Michigan Diagnostic Software Case Big Win for GPL

Pig Hogger writes "Many people claim that the validity of the GNU Public License has not been tested in court in the US. Well, it just had been, in Michigan, in a case that validated open-source car diagnostic software against the pretension of automakers who want to keep it secret. But don't take my word for it; read the story on GROKLAW." It's actually the Society of Automotive Engineers involved here; DrewTech (the developers in this case) nicely donated half of their settlement money to the SAE.

Comments

Good.

[daveschroeder]

But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis. This makes it a sometimes long and arduous process to assert rights and/or prove infringement, but hopefully more precedent will help.

Since the provisions of the GPL have been upheld in a case in Germany as well, maybe PearPC will be able to more easily defend itself against CherryOS, which has blatantly taken GPL code, without release of source code or attribution, from PearPC and several other GPL projects:

eWeek has a general overview of the situation:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.as p

Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter, shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on:

http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html

http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0501.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0503.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0504.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0507.html

http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=articl e&id=348

http://forums.pearpc.net/viewtopic.php?p=16178#161 78
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/
http://dhost.info/kourge/en/projects/frauds/cherry os.php

Additionally, PearPC project authors are already asserting their rights under the GPL:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg _id=11116974

And a general compilation of some of the evidence so far against CherryOS:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg _id=11125509

Not a win, but a settlement

[suso]

Unless I'm missing something, this ended in a settlement, not an in court win backed up by a judge.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[Anonymous Coward]

It also had nothing to do with the GPL - the license wasn't even an issue.

It's talking about whether deriving a program from a published standard constitutes a derived work of the standard or not.. copyright law, and the judge, said no.

Please read TFA. The plaintiff disagrees that the GPL is irrelevant. In fact, it's very relevant--the fact that the code in question was released under the GPL, and therefore not SAE's exclusive property, was one of the plaintiff's major claims.

Most GPL issues ARE copyright law issues. That's really the only relief the author of GPL'ed code has--they can claim "use without a license" if someone uses their code in a non-GPL-approved way as a violation of their copyright. The lack of a license to use (GPL) implies a copright violation.

Granted, the GPL was not the exclusive issue in the case. But it's relevant.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[Anonymous Coward]

Industry standard is used all the time in contracts. Go read UCC article 2. These implied warranties may be disclaimed by using language such as "as is" by the buyer examining or refusing to examine the goods, or if the industry standard or past conduct between the parties limits the warranties. As far as Microsoft goes, I disagree that they were widely accepted. Being widely used is not the same as accepted. People keep saying the GPL is unclear on things. Settlements like this clear up what industry beleives the GPL does and does not do.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[johnnyb]

"Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective."

Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them.

"On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL and an EULA add rights."

Incorrect. EULA's don't generally give you a right to distribute source or binary. If you know of one that does, give me a holler.

By default, copyright allows you to (a) use your program for any purpose, (b) learn from it, (c) modify it for yourself, and (d) keep an archival copy. Most EULA's restrict (b) and (c). The GPL adds additional rights. That is why it is unique. If you know of an EULA from a major vendor that adds additional rights that normal copyright wouldn't give you, let me know.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[johnnyb]

"You have no right to use a copyrighted program without permission. The EULA gives you that right in exchange for money."

That is incorrect. The sale gives you that right. The EULA is a post-sale contract. Music does not include an EULA, yet it is covered by copyright. EULA's does not give you any right you did not already receive by paying money to legitimate channels.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[johnnyb]

"It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."

That is incorrect. As a user, you could do this.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[johnnyb]

"The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license."

True, but that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.

"To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial argument about adding or subtracting rights."

No, if you look at the subject we were actually talking about, it was whether or not the GPL is enforceable in court. The answer is yes, because it ADDS rights instead of taking them away. You would not have the right to redistribute a GPL'd program EXCEPT FOR the GPL. If the GPL is ruled invalid, that would not give people the right to copy it willy-nilly, it would actually cause it to revert to the normal copyright law of "you can't copy this".

Other EULA's, however, since they REMOVE rights, if they are deemed invalid, users will gain back the rights they lost.

