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.
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!
Read the article: AFPA - the education agency - sued edu4 - a company working for this agency - because edu4 did not release the source code to its modified VNC software.
The court essentially said that AFPA was correct, that the GPL should have been upheld by edu4, and that the source code should be released by edu4 to its client, the AFPA.
Essentially, this is good news: as far as France is concerned, the GPL has been challenged, and upheld in court. Modifications done by a private company to a GPL software should therefore be available for all.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
So they teach about porn?
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
"should therefore be available for all"
No, not to all, only to their clients. What their clients do with it in turn is up to them.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
...and those who can't be bothered to RTFA, while rushing madly to post first, are doomed to look like morons (or trolls, at best).
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.
No, not to all, only to their clients.
Not according to the GPL. If you distribute GPL software to anyone, then you must extend the offer of source code to all third parties.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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?
You're the kind of guy who sees a good and innocent side of genocide, aren't you?
I am the lawn!
(self-reply). I'm no Pamela Jones, but here's a quick summary:
After seeing the 21SEP04 emergency judgement at Bobigny high claims court
After seing the 21SEP04 appeal by the defendant
After seing the 22DEC06 decision whee the court agreed (in essence) for hearing expert opinion ..
After seeing the expert's memo from 25APR08
After seeing the last demands from the defendant
After seeing the last demands from the plaintiff
THE COURT,
considering that all the due process (from 2000 onwards) has been followed
considering that the call for tender (CCAP -- administrative part) was correctly structured
considering that the Validation of Aptitude phase of the contract was botched (3 times adjourned, presumably because of technical issues), all the way from january 2001 to 21DEC01, but was finally declared done (starting the verification in regular service(VSR) phase); that the plaintiff did start to question the legal status of the software at that time;
considering that AFPA started to question the sincerity of the 25MAY00 tender, (etc.) and that an offer to bargain and drop charges for EUR 228674 has been offered by AFPA; that finally given all that went wrong, the contract had been terminated 4JUN02
Considering that Defendant sued AFPA for breach of contract because of the contract termination
Considering that this Court already judged, on 22DEC06, that AFPA was entitled to getting its money back,
Considering that the expert did perform his work correctly,
Considering that AFPA's grief is not the use of Free Software, but the stealth use of a version of VNC modified in breach of the licensing terms (GPL), thus performing the act of counterfeiting, and the use of a backdoor password ("en introduisant un mot de passe connu uniquement de EDU 4 et non modifiable, permettant ainsi a EDU 4 de prendre le controle de tout poste en court-circuitant le mecanisme affiche de protection livre par EDU 4") [whoa, they really did this?? ] , and never did tell AFPA any of this
Considering that EDU4 pretends it never hid the use of GPL, (etc.)
Considering that EDU4 says the alleged defect on access control cannot justify the termination of contract, given that this defect was to be fixed within 2-3 months,
Considering that proof was given that AFPA did know on 03AUG01 VNC and GPL software was to be delivered,
Considering that on 27SEP01 EDU4 delivered licensing documentations which did not tell anything about GPL,
Considering that on 21DEC01 the VA was pronounced only subject to EDU4 clarifying the legal status of all included software,
Considering that on 04APR02, EDU4 alleged it never modified the VNC software, never breached GPL or copyright terms (except for set-up
software, clear delimitation of EDU4 and VNC parts, etc.)
Considering that the expert was unable to confirm the 04APR02 allegations on the materials delivered in Decembre 2001 (VNC was hidden, the
license is not identifiable, the properties of the vncviewer.exe and winvnc.exe files had been altered, hiding the AT&T Research Labs name except for the vnc hooks.dll file,
Considering that EDU4 failed to provide AFPA with the modified source code, which it had pledged to do on 15JAN02, thus voiding the allegation of a proper [GPL] delivery by 5APR02
Considering that it appears from all facts that EDU4 failed to live up to its contractual obligations [...] caused the copyright notices to
disappear from VNC, etc.
