlikely either party will want this to go to trial so it'll probably end in a settlement where the company buys a license on top of damages.

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

#207

Post by pmontra »

webmaven wrote: post #192
mikeash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. When was the last time you saw a EULA on a book or a CD? Software is not fundamentally different. I give you money, you give me a copy of the product, and then copyright law lets me use that copy within certain bounds.

"EULAs on a book" is basically the practice that the First Sale Doctrine is meant to curb. To wit: "This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published." from https://books.google.com/books?id=v-yrLmQNRvsC&pg=PR4 , but there are many o…

I understand why they don't like it but

1) Books go out of print and they don't have anything to sell anymore.

2) A replacement book could cost more than a new cover. I bet libraries would be happy to return the old worn book and get a pristine one, possibly of the same edition, for the cost of fixing the old one.

That doesn't happen, maybe it's even an unprofitable business for publishers, so long live to the First Sale Doctrine.

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

#208

Post by qb45 »

DannyBee wrote: post #198
mjw1007 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no justification for the arm of that 'iff' which is equivalent to "if what the plaintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that a contract probably exists".

Let's go to the decision: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial…

> I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true.

Parent is nitpicking the different between the court ruling that the contract is likely to exists and the contract actually existing. For the former, plaintiff's allegations are absolutely necessary, for the latter - not so much.

In a sense, one can't say that "only if plaintiff's allegations are true, a contract exists" because plaintiff's arguments can be bullshit and the contract may still be valid for other reasons, even if no court would recognize it without proper evidence.

Hope that helps. And yes, it is a nitpick on the semantics of logic. Parent understands what the court ruled, the issue was solely with your post being (possibly amusingly) ambiguous to people dealing with too much formal logic.

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

#209

Post by erikb »

tzs wrote: post #143
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…

The problem is us still believing that the press has any interest in the truth. They get paid for telling the most interesting story. If it's total lie, maybe sometimes someone gets fired, but the corresponding newspaper/channel still made a lot more money in the mean time.

Newspaper should be read like a novel that is "based on true events".

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

#210

Post by adrianratnapala »

tzs wrote: post #143
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…

While I am also appalled by the QZ headline, I would also note that the HackerNews headline makes it abundantly clear that this is just a pre-trial motion, and yet that was enough to get me to look at the thread.
Post reply on HN