Slashdot Mirror
Strong Court Ruling Upholds the Artistic License
dilute writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (an authoritative court that normally deals with patent law), has issued a strong ruling (PDF) upholding the Artistic License in a copyright dispute between the developers of the Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI), and Kamind, a company that used portions of DecoderPro to develop a competing product. The product at issue was DecoderPro, an open source project released on SourceForge under the Artistic License, for interfacing with model railroad control chips. Kamind used a number of DecoderPro files in developing its product, Decoder Commander. However, Kamind did not comply with the Artistic License in a number of respects, including attribution, copyright notices, tracked changes or availability of the underlying standard version." Read on for more, below.
Dilute continues: "The lower court denied relief, saying that the Artistic License merely imposed 'contractual' promises, and that a violation did not constitute copyright infringement (any contract-based relief would probably have been meaningless). In a strong ruling, the Federal Circuit found that the Artistic License is legally enforceable, that its terms constituted 'conditions' for reliance on the license, and consequently that a violation of those conditions would put the violating product outside the license and thus make the violator a copyright infringer, potentially liable for an injunction. The case lays out a clear and compelling description of the rationale for open source, and reflects a complete willingness by the court to lend the force of law to these licenses."
Reader ruphus13 point to Lawrence Lessig's commentary on the ruling; Lessig calls it "huge and important news," and notes that the reasoning is generalizable to the GPL and other Free software licenses, as well.
; Lessig calls it "huge and important news," and notes that the reasoning is generalizable to the GPL and other Free software licenses, as well.
As well as most EULAs I suppose... or is a legal distinction made between license for personal use vs. license for redistribution?
Sadly, I will sleep better at night knowing that there is some favorable precedent regarding open licenses.
Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties.
This too:
The copyright holder here expressly stated the terms upon which the right to modify and distribute the material depended and invited direct contact if a downloader wished to negotiate other terms. These restrictions were both clear and necessary to accomplish the objectives of the open source licensing collaboration, including economic benefit... Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material.
Good to know the court system can still work!
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Katzer and company really need to be smacked down.
On their web site, they try to create the impression that they had their own solution and didn't copy any code from the open source guys, but, then, in court, they fully admit that they in fact, did that.
So, they stole a bunch of code, made some money on it, then, they admitted it in court, but continue to lie to the public about what they did.
I mean, how sickening is that?
This is my sig.
Yeah, the GPL was upheld in Germany as valid.
The truth be known, if the FOSS licenses were held to be unenforceable, then most of the publication, etc. licenses that the record labels, book publishers, etc. live by would also be so- and NOBODY in that space wants that.
These licenses are NOT EULAs. They're all largely publication and derivative works licenses- with the royalties being whatever the terms of the license requires for being able to publish the stuff to downstream recipients.
No license?
No publication. No derivative works.
You publish or make a derivative work without the license to do so, you're guilty of willful infringement of the rights holders. That carries a much, much nastier penalty than accidental ones and it's something Verizon and Actiontec did NOT want to face the music on in court- so they settled out of it once it got filed.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"You" is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this Package.
That reads like someone tried to satirize the "legalese" present in most licenses rather than create a working license for themselves. Also, the license is automatically binding for anyone who is thinking about using the license? Compare to a Creative Commons license, where
"You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License...
You'd think programmers would know better than to let ambiguities like that by. (And incidentally, some people have similar concerns about the language in the GPL: it has a conspicuous lack of "legalese", which might make it easy to read, but also risks ambiguity popping up in a court case down the road.)
This is rail nice. I do believe open licenses are at a critical junction. Kamind certainly bit off more than they can choo.
I want to know if Bob Jacobsen got his $30,000 (legal fees paid to the scum suckers) back.