Slashdot Mirror
Court Ruling Clouds Open Source Licensing
JosefAssad writes "In a decision centering around a question of a violation of the Artistic License, a San Francisco court has denied an injunction against Matthew Katzer in the favor of Robert Jacobsen of the JMRI project. Importantly, the decision makes the point that the Artistic License is a contract, an interpretation that the Free Software Foundation has been keen to avoid as a legal stance. The JMRI project has a page up with the legal background and developments."
So what does this do for EULA? Do all the obnoxious terms of use suddenly vaporize? Can people now publish Oracle studies? Can I now use Front Page to say bad things about M$? Can I now use Windoze under as many VMs as I want and serve it with Xforwarding or as a web service because, I'm not really making a copy and that's all that copyright halts? I can see all sorts of ways the non free software world will rue the day copyright was weakened.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The GPLv3 is still structured as a license (or a set of licenses, with the patent clauses) rather than as a contract. It still only triggers on things that would violate copyright law (modification and distribution) rather than use. What, specifically, would make you think otherwise?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
It's only a powerful PR tool, not a powerful legal tool.
Judges and Laywers think that legal text is pretty important - they're not going to treat a ruling on the specific interpretation and enforcement of one license as applying to some other license. And that's what this ruling is - a ruling on the specifics of correcting a potential (very arguable) violation of clause #1 of the Artistic license.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
And thus the essence of the case.
JRMI claimed that the preservation of the copyright notice was a condition of the license such that there would be no license unless the notice was preserved. This means that any copying without the notice was outside the license and therefore was unlicensed reproduction, therefore copyright infringement. The judge held that in fact the copying was within the license but in breach of it - a breach of contract. Although it seems as though "the bad guys" did something wrong in each case, there is a difference in remedy.
If you are in breach of a contract the court will generally only grant damages - that is, the person has to pay you for the breach. If you are a copyright violator then the court will grant an injunction (specifically there is a presumption that an injunction is an appropriate remedy for copyright violation, whereas the presumption for contract is that an injunction is inappropriate). An injunction means you can tell the violator to stop what they're doing (or otherwise impose a legal requirement to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way).
The reason this case is thought of as a bad thing is it seems to imply that any copying of anything released under a free software license (the distinctions between the GPL and the Artistic License are unimportant for this point) is ipso facto not copyright infringement though it may be a violation of the license. This ruling seems inconsistent with the Sun case where anything denoted as a "condition" it was considered would be sufficient to cause the behaviour to fall outside the license.
IANAL; I'm an Australian law student. The summary at Law & Life: Silicon Valley is excellent.
"But everyone should know everything." -markab
A contract requires the informed consent of both parties entering the agreement. It has yet to be proven in a court of law that clicking an 'OK' button equates to informed consent, especially if the terms of the "agreement" are not presented prior to the purchase.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The fact that the terms of the GPL are triggered by copyright doesn't magically mean that it can't be viewed as a contract by a court.
There's a popular idea that when anything on a public forum like Slashdot might be harmful to certain parties, this sort of sexual blather gets put in the thread so that porn and obscenity filters keep it out of many hands. Microsoft is the usual suspect, and the parent of the sex blather is questioning the effects on MS's EULA.
I'm not drawing any conclusions here, and I don't think anyone should at this point. It is an interesting theory, and this would be a prime example if it's true.