Considering that AFPA is entitled, according to art. 1184 from Civil Code, to terminate the contract; that nothing being validated, EDU4 is
not entitled to any payment
Considering that EDU4, failing to prove its allegations, has to pay for all expertise and procedural costs (experts + 8K EUR)
BECAUSE OF THOSE MOTIVES, THE COURT ... OVERTURNS the original judgement, and, deciding anew,
declares AFPA (plaintiff) is founded in its demands
declares EDU4 (defendant)'s claims are thrown out
sentences EDU4 to pay AFPA 8K EUR
sentences EDU4 to pay for all judicial and expertise costs, and that the appeal costs are to be paid for according to art. 699 of civil procedural code.
That is absolutely fine with the people who release their code under GPL. They want it in GPL applications, not Shareware.
Feel free to release your own Shareware compatible libraries.
Their goals are different from yours.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
The GPL garanties access to the source code for the USER. AFPA is the user here.
Were you just as eager when M$ sued russian schools about their pirated Windows versions?
In THAT case, the one sued was a real education institution.
In THIS case, the one sued is a for profit company.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
No, not to all, only to their clients.
Not according to the GPL. If you distribute GPL software to anyone, then you must extend the offer of source code to all third parties.
Wrong. Look people it's fucking simple, if you distribute GPL, you bring along the source. You have no obligation to distribute it to anybody else than those you distributed the software to. Meaning if A buys software from B, B must give source to A, C has no way of demanding the source from either. How is this difficult?
I am the lawn!
how exactly are they shutting the organizaton down? The GPL was violated, and the AFPA refused reconciliation. BTW, even Microsoft didn't let its GPL violation go to court, it instead released the violating code after some negotiation.
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.
It means very little to other European countries. Different laws, different judicial systems etc...
I'm new to GPL; Do I misunderstand? You aren't required to release everything that links to GPL libraries, right? Just any changes you make to the libraries themselves? Couldn't you continue to keep your shareware source closed, even if you use a GPL library?
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.
Presumably they are only going to distribute the binaries (and therefore the source) to their clients. There is nothing stopping the clients from then giving the source code away for free but unless one of them does then the only way to get it is to buy their product.
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.
Propagation of this misinformation, specifically, is the reason the GPL is so misunderstood: too many people out there that think GPL is the same thing as public domain and derive a sense of entitlement from it.
General Public License != Public Domain
Reality is prettier inside my head...
You're both almost right.
Empahsis mine.
Basically, edu4 could have either distribute the source with the binaries or accompany the binaries with a written offer to distribute the source to any third parties. (I suppose they technically could have done both and still be in compliance, but that seems rather redundant)
My blog
note: some of my assertions are incorrect, based on the summary and posted before I read the article. oops.
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!
It's difficult because it depends how you "give source".
If you go for the written offer to provide source rather than just providing the source upfront then you do in fact have an obligation to provide the source to all third parties.
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.
Well, it seems the judge was equally ambivalent, given the derisory payment demanded from the offender of 8,000 (which for those who count in US dollars amounts to about $11,616) plus court costs. I'd say that was pretty much a slap on the wrist.
No it doesn't. The GPL says if you provide a binary to someone you must offer them a way to get the source code, and if they redistribute the binary to someone else you must also honor your offer of source code to that third party (ad infinitum). If someone doesn't have your binary, they don't have any claim to your code.
Thanks, AC. Very informative.
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.
I'm new to GPL; Do I misunderstand? You aren't required to release everything that links to GPL libraries, right? Just any changes you make to the libraries themselves? Couldn't you continue to keep your shareware source closed, even if you use a GPL library?
I am not a lawyer, but I can tell you that if you want to use someone else's code, no matter what the license, in your own product, then you better read the license very carefully and don't rely on posts on Slashdot. Asking a lawyer might be a good idea
That said, if you use a library that is licensed under GPL and not dual licensed, then you cannot publish your code except under the GPL license. That's it. There are libraries published under the LGPL, which has different rules.
mod parent up. The original post on this thread was just plain FUD.
You must:
1) give the modified GPL source code as well as the binaries to the person who is your client.
You have the option to
2) give the modified GPL source code to your client, and everybody else if you choose to.
The second option is not mandatory.
The Internet has no garbage collection
2 more left for them
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;
- [...]
Nothing I said would apply to software in the public domain.
The enemies of Democracy are
The criterion is that if your work is a derivative work of the GPL'd code, then your work must also be released under the GPL.
In many jurisdictions an app that links to GPL libraries would be at serious risk of infringing. There might possibly be a situation where it would not be at risk...if the app was written first and the GPL library modified later to conform to the linkage expected by the app, then likely the app would not be considered a derivative work.
For specifics, please contact a lawyer.
Ah yes, thanks, I forgot about the "one of" clause.
I really don't see how that makes my post 'FUD' as all these others are claiming, especially since a link to a website containing the source -- even if it isn't your website, it just contains your modifications -- is sufficient.
The enemies of Democracy are
Not sure I understand you. The Adult Education organisation was the plaintiff, the winner, in this case, complaining that the IT company they hired to set something up for them, used and modified GPL code (VNC) but did not, as required by the GPL, give them the modified sources. Presumably, the IT company was wanting to keep the AE organisation beholden to them for maintenance rather than, as the GPL hopes, being able to do it themselves or find someone else to do it if the wanted to. I.e. the GPL wanted to help the organisation you support, and the courts have just backed it up.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
You're the kind of guy who sees a good and innocent side of genocide, aren't you?
Seems like a good start to solving our human overpopulation problems!
Except that most people don't distribute source code along with the binary distribution. It's not "give the modified source code as well as the binaries", it's "give the modified sourcecode along with the binaries".
Now it's arguable that "A URL to a page with a tar.bz2" is a medium customary to software interchange, but it is also arguable that a URL is simply "a written offer to provide" sourcecode (which fits b, not a).
There is no option to provide a written offer which is valid only to those who have received binaries from you, so it's "give at the same time" or "give to everyone".
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
AFPA were permitted to unilaterally terminate the contract (which is what the appeal was about) and so not pay EDU4 for the work. That looks like over a million euro -- hardly just "a slap on the wrist".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
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.
People misunderstanding a document that is several pages of dense legalese and is commonly advocated by people who have never read it? I'm absolutely shocked that this could be the case!
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yeah! We only equate GPL with public domain when we grab someone else's public domain code and slap the GPL on it! This isn't at all like that!
We? Who's we?
Did you steal someone's source and slapped the GPL on it? I know I didn't!
(yes, yes, I know IHBT,IHL,HAND)
No sig for the moment.
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...
Not quite. There is also the question of whether you distribute the GPL'd code. If you create, for example, a device driver for Linux that is binary-only but not a derived work of the Linux kernel, then you may distribute it without having to comply with the GPL. This is basic copyright law: the GPL has absolutely no way of enforcing anything different. Because the license you choose is not GPL-compatible, however, you are then prevented from distributing the Linux kernel. To give a concrete example, nVidia can distribute their Linux drivers in a binary-only format, but Linux distributions can not redistribute them along with the Linux kernel (they typically work around this by providing a simple post-install script that grabs them from the nVidia site and installs them).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us would have elected to start with lawyers, politicians, and telephone sanitisers before depopulating along ethnic lines.
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.
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.
They are all for profit institutions. The only difference is in who makes the profit- investors verses employees. Just because the state funds one of them shouldn't change the reality of what is happening. I know of teachers making over 100k a year teaching grade school and only working 9 months of the year. They will get another 7% increase within the next year because of a contract they negotiated while on strike.
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.
If you use any GPL software as part of your software, you have to GPL it, too
It's slightly more subtle than that. Product A is GPL'd. Product B uses A. Product B does not have to be GPL'd, but:
If B is not a derived work of A then you can distribute B under whatever license you like, but you can not distribute A at all unless B is under a GPL-compatible license (and that applies to all downstream distributors: no one is allowed to distribute B and A together).
If you statically link or make modifications, you do.
Not true. The LGPL has an explicit case for this. You have to distribute your modifications, but you do not have to distribute source code for things that are linked against LGPL'd code ever. If you are statically linking, then you have to distribute object code, allowing end users to link your code against a new version of the LGPL'd code, but you don't have to distribute the source code.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"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).
Nah; you're not flamebait. You just want a license to do more with the code than he GPL grants. You should ask the copyright owners for such a license; they might be willing to give it to you. They might also ask a price for such a license. But note that you don't need a license to merely use GPL'd code. Unless you change the code, just running it on your computer is the primary use of such code, so the courts will agree that you have the right to do that (if you paid the vendor's asking price). You only need a license if you want to do something not allowed by copyright law, such as modify the code or distribute copies.
I know the GPL people strongly/violently disagree.
In most of the world, it not the GPL people; it's the copyright law. You have no right to make "derived works" at all without a license. The GPL is in part a license to make derived works. It imposes a condition that you apparently don't like: If you distribute your code, you must give recipients the same license. But the GPL is a standard sort of copyright license, since without such a license, you can't do much of anything with a copyrighted work except read it (or run it if it's computer code). This has nothing to do with violence; it's just a fact of life with the copyright mess we have right now. But you can't just take a copyrighted work, modify it, and sell it as your own work. Unless what you're doing fits the list of exceptions in your local laws (such as small excerpts, educational use, and parody), you can't legally do that. You need a license from the copyright holder to do more than what copyright law permits. And the copyright holder can put any conditions on your use that they like (as long as those conditions are otherwise legal).
(N.B.: IANACL, but there are some here who can explain all this in much more detail. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
ROFLMAO! The Adult Education organization was the plaintiff you r-tard.
Browse at -1 to keep an eye out for abuses.
A good one, and not without logic: If you take software licensed under the GPL, modify it, remove all the traces of the GPL and sell it on claiming that you wrote it, then this is an act of counterfeiting. Yes, that makes sense.
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."
I can't be bothered to RTFA, do they get to keep the hardware too?
FGD 135
"Let's face it: If the source code of a shareware app is released, it'll be cloned and ripped off within days."
Right, and what you're wanting to do by using GPL code without adhering to the rules is different from "ripping off" how?
It was released so it can be used by others who are playing the same game, openness.
You want people to pay for your closed source app, not to give your source back to the community, this is a totally different arena and not what the GPL'ers were aiming at. Sorry, open the source or write your own.
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.
Nope, sorry, I think it's you that misunderstands.
BSD licensed products cannot use GPL components as they are not under the GPL. BSD code can be brought into a GPL project, but GPL code and GPL libraries cannot be used by BSD.
"If B is not a derived work of A then you can distribute B under whatever license you like, but you can not distribute A at all unless B is under a GPL-compatible license (and that applies to all downstream distributors: no one is allowed to distribute B and A together)."
What is a derived work is a contentious issue, but using dynamic links does NOT absolve you of the need to go GPL, regardless of your distribution policy. Just shipping things on separate media doesn't stop you being a derivative work.
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.
Read the GPL, and the relevant bits of copyright law, and what I wrote, again. I'm too lazy to check the GPL now, but I seem to remember Clause 5 being the relevant one. BSD licensed code can use GPL'd libraries. The BSD-licensed code remains BSD licensed, but the combined work must be under the GPL (actually, even that's not quite true; it must be under a license which is semantically equivalent to the GPL, but not necessarily the GPL, although from a practical standpoint that's a distinction without a difference).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You're getting into a VERY grey area there. GPL v2 clause 3 (just after subsection c) -
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Now, if your code is dynamically linked at build time and won't even start without the GPL library, I would argue that you're not in the clear. If, however, you code something to dynamically load up a GPL library at runtime, if it's available, and otherwise use some other facility, and the general operation of your program is much the same... well you're probably OK. Probably.
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.
Stallman wants everyone to refer to USA as GNU/USA?
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 think it might depend on GPL 2 vs 3, and I am unsure which one VNC is distributed under. Its my understanding that with GPL v2, you have two choices:
1)Distribute the modified source code with the binaries (i.e. on the CD or in a folder in the tar), ending your obligations.
2)Provide a written offer to distribute the modified source upon request. This needs to be on a physical medium such as a CD-ROM, but you can collect payment for shipping and materials. You cannot just post a link to your FTP site, but you can offer that for those that do not wish to wait for a CD to ship.
With the GPL3, I believe you can just have users download the software from FTP, HTTP, or git or whatever. I'm not sure how long you need to maintain this though. Also, remember that the GPL2 was written in 1991, when downloading source code over the net was far less of an option for most.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
"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.
If you are talking about the case I am thinking of, wasn't it the Russian government that initiated the investigation and then tried and convicted the teacher, with MS stating they did not wish to sue the individual? Please correct me if I am wrong or thinking of a different case.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
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.
Unless you change the code, just running it on your computer is the primary use of such code, so the courts will agree that you have the right to do that (if you paid the vendor's asking price). You only need a license if you want to do something not allowed by copyright law, such as modify the code or distribute copies.
Just to clarify, this is incorrect. You can modify GPL code in any way you want. The restrictions of the GPL only apply to distribution of the software. If you don't give the software to anyone else, you don't have to give anyone else your modified source code either. Also note that this aspect has the potential to be abused by large organizations that use the software internally, even when "internally" means offices in 20 different countries.
He's the guy in the back who yells, "Population control!"
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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're both almost right.
Empahsis mine.
Basically, edu4 could have either distribute the source with the binaries or accompany the binaries with a written offer to distribute the source to any third parties. (I suppose they technically could have done both and still be in compliance, but that seems rather redundant)
Sorry I presumed that people would understand that if you don't want the source the distributer can't force it upon you. I didn't feel the need to clarify this simple logic.
I am the lawn!
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
Propagation of this misinformation, specifically, is the reason the GPL is so misunderstood: too many people out there that think GPL is the same thing as public domain and derive a sense of entitlement from it.
General Public License != Public Domain
Um, if Alice was distributing binaries of public domain source code, no-one would have any rights whatsoever to request source code from Alice. The rights of recipients of GPL software are considerably stronger than the rights of recipients of public domain software -- but there are obligations to go with those rights. This is what seems to confuse people: they think they are entitled to the rights without the obligation.
Pirate Party UK
Isn't this the first time the GPL has proven enforcible by a CUSTOMER demanding the source? All the stuff I recall so far is the COPYRIGHT HOLDER doing the enforcement.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
People misunderstanding a document that is several pages of dense legalese and is commonly advocated by people who have never read it? I'm absolutely shocked that this could be the case!
I'm absolutely shocked! The <set of people that do X> intersects with the set of irresponsible people! How could this thing be!
I think you'll find that, despite the inevitable idiots, most people who advocate the GPL have read it and do understand it. The GPL is actually very readable. Have you read the terms and conditions for your credit card recently? Or the fine print of your mortgage? The GPL doesn't have a patch on that pile of dense legalese.
Pirate Party UK
Personally, I hate getting first post because mods are quick to downmod without thinking, no matter how informed or insightful the comment is. If you're a subscriber you get a chance to RTFA before the story is posted, which is a boon becuse you actually get to RTFA before the FA is slashdotted.
Although lately the first posts I've gotten haven't been abused like that, but I still try to wait for the "frosty piss gnaa" post that inevetably turns up as fp before I hit "submit" with my comment.
With some stories the article conveys no information that isn't in the summary. If you're familiar with the GPL, this would be one of them. Obviously either the GP has no clue or he's a programmer for some proprietary software company.
Free Martian Whores!
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..
That is only if you do not give the source code with the distribution of the binary or distribute the source code as the binary.
You only have to distribute the source code to those you distribute to unless you choose to distribute the source code at a separate time. If you chose to do it at a separate time, you have more obligations to more people depending on how and where it's distributed.
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.
They went about it wrongly. The GPL (version 3 to be exact) specifically allows for that type of scenario to happen. The problem is that Edu4 didn't secure the software enough to remain within the scope of the GPL's exception. Section 2 of the GPLv3, says that you can have a third party run the program solely for you and you do not need to convey any source code that you own the copyright for. Your have to also control access to the program and so on and make sure it's used at your direction. I believe the original intent is to use cloud services or web hosting and so on but a tool to aid in the setup and maintenance of computer hardware could easily fit in there.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that was a potential of abuse. I would say it's as intended.
