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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
GPLv2 section 3b. If you don't convey the source directly with the object code, you must convey a written offer valid for any third party to send them the source code upon request.
I had forgotten that this was an "or" clause, but it is in the GPL, so maybe you should read it too?
And this isn't FUD for anyone who wasn't already terrified of the GPL. Why is conveying a link to a website with the source such an onerous burden? Especially when that link can simply be to whatever CVS repository the open source project normally works from, assuming you committed your changes to it? Seriously.
The enemies of Democracy are
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;
- [...]
"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).
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