Alleged GPL Violation Spurs Accusations, Lawsuit

lisah writes "Linux.com is reporting that Alexander Maryanovsky, the developer of Jin (a Java-based chess client), has filed a lawsuit alleging that International Chess University has violated several aspects of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Maryanovsky claims that the online chess training website and its CEO, Alexander Rabinovitch, are in violation of both his copyright and the GPL by distributing software that is based on Jin. According to the report, though Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts." Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

Comments

Re:Why?

[Tackhead]

> It's not like they are stealing or anything. And really, if people want to do this sort of thing no one is hurt here.

Naw, that'd be a BSD-style license, not a GPL :)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoted from the article:
Pleading lack of time, Maryanovsky suggested that IChessU could either use Jin or pay him $4,000 for a commercial license instead.

So there was an unrestricted commercial license available for $4,000 and instead they took the GPL version and violated its distribution license. If the accusations about license violation are true, this is just as much piracy as selling illegal versions of Windows or any other software.

Re:Why?

[networkBoy]

Not to go too far down this path but I think the _average_ /.er is more miffed with the process the RIAA is using rather than that they are suing. The flood of Jon Doe suits are absurd. They should have to file one suit at a time based upon better evedence than they currently have been using.

Then again AFAIK no suit has gone all the way to trial, another beef the /. crowd has about this.
-nB

Re:Why?

[Aim Here]

Exactly, dude. That's what copyright law is for.

Though your sense of entitlement seems to be a tad overwhelming.

The GPL is a license that grants users far more rights than copyright law would normally allow. The alleged infringer here was in no sense restricted by the GPL; it gave him a bunch of rights that he had under certain conditions, and that he wouldn't otherwise have had under copyright law, and he is alleged to have broken those conditions while exercising the rights.
If your uncle lets you live in his house rent-free as long as you don't have any pets, then he is entitled to use the law to evict you and your ferret when he finds out you've breached the terms. Bitching about it just makes you look like a spoiled brat.

If you want to complain about restrictions in software licenses, try some proprietary licenses which bind you under contractual terms that force you to give up MORE rights than the ones that copyright law takes away from you. You're not allowed to reverse engineer Windows or sue Microsoft, for example, if you use their software.

Re:Maryanovsky needs to quite the whining...

[_Sprocket_]

But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL.

Bull. From the article:

Rabinovitch has not refuted most of the details in the account on Maryanovsky's site when asked to give his version of events. According to Maryanovsky, Rabinovitch approached him in early 2006 for help writing a chess client and server for IChessU. Pleading lack of time, Maryanovsky suggested that IChessU could either use Jin or pay him $4,000 for a commercial license instead. After Maryanovsky gave Rabinovitch advice on technical matters and introduced him to friends with experience with startup companies, on March 27, Rabinovitch told Maryanovsky that he planned to use Jin under the terms of the GPL.

If this account is accurate - there has never been an issue with Jin being used for commercial interests. Granted - there are a contingent of folks who just don't understand that the GPL has little to do with commercial use of licensed code. I've met folks who bristle about "paying for Linux" or other such complaints. This does not seem to be the case at all. If Jin was used as the client-of-choice for the IChessU service without modification then there would be no issue. And your point would be valid.

IChessU use of sockets is an interesting point. You might have a valid point claiming Maryonovsky can't have issue with this. In doing so, you've clearly decided to dismiss the various details of this. The reader might want to look in to it a bit more.

Of course - there are more issues in the case. You're also ignoring IChessU's client EULA.

I know its more fun to poke at the GPL. But you're being misleading.

Re:Everybody gets this wrong

[ajs318]

You're correct. The necessary "written permission" needn't be the GPL -- it could be a separate agreement altogether. However, nobody but the copyright holder {or, in exceptional circumstances, the courts} has the power to grant such permission, and distributing GPL software without permission is no different to distributing any other copyrighted software without permission. Which is why the permission under the GPL originates from the copyright holder -- and even if you didn't receive a copy of the text of the GPL with the program {which is against the GPL conditions unless you specifically requested that}, in fact even if the copy you received is legally considered infringing, you still have all the permissions granted by the GPL.

He does not hold the copyright in the work in question, he did not comply with the conditions of the GPL, he did not pay for the commercial licence and his acts of distribution go well beyond Fair Dealing. Therefore, however you look at it, he is in violation of copyright.