Slashdot Mirror
GPL Wins In French Court Case
viralMeme writes "An appeals court in Paris has upheld the ruling from a lower court, which found that the French firm Edu4 had violated the GNU General Public License (GPL). The plaintiff was the French Organisation Association francaise pour la Formation Professionnelle des Adultes (AFPA), an umbrella organization for adult education." The basic charge was the removal of copyrights and such from VNC source code, and not distributing it.
It sucks to see the GPL being used to shut down an organization that dedicates itself to something noble like adult education. Then again, what did they have to gain by NOT publishing their changes and removing the copyright info?
They should turn off Edu4's Internet too.
SIG: HUP
Anyone releasing code to the masses should make it public domain to remove any legal controversies that may arise over it.
Information wants to be free!
Zis is good step for all of us, mon ami. Ze GPL needs testing so badly. Zus far it has only been tested in ze legal depart'ments of business, and not in ze legal courts.
Pardon my French, but fuckez yeah!
The text of the /Arret/ (decision):
http://fsffrance.org/news/arret-ca-paris-16.09.2009.pdf
So they teach about porn?
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
This could be an important legal precendent for the GPL in France and other European countries. Although Europe is more liberal in software licenses etc (no patents!) anyway, it's good to see that the GPL upheld in court.
Yeah, I'll probably be rated flamebait for saying that, but for me as a shareware author the GPL is reason enough not to use GPL-licenced code. That's a pitty, because there are so many useful programming libraries released under GPL instead of the more useful LGPL. Let's face it: If the source code of a shareware app is released, it'll be cloned and ripped off within days. There are just too many people with no ideas on their own that love to make cheap copies just for the $$$, and most end-consumers cannot decide between quality and quantity (until it's too late, and they loose their data, for example). My 2 cents, I know the GPL people strongly/violently disagree.
Hang on just a second. Does the AFPA (the plaintiffs) own the copyright on the GPLd source? They do not. Then what standing do they have to sue anyone over it, or receive payment? This is GPL related, but the relief went to a 3rd party!
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If they added even the slightest bit to the code, and redistributed their version (following the GPL of course), then they own the copyright to that version of the code.
As I understand it, the GPL says that the source code has to be available with the binaries.
So if the binaries are for the general public, everybody has access to the source.
If the binaries are delivered to a client (in this case AFPA), the source should be available to them.
The GPL garanties access to the source code for the USER. AFPA is the user here.
Read the article. The AFPA requested the source code of the modifications the company (Edu4) did to VNC but the company refused to provide it and so they were sued.
Mada mada dane.
I don't read french so I'm just guessing: The deal AFPA made with Edu4 stated that VLC is used as the base. So AFPA expected to get the source code changes with the binary and sued when that didn't happen... Sounds plausible to me and explains why they were allowed to sue.
Sorry... I forgot where I was for a second. I meant to say: this is like the RIAA stealing your car, crashing into a bus of drunken cheerleaders, then Microsoft embezzling the insurance money.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Your statement is (sadly) one of the many common FUD scarecrows foes of open source use to try to prevent companies from using GPL software.
The GPL very specifically only requires you to offer to "convey" the "Corresponding Source" to the parties to whom you have conveyed object or binaries containing your modifications AND that you convey to those same parties your distribution rights so that they may convey your object/binaries and corresponding source to anyone they choose to (as long as they do so under GPL licensing terms).
The GPL intentionally does not impose the burden for modifiers to positively disseminate their "Corresponding Source" to anyone other than those to whom they have already incurred the burden of distributing the binaries.
It's an idiosyncracy of French law. The plaintiff here was a customer who did, yes, successfully sue for the source code. It probably couldn't happen in the US or UK.
FSF France's take on this finds this noteworthy:
Just when you thought the German courts were GPL-friendly, this shows up. Vive la France!
Well, first of all, this was French law, not US or English, so their idea of standing might be different.
Second, the AFPA were third party beneficiaries of the GPL -- as receivers of the binary, they were entitled (by the GPL) to receive the source. This might have granted them standing even in the US.
From
http://ejustice.org/federal_practice_manual_2006/chapter_5/chap5sec3.html
The GPL (IMO, IANAL) makes it crystal clear that the person receiving the binary is an intended beneficiary.
Worse. EDU4 never stated in its tender that it was to use VNC.
It did afterwards, but then in what was supposed to be the final delivery (start of the Validation of Aptitude phase, which is where, in typical French IT purchase contracts, is where you deliver the final software and Client verifies it satisfies all contractual demands, but in practice some leeway for patches is introduced) modified GPL was delivered without ever showing that it was GPL software (and nary a source file in sight).
