Slashdot Mirror


An Open Source Legal Breakthrough

jammag writes "Open source advocate Bruce Perens writes in Datamation about a major court victory for open source: 'An appeals court has erased most of the doubt around Open Source licensing, permanently, in a decision that was extremely favorable toward projects like GNU, Creative Commons, Wikipedia, and Linux.' The case, Jacobsen v. Katzer, revolved around free software coded by Bob Jacobsen that Katzer used in a proprietary application and then patented. When Katzer started sending invoices to Jacobsen (for what was essentially Jacobsen's own work), Jacobsen took the case to court and scored a victory that — for the first time — lays down a legal foundation for the protection of open source developers. The case hasn't generated as many headlines as it should."

14 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Wow a truly profane injustice defeated. by GlobalColding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Damn good precedent set. Although, the guy who patented the other fellas work and tried to charge him for it should have been clubbed like a baby seal or dunked in a vat of whale spunk.

    1. Re:Wow a truly profane injustice defeated. by LrdDimwit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The tidbit in this article that I found depressing? That nobody has been prosecuted for perjury on a patent application in thirty years. And why did this happen? The patent office axed the department that used to investigate this.

      No wonder everything's all screwed up. There isn't even a fox there to guard the henhouse, it's just wide open.

  2. Finally! by CPNABEND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A decision in favor for those that work for the common good against a single person's greed!

    --
    My wife doesn't listen to me either...
    1. Re:Finally! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say, from a cursory look, it's also a victory against patent fraud, because that's precisely what this guy did.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Finally! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes I am glad that this guy got busted but lets put this into perspective. This was a little guy fighting a little guy.

      And the victory sets a precedent against the big guys.

  3. Stole freedom. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But he didn't -lose- anything

    Yes he did, he lost his freedom. The other guy tried to derail his project. The grant of an open source license does not mean that that is the only license that you grant. You can have multiple licenses out there.

    It's pure theft, this case, pure and simple.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Stole freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to nitpick, but it isn't theft. Its copyright infringement. For theft to occur the originator must no longer have access to the original property.

      Although through the act of trying to use patents to shut down the source, it approximates theft. Although its probably more of an abuse of patent law in this case.

      Its the same argument about file sharers. They are not stealing, they are infringing upon copyright. Theres a big difference.

    2. Re:Stole freedom. by orclevegam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The GP is right, it's not theft. The ruling sets forth that violating a open source license revokes that license, and that subsequently distributing software using that licensed work is therefore done without a license and is a case of copyright infringement. As such, this guy is committing copyright infringement against the developers of the software he's using. That's not theft, it's copyright infringement, and there is a difference.

      Of course, there's also the patent issue coming up here and that's a whole other can of worms. Maybe we'll get really really lucky and this whole thing will somehow invalidate software patents as well, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    3. Re:Stole freedom. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am not sure if it's theft in a legal sense, but by trying to shut down the source of the code, it is a form of theft. The whole premise of "copyright infringement isn't theft" is based on the fact that the source hasn't actually been deprived of anything. The asshole who patented his software was trying to get rid of the source by abusing patent law. When I lose my own code by abusive legal action that leaves the only legal holder as the abuser, that is theft. I have lost what he has gained through his actions.

  4. Look more carefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for turning the tables on Slashdot vocabulary peeves, but in this case he really did lose something. Lacking this ruling, if he had not paid the license fee he would not be able to use his own code. Thus he would have been deprived of something he once possessed. Just because the case involves intellectual property doesn't mean that it's the same as copyright infringement.

  5. Re:Open source people are greedy too. by illegalcortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The open source author's assertion of copyright is a form of greed as well.

    That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all morning, and that includes finding out that this guy tried to invoice the original author.

    You seem to have redefined the word greed. Let me give you a few of the actual definitions:

    "excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions."

    "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"

    "1. excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
    2. reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)"

    Note the bolded words. The whole point of greed is that it is an extreme. Jacobsen is a model train hobbyist. He wrote some software to control model trains and gave it away free. Not only that, he took the copyright that the law gives him for such software and gave up any ability to make money off it by releasing it as GPL. In addition to that, he's not acquiring money. That's like saying that someone pointing and saying "see that free mural? I painted that" is greed. That you could someone reinterpret this as greed is mind boggling. The only reason I wouldn't say you deserve Jacobsen an apology is that he probably never read your comment.

  6. Re:Open source people are greedy too. by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Excellent point. TFA also mentions possible perjury charges for filing what he must have known was a fraudulent patent application, deliberately trying to claim a creation date prior to the date of the work he was ripping off, and utterly failing to mention any of the copious prior art. The US patent system (and indeed almost all patent systems) are in shambles and are a complete joke in terms of fulfilling their social promise. Now that this ruling has given the OSS community (and CC as well) some teeth, maybe the *AAs of the world will think twice about pushing to have those particular legal fangs sharpened, and maybe, just maybe we'll see some patent reform as well.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  7. Re:I'm trusting the summary this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your concept of economics is insufficiently broad. Anything that people enjoy or appreciate in any form has real economic value.

  8. Re:I'm trusting the summary this time by tchuladdiass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I use is: This software is available under the gpl... other license terms are available for a cost of 1 million dollars. That way, i've got a good damages claim in the case of violations.