GPL in Court - Good or Bad?

Irvu asks: "The Register has a lengthy opinion piece today about IBM's lawsuit, and the GPL. Barring a settlement this case will see the first test of the GPL in a court of law. Previously the GPL has functioned as a social contract with the implicit (albeit untested) force of law behind it. Any ruling now could radically alter the free-software/open-source landscape for good or ill. Andrew Orlowski dwells on these possible ills in his piece. What does Slashdot think? Is this test a good or bad thing? Do you have faith in the justice system (or IBM's Lawyers) to draw the right conclusions? And, how do you see any outcome affecting you?"

Comments

Either way it's a good thing

[mjmalone]

A legal test of the GPL is a good thing no matter how it turns out. If the court case fails that just means that revisions need to be made, it would go against the philosophy of the open source community NOT to test the license. I don't know how much of a landmark case this is, it is kind of a gray area, not straight infringement.

Re:Either way it's a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the GPL should be tested, but given the nature of how law works in the US, I'm darned glad it's IBM's lawyers defending it.

Re:Either way it's a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't anything "nebulous" about the GPL

Unfortunately, there are some nebulous areas in the license. Not in the basic concept, I agree.

But once the GPL starts talking about "linkage", and trying to claim that Application A linked with GPL'd Library L means A has to be GPLed, while App A linked with GPL'd Operating System O does not, it's on thoroughly nebulous ground. The concept of "linkage" just isn't that clear cut, especially in the modern day with dynamically linked libraries, or in embedded systems where the OS is more often than not statically linked with the "application". This nebulousity is entirely self-inflicted by the GPL; it's not "FUD" spread by some evildoer. Had the GPL never tried to make this distinction in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem.

While the obligations under the GPL are straightforward enough, it's not always clear when those obligations apply. Safest thing to do is assume that if you're anywhere near GPL'd code, then your code needs to be GPL'd as well. Over-broad, but it's the only way to be sure. The lack of clarity in the license one reason why the FSF has to maintain pages and pages of FAQs about the GPL, and perhaps one reason they're working on yet another version of the GPL.

Making the license more complicated naturally increases the chances for bugs and unforeseen interactions and side effects. One of the nice things about the BSD license is that it's so bloody simple.

Just because you find the intent of a work admirable doesn't mean you must assume the work is therefore perfect. The GPL shouldn't be treated as Holy Writ and viciously preserved against all "attack" from evil FUDsters. It should be improved where required.

Sooner is Better

[mhotas]

The sooner we know if the GPL holds water, the better. A lot of people are counting on it to protect their work. How big a disaster would it be if a loophole were found 5 years from now?

A good side, a bad one

[leandrod]

Good:
Once for all this "not yet tested in court" FUD will go away, and future violators might be deterred.

Bad:
Media circus. 'nough said.

Worst:
A bad result might make thousands of talented people loose faith in justice. This is actually good, as would be any acts of civil disobedience in consequence. The actual evil has been done in the last several decades in the slow, generalised erosion of morals... final defeat would be ugly, even the civil disobedience struggle itself would be honourable but containing scenes of unthinkable ugliness, stupidity and cruelty.

Copyright is NOT a contract, it is the law

[47PHA60]

A contract is an agreement entered into by two or more parties. A copyright license is not a contract. Copyright is stronger than any contract in US law, and copyright and the terms under which use of copyrighted material is granted are well tested in US courts.

If I write code, or a poem, or a novel, I own the copyright, EVEN IF NOBODY agrees to my terms of distribution. Nobody has signed a contract with me to use or distribute it, but the copyright is still mine, and I can dictate terms of use for my work as long as it's in effect.

The GPL states this very clearly; I have italicized the part that I believe relates solely to copyright vs contract:

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."

Nothing in copyright law gives you any rights over the software, except the terms dictated by the copyright holder (in this case, the terms of the GPL). If I write a novel and drop the manuscript, and you find it, you have no right to publish it, because the copyright is not yours. Under copyright, law, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS to a work EXCEPT those granted by the copyright holder.

The term "intellectual property," was invented by by people like those running SCO, because they want you and me to confuse an expression of an idea, which is under copyright, with the idea itself, which is not. Code is an expression, the algorithm or method is an idea. If SCO, MS, and others can obfuscate the fact that "intellectual property" does not exist in US law, they can make you think that expressing an idea with your own code (also called reverse engineering) is illegal. The only place in US law that ideas protected is patents, and there is much controversy about that.

All this means that if the GPL is found to be invalid, then all software licenses will follow, because copyright is the only thing that gives them their power.

Faith in the justice system...

[jmors]

Personally I have alomost no faith in the justice system to do the right thing merely for the sake of "doing the right thing". If they do the right thing it will only be because the side defending the right thing has more money (IBM) so justice may prevail but certainly not because of our justice system. Can there really be any doubt in where the decisions made in our justice system come from? Big corporations, the RIAA, Disney, Oil Companies. As an added hurdle this case will be about technology issues, another huge stumbling block for our judicial system, our legislators, pretty much the majority of those in government office. Please don't get me wrong, I still believe that the United States is one of the greatest countries on earth in which to live, but unless we recognize the erosion of our rights, of our privacy, of our freedoms and stand up and do something about it, it will not remain so forever. I for one do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren why the only people with the law on their side are those with the money and power to buy it! Sorry for my rant...