A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by tzs » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

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?

Probably not. We are dealing with a pre-trial motion by the defendant for dismissal. They are just implicitly admitting that plaintiff alleges that defendant used the software without a license, not that they actually did so.

To decide such a motion the court assumes that every fact alleged by the plaintiff is true, and then looks at each charge to see if all the necessary facts to support that charge are covered. If some charge is not covered, then that charge can be dismissed.

So what is happening here, it sounds like, is that the defendant is saying that plaintiff did not allege that defendant signed anything, and the defendant seems to think (for some reason I do not understand...) that you have to sign something in order to have a contract, and so wants the court to dismiss any charges that require there to be contract.

The court said that plaintiff has in fact alleged sufficient facts for there to be a contract, so denied the motion to dismiss.

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

#152

Post by 10165 » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

saidajigumi wrote: post #128

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…

You are misinterpreting "reciprocity"; it has nothing to do with Artifex's dual-licensing arrangement. If you read the linked PDF, you'll find this: Reciprocity means a mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges. Something is reciprocal when it is performed, experienced, or felt by both sides. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition.) The GPL license is reciprocal, becaus…

Yes, the "outcome" to which I was referring was in fact the effect of dual-licensing.

With respect to the book chapter, as I interpret it, reciprocity includes asking for the licensee to open source their work. But I leave this to the experts to interpret definitively.

Assuming I am not misunderstanding, if the licensee "reciprocates", then there is no closed source and the "problem" I am alluding to goes away. Because users can now see the source code and theoretically they can determine where it came from.

(The problem being that GPL source code and the value thereof is sometimes "concealed" in closed source products. This is just my personal view. I may care about things that others do not. Opinions may differ.)

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

#153

Post by dec0dedab0de » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #105

jcranmer wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft printed (not sure if it still does) its EULA on the actual physical software packages.

I mean that the legalities around software are not fundamentally different. The culture around software sales is different. Buy a music CD in a box, no EULA. Buy a software CD in a box, EULA. For no apparent reason.

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

#154

Post by brian-armstrong » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

The GPL has such strong terms, I think there is good reason to avoid ever reading any GPL codebase. Tainting yourself may imperil any code you write for the rest of your lifetime. And to that end, I think github should place a large warning on any GPL repo before letting you see it, as well as delisting them from search results (or at least hiding the contents)

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

#155

Post by palunon » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #35

emodendroket wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is legally such a distinction.

In contract law it is essential that both sides get something of value out of the deal. If not, it's not a contract. This is called "consideration" and it's why e.g. you'll see on the news people pay a symbolic $1 for a failing business or a tumbledown building rather than nothing at all. For example you can't make a contract in which I just pay you $50 per year. But you can have a contract in which I pay you $50 per…

(Note: this isn't true in most civil law jurisdictions)

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

#156

Post by crdoconnor » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

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.)"

I've often thought that this was a pretty ideal way of licensing OSS.

It provides a revenue stream for improving upon open source from those with the deepest pockets and the greatest ability to pay which clearly works (QT, for instance, probably wouldn't exist without this model).

Moreover, it doesn't remove others' freedom to be able to develop free software from it.

It's telling that the biggest whinges about the GPL often come from large (often abusive) corporations with deep pockets, an inflated sense of entitlement, paranoia about "their" intellectual property and a desire to get freebies from ordinary developers.

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

#157

Post by qb45 » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

mjw1007 wrote: post #116

DannyBee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The order says that iff what the plaintiff says is true , a contract probably exists :)

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".

"If what the paintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that certainly a contract probably exists".

Apparently parent is an intuitionist ;)

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

#158

Post by emodendroket » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

cygx wrote: post #139

emodendroket wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but so what? It still in some sense restricts the rights of the person using the software.

In what sense? You can still use the software, you just can't expect its use to yield a particular result and sue the programmer if it doesn't live up to that expectation.

In exactly the sense you just stated.

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

#159

Post by nolemurs » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

> Suing for damages on the basis of a breach of copyright law clearly does not require any contract.

I came here to say basically this. To make this really explicit - this result is completely and utterly unsurprising and does not set any new meaningful precedent. Nothing specific to the GPL was implicated.

Using someone else's source code without permission has always been, and continues to be a violation of copyright law.

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

#160

Post by dang » Fri, May 12, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

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…

Thanks. We updated the title to reflect that.