Court Allows Case Over Violating Open Source License (lexology.com) 156
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.
Contracts (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.
Re:Contracts (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.
Re:Contracts (Score:4, Informative)
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 is one reason to prefer GPLv3 (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 [copyleft.org] and another on GPLv3's "lighter" approach [copyleft.org]. Here's a quote from the relevant section on GPLv3:
Re: (Score:2)
When people use a gun wrongly, you generally want them to not have access to a gun ever again. The same logic should apply to those that would egregiously flout the GPL contract, and GPLv3 is just a piece of garbage with that logic following.
But I'm quite sure most of you guys won't learn from history - any leniency towards any corporation tends to get you fucked over. That's what the GPLv3 is.
Re: (Score:1)
If you use GNU wrongly, people have more difficulty accessing the source code than they might other wise have.
I don't think the tow situations compare.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you use a gun rightly, people die.
If you use a gun rightly, a criminal dies. You remove a mortal threat to self and others. It's a bit like wiping out a disease or cancer.
Alternately, you can become competent at using that gun or able to feed your family.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a gun rightly, a criminal dies.
If you use a gun rightly, a life is protected.
Forget all that bullshit about "criminal", that depends on there being a legal definition of a crime. But immediate harm is easy to measure compared to criminality. Also, it's not okay to shoot someone in the face because they're stealing a bag of potato chips.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a compromise for practical reasons.
If you have no license, you can face an immediate injunction---which forces you to stop selling the infringing product. This makes GPLv2 very risky for businesses, as any non-compliance could force them to pull a product until they relicense the code. If your revenue relies on subscribers or SLAs, it could hurt very badly.
The GPLv3 reduces that risk by allowing a grace period. This allows a licensee time to correct oversights or minor transgressions.
E.g., documentatio
Re: (Score:1)
> 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.
99.999% of GPL-violation cases start with a letter to the violator that effectively says "You're violating the GPL, please stop. Here's how you can come into compliance.". 100% of the cases that go from there down the road to litigation take far longer than four weeks after the receipt of that initial letter to get anywhere close to a courtro
Re:This is one reason to prefer GPLv3 (Score:5, Informative)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv2 cases I've heard of ended with a settlement, which presumably restored the GPL for the violator. If one ended in court, there would presumably be an injunction against the violator's use of the software without permission anyway.
The GPL is not a loaded gun. If your company uses software without verifying the license, they're either stupid or trying to get away with something. In that case, any software not under a permissive F/OS license works just the same, and that includes all proprietary
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting, they might have been able to use the 30 day allowance, even from v2 depending on the exact wording of the v2 licence due to the notes under clause 9, which allows you to use a later version of the GPL instead.
From GPL [gnu.org]:
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
A distributor can't rely on the GPLv3's new forgiveness if it's not providing the GPLv3's newly required Installation Information (aka the anti-TiVo clause).
Re: (Score:1)
A party can either accept the GPL in all its parts, or not have any rights to distribute the work or its derivatives whatsoever.
Sounds a lot like every EULA and software license out there. You can either accept it in all its parts, or not have any right to use of the software whatsoever. Yet somehow people keep making excuses for why "sharing" software doesn't violate anything because nothing is lost.
Re:Contracts (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL governs distribution, whereas EULAs govern use. Two different things.
(except to nutters such as BSD advocates.)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL governs distribution, whereas EULAs govern use. Two different things.
Nonsense. GPL absolutely covers the use. Most software cannot be used without copying it. GPL says "we don't mind at all copying the software in order to use it". It doesn't _restrict_ use, but it definitely governs it.
Re: Contracts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> GPL absolutely covers the use.
If I modify GPL software for my own internal use, the GPL doesn't have anything that applies to me. If I change my mind and distribute my code, then everyone who I give it to has a right to ask me for a copy of my modifications. Software with a EULA could ABSOLUTELY apply to me, even if I use the software: it could state that I can't use the product to analyze a certain thing, or prevent me from using the results of the program output to make a profit. The GPL is not a
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL explicitly says that you don't need a license to use the software. In the US, when you have software legally acquired, you can make copies required for use freely without further permission. You could acquire GPLed software illegally, I suppose, and then you wouldn't have those legal rights, but that would normally require extra effort just to be a jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL governs distribution, whereas EULAs govern use. Two different things.
I think if you read a EULA you will rapidly find yourself falling asleep, but barring that you will also rapidly find clauses pertaining to distribution of the software. They usually jump right out at you early on, typically having their own sections.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the BSD advocate's equivocation that I was referring to.
You'll find no GPL-licensed software where the licensor's intent is to blur the distribution/use distinction rather than specifically separate the two. Consequently any exploitative follow-on to your pet theory will fail radically in court.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find no GPL-licensed software where the licensor's intent is to blur the distribution/use distinction rather than specifically separate the two.
