Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Protection Problems For OSS Project

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the copy-wrong dept.

An anonymous reader writes "There's a federal case in the Northern District of California where copyright for open source is being challenged. The free software project JMRI discovered that a commercial company was using some of their files in a product, in violation of the license. They added a copyright claim to an ongoing legal action about cybersquatting, software patent abuse, etc. The patent case was covered on Slashdot back in June but the copyright part is new. The other side came back with an argument that copyright law didn't apply, simply because they software was 'being given away for free.'"

10 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Should be open and shut case. by matts-reign · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is no way I can see JMRI losing, if the American court system has any integrity left at all. You can't get much more blatantly violating copyright than this. Its outrageous.

    --
    Waffles rock.
  2. Naked woman on the roof! by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can't wave your boobs around from the balcony expecting everyone who looks to toss you some beads. Once you're out there, you're out there and if no one gives you a strand then that's really your own fault for putting yourself on the line in the first place.

    It is kind of weird to expect that someone ought to play your game when you've already given up your whole hand.

    1. Re:Naked woman on the roof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Boy do you sure live up to your nick.

    2. Re:Naked woman on the roof! by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but this does not give potential bead tossers the right to modify the free balcony boobs with silicon.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  3. Re:FRIST PSOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    btw, FOSS blows donkey chunks.

    So when did your mother change her name to "FOSS"?

  4. Re:That won't fly in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Matt's Space Adventure was great until the the Special Editions. Horace shooting first? Not on my watch, buddy.

  5. Pro Se by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The other side came back with an argument that copyright law didn't apply, simply because they software was 'being given away for free.'"

    From that statement I assumed that this is a Pro Se case then I went and read the article. I think the defendant needs to get another lawyer because his current one is fucking stupid.

    Just because you include the source code in no way nullifies your copyright. IANAL but even I know that much. The fact that the user accepted the license testifies to the fact that he acknowledges the copyright because one can not give a license to a software product without having the copyright.

    This lawyer's case is going down like a cheap whore.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  6. The important legal question by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The other side came back with an argument that copyright law didn't apply, simply because they software was 'being given away for free.'""

    Have you ever seen milk come out of a judge's nose?

  7. it's "precedent" by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 2, Funny

    is that a 1998 precident

    Argh, that's twice, dude. It's spelled "precedent".

    --
    One simple rule for its versus it's
    1. Re:it's "precedent" by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's spelled "precedent".

      Careful! George Bush will think you are referring to him.