EDU4 first sued to get paid as AFPA considered the delivery terminally incorrect and voided the contract (which is an explicit possible outcome in public IT contracts). AFPA showed in the first trial that GPL was being breached; the first judge didn't understand the deal. The Court of Appeals took the GPL at face value (which is hugely significant) and found that perfectly valid grounds for AFPA's behaviour all along.
2 more left for them
Now, the higher court has confirmed the ruling that Edu4 should pay â8,000 (£7,195) to the AFPA and cover both the cost of court proceedings and two expert opinions.
Considering that Edu4 [...]
- modified VNC protection mechanism by introducing a non-modifiable password known only from Edu4, thus allowing Edu4 to take control of any workstation, bypassing the protection mechanism Edu4 delivered;
- did not mention any of this to AFPA;
- [...]
Crazy American ! How can you to protect yourself against copyright law infringement by which you are affected when you aren't the owner if you cannot sue ?
Okay, we are returning "Freedom Fries" back to their original name "French Fries". Happy now?
We still apologize for French's Mustard, which is not french and can barely be called mustard.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Gemalto. OpenSC. "Where is the source of libgemsafe0?"
Read the VNC source. Do you see "Copyright AFPA" in there? What kind of crackpot legal system lets Alice sue Bob over Carol's copyrights?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
But AFPA does not own any copyrights in the original VNC source, and in any sane jurisdiction wouldn't be able to receive relief over those rights. I can't figure out if this case is over contract law (therefore not a GPL issue), over AFPA's rights to any modified source that was created for them as a work-for-hire (therefore not a GPL issue) or is genuinely them asserting rights that they don't own (insane in the membrane).
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Wait a second !
Are the cheerleaders GPL ? Not.
Thanks, that's interesting reading. I'm still puzzled as to what kind of wacky statue gives AFPA standing to receive relief for breach of someone else's rights. That's like... well, there is no appropriate analogy. It's exactly like receiving relief for breach of someone else's rights. The mind boggles as to the size of the can of legal worms that opens up in France.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If I understand the sets of circumstances here, the Edu4 stripped the GPL and copyright notices from the product and pretended it was their own. They even pretended that they didn't distribute the product even though they left it on the computers they installed.
If these claims are true, it would be near impossible for an end user in the US to claim to be the intended beneficiary. This would be because they had no idea of the specific contract obligations until after the fact which would push them more to the incidental beneficiary then the intended. Further more, the VPN software was installed as a support and deployment resource and it's arguable that under English law, if any transfer actually took place or not. I have installed software under these circumstances and haven't transferred it before.
In the french court, all that didn't matter and they were found guilty. Now, in an english court, if the GPL was presented to the end user or the software was marketed/promoted as GPLed software, then it would likely have standing under contract law. I have been arguing for years that the GPL is a contract concerning copyright while entities like the FSF and their fan base attempt to claim it's just copyright. The truth of the matter is that the GPL is a contract affording certain rights to copyright under certain conditions so it's rightfully both. (ie, you cannot do the things copyright law reserves to the copyright owner unless you agree to a contract and fulfill obligations specified in it as they pertain to your use)
This concept of the end user being able to enforce the GPL shouldn't surprise anyone who has been paying attention. In this particular case, the concepts were a little blurry and probably wouldn't survive in a US or UK court. It's sad that the FSF and people like Bruce Perens and Stallman have fought so hard to bury that concept in order to keep in line with their mantra or ideology. IF they hadn't, then the real power of the GPL should have been seen a long time ago.
In this case, I'd call it "a fair one".
Any sane legal system should let ANYBODY sue over ANY illegal thing. Unfortunately, it is not like this in France.
IANAL but I believe in France the only thing you need to be allowed to sue is to have something to gain. Here AFAP have access to the source code to gain, therefore is allowed to sue.
I would like so much the cheerleaders to be free...
All of them when Carol has guaranteed Alice the right to have access to her work covered under the copyright in question. Carol has standing as the original copyright holder and can sue for any number of reasons. Alice can only sue to obtain access to the copyrighted works (the sourcecode) because the GPL explicitly states that Bob has to give them to her if he distributes the binaries. In most cases the relief will be access to the code, legal fees, and possibly some punitive damage amount to remind Bob to play nice in the future.
Contrast that with Carol's reward in the same case - in the US that would be an injunction on distributing their code until they released the code openly and statutory damages of obscene amounts, and legal fees.
