Slashdot Mirror
Court Allows Case Over Violating Open Source License (lexology.com)
Slashdot reader destinyland writes: The District Court for the Northern District of California recently issued an opinion that is being hailed as a victory for open source software. In this case, the court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging violation of an open source software license, paving the way for further action enforcing the conditions of the GNU General Public License... As part of its motion to dismiss, Hancom argued that using open source code offered under open source licensing terms does not form a contract... The District Court ruled that Artifex's breach of contract claim could proceed, finding that the GPL, by its express terms, requires that third parties agree to the GPL's obligations if they distribute the open-source-licensed software [and] concluded that royalty-free licensing under open source conditions does not preclude a claim for damages...
In denying a motion to dismiss, the District Court only holds that the claims may proceed on the theories enunciated by Artifex, not necessarily that they will ultimately succeed. Still, the case represents a significant step forward for open source plaintiffs... In the past decade, while enforcement of open source licensing violations has become more common, few enforcement cases result in published law. The open source community will be watching this case carefully, and this initial decision vindicates the rights of the open source authors to enforce GPL terms on both breach of contract and copyright theories.
In denying a motion to dismiss, the District Court only holds that the claims may proceed on the theories enunciated by Artifex, not necessarily that they will ultimately succeed. Still, the case represents a significant step forward for open source plaintiffs... In the past decade, while enforcement of open source licensing violations has become more common, few enforcement cases result in published law. The open source community will be watching this case carefully, and this initial decision vindicates the rights of the open source authors to enforce GPL terms on both breach of contract and copyright theories.
Avoid it then. If it's companies wanting to avoid paying for software they then profit off of - and they can't be bothered to read the license and comply, screw them and their lazy greedy selves. Plenty of companies use open source every day without violating the different licenses.
That's exactly the state they're in right now, because violating the GPL automatically causes your licensed rights granted by the GPL to be permanently terminated according to the GPL.
This involves dual-license software - ghostscript in this case. One license is GPL, the other is proprietary for people that wish to avoid using the GPL. The defendant chose to not pay for the proprietary license, and they chose to not comply with the GPL. So they got sued.
The summary keeps talking about "open source license", but also makes it sound like the license in question is GPL, which is the Free Software License.
Perhaps user destinyland and editor EditorDavid missed this earlier story which includes, in the summary that EditorDavid also allegedly edited, this sentence:
See that "Preview" button?
I understand this is /., corporate news and open-source friendly website (even to the point of apparently denying giving any credit to the Free Software Foundation). However it's worth noting that writing and talking about the GNU GPL as "open source" license makes it seem like an Open Source Initiative member had something to do with writing this license when that's not the case at all. In fact, the earlier versions of the GNU GPL predate the OSI and the open source movement entirely. And the GPL's principal author (Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation) repeatedly goes around the world giving talks describing why he started the GNU Project, wrote the GNU GPL, and pointing out that the open source effort is a corporate reactionary counter to software freedom. Stallman takes time in every one of his talks to point out that he is not for 'open source'. Indeed, the open source movement eschews software freedom. Please do take the time to read the essays and listen to rms talks to learn more about this.
I'm all for everyone (including open source enthusiasts) licensing software under the GNU GPL, but I'm also for understanding why the license exists in the first place and giving credit where credit is due. Its existence is certainly not due to anything 'open source' but instead to a driving interest in making and preserving software freedom. The work is (as Eben Moglen, long-time FSF lawyer, software freedom fighter, and excellent speaker has said) principally written by Richard Stallman. Just because press releases written by people who either don't know better or which to cast the license's history in a different light get it wrong doesn't mean you have to follow them.
Digital Citizen
This so much.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable
I have worked for many companies. The rule of thumb is if you modify GPL code THAT can be open sourced if you redistribute it. But only to those you distribute it to (as per the plain text in the license). Your lawyer sucks if they read into it that you need to throw it up on the net randomly. ONLY to those you give the code to. Also the kernel happens to be GPL2 and you can have non-GPL code in there through the use of plugins. That is why they invented GPL3. Most of your customers will never know the difference. There is a risk of that happening. But you can usually negate it with an NDA. Which would scare off most other lawyers.
Compiled with the tools does not make it open source. If so pretty much 99% of the products out on the market need to be open sourced (think cell phones and TVs). That is not going to happen.
Fire your lawyers. They are incompetent. They are ripping you off. Just because they have a law degree does not mean they know anything. Many jr lawyers charge you time to learn how to do their job. My dad had the unfortunate exp of someone charging him 40+ hours at 120 an hour. My sister (a real lawyer) and I intervened and made his lawyer sit down and actually READ the law, the case law, and contracts.
>Allowing for an explicit 30-day grace period is nice, but there's already a defacto grace period that's much, much wider.
This is true. There was none in the GPLv2, meaning that coming into compliance before being sued would still leave them open. The GPLv3 is the same way once the 30 days are up, meaning that there's now adequate room for an one-time human error; but not for the corporation that'd try to string 30-day periods one after another.
The clause was in direct response to criticism about the GPLv2 being a loaded gun on a hapless corporation's temple. Now there's some contractual basis to coming into compliance within a given window, meaning that more first time violators will choose to do exactly that. Subsequent violations are as with the GPLv2.