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.
Wouldn't simply compelling the defendant to release the code with the appropriate acknowledgements be more in line with the community spirit of the GPL? A monetary settlement seems unnecessarily punitive.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Yes. But the fact is that having never got as far as the court shows the strength of the GPL rather than its weakness. Think about it: you go to court because both sides think they can win. Everyone who has been about to challenge the GPL has realised they had lost before it got that far. Plenty of licenses have never been tested in court; a well worded license that any lawyer can tell you is valid doesn't need to.
I am trolling
And how would you propose to deter other companies from stealing GPL code, if their only risk was a little egg on their face and a slap on the wrist?
How would you offset the costs of determining if some code has been stolen, as well as the lawyer/court fees in order to prove it before a judge?
Yes, the code was written under the GPL, yes the SAE did then take that code and start selling it as if they had written it and without the GPL, but it seems that the entire process was over whether the SAE owns their own regulations after the government steps in and turns them into Law.
The answer, as it was in the prior case cited, was "no".
It seems that the license of the software involved wasn't related to the case at all, other than as a "starting point" for the case to begin. If the code had been BSD-licensed, they wouldn't have been suing the SAE first. If nothing else, it simply indicates that you can issue a DMCA takedown notice for GPL'd code someone else is using without obeying the GPL license.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Making brash statements like that will get you into trouble, mon ami. Especially in places like this one.
Results 1 - 10 of about 453,000 for GNU Public Licence. (0.33 seconds)
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
This case mentions that any work incorporated into law by reference can not maintain its copyright. It's happened before (the building code case mentioned) where an existing work became law, so the original authors could not charge others or claim infringement for printing (what was previously) their material. Now shouldn't the same logic apply to patents? If someone patents some algorithm that is incorporated into MPEG, and MPEG is legislated as the standard for HDTV, shouldn't that invalidate any patent claims over the algorithm the same way copyright is over-ridden? Or is this another way patents are different from copyrights?
I have now been deprived the income I would have made from that sale.
You wrongly assume that a developer interested in the functionality you are selling would buy it rather then code it themselves.
Just like in the music world; if people MUST pay to listen to something and thats the ONLY way to hear it, alot of people would just opt not to hear it. How is that a lost sale?
Not necessarily. Simply being a widely accepted contract doesn't mean the contract is legal. I'm not saying the GPL isn't, just that your argument is faulty.
As an example, Microsoft's OEM contracts were widely accepted. That didn't mean they were legal.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
We've covered this! Were you not paying attention?
/. groupmind takes that are contradictory, but this isn't one of them. Start scouring the board for a better one.
We like freedom of information. The GPL improves it, traditional copyright restricts it.
There are lots of positions the
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.
Also: As I read it GPL wasn't strictly at issue here. The core issue was whether a standards organization can claim IP rights over the standard itself when that standard is embodied as code. Once that issue was clearly articulated both parties seemed to take the enforcability of the terms of the GPL as a given.
What is important here is that it was the terms of the GPL that allwed Drew Technologies to haul the SAE into court, claim damages from them, and get them to settle WITH a payment of damages.
The SAE had posted Drew Tech's code, claiming they owned the copyright because it was derivitive of the standard and demanding a "subscription fee" from both Drew Tech and from all other users of Drew Tech's GPLed code.
The GPL violation was the hook Drew Tech chose to file a takedown demand, drag the SAE into court, and demand damages for violation of THEIR copyrights - like any other GPL software provider. B-)
Even in the absense of an actual decision, this case shows that licensing your code under the GPL doesn't jepoardize your ability to haul offenders into court and claim (and get settlements for) damages for violating your license terms.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I see you still don't 'get' it regarding the GPL. So let one of those freaks you refer to attempt to enlighten you.
When those GPL'd libraries are linked in, staticly or dynamicly at runtime, you are still making use of code that bears a GPL license. If your code that wants to use that GPL licensed code as part of its functionality isn't GPL also, then the linking is, and properly so, a violation of the GPL and illegal by copyright law.
There is no 'slightly pregnant' here. If you want to use GPL'd code, then your code must be likewise GPL'd or under an approved similar license. End of discussion.
Gawd I wish some dummy would actually let this get to where the judge renders his/her opinion for public record and let the precedent actually be set instead of saveing a few on attorneys fees with a settlement when they realise that tweaking the GPL tigers tail is going to get them eaten.
You're right about one thing, these decisions really are quite obvious. Oh, and go learn how to spell license too. There are in fact several ways, but yours is not among them in my dictionary.
--
Cheers, gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
In fact, if one really thinks about it, patents are probably the most anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-progress part of our Constitution. They are the equivalent of economic terrorism - patent liability can strike any business, anywhere, with devastating effect.
While I can sympathize with this sentiment, there are a couple of case I can relate to where the cease and desist orders were simply ignored.
The most recent case occured maybe 7 or 8 years ago now, in the broadcast industry, where we all got a letter from some shyster outfit demanding royalties of many thousands per year for using their patented technology in the government mandated Emergency Alert System that was put in place to replace the outgrown and outmoded EBS system that had been in place since the 70's or so.
We all made very pointed phone calls to our senators and reps, to the people who sold us the stuff, and to the commission, stateing point blank that we were damned if we were going to pay this annual fee to anyone when to comply with the new rules cost us 5 to 15 thousand for new gear in the first place, and non-compliance was not an option if we wanted to keep our license. We used words that weren't very civilized in many of those conversations.
It must have done some good because none of us that I know of ever got a 3rd letter demanding we pay up. Most of us got a second, even snottier letter, about 30 days after the first. It took 3 friggin years, and there wasn't any publicity at all, but eventually the USTPO reviewed the patent and "found it wanting due to prior art".
We came to the conclusion the legal sharks had overheard a dinner conversation in a greasy spoon someplace, made notes on a napkin, and went flying to the USTPO to patent it, 2 years after it was a fait acompli in the industry by government edict.
Like I said before, we need a National Bill Shakespear Day.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly