Slashdot Mirror
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.
Well, the donated half the profits back to SAE (the defendant). Presumably the rest was for court costs/legal fees. If you read TFA, the lawyer for the plaintiff basically states this--the goal was not to win money, but to improve SAE's processes. There was no intent even from the plaintiff to punish.
AFAIK, copyright law does not provide for compelling someone to do anything... other than to pay damages and stop violating the author's copyright.
Besides that, why shouldn't the author's seek monetary damages??? It costs them money to go to court and to force the violator to quit infringing on their rights.
What is in the community spirit of the GPL is something that will help ensure that future violations do not occur. Playing hardball will help that happen. Being "nice" about it will not.
If you don't believe me, ask the RIAA.
Because it was settled and not ruled upon, there is no case law that other lawyers can reference from this outcome.
I don't think the GPL can declare any court victories until a judge actually rules in it's favor.
It is good to see that the SAE came to their senses, though.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
Without the threat of punitive damages, why would someone pay any attention to the GPL?
History is so yesterday!
Maybe. But it appears the case was settled, not because of the GPL, but because the SAE couldn't legally lay copyright to code that was already copyrighted, GPL or not. It doesn't seem like it supports the GPL at all.
In any event, the article submitter (and Groklaw) claim this is a test of the GPL in court. It's not. There was no ruling.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
OK, but that's not what it says in the article submission. That's the point.
As I read this, it's a copyright case only. One side (SAE) claimed rights to code that the other side (DrewTech) had released via GPL. It could have been something proprietary, and SAE would still have lost the case from what I understand.
It's like saying "Axemurderer convicted of killing author of GPL-released code" is a big win for the GPL. It wasn't part of the case, near as I can tell.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
You say "stolen" as if the "victim" of the "crime" is deprived of property.
Code can't be "stolen".
Er....no. Sorry, this is the hippie "file sharing is perfectly OK" bullshit that drives me nuts.
You claim taking my code does not deprive me of property. Not so. If I own it, I have the right to license or charge for it. By taking it, you deprive me of the oppoerunity to sell it to you. I have now been deprived the income I would have made from that sale.
So, you claim "Well, I wouldn't have PAID for it, so no harm done." Sorry, still wrong. Assuming that the code in question is something I charge money for, then in taking it you have stolen something of value--the value that others are willing to pay for it. The thief who breaks into a store cannot claim "well, I wouldn't have ever bought that jewelry, so no harm done.
Ah, but code is infinitily copyable--by taking it, I'm not depriving someone else of their ability to use it. With due respect, this is irrelevant. The issue is whether you are using/taking someone else's property without permission. By the "no one is deprived" argument, radio stations would never need to pay license fees to music artists--by playing a song off a CD they own, they're not depriving anyone else of the ability to play the song...
By taking it, you deprive me of the oppoerunity to sell it to you. I have now been deprived the income I would have made from that sale.
Iow, you want the government to give you an equal opportunity to make all of the potential sales you can over somebody else's right to do what they want with their purchased property, their computer. Not only are you for affirmative action (ie equal opportunity) but also for taking away real, personal rights over physical property away in favor of virtual, potential rights over information. So in essence you are a neo-liberal libertarian.
I am a lawyer - and let me tell you - settlements are very persuasive to DEFENDANTS. True - you can't cite them to a judge and they don't make case law - but in the trenches where 95% of all legal disputes end up - settlement precedent is noticed by all the attorney's who play in the IP area.
If somebody distributes a binary program with no source, how is anyone supposed to tell if they just linked to a library versus incorporated the original GPL'd source into theirs? If all you have is the executable machine code, I'm not sure you could tell the difference.
Similarly, allowing library linkage to be a valid way to bypass the GPL would just result in everybody putting existing GPL sources into a "library structure" and linking in. Congrats, you'd have a way to completely de-tooth the GPL.
Using a library is just an organizational technique that keeps an individual source file from becoming too large. You can pre-compile a library to keep your compile times down. The net effect is that you're bolting the library onto your project, and you're deriving benefit from that linkage. If you don't want the GPL baggage, don't expect to get any free benefit from GPL'd works, either. You're perfectly welcome to develop the code yourself. Nobody requires you to use GPL'd code.
why? use the DMCA to destroy the system. seems right to me.
"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."
However, that would be true of ANY license -- there's nothing about the claims of the GPL that are unique to this case. If they had released it under a commercial license, it would have been the same argument, just on a more limitted scale. The terms of the GPL have still not been upheld.