The four freedoms that are supposedly underlying the GPL is about your rights as a user who may become a distributor. I find with that in mind, even with Stallman's print driver story as justification for the GPL and free software, companies using it internally would be as intended.
I would say that I think it's a loss of valuable improvements when something like that happens. I would also say it isn't necessarily good when a company keeps it's improvements. But I find it completely in line with the intent of the GPL and the movement behind it. I guess we could just call that bug a feature.
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.
I don't see what the problem is between you and the average GPL fan.
You see a lot of useful programming libraries out there, and want to use them. It doesn't matter specifically that they're GPLed, only that you are unwilling to pay the price to use them. For some libraries, the price is monetary; for the GPL, it's some restrictions on redistribution. As far as I'm concerned (although Stallman would disagree), your only fault here is that you apparently want to use other people's copyrighted software in ways they don't allow, and that you call a license stupid because it does what the people who wrote the software want and not what you want.
You complain about what happens when you release source, but this is exactly what the authors of GPLed code want to have happen to their programs. I'm not saying that one side or the other is right, but you have opposed goals here. It's no surprise that you disagree about the licenses you want.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
All true, and I'm not saying that it necessarily needs to be changed. First of all, you'd have to draw a line somewhere about what would be considered too big to be internal use, and that line would have to be rather arbitrary. Some people would consider it abuse for a company like Sony to distribute modified GPL software to all of its child companies, and some people wouldn't. The system can never be perfect, you can only try to make it as good as you can.
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
I would suggest that as long as the companies are owned by the same parent company and that parent company takes an active role in the direction of the company, it could be considered within the company.
Let's look at Verizon for instance. They separate their wireless cell phone operations from their pots and broad band or traditional services. Keeping the code within their wireless division would be ok but moving it to their POTs line of Business should be a distribution. However, if they distribute the source code with the binary packages, then their source code distribution obligations are satisfied according to the GPL which leaves us in the same boat outside of Verizon.
So even if we forced source distribution between sister companies and stretched out divisions under the control of a parent company, there are ways that they can comply and we still do not benefit. Again, I think this is as intended.
"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.
So let me get this straight. You're pissed off that people won't share their code for free with you so you can use it to make software to charge other people for?
Property is theft.
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?"
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.
No, you're not spouting flamebait. You're just someone who like to make money off of other peoples' work. I believe the term is "entrepreneur" which (if taken literally) is French for burglar (one who enters and takes).
If you want to use a GPL library in your shareware, you can always contact the authors and ask if you can buy a commercial license to the code. From what I've seen of other shareware that has stolen GPL code, the GPL code is 99% of the work. If that's the case, they'll probably want 99% of the take. Google "video conversion software" and 90% of the results will contain ffmpeg without attribution or source.
The other option is that you can write your own damn libraries for use in your shareware.
Support SETI@home
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
Release the following under public domain, GPL, and BSD
10 print "The 50 states of the US" 20 print "Alabama"
What happens next?
You get sued by a user of the public domain version, because you neglected to include a disclaimer of warranty.
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.
I believe the term is "entrepreneur" which (if taken literally) is French for burglar (one who enters and takes).
Might I suggest you stop "believing" stuff and just look it up instead? There's references online going as far back as the 13th century where the word is used for someone who organises thing, often in the context of public works. The same word occurs in a lot of different languages, although oddly the "entre" (lit. "between") has been exchanged for "under". So in english we have the undertaker(different meaning), but the verb "to undertake" is quite close to the spot. In dutch we have the "ondernemer", in german the "Unternehmer". All of them refer to a person who takes responsibility for a job that needs to be done, often related to construction work. The economic meaning of someone who is in charge of a company developed later.
wiki link
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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.
AFPA is a public non profit educational organization, financed by french government, approachable free of charge for people who loose their job.
General Public License != Public Domain
It does if you're talking about crypto export rules according to the Wassenaar Arrangement, which defines "in the public domain" very differently from how US copyright law does. See this
http://outcampaign.org/
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.