Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Ruling Clouds Open Source Licensing

Posted by kdawson on from the artistic-license-only dept.

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."

4 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nuts. What does this do to other "contracts"? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would also note that the GPLv3 has dropped all pretenses of being anything other than a contract. It doesn't state that it isn't a contract anymore, and certain clauses go well beyond copyright agreements (i.e. they give some people the right to manage terms of a copyright license independant of any copyrights of their own).

    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.
  2. Re:Artistic License is janky anyway. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they hate the whole idea of open source, and this decision is a powerful tool for them.

    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.
  3. Re:Artistic License is janky anyway. by Mjec · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They claim that this other guy violated the license terms (From Term 1: Copyright notices must be preserved), but even if that is true there still isn't a copyright violation - just a violation of a license term.

    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
  4. EULA != Contract by Comboman · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Contract law does change a number of things, but it doesn't cause EULA's to vaporize. They are after all "End User License *Agreements*" where "Agreement" is used to imply a contract relationship.

    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.