Nothing in the information I posted or linked to says anything about concealing the terms of a contract from an intended beneficiary makes the intended beneficiary incidental. If you have other information please post it.
Auto analogy:
Ford sells off-lease cars to independent dealer "Car Emporium", with the contract of sale stating that "Car Emporium" will provide complimentary maintenance for these cars to whoever they resell it to for one year after that sale. "Car Emporium" doesn't do so and conceals the existence of that contract from the buyers. The buyers somehow find out. They _DO_ have standing to sue "Car Emporium", as they were an intended beneficiary of the contract.
The FSF doesn't claim it's "just copyright". They claim it's a license. They also claim if that IF you don't accept the license, THEN what you have is "just copyright". The defendants in this case could have claimed they never accepted the GPL, but that would have put them in hotter water. There likely STILL would have been a cause of action by the plaintiffs (because the defendant had provided them, unknowingly, with illegal copies of software), and there would have been a cause of action by the copyright owner for copyright violation.
The California legal system, the most crackpot in the world!
They didn't sue over the copyright. They sued over license violations that impacted them. The operative words are "that impacted them"; that gives them legal standing.
The license gets its force from the copyright, but that changes nothing. The plaintif had a right which the defendant violated, regardless of the fact that the right in question was granted by a document whose authority came from somebody else's rights.
No. If you link to a GPL licensed library, the executable is a derivative work of that code and hence you must release all of the source code for the executable. Fortunately, many "Free Software" libraries are licensed under the LGPL license, in which case you would be correct so long as you dynamically link the library. You still have to offer source for the library when you distribute it (or provide the source to the library with the binary library) but you do NOT have to release source for your application. There are plenty of commercial and shareware game that use the SDL library for example, which uses the LGPL. IIRC, static linking an LGPL library puts you in the same position as if it were a GPL library and you need to provide/offer source to the whole application.
I read the court ruling, and the issue is not exactly what it seems ; it's basically contract law. First, it appears that everybody (the AFPA and Edu4) was aware that VNC would be used from the beginning and that it used the GNU GPL license. Both the AFPA and Edu4 were initially fine with that, and Edu4 was supposed to keep the original copyright notice and licence and to distribute the source along with the binary. It seems that Edu4 somehow changed their mind and : 1) changed the copyright notice of VNC to replace the name of the legitimate VNC copyright holder by their name, and distributed it under their own terms with the rest of the software 2) did not distribute the modified source, although the AFPA asked 3) hardcoded a secret password in the modified VNC that allowed them to use it as a backdoor (!) What I understand of the ruling (I'm french, but I'm no lawyer) is that by changing the copyright notice of VNC and licensing it along with the bulk of their software under their terms, Edu4 basically sold the AFPA a counterfeit product, which breaks the contract. (And they didn't like the backdoor part either.) I think it makes more sense when you say it that way.
"Any sane legal system should let ANYBODY sue over ANY illegal thing"
Say what?
First let's put this in context: people sue over civil matters - not criminal ones. Indeed the case in question - a GPL violation - is a civil matter. So what you're saying is "if I do something that makes me liable to Bob, Jim should be able to sue me".
What if Bob and I are perfectly happy to resolve the matter out of court? Why, then, would it be any of Jim's business? The civil courts are there as one means of conflict resolution - and most reasonable people consider them a last resort. If you're not part of the dispute, you don't get to decide what method should be used to resolve it.
Again, if we were talking about a criminal offense, that's completely different. It would be considered the business of everyone in the society - which is why neitehr Bob nor Jim sue in that case, but rather the state brings charges (potentially even if Bob would rather they didn't).
AFPA is a customer of Edu4. They buy an software system from them, for a given purpose. When they receive the product, they see that part of the software is not owned by Edu4 and that Edu4 has no right to redistribute this software as they don't comply to GPL and they don't have alternate license to redistribute it. AFPA sue Edu4 for selling them something they have no right to redistribute.
Imagine you go to a shop and buy a MS Office License. You go home and it appears this is an illegal copy. Don't you have the right to sue the shop to get a real one you have paid for ?
To come back to initial case, that's good news as when you are OSS user, you never know if the copyright holder of code you use will bother to take the expenses and risks to go to court to help you.
> We still apologize for French's Mustard, which is not french and can barely be called mustard
How about English Muffins? I'd never seen one before I went to the US.
Max.
Ah sontance yow to a slarp acroz ze face.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My understanding of the GPL is that if they made a patch, changed some code, or added some new code, they would own the copyright to those changes only, the rest is owned by the original creator(s) of that code. The GPL is not a copyright assignment, but a distribution license. This is why some of organizations require copyright assignment to them from community contributors, so that they can sell versions of the software under a different license without having to track down the contributors and make licensing arrangements.
I could very well be wrong, anyone have a link to the FSF explaining this?
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
I believe that law should be respected. full stop. My interest as a citizen of a country is that laws are respected. It is the only point in having a state.
I believe US laws allow a lawyer to sue in the name of someone that may not agree with the lawsuit. I think it is linked with class actions but I am not sure of it.
There are case where you can not sue due to the costs of the lawsuit or due to pressure applied on you. It is classical in employer/employee relation. It is classical in France in the employment-on-demand system which are sometimes completely illegal. But the employee says nothing because he/she does not want to sleep under a bridge.
They receive relief for the breach of their right to have the source code.
Doesn't matter if they are the copyright holders or not, they have rights on this code. Just not copyright.
Sorry, that was a mistake, the distributor only owns the changes, they can't redistribute the work under a different license. But they do still have the power to sue for redistributing their modifications without source code.
Release the following under public domain, GPL, and BSD
10 print "The 50 states of the US"
20 print "Alabama"
What happens next?
It's like somebody else getting in an accident on the highway due to a manufacturing error, and you get to sue the manufacturer for negligence.
It might not be a great analogy, but at least it involves cars.
English muffins are readily available in the UK and other Western countries.
In the same theme, "Danish pastries" (Wienerbrød) and "Brazil nuts". (castanhas-do-Pará) And to extend it
further, the shower water heating unit in my UK bathroom had a model name of "California", even though
I've never seen such a thing in the US.
Never mind "Double-dutch", or indeed "French", when talking about swearing.
Are you english?
Because we just call them muffins over here. Very tasty, not too popular these days though. We also call the US style muffins (cakey things) muffins, just so we can keep things clear.
While it is good to see that the GPL has enough mussel to prevent abuse. However it will also make people feel worried about using GPL software, and possibly being suied from honest mistakes. If you are non-Open Source zealot and doesn't read the GPL like the bible. It is a lot of stuff to take in and understand. And unless you want to pay a lot of money for lawers you may be better off purchasing software and creating closed source apps. As you are more protected.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well, if you read the VNC source EDU4 were using you wont see any copyright notices - they took them out.
AFPA could sue EDU4 because they bought (a license to) a software system from EDU4, and EDU4 provided a forgery - a GPL'd work obfuscated to hide the fact that it was GPL'd.
(EDU4 also included a secret back-door password in the version of VNC they provided, which is presumably why they didn't want to provide the source!)
Watch this Heartland Institute video
"I read the court ruling .. What I understand of the ruling (I'm french, but I'm no lawyer)"
..
Do you mind producing a translation of the ruling so as the rest of us can confirm your understanding. What does this bit say:
- cute -
Considerant que la societe EDU 4 replique:
- qu'elle n'a jamais dissimule l'utilisation d'un logiciel libre VCN, sous license GNU GPL.
- qu'elle n'a jamais souscrit l'obligation d'etre proprietaire des logiciels mis en oeuvre et n'a jamais pretendu etre l'auteur du logiciel GNU-GPL
- qu'elle disposiat la possibilite de modifier corriger et adapter le logiciel libre sous license GNU GPL, de l'integrer dans sa solution informatique et de distribuer le logiciel integrant les modifications qu'elle a apportees
- paste -
'In a landmark ruling that will set legal precedent, the Paris Court of Appeals decided last week that the company Edu4 violated the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL)'
"While it is good to see that the GPL has enough mussel to prevent abuse. However it will also make people feel worried about using GPL software, and possibly being suied from honest mistakes"
Where have people ever been sued for honest mistakes? Why would a case of people wilfully removing the copyright and not providing the source code be a source of worry. What's complicated about: if you distribute GPL progs, you must also include the source, and don't erase other peoples copyright notices. I can understand that and I'm not even a lawyer.
So do English cows also leave behind muffins? Over here in the Colonies, they're often called meadow muffins or cow pies. It could be interesting to know what the actual English call them.
I've always thought that this particular metaphor was a bit weak, since the American "muffin" is a rather small cake. It would make more sense to refer to horse droppings as muffins. But there's often no accounting for slang.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That doesn't matter. They were given binaries of a modified GPL product. Under the terms of the GPL, they are entitled to the source.
IANAL, but if I understand the issue correctly, AFPA sued not for copyright violation but for the rights they as the users would have been granted by the GPL which Edu4 chose to deny them.
Had they gotten VNC directly from the official developers, AFPA would have received certain rights, amongst them access to the source code.
Instead they got a derivative work of VNC from Edu4, but Edu4 did not give them those same rights as required by the GPL. And that is what they went to court for. This is not really about copyright law but about contract law, I would say.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
You do not have to link to anything, I said it because it was absent from your post giving the wrong impression. You cannot be an intended beneficiary of something you know nothing about unless the person making you so steps forward to declare that. When the Edu4 group removed the GPL and copyright information, they also removed you as the intended beneficiary for all intends and purposes. They did this in violation of the law, the contract given to them, and copyright, but it's the effect it would have.
The problem is the acceptance of the contract. I can simply violate copyright law (as was the case of the Edu4 company) and distribute the the software without conveying the GPL or becoming a party to it. Now, in order for you to be a beneficiary of a contract, you have to prove that the contract exists between two or more parties; there is "clear" or "manifest" intent of A and B that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third party (or class of persons to which that party belongs); breach of the contract by either A or B; and, damages to the third-party resulting from the breach.
Now the problem that makes this particular set of circumstances incidental instead of intended is the wording of the GPL itself. Under section 2 of the GPLv3, it specifically states
This one part overrides the intentions of the other sections as far as distribution is concerned within this scope. What Edu4 did was as part of installing the computer hardware, placed the software on site for the sole purpose of them running it remotely for setup and maintenance of the hardware in which they had a contract for. Their use fits under this term in the GPLv3 as the facts are that the sole purpose was to provide you with facilities for running those works (for their installation and maintenance contracts) and, on their behalf, under their direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of the copyrighted material outside their relationship with you (which is what the password protection scheme was supposed to accomplish). So while the company benefited in the performance of the install and maintenance of the software, it was incidental to the fulfillment or performance of a second contract involved and not the GPL.
This is apples and oranges compared to the claims in the french case. A more apt approach if you insist on using this would be Car Emporium resells the cars to individual franchise dealerships and only offers the maintenance to those dealerships while the independent dealerships own or control the cars. The purchaser, Bob's Car Emporium dealership which is a separate legal entity from Car Emporium, would be entitled to the
I can't figure out if this case is over contract law ...
Right now, there's a message directly above from "russotto", giving an auto analogy that might explain it. In general, if A hands X to B with instructions that X is to be delivered to C, and B keeps X rather than delivering it, A and C both have grounds to sue B. The exact wording of the charges will vary depending on the nature of the deliverable product X and the relationships between A, B and C. But B can't just say "I'm not involved in the relationship between A and C, and keep X for personal use.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Anyone releasing code to the masses should make it public domain to remove any legal controversies that may arise over it.
GPL was created specifically to overcome the problems of public domain release.
If your code is public domain, somebody else can appropriate it, make a change (fix a bug, add a feature, etc.) and copyright THAT. Then everybody else, including the original author, is locked out of the derived work. You'll never be able to fix that bug, add that feature (without doing a very different version from scratch), and so on.
GPL (and the other open source licenses) keeps the work under copyright in order to let the original authors enforce licensing terms that prohibit such shenanigans.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Man, you americans are so prudish. We just call it cow shit**
** if thats what you really mean anyway. Our cows don't generally get any kind of packed lunch and can't make baked goods on their own..
While edu4 clearly violated the GPL, what if they had contracted developer time to modified a copy of the code that was in the AFPA instead of providing (and hence distributing) a modified copy?
In that case, no distribution would occur and there would be no license obligation to distribute; edu4 could even put in contract terms that AFP could not distribute any of the code written by edu4; eliminating any need to distribute the source.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"I believe that law should be respected. full stop."
Civil law is not intended to be a rulebook for society. That's what criminal law is for.
"My interest as a citizen of a country is that laws are respected"
Hmm... ok, well the law does not respect your claim that you have an interest in seeing civil law used to resolve disputes of which you are not a part. Do you respect the law in that regard, or only the laws you agree with?
"I believe US laws allow a lawyer to sue in the name of someone that may not agree with the lawsuit"
I suggest you research that belief more fully.
"I think it is linked with class actions"
In some cases, lawyers can try to gain class-action status for a collection of existing suits, and if they succeed the class will likely cover plaintifs who weren't in the original suits. However, each individaul still has the right to exclude himself from being a plaintif in the suit.
This is a matter of administrative expediency and is actually a compromise against how the law "ought to" operate; and even so, a plaintif with standing had to be involved to start; and even so, if you don't want to be part of the suit you don't have to.
