Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Allows Case Over Violating Open Source License (lexology.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the legality-of-licenses dept.

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.

6 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Contracts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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..."

    If they had been able to dismiss it successfully, would that have set a legal precedent? Could it have been inferred that no license agreement for any software constitutes a contract, and breaching those terms cannot be penalized by law? If so it's interesting to think about the ramifications for EULAs and such in general that could have happened.

    1. Re:Contracts by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dismissing the GPL would've done them no good: then they'd have been without any license at all, which would make them guilty of all sorts of egregiously-penalized criminal copyright violations. A party can either accept the GPL in all its parts, or not have any rights to distribute the work or its derivatives whatsoever.

    2. Re:Contracts by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they had been able to dismiss it successfully, would that have set a legal precedent?

      For one thing, Google would suddenly have a valid defense against Oracle in their case over Java..........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Contracts by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A contract requires that both parties receive something from the other. When you buy software with an EULA, you get software and the programmer gets your money. When you use GPL software, you get software and the programmer gets ???

      There are various things we could put in the place of "???", but it is not clear whether they count as being a consideration for the purpose of contract law. Defendant Hancom argued that it was clear that ??? was not a consideration so the contract claim should be summarily dismissed. By rejecting that motion, the court has not concluded that ??? is a consideration, but finds the issue non-clear-cut enough to allow plaintiff Artifex to argue that there is a consideration.

      Finding that there is no contract in the GPL case would not affect EULAs, because in that case there is payment which makes it clear there is a contract

      I am not a lawyer, everything I say might be wrong.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  2. This is one reason to prefer GPLv3 by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Under GPLv2 yes, and this is one of the reasons why licensees should prefer GPLv3. GPLv3 allows for a 30-day period following receipt of notice of the violation where a first-time violator can come into compliance and regain the rights they lost. See copyleft.org for more on this in two sections, one on GPLv2 termination on violation and another on GPLv3's "lighter" approach. Here's a quote from the relevant section on GPLv3:

    GPLv3 Â8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited opportunity to cure license violations. If a licensee has committed a first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice of the violation, then any of the licenseeâ(TM)s GPL rights that have been terminated by the copyright holder are âoeautomatically reinstatedâ.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  3. Re:Good by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What they should be made to do is to comply with the GPL: to be ordered to release, under the GPL, their code that the linked to the GPL code. GPL infringement would stop overnight if the courts properly enforced the GPL.