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
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!
People should be able to release code they wrote with whatever conditions they like. And hey, it's the case (for once something positive).
There is a reason why GPL is so successful and there is so little Public Domain code. The GPL isn't terribly difficult to understand, as it simply says: sure, take this code for free, improve it, but the price is that you redistribute your changes with the same conditions.
If you don't like this kind of license, then simply don't use GPL'd code. Use something like BSD licensed code, like Apple did with OS X.
This is not rocket science.
I'm not sure THAT's a great idea. Convince me, please. Are you sure that public domain has any force or power to ensure that it is NOT abused? GPL at least has teeth to bite it's abusers.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
BSD is how a license should be. I'm not talking about granted rights but how it's written. The BSD is short, concise and everybody can understand it. The GPL is the sort of bloated legalese mumbojumbo that makes you think "Oh, screw this!".
The GPL is difficult to understand, which is documented by the massive amount of posts, threads and questions on what is and what is not allowed. All these posts always end with "I'm just guessing, get a lawyer". It's definitely not easy to understand if you need a lawyer to explain it to you and help you decide if it MIGHT be ok to do what you want to.
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.
That first sentence is not really true, and not only because the second sentence is also untrue. The GPL may not have been tested extensively, but it has been tried in courts around the globe. But since there really isn't any reason no think that it would be ruled invalid, that testing isn't necessary. There's a reason it's been tested so few times -- all those legal departments, all those lawyers of various degrees of sleaziness, can find no basis on which to challenge it which they think would pass the judicial smell test. Even though they and their clients would have every reason to trump something up. The few that have tried to challenge the validity of the license have failed spectacularly.
That is, as the French say, "Le hint".
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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
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.
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
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;
- [...]
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.
Stallman wants everyone to refer to USA as GNU/USA?
Have you actually READ the EULA for Microsoft products? Protected? From what?
Or, pick another EULA for a closed source product. Let use Adobe, shall we?
"Stock Files may not be used in the production of libelous, defamatory, fraudulent, lewd, obscene or pornographic material..."
WTF does the actually mean? Isn't it completely dependent on the actual jurisdiction?
The GPL is simple. You DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. You may use the software anyway. The ONLY time it comes into play is if you decide to distribute the software. Which is something you CANNOT do under these "closed source licenses" or under Copyright.
Just follow Copyright, and the GPL doesn't come into play at all! The GPL is a grant of additional rights, beyond Copyright. Do you want to use "Stock Files" to produce a picture of a woman showing her face (considered obscene in parts of the World)? Go ahead -- you won't need a lawyer. No usage constraints are imposed. No auditing constraints are imposed (you can tell the BSA to pound sand).
In other words, as a user of software, the GPL is completely reasonable -- use it for anything you want, on as many machines as you want, with no further issues. If you want to use GPL software in your own projects, go ahead, there are no further issues. If you want to give the software to other people, go ahead -- just point them to the place you got it from (or, if you are "sophisticated", give them the source).
That's it.
Anything else only kicks in if you want to distribute, or use GPL software in your own projects that you will distribute. But then, you are at the level of developer or systems integrator; not so much an "end user" anymore. In this position it would be sensible to actually READ the EULAs and GPL!
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
However it will also make people feel worried about using GPL software, and possibly being suied from honest mistakes.
Let me describe the typical GPL "enforcement" process (well documented: c.f. Linksys, BusyBox, lots of other examples):
The aim of the GPL enforcement process isn't to slap the violators down, it's to encourage them to come into compliance. Going to court is a last resort, if every other measure fails. If it's just that you've made an honest mistake, the people who are complaining will be very happy to give you the help you need to fix the problem, and to direct you to experienced sources of reliable legal advice on GPL compliance.
If you say, "People won't use GPL software in their products because they're afraid of the legal ramifications," you are doing nothing but spreading FUD.
Pirate Party UK