In any case, class action suits as implemented in the American law system are anything but an example of how a sane system might work. The only party that benefits from most class action suits is the lawyer; the plaintifs who don't opt out typically get $10 coupons for the defendant's product or service.
And any marginally intelligent person would understand why AFPA has standing.
... some crazed babbling about how the decision is wrong, from the GPL's buddy and pal, Alex Terekhov, SUPAH 'TARD!
The GPL stipulates that receivers of binaries compiled from GPL'd code must be able to receive the code from the distributor. This means that Edu4 owes the source to AFPA when they deliver the binaries. AFPA did not receive the source, so they sued for it.
If you pay for a car and it's not delivered in a reasonable time, wouldn't you sue?
You are an idiot of the first order, though, so I suspect that you would not sue. Nor will you understand any of the answers you've received.
Thanks, that's interesting reading. I'm still puzzled as to what kind of wacky statue gives AFPA standing to receive relief for breach of someone else's rights. That's like... well, there is no appropriate analogy. It's exactly like receiving relief for breach of someone else's rights. The mind boggles as to the size of the can of legal worms that opens up in France.
Not sure, but it probably honors Jerry Lewis or Charlie Chaplin.
And if it were a criminal offense, the problem with allowing anyone to sue is that you run into double jeopardy issues. Assume I broke a law, and I know that someone may sue me to enforce the law, instead I get a puppet organization to sue me first, do a poor job and intentionally loose the case. Alternately, a well-intentioned, but incompetent activist group could arrive at the same result inadvertently. Either way I am now off scot-free, assuming you don't allow double jeopardy.
On the other hand assume that you do allow double jeopardy, then a well motivated group of people could then continue to bring the same case against me over and over again though different puppet organizations, even if I was innocent. Not to mention that it would require a constitutional amendment to allow this.
I've thought about this quite a bit with regard to corrupt politicians whose district attorney will not bring a case against them. The only recourse in those situations is to hope they run afoul of laws in a higher jurisdiction (state or federal), who don't have problems charging them with a crime. This situation bothers me enough that I do think it would be worthwhile creating some additional method of bringing charges against politicians, but it would have to be devised carefully for it to work.
Hmm... ok, well the law does not respect your claim that you have an interest in seeing civil law used to resolve disputes of which you are not a part. Do you respect the law in that regard, or only the laws you agree with?
US laws seem to be like this. I do my best to respect the law as I understand it. The US legal system not allowing me to complain for an unlawful event is an other matter. And I respect it as it is. It does not means I do want it to change. (Well, I do not care that much about US laws)
You are interested in non-criminal law being respected. You do not want everybody to pass when traffic lights are red. It is not criminal laws but you still want it to be enforced.
In any case, class action suits as implemented in the American law system are anything but an example of how a sane system might work. The only party that benefits from most class action suits is the lawyer; the plaintifs who don't opt out typically get $10 coupons for the defendant's product or service.
I think it is all about incentive. No one is going to sue for 10 bucks but a lawyer will sue for million he will get. If I was a company perhaps I will think about it before trying something illegal no individual will complain about.
I do not read US newspapers enough to see how it applies in practice but it seems to have nice properties.
Okay, we are returning "Freedom Fries" back to their original name "French Fries". Happy now?
Actually, some people claim they're Belgian. Others even think the first people who fried potatoes were the Spaniards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries#Culinary_origin
"The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
"You are interested in non-criminal law being respected. You do not want everybody to pass when traffic lights are red. It is not criminal laws but you still want it to be enforced."
I notice you went out of your way to say "non-criminal" rather than claiming that traffic violations are civil, so I assume you already know that you're muddying the waters.
Traffic violations are prosecuted by the government, not raised in private law suits. In court, nobody is named as a plaintif but rather the government is the prosecutor. It is true that minor tickets ("infractions") are often referred to as "not a crime"... but then more serious offenses are classified as misdemeanors or even felonies.
Whatever you choose to call them, traffic tickets are not civil law matters. If you apply the arguments I've made in my previous posts to traffic laws, you will find that they are much more like criminal offenses than civil offenses. I don't have the time today to do legal research and see if they're technically part of the body of criminal law, so if you like you can consider them a third category of law. This does not change the fact that the kind of law you sue over -- civil law -- does not include running a red.
"I think it is all about incentive. No one is going to sue for 10 bucks but a lawyer will sue for million he will get. If I was a company perhaps I will think about it before trying something illegal no individual will complain about."
If the individual damages were really only $10, that would be a good point. The reality is, most plaintifs in class-action suits never get compensation anywhere near enough to cover real damages.