That's not to say that the GPL doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away. This is the primary reason the GPL has never seen the inside of a courtroom -- the case for it is so rock-solid that noone would even try.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I disagree. The reality of our system is such that parties cave in to settlement offers not based on true innocence or guilt but on cost-benefit analyses of pursuing the case in court and possibly winning (but at a high price), or losing at an even higher price, versus cutting losses and settling out of court. Settlements are not effective precedent setters as future battles may involve parties with different political liability and cash flow.
I don't think the GPL can declare any court victories until a judge actually rules in it's favor.
But the GPL's so obviously solid that nobody in their right minds will take it that far.
"Ah, but code is infinitily copyable--by taking it, I'm not depriving someone else of their ability to use it. With due respect, this is irrelevant. The issue is whether you are using/taking someone else's property without permission."
You are confusing terms, though. You are using the word "stolen" which implies that you no longer have said item. "Unauthorized copying" more accurately describes the offense, not "stealing". Your examples show that you are confused as to the differences as well.
Making unauthorized copies is illegal. Some people also believe it is immoral. Using the term "stealing" to describe it is simply denying reality.
Also remember that the purpose of copyrights is NOT for the authors, but for the public. Copyright IS NOT a "right" of itself, but an artificial one given by the public for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean that people can decide for themselves to break that trust, but it does mean that you are dealing with something that is in an entirely different ballpark than stealing.
Engineering and the Ultimate
No, it does not.
Copyright law for infringing or derivative works only allows for the original author to affect distribution of the infringing work, or demand damages. Specifically, you can force someone to stop distributing a piece that infringes on your own, but you cannot claim ownership of their work, nor force them to continue distribution against their will.
The GPL, specifically, is a list of terms and conditions upon which you are allowed to distribute programs made from GPLed source code. Should you violate these, you are infringing upon the copyrights of the code's authors. Ergo, the authors can then sue for damages and/or an injunction against distribution.
However, it is unlikely that a judge will enforce the GPL terms (by compelling to release source) rather than sticking to straight-up copyright infringement/license violation. This is where monetary damages are most effective - by offering to reduce the punitive damages of a suit in exchange for the release of source code, the company can be 'encouraged' to comply. Furthermore, a successful punitive damages suit discourages other companies from allowing GPL violations to proceed to legal action - allowing the FSF to get them in compliance by simple nastygrams instead of expensive lawsuits.
In short - yes, monetary damages are damned well neccessary.
"Many people claim that the validity of the GNU Public License has not been tested in court in the US. "
...
Many people are not lawyer and are have no clue what the GPL is all about and what its real power are. Most people dont even know what law are in effect in the US.
The Best worldwide Law Teachers and Freedom Lawyer drafted the GPL , once the acusee get a simple explanation from a judge as to the possible effect of a penalty one might occurs from losing such a case they ALL settle.
It dont mather that they ALL settle because "Many people" said its untested in court.
And its going to be like this until there is actually one dumb enough to go all the way and loose.
"Journalist" and "reporter" used to ask question to the one who lost like I dont know : "why did you setlle ?"
That would be news worthy. I dont pay people for the fun of it , I guess they dont either
"radio stations would never need to pay license fees to music artists--by playing a song off a CD they own, they're not depriving anyone else of the ability to play the song"
Circular reasoning.
You might say that you have rights to your intellectual property. Other people disagree. Fortunately (for you), for now, the courts agree with you. Don't confuse that with a natural right.
I don't agree that depriving you of a potential sale is, in any way, theft. Would I be stealing from you if I told your potential customers that your software didn't work, and that they shouldn't buy it? Should I go to jail if I did that?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Except that it is the GNU General Public License, not the "GNU Public License", which is what the poster was pointing out.
Each settlement is a win. When the GPL is fully tested in court the number of prior settlements in favor of the GPL will be evidence that the GPL is an accepted industry contract. When a style of contract is widely accepted, judges are less likely to break them. So even though this is not binding case law, it still helps in the long run.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
If they settle, it's not a win, it's a settlement. Does not set a very useful precedent, however correct the settlement appears to be.
Until it is tried, adjudicated, and upheld, the original statement stands. At best, the GPL has been tested, but not proven.
Get your facts straight. This headline is deceptive and wrong.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
A settlement is an indication that one side has determined that they will not be able to win in court, so they try and minimize the loss. The fact that the GPL has never gone through a complete trial indicates that the people violating the GPL realize that they will probably lose.