However, you will find AGPL-licensed software with such an intent. The AGPL requires users to publish modifications even if said modifications are not distributed to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
With the GPL, using the software does not require accepting the license. Distributing does. A EULA can put restrictions on your use, while the GPL doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I can download Free software like gcc and emacs and use it all I want without worrying about the license. Under US copyright law, if I have lawfully acquired software I can legally, without further permission, make copies as required for use. I can get a DVD-ROM, copy it to disk, and run it, which requires copying from disk, without further permissions.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, technically, copyright violations is also known as piracy, so they could be like a lot of people with bittorrent clients pirating tv shows, movies, video games, software and other thi
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates have always drawn a bright red line when it comes to commercial exploitation of wares.
An imaginary damage raises to the level of a real and obvious one at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike access to music, access to GPL software isn't forced on customers in the grocery store.
Re: (Score:2)
Duude... you go out of your way to invalidate your own crank fantasies, and _then_ call my arguments provably false -- presumably in reference to said fantasies. Don't go off your pills on your own.
Re:Contracts (Score:5, 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..........
Re: (Score:2)
Never understand why google wanted to use Java in the first place.
According to the internal emails, they were behind schedule, and they decided that was the only complete programming environment they would be able to get set up in time. There wasn't a lot of explanation justifying that point, though.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the internal emails, they were behind schedule, and they decided that was the only complete programming environment they would be able to get set up in time. There wasn't a lot of explanation justifying that point, though.
If true, probably they already had a Java project running, and just took advantage of that fact. Otherwise there would be no real time benefit.
Re:Contracts (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had been able to dismiss it successfully, would that have set a legal precedent?
It would have set precedent within this court's jurisdiction [uscourts.gov], which would have had a powerful impact, since it encompasses Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and all of coastal California from Monterey to the Oregon border.
It would not have set binding precedent in other jurisdictions, but other courts would still tend to tilt toward an established ruling.
TL;DR: If it had gone the other way, it would have been really bad.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR: If it had gone the other way, it would have been really bad.
Yes, but it also would have been bad for lots of other kinds of contracts, so it would have also been particularly shocking if it had gone the other way. It would have even broader-reaching affects than these.
Re:Contracts (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
But an EULA (usually) comes after payment, so that doesn't hold. In the case of an EULA, you get to use what you payed for, and the company gets your soul.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory is that copying the media onto your persistent storage and system memory requires a license. It's not really been definitively test in court as a good argument for fair use of implied license is there. However it;s kind of bygone and physical copies of sotware are rarely sold nowadays.
17 USC 117(a)(1) (Score:3)
The theory is that copying the media onto your persistent storage and system memory requires a license.
In what country? The article is about a case in the United States, where 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu] states that copying a program "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine" is not infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Never-mind then, I was wrong. I was thinking of a Blizzard case, but that additionally involved modification of resources in memory by third party applications.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not required to accept the GPL in order to use the software. Only in the case you modify, distribute, or copy the covered and copyrighted work in the absence on any other license are you assumed to have accepted the GPL. The contract allows such modification, distribution, or copying in return that the same contract be offered on all copies and derived works. The promise to offer a specific contract in the future is definitely withing the realm of accepted consideration, otherwise all option contra
Found a few dozen ready-to-roll cases here (Score:1)
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?... [ffmpeg.org]
Lock and load, boys.
The summary is missing some details. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Simple solution: Rename to G-EULA (Score:1)
Words matter. If it looks like an EULA and sounds like an EULA, call it an EULA. There's plenty of case law to support them.
Re: Simple solution: Rename to G-EULA (Score:2)
I'm confused (Score:2, Informative)
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 [slashdot.org] which includes, in the summary that EditorDavid also allegedly edited, this sentence:
Re: I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that the guy that devoted his entire life to software freedom should have any say in how we talk about the license that he wrote for the movement he started? Exactly what are you doing to show respect for his contributions if you can't even muster the effort to use language that makes other people aware of the freedoms we all have, largely thanks to his work on our behalf?
Re: I'm confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Open Source Initiative lists all varieties of the GPL as open source licenses. The Gnu people would prefer you used "Free" instead of "Open Source", but either usage is valid and correct.
The GPL is also not "the" Free software license, as BSD-style licenses are Free. In practice, almost all Open Source licenses are Free and vice versa. There are some edge cases.
Open Source Definition == DFSG (Score:2)
The Open Source Initiative lists all varieties of the GPL as open source licenses.
Furthermore, its Open Source Definition is almost word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't News for Most People, this is News For Nerds. This is the one news site that should understand and articulate the difference, even when the hack that wrote the actual article doesn't.