Nor do I believe that most companies are really deterred by being ordered to give out a bunch of coupons that will bring them more business from the people they wronged. By contrast, in an individual lawsuit if the judge and jury want to send a message to the defendant they can award punitive damages which really do hurt.
Of course the court might impose injunctions on them as a result of a class-action. They could do that in an individual suit as well.
So are you and I. Can we sue Edu4 as well?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Then anyone who's not a complete retard should be able to explain why AFPA has standing, while sub-retards and non intelligent people like you and I don't. Want to take a stab at it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Hang on just a second. Does the AFPA (the plaintiffs) own the copyright on the GPLd source?
This is the thing that many, many people do not remember when debating issues of intellectual property: contract trumps copyright. Plain and simple. It may not be right, but it's the law in just about every country I can think of.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I notice you went out of your way to say "non-criminal" rather than claiming that traffic violations are civil, so I assume you already know that you're muddying the waters.
In fact I just didn't knew. I thought it might be different, something as a part of it is federal.
This does not change the fact that the kind of law you sue over -- civil law -- does not include running a red.
I agree it does not (neither in the US nor in France). But it could make sense.
By contrast, in an individual lawsuit if the judge and jury want to send a message to the defendant they can award punitive damages which really do hurt.
I agree with that. My point is that as an individual I would not sue for 10$ hoping the judge/jury will award punitive damage. Whereas if I am a lawyer my whole point will be to get punitive damage. In one case it will stay as it is in the other one someone may (or may not) do it.
I dont like lawyer, but I like unfair companies even less. :)
In brief, I believe that being able to sue for any illegal activities whether you are concerned or not may improve the overall good. (Being honest, it may also lead to a lot of junk and stupid trial)
It's an idiosyncracy of French law. The plaintiff here was a customer who did, yes, successfully sue for the source code. It probably couldn't happen in the US or UK.
They didn't sue to obtain the source code, and I think this would probably hold up in a U.S. court. AFPA were countersuing because the they were being invalidly sued for breach of contract. They contracted with EDU3 to provided them with certain software. EDU3 provided them with software that EDU3 had no license to distribute (because they were violating the terms of the GPL.) EDU3 also included a security backdoor that would allow them access AFPA's computers.
AFPA noted that EDU3 was providing them with counterfeit software in violation of copyright law and refused to pay them. EDU3 sued AFPA for breech of contract. AFPA counter sued. In this case the appeals judge determined that the AFPA had the right to terminate the contract without payment, and that because there was no breech of contract by AFPA the counter suit was upheld. EDU3 doesn't get paid, and EDU3 must pay AFPA's legal bills.
I would certainly hope that in the U.S. and in the U.K. that you are allowed to sue someone that provides you with counterfeit software.
Support SETI@home
If I understand the sets of circumstances here, the Edu4 stripped the GPL and copyright notices from the product and pretended it was their own. They even pretended that they didn't distribute the product even though they left it on the computers they installed.
If these claims are true, it would be near impossible for an end user in the US to claim to be the intended beneficiary.
I think you might be wrong about that. Whether the GPL was available to AFPA or not, EDU4 sold AFPA a hacked copy of software that EDU4 had no license to distribute. AFPA was under no obligation to pay them for counterfeit software, so when EDU4 sued AFPA for breech of contract, that suit was without basis. Therefore, even in the US, AFPA would have had standing to counter sue to recover legal fees. I think holders of the VNC copyrights should sue as well for breech of contract. After all, a French court has already held that EDU4 was in violation.
Support SETI@home
Under the terms of the GPL, they are entitled to the source.
So are you and I. Can we sue [AFPA] as well?
Maybe. There are two ways to be compliant: ship the code with the product, or make it available to all. The latters applies to you and me; both the latter and the former apply to Edu4. They therefore have a much better case to make.
It's best to leave these lawsuits to the recipient or the copyright holder, but it is true that everyone in the world has the right that AFPA trampled on. Perhaps a class-action suit would be appropriate.
If they sold you a copy of their altered VNC without providing source, then, yes. If they didn't, then no.
A big part of the comments above hashed this out. A company distributing GPL software has (now) three options: 1, Provide the source with the binaries (say, on the same CD), 2, Include a notice that offers anyone anywhere the opportunity to get the source from them at a nominal cost, or 3. Post it on a server somewhere and include the URL with the documentation (GPLv3 only).
Possibly, as they messed up and didn't do 1, then they could argued that they are required to 2 or 3, but that is stretching things.
