Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jacobsen v Katzer Settled — Victory For F/OSS

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the nice-to-come-out-on-top-for-a-change dept.

Andy Updegrove writes "A short while ago the parties to one of the most closely watched FOSS cases filed a settlement agreement with the US Federal District Court for the Northern District of California ending one of the most important F/OSS legal cases to date. That case is Jacobsen vs. Katzer, and the settlement marks a complete victory for Jacobsen, a member of the Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI) Project. Jacobsen's victory establishes several important rights for the first time in the US: the right to prevent their copyright and authorship acknowledgments from being removed from their code, and the right to collect damages if the terms of the licenses they choose are violated. Until now, those rights had never been tested in court."

7 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Great news! by ais523 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But does the fact that this was settled, rather than taken to a final judgement, mean that it doesn't set a binding precedent?

    --
    (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    1. Re:Great news! by B'Trey · · Score: 3, Informative

      This case was settled, yes. But if you RTFA you'll note that there were several rulings that were issued and then appealed up to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Those rulings, which strongly favor F/OSS, ARE now binding, at least for that circuit.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    2. Re:Great news! by Schnoodledorfer · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... and the rulings will likely be influential in other circuits, as explained in TFA.

      TFA might be getting slashdotted, though. Google has it cached: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consortiuminfo.org%2Fstandardsblog%2Farticle.php%3Fstory%3D201002190850472

      --
      Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)
  2. Yes, it does stand as a precedent by Andy+Updegrove · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes - the rulings made by the court do stand as precedents, notwithstanding the fact that the case settled. What the settlement means is that those rulings can no longer be appealed. If it had settled before going to court, then the settlement would have been irrelevant, but that's not the case here. - Andy

    1. Re:Yes, it does stand as a precedent by WilliamX · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only thing that stands as a precedent is the very very very narrow decision by the appeals court, which is not very substantive at all. In the end, all they decided was to vacate the previous court's ruling that the license's broad terms were overly broad and thus couldn't rise to the standard required for a financial liability and enforcement. That was the ONLY ruling in by the appellate court, and it is very narrow, and applies only to the federal courts, who even the appellate court explained barely had jurisdiction in this case.

  3. Re:showing monetary value? by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For one thing, Katzer thought it was worth stealing.

  4. At some level we got lucky by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The license used was the Artistic License which in its early forms (and the form that as I understand it applied here) has issues and really was not at all the ideal test case for a copyleft license. The license has been extensively criticized for vague and poor wording from the EFF and other legal experts.