The Long-Term Impact of Jacobsen v. Katzer 77
snydeq writes "Lawyer Jonathan Moskin has called into question the long-term impact last year's Java Model Railroad Interface court ruling will have on open source adoption among corporate entities. For many, the case in question, Jacobsen v. Katzer, has represented a boon for open source, laying down a legal foundation for the protection of open source developers. But as Moskin sees it, the ruling 'enables a set of potentially onerous monetary remedies for failures to comply with even modest license terms, and it subjects a potentially larger community of intellectual property users to liability.' In other words, in Moskin's eyes, Jacobsen v. Katzer could make firms wary of using open source software because they fear that someone in the food chain has violated a copyright, thus exposing them to lawsuit. It should be noted that Moskin's firm has represented Microsoft in anti-trust litigation before the European Union."
Not a minor violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Katzer did considerably more than fail to comply with modest license terms. He filed a patent application for something he did not invent and claimed copyright to something he did not write. This was not a case of a minor license violation, but rather deliberate fraud. Consequently, the penalties he faced were much higher,
Is it a new risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really a new risk? If you're distributing software that includes a proprietary closed-source component, and someone upstream in the company that created that component illegally included copyrighted proprietary software in it, wouldn't that expose you to exactly the same risks for exactly the same reasons, and permit you exactly the same defenses? I don't see where open-source makes any difference here, in all cases (open-source and closed-source) where you redistribute someone else's software you have to trust that they haven't committed copyright infringement in what they're providing to you.
Open-source is, if anything, less vulnerable to these risks. So far all the cases I've seen reported have involved the inclusion of non-licensed software (both proprietary and open-source) in closed-source proprietary products. The only allegations going the other way, of inclusion of unlicensed code in an open-source project, were SCO's allegations of the inclusion of SysV code in Linux and IBM shredded those so thoroughly you need a microscope to find the pieces (and in the process made a good argument that it's in fact SCO that's been including Linux code in their products in violation of the license).
Open source code is no different than proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that free and open source code is no different in *any* way from code from any other source. If it's not yours you cannot legally use it, _unless_ you abide by the licensing terms of the licensor.
It astounds me how many companies get trapped thinking that copyright is somehow different for free and open source software. Boggles the mind. It also boggles my mind that companies buy into the idea that things like the GPL can "infect" the company's IP. In a corporate world stuffed full of lawyers--IP lawyers even--how such basic misunderstandings of copyright law can be so widespread in industry is really disheartening.
Re:Hmmm.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Fine. They're Lawyers. They're getting paid by the hour, not by the success.
Theives make up reasons why they should steal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Total FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always a risk with using software for any purpose, be in as an end user, developer, or whatever. It is up to the user and the administrators to insure compliance. The only time an issue will every come up, be it in open, closed, or revolving software will be when the assumption is made that the software, code, ideas can be used for free, with no real or opportunity costs. Honestly, this assumption is made quite often, and every once in a while someone is caught. Fines are put into place to deter others from doing the same.
So nothing really changes. If one is a legitimate business, one still needs to insure that all supplies are kosher. Assuming that somehow the laws of physics have changed just because are going on the internet and getting stuff for free has gotten many a bussiness in trouble long before this ruling.
Re:Open source code is no different than proprieta (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open source code is no different than proprieta (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Wrong. Sigh. Same old FUD and misconception. Let's repeat. No GPL'd code cannot "infect" your own IP. If you are using GPL'd code without abiding by the license, you find yourself in a situation where you have these alternatives:
1. Keep the GPL'd code in your project and re-license your code to be in compliance with the GPL.
2. Remove the code in question, since you don't have any legal right to use it.
3. Negotiate licensing and royalty terms with the copyright holder to use their code in a way compatible with your own IP needs.
It's that simple, folks. Please don't spread this FUD anymore. It's untrue at best, very dishonest at worst.
Re:Open source code is no different than proprieta (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's repeat.
Yeah if you do that enough times, maybe it will become true!
You just explained in your #1 bullet point exactly how it is capable of infecting your code. You include it in your project and the whole thing becomes GPL if you distribute the binary even once. Even if you take it out and close it later, you've been forced to expose your source code to the whole world.
This is what any reasonable person would call "viral". GPL zealots don't like that label of course, and refer to it as "FUD", but in every single rebuttal they actually end up proving it true, all the while insisting that it somehow isn't. Hilarious.
Re:Open source code is no different than proprieta (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's repeat.
Yeah if you do that enough times, maybe it will become true!
You just explained in your #1 bullet point exactly how it is capable of infecting your code. You include it in your project and the whole thing becomes GPL if you distribute the binary even once. Even if you take it out and close it later, you've been forced to expose your source code to the whole world.
No it doesn't become GPL. Changing the license on your code is not one of the remedies a court can decide. The court can only decide on injunction against distributing the code, money and in extreme cases jail.
The only way the license can change on your code is if you decide it, possibly through a settlement.
OG.