This case, in French law at least, has provided a precedent for forcing a company missusing GPL code to provide you with the source, and a GPL licence for it. Could be a useful precedent!
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Slow down a minute.
I'm not talking about contractual obligations between two separate parties. I'm talking about the notion presented in the article and summery that an end user can sue as a beneficiary of a contract between the copyright holders of VNC and Edu4 under the circumstances present in this situation. In US and UK courts, the beneficiary would have to prove that a contract existed, that they were the/an intended beneficiary and not an incidental beneficiary of the contract, A breach of the contract happened and harm was a result of it.
Now, an easy out in this would be is if Edu4 claimed that it installed the particular VNC software to provide you with facilities for running those software, exclusively on their behalf, under their direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of their copyrighted material outside their relationship with them. This is covered by section 2 of the GPL and would prevent both a contract between two separate parties as well as AFPA being an intended beneficiary. In other words, they wouldn't have a case because the VPN software was for the sole purpose of Edu4 setting up and supporting the hardware.
There would still be copyright violations because they removed the copyright and the GPL notice from the unmodified or non-derivative work. But the source distribution could have been satisfied with just a link to the VNC website. The modification wouldn't have needed to be distributed. What I understand happened in this case, when AFPA withheld payment, they also canceled the contract and because the VNC software remained on site (in the US or UK, after the contract was in dispute, there would be no legal right for Edu4 to enter their systems and remove it), it constituted a part of the sale. That wouldn't necessarily be the case in US court. If I as a landlord lock you out of your apartment and place your items in storage for non-payment of rent or something, they do not just become my property. This is despite it being illegal for me to do so in the first place. The same would go for code, you can't be tricked or manipulated to give up or license your copyrighted works which is what this essentially amounted to.
Now something that throws a wrench in the entire ordeal is that the violation happened in 2000. The GPLv3 wasn't official then and it the exception wouldn't have been in place at the time of the violation. However, it would be now if someone attempted to do the same under the same circumstances with GPLv3 licensed software.
My bessie is ever so happy with her spiderman lunchbox. She did whinge a bit in the beginning. Something about hooves and oposable digits, but I never listen to the cow.
Edu4 = edu-quatre = educateur
Do ignore the other reply you got from that vulgar poster.
It's a cow pat.
As long as you keep in mind that fries aren't French either, but Belgian...
Who ever thought of the term 'French fries' anyway?
When the Edu4 group removed the GPL and copyright information, they also removed you as the intended beneficiary for all intends and purposes. They did this in violation of the law, the contract given to them, and copyright, but it's the effect it would have.
You evidently understand the justification for the lawsuit better than you want to let on.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
And you obviously do not. Or at least your refusing to see the point being made.
I'm not saying a law wasn't broken, I'm not saying that they didn't have a case in a french court. I am saying that in a US or UK court, if they removed the contract between VNC and Edu4, then any third party could not know they were an intended third party beneficiary and wouldn't have a case. Only the copyright owner could bring suit because they would be the only party that could prove a contract existed between the two parties (GPL) that intended to benefit the third party. In the US and UK, you cannot say this product is typically licenses this way so it should be here too. You have to prove that a contract between VNC and Edu4 existed and that you were an intended beneficiary. With the GPL and copyright removed, only the copyright holder can declare it or the contract existed unless Edu4 volunteers the information at a later date. Baring an admision from Edu4, you simply cannot prove a contract between two other parties that you were an intended beneficiary of without the copyright owners.
What that means is, if I or you strip the GPL and copyright from a product and distribute it, the end user which is a third party will not have a legal standing for the case in the first place without the original contractors (read copyright owners). Once the copyright owners get involved for the fulfillment of their contract, the third party suit is not allowed.
Furthermore, I'm saying that under the current GPL, Edu4 could have installed the VNC software solely for their convenience and discretion and no software transfer would have taken place (section 2 of the GPLv3). The case in question revolves around a 2000 incident so it would be governed under the GPLv2's statements which doesn't have provisions for running software remotely. However, I'm not sure that wouldn't have changed in US court seeing how the VNC GPL notice claims or later versions. So it would appear that the third party claim would/could have disappeared under section 2's terminology of the GPLv3 when it came into effect.
Well, I never heard of them...but it seems I'm in the minority...perhaps I had one when I was young and never liked them, so I never had them again...
Max.
> Are you english?
Yes. Liked in Somerset for most of my life, so perhaps they don't have them there much, or I didn't like them or something. Seems I was mistaken. Apologies to all the septics who took offence.
Max.