Re:Not a win, but a settlement

[johnnyb]

"Gain back what rights?"

The rights terminated by the EULA.

thank you very much... not

[advocate_one]

I wondered why it had gone extremely slow... by the way, the article poster has got it wrong. It's not a victory per se for the GPL as it never went to the finish, the two parties settled instead. However, it is possibly good news for those of us frustrated at companies tying up international standards with submarine patents and other IP trickeries... Microsoft watch out.

Re:thank you very much... not

[Anonymous Coward]

Even moreso, I don't see how the GPL came into it at all. Looks like the whole legal question was whether the SAE owned copyright on their specification (and implementations thereof). The evaluation was whether something that is "law" could be copyrighted, and whether SAE owned software written by someone else.

The interesting part is that if this bit of software is used, the auto companies will have to provide source code with every car, or at least a copy of the GPL and a link to their website. Won't that be a coup?

GPL aside, I totally agree with you. Law has to be transparent. Seems like a tactic of the evil regimes of lore that only the chosen few were allowed to know the law, and anyone else could be arrested for not following laws they didn't know about. On the same level, requiring people to pay a private party for permission to obey the law is just as bad, especially if the private party sets up a high barrier to entry. (OTOH, it's a good capitalist system to have private parties write codes and sell them. Leave technical issues to engineers, not lawyers. People still shouldn't have to pay to read or follow the law, though.)

At least the courts are still doing their job.

So why start a new project?

[chaffed]

Freediag is stagnant because people have lost interest. If they want to implement new protocols within the 0BD II standard they should pick up Freediag and continue the development. Freediag is almost completely finished the portability portion of it's development. It compiles under most operating systems.

I guess Yay! for GPL being upheld in court. Yay! For independent an DIY auto repair folks. However, bummer for a project that really needs some new blood.

Re:The Penguin has grown [strong] teeth!

[Anonymous Coward]

a.) The GPL and Linux are not one and the same.
b.) This case did not involve Linux in any way.
c.) It's not even the case that this is a legal victory for GPL. The existance of GPL was found persuasive by this particular defendent in reaching a settlement. It's not a precedent for "more prey."

Searched everywhere but Google?

[AtariAmarok]

"What's the "GNU Public License"? After extensive web searching, I cannot find any evidence that a license with such a name exists"

There are more than 300,000 pages referring to "gnu public license", and that is just in Google. That is just with quotes, too! One of the links points to a good wikipedia article, as well.

nothing to do with the GPL

[iamnotanumber6]

really - whether this was a settlement or a judgement, it really has nothing to do with "testing" the GPL.

1. some people (Drew) wrote some software that complied to (implemented) a standard.
2. the standard is copyrighted by someone else, the SAE (the issue of whether they can copyright or charge royalties on something that's part of the law I think is a side issue).
3. SAE tried to claim ownership of the copyright of the software, claiming it was a "deriviative work" of the standard.
4. they were unsuccessful in doing so, the core reason being because copyright only covers a particular composition of text, not the "ideas, procedures, processes, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries," that may be described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" within it. if I write a book explaining how to turn lead into gold, you can't copy the sentences and paragraphs I wrote. but you can certainly write your own book explaining the same procedure. this is a long-standing principle, and no new legal ground was broken here - no precedents.
5. Drew was confirmed as the legal copyright owners of their software, not the SAE, which was what the case was about.
6. Drew (had) happened to release the code under the GPL. This is an expression of how they wish to excercise their copyrights. But nothing about the GPL was tested or decided. Only that Drew owns the copyright, which allows them to release it under GPL, and SAE cannot prevent them from doing that because SAE does not own the copyright because it is not a derivative of SAE's copyrighted work.

the validity and terms of the GPL never entered into it. talk about a "victory for the GPL" is nonsense.

Re:Okay, now it's official (slightly off-topic)

[jericho4.0]

Canadian Copyright Act, Section 80;

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or(br> (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

So, any copying I do, for my own personal use, is ok. This includes downloading music. This seemingly does not include uploading music. See here for more.

The fact that ISP can't get subscriber information from ISP's for file sharers might not make it legal, but it sure does make it easy to get away with.