Credit where credit is due: Free software license (Score:5, Informative)
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 [gnu.org] and listen to rms talks [gnu.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman's argument "that the open source effort is a corporate reactionary counter to software freedom" is something most users don't care about. They're perfectly happy to use a proprietry solution if they have to. The benefit of Free software is the price, not the freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're shouting into the wind with this. The ship has sailed. Everyone knows what "Open source" means in this context. "Free Software" is a more obscure term that hasn't really caught on.
The average Slashdotter knows the difference and either uses the term to be precise or doesn't use it because of Stallman's toejam. But there's no reason to give users a free pass on imprecision here, of all places. This is a place where we should demand precision.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a different Slashdot than you remember.
I refuse to give the ignoranuses a free pass. If you want to let Slashdot go into the toilet, by all means, go gently.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the open source movement eschews software freedom.
I don't agree. From your link, RMS says: "As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source." This is clearly saying that all free software is a subset of open source. Thus, open source does not eschew software freedom. Please explain the disconnect.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if the set of approved licenses from the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative are properly described in that way, but I am sure that approach misses the point entirely—you won't understand what the free software movement aims to achieve and why by looking at sets of licenses.
The open source group (I should not have called it a movement because open source is not a social movement) started over a decade after the free software movement started. 'Open source' is a call to a b
Start with the GPL's fictions... (Score:1)
The weakest part of the GPL (both standard and LGPL) is that it is based upon arbitrary fictional concepts that in theory would will falter to slippery slope augments. It's all about "bundling" in conjunction to linking. Everything digitally is distributed as a stream. That certain ordering of the data is valid but others are not is ridiculous when the words to describe it are arbitrary. Computer memory isn't physical and is merely treated as linear conceptually depending on how you relatively look at it
Re: (Score:3)
Viral nature? Arbitrary fictional concepts? What on earth are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
He's making a deeply mistaken point: people call the GPL viral because it "infects" your code even if you only use a bit. It's not of course the GPL, it's copyright in general. Your work is a derived work even if you only use a little bit of something else (excluding certain exemptions). And if you have a a derived work, then the original copyright holder gets to call the shots.
So basically he's betting that the judge will strike down ths entire concept of derived works. Seems unlikely...
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I've seen lawyers say there's a distinction here. If you use GPLed software and change it yourself, you've created a derived work which is covered under the GPL. The FSF maintains that linking to GPLed software creates a derived work, and apparently that isn't generally considered the case for copyright. From what I've read, there's uncertainty between (a) linking does not create a derived work, and so the GPL only applies to object files with GPLed code, and (b) you need to consider linking
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL 2.0 does not contain either the words "bundling" or "linking" and instead uses the terms "is contained or derived from" and "aggregate". The problem lies in case law that has yet to precisely define what the term "derivative work" and "seperate work" means in terms of software. Static linking certainly does, because it is essentially the same as copying and pasting a chapter from another book into your own. Dynamic linking on it's own may potentially not be, as it's more of an instruction to a re
Weird and disturbing (Score:2)
And copyright infringement is usually a much stronger weapon for the copyright owner than breach of contract. With huge statutory damages. With the ability to force the thief to remove any GPL licensed code from their products. If you claim breach of contract, you'd have to prove actual damages caused by the breach of contract, for example act
Re: (Score:1)
You need new lawyers.
Re:Open Source is bad sometimes... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a copypasta, Lester. Smaller type'a troll.
https://www.reddit.com/r/copyp... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This was doing the rounds in the 90s on Usenet.
YHBT HTH HAND
Re: (Score:2)
AC is correct. The argument that OP's lawyers made is equivalent to saying, "if you build your code with Microsoft Visual Studio, then the terms of the MS license apply to the code you created".
Re: (Score:3)
Your issue is not Linux; you hired bad lawyers who should probably be disbarred, for ignoring specific exceptions listed in the license And not understanding what activities the GPL terms apply to.
Re: Open Source is bad sometimes... (Score:2)
Unacceptable for the lawyers, that is (Score:2)
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.
Of course it was unacceptable for your lawyers to have misadvised you so. In the vast majority of cases, the output of a GPL tool is not GPL. From the GPL FAQ [gnu.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
That only applies to GPLed software you've written, not the output of gcc. You don't have to make any written offer if you throw another DVD-ROM or three into the nice package, that includes the source. Your customer can then distribute it if they want, which they normally wouldn't want to because they paid for your modifications and don't have to share them. If you make a written offer, then your customer, in the unlikely event of redistribution, can distribute copies of your offer if they don't redist
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh it's very easy. X lines of code, which typically costs Y per thousand lines to develop on the high end. Their prior commercial licenses, or costs of licenses of compatible software as the low end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Copyright. You don't have to show any and never have. That's just sauce for the goose here.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you'll find closed-source software vendors to be any happier than your average Stallmanite when you breach their license agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
The damages could be as simple as not allowing the defendant to use the software if they continue their non-compliance.
