Congratulations to Stallman. After all these years the GPL has been tested in court. The man must be drunk with joy... Three cheers for the Mr. Stallman and his gcc (joining in on his celebrations)
A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
61–70 of 233 posts
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#62To 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 discovers that they are paying for something that others are getting for free? Do they care?
Is this a case of taking something that was free (but valuable), i.e., the original GPL source code, and concealing it as a closed source work in order to generate revenue/profit for some specific person or entity?
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?
(Assume that patches or additional source code files are distributed by themselves without the original GPL source code and that they do not contain any functional portion of the original GPL source code. Assume further that they do not use "interfaces" designed by the GPL source code author. Finally, assume that the end user can compile their own software and no binaries are distributed.)
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#63moral of the story is, know you licences. Adhere to the license terms. Seek out projects with more permissive licenses if you plan to do closed source.
It is simple to work around licence issues with your project. You just have to put in the work. Know that your design may have to factor in extra time because you can't use lib XYZ because you have to write your own library to do the same thing. If using lib XYZ will save a bunch of time, then know that you will have to adhere to lib XYZ license. Maybe writing a wrapper application that you opensource, and your closed source application interfaces with might be a design consideration.
In the end, it's your project, your call. Just know when you make a decision you weigh the pro's and con's of going forth with that decision.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#64Earlier 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
I like how correct comments like yours around here every time gpl comes up are downvoted to oblivion. shows there's load work to do from the eff to educate people at wtf gpl is
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#65What happens if they claim they downloaded it from somewhere else that didn't include the license.txt file? There is no proof they ever were even notified of the license. (this is why we usually have people sign contracts)
Adobe is about 34 years old, so the copyright on any program that interacts with an Adobe file format (e.g. postscript, pdf) cannot have expired yet (in the absence of time travel). So if the source code did not come with a license, it is their responsibility to obtain one, or they can't use it.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#66What happens if they claim they downloaded it from somewhere else that didn't include the license.txt file? There is no proof they ever were even notified of the license. (this is why we usually have people sign contracts)
If they used code that they downloaded without a license, they have violated copyright law. (All code created in the US and most other countries has a copyright at creation.)
So they either accepted the GPL or violated copyright.
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
In order to dismiss the motion, the court had to explain why the GNU GPL is an enforceable contract: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califo...
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.…
[deleted]
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#68Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#69To 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…
That is the most important issue, but not the most important issue here. This ruling hasn't gotten that far. This merely throws out Hancom's argument that because the contract wasn't signed it wasn't a contract.
Contract terms should be up next (but I smell a settlement, frankly).
Re: A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss a GPL enforcement case
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about that. You're getting the right to use the software, which otherwise you don't have.
> ...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.