Now that people are using copyright law to protect ownership of GPL source code, people can no longer in the next breath defend copyright infringement on P2P networks.
If you use intellectual property and copyright law to defend the GPL and go after infringers, then there is nothing wrong with the RIAA protecting its intellectual property using copyright law and going after infringers.
Thank you. The only thing that was tested here was the SAE's lame ownership attempt, based on a usage policy buried in a disused lavatory on their website that essentially said "all your base....". The GPL is orthogonal to the dispute.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
From TFA...
PJ: Why did you donate back half of what you won under the settlement?
Eric: The reason for donation of half back is because the purpose of the lawsuit always has been to benefit and improve the SAE. It may have been necessary to drag them kicking and screaming up the learning curve, but my client has done so precisely because the organization needed the benefit of the learning experience.
The whole point is that DrewTech has been very generous to the SAE by donating 1/2 of the money back as a charitable contribution, to symbolize the educational benefit conferred on the organization (in particular, organization staff -- as distinct from the Membership, who mostly tend to "get" the GPL) through the mechanism of the lawsuit as a whole.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I thought that one of the important things to come out of the case was this:
:-) ])
The doctrine is now enshrined in 17 U.S.C. 102(b). The relevant section says:
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
A lot of people think that their ideas, procedures, processes, etc... are (or can be) protected by copyright. The answer here is - no. They can not be protected by copyright. These are protected by patents.
Tangibles => copyrights
Intanigbles => patents
(I don't know about anyone else, but I do get a lot of questions on this when friends/relatives/and other stranger persons ask me about copyrights. And no, IANAL! I just like to read about the law. [Surprised my own lawyer by how much I knew about the law.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
"In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away."
Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective.
Certainly licensing software under the GPL is more restrictive than releasing it in the public domain just as releasing binary code with a typical EULA is more restrictive than allowing people to copy it freely.
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.
Eric Grimm is the lawyer in the article and it was
he who said it was a win for the GPL, not Groklaw.
It's obvious you have a bias against Groklaw. It
shines through your unfair attack. Most legal cases
settle, by the way. If the other side has to pay you,
it's a win for you. It doesn't establish a legal precedent,
but it is a clear indication that the license was
taken seriously by both sides and the court, and
the side challenging it had to pay to settle. Duh.
Yes.
Sure, but does any of the pages contain a hint that a "GNU Public Licence" actually exists?
I know what the GNU General Public License is. Follow the link in my sig, and you'll see that I've used it myself for years. The article, however, talks about a "GNU Public License".
was copyright instituted as a privilege in the first place?
Instead of just making a few conjectures based on guesses and a narrow perspective on the topic, I suggest you make some research on your own. That way, you'll bring something to the table.
The question isn't what use there is for novels. The question is what use is there for copyright. Historically, ever since Baldesar Castiglione and before, books had been re-typeset, distributed, translated and been entirely free game for anyone willing to make a quick buck. This often resulted in a bastardization of the work in question, questions about who was the original author and how the work should be presented to the world.
Books were more labour-intensive back then. The typesetting, printing, binding, as well as the production of paper all involved a relatively much higher investment. I have always seen copyright as the right to choose how the child of one's mind will be seen, as the blame w.r.t. corrupted derivatives will surely fall on the author. What is just as sure is that economic forces will favour those who do shoddy work to underbid the original author.
Copyright is about the rights of one person to distribute his own work in the manner he sees fit. Traditionally, it has served a vital role in ensuring a clarity in the common European discourse on academic topics. The economic implications were originally merely secondary, yet as the lowest tend to rule where a common understanding and ideal is lacking, it is nowadays seen as the main reason for copyright.
This is why I can but be ambivalent on the matter of copyright today. Seeing how the recording industry treats those that wish to be artists, how the publishing industry uses college text books as cash cows, and how the movie and advertisement industries have joined forces to warp common sense to promote lifestyles and the associated spending habits, I cannot endorse what copyright has become. Yet doing away with it altogether would open up the gates for the same sort of injustices that originally produced the necessity for it -- on a much larger scale, and at an infinitely greater pace.
Unfortunately, this is an area of discussion that cannot be open, as there are far too many economic interests involved. That in itself is a sign the copyright laws have failed, as the artistic concerns and the concept of credit where credit is due are only secondary in the debate.
Sure. There are more than four thousand Google hits for "life on Jupiter", so it is now proven that there's life on Jupiter, right?
That's about the GNU General Public License. We're discussing the "GNU Public License" here.