Re: (Score:1)
Replied to the wrong post but the point remains valid.
Re:Good (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not something the courts can do. In a civil case, the court can award damages and issue injunctions, so if a company is distributing my GPLed code not according to the license I can at most get money from them and an order to the company to stop doing that. The GPL is a license, not a contract, and so the company would be guilty of infringing copyright, not violating the terms of a contract.
There are cases in which the violator starts conforming to the GPL, but that's voluntary, and is normally
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More reason to avoid open source software.
Nice troll. Or else profoundly ignorant. Although funny how often the two seem to go hand in hand.
But just to clarify, open source != GPL. Not all open source projects are copyleft like the GPL. If people want to distribute their software projects under the GPL, companies need to respect that license. But many open source licenses are much more permissive, meaning they can be used in both open and closed source projects. I personally chose the MIT license for my own open source projects (nice and sim
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no.
The GPL and GPL-like licenses are the only actual open source licenses.
What you're describing would better be called "closable" licenses, because they allow the code to be closed.
There's really very little difference between one of those and simply declaring your code public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
You're welcome to that opinion, but I'm obviously not going to agree with it. And I suspect you'll have about as much success with that narrow redefinition of open source as convincing everyone to call Linux "GNU/Linux".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I didn't expect you to agree.
I do think it's a definition that needs to be the standard, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL and similar copyleft licenses are not the only Open Source licenses (according to the Open Source Initiative) or Free licenses (according to the Gnu project and Free Software Foundation). I can take some BSD-licensed software, change it, and redistribute under a proprietary license, but I can't do anything to restrict the original software. You're just as free to build on the code I used as I was.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know that's what they say.
But unless it's copyleft, it's essentially no change from public domain. Sure, the original source code is still there, but whatever changes you've made are lost.
And that's really the point of open source, not just to distribute the code as open, but to keep the code AND all changes to it open.
So I'm afraid that I have to disagree that non-copyleft licenses are really open source. They're just public domain with an attribution requirement.
And hey, it's convenient for commer
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source is not itself concerned with making all software non-proprietary. That's more a Free Software thing, with Stallman's plan to build up a corpus of GPLed software that would be too tempting to pass up. Stallman considers permissive licenses (and public domain) to be Free..
What the permissive licenses do is allow someone to make changes to software and use them freely. I don't know that any of them require changes to be divulged (I haven't checked the Affero GPLv3 recently), since none of the
Re: (Score:2)
Shh.. the PR of RMS and FSF have worked very hard to conflate Free Software with Open Source.
But seriously, the mistake is forgivable. All Free Software is Open Source, but not all Open Source is Free Software. It's not necessary to go on a 3 paragraph rant.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no point to taking the GPL to court, as a defendant. Any defense that could be come up with will be based on denying the GPL's applicability, thereby either arguing that some other license exists and producing it, or admitting criminal copyright infringement.
Your point was salient 20 years ago, but these days it's the case that GPL cases are settled out of court because there's no viable defense and never has been. Practical difficulties in GPL enforcement arise from jurisdiction and the cost and ef
Re: idrive is lacking source too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tivo gave or was obligated to give sources, you just had no practical way of modifying the software on the device. Distributing software on an embedded system is still clearly a distribution in the legal sense.
Re: idrive is lacking source too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It gets complicated. Here's a possible way to get around it.
Company A uses Linux in a lot of devices they manufacture. Whenever they sell a batch do distributors B-Z, they include a little box with the source file in GPL-compliant form. The redistributors have a lot of devices, and redistributing those devices doesn't require a copyright license. Therefore, you buy a device with GPLed software that was always in compliance, and you have no legal claim to the source. I brought this case up in the GPL
Re: (Score:2)
Section 5 of the GPL 2.0 clearly states the the offer of license is accepted by performance. The Hancom performed the protected acts is evidence of acceptence (or flat out criminality, but courts are required to assume parties were acting in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary), that the performance was substantially flawed is what constitutes breach on contract. Each copying thereafter was simply a violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 5 of the GPL 2.0 clearly states the the offer of license is accepted by performance. The first time Hancom performed the protected acts with each specific version of the protected work is evidence of acceptance (or flat out criminality, but courts are required to assume parties were acting in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary), that the performance was substantially flawed is what constitutes breach on contract. Each copying thereafter was simply a violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, if Hancom manages to successfully dodge the contract violation rap, they're in trouble for distributing copyrighted stuff without a license. The contract view is iffy, but the license view isn't. The GPL says that only the GPL gives you the right to redistribute, clearly meaning that if you violate it you don't have any such right.