Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bruce Perens Explains That 'GPL Is A Contract' Court Case (perens.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the freeing-the-software dept.

Bruce Perens co-founded the Open Source Initiative with Eric Raymond -- and he's also Slashdot reader #3,872. Bruce Perens writes: There's been a lot of confusion about the recent Artifex v. Hancomcase, in which the court found that the GPL was an enforceable contract. I'm going to try to explain the whole thing in clear terms for the legal layman.
Two key quotes:
  • "What has changed now is that for the purposes of the court, the GPL is both a license, which can be enforced through a claim of copyright infringement, and a contract, which can be enforced through a claim of breach of contract. You can allege both in your court claim in a single case, and fall back on one if you can't prove the other. Thus, the potential to enforce the GPL in court is somewhat stronger than before this finding, and you have a case to cite rather than spending time in court arguing whether the GPL is a contract or not..."
  • "Another interesting point in the case is that the court found Artifex's claim of damages to be admissible because of their use of dual-licensing. An economic structure for remuneration of the developer by users who did not wish to comply with the GPL terms, and thus acquired a commercial license, was clearly present."

2 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wtf? No, it isn't.... by lordlod · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lawyers call an agreement a contract.

    The court has just affirmed what you said, Hancom publicly stated that they had agreed to the GPL. Thus there is a contract in place.

    The contract has terms, defined by the GPL that Hancom agreed to. These terms were not complied with. Now we have a breach of contract.

    Once a breach of contract has been established the case becomes much clearer, lots of existing case law which covers how it should be dealt with.

  2. Re:I don't wish to form contracts with people by lordlod · · Score: 4, Informative

    The logic of the court case isn't specific to the GPL, any licence you choose to distribute source with, or even a straight binary distribution would probably involve the creation of an implicit contract.

    You shouldn't be scared of contracts, they are just a way for lawyers to formalise agreements. Buying a coffee - a contract. Buying a bus ticket - a contract. Agreeing to terms and conditions you never bothered to read - a contract.