Slashdot Log In
German Court Says GPL is Valid
Posted by
michael
on Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:29 PM
from the im-namen-des-volkes dept.
from the im-namen-des-volkes dept.
Axel Metzger writes "The Munich District Court has ruled on May 19, 2004 that the main clauses of the GNU General Public License are valid under German copyright and contract law. This seems to be the first judgment worldwide proofing the validity of the most popular free software license. The ruling is a confirmation of the preliminary injunction of April 2, 2004. The new judgment gives on 20 pages the reasons for the ruling. It states explicitly that the terms of section 2, 3 and 4 of the GPL are valid under German copyright and contract law. Here is the German text of the judgment; an English translation will be available soon. The judgment comes at the right time to fight those (SCO and others) who challenge the legal validity of the GPL in Europe and elsewhere. The lawyer of the plaintiffs, Till Jaeger from Munich should be granted the Free Software Award."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Before partying.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before partying.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Before partying.. (Score:5, Informative)
in germany (as well as various other european countries) you can't give away all your rights on your work, in short "public domain" doesn't work, "signing over copyright" doesn't work.
so there definitely are differences.
(oh.. you _can_ put stuff into the PD, technically speaking: publish anonymously, leave no trace that it's been you.)
Parent
Re:Before partying.. (Score:2)
The implication that the German decision has little to do with the US is unfounded; the two systems are so sufficiently similar that the decision would have been the same in the US.
Re:Before partying.. (Score:4, Informative)
Just so no one is confused, GPL has nothing to do with "public domain" or "signing over copyright". It is a license that a copyright holder puts on the work.
Parent
True, however (Score:5, Interesting)
That's really why it works so well. If I make a work, it is copyright to me. By default no one other than myself has any right to distribute it at all. To do so, you need a license. The GPL is that license, but has provisions. You don't have to accept it, that's fine, but then you don't have a license to distribute. In no way are your rights infringed on, or copyright cricumvented.
Same thing applies to overall vailidity. If it's not valid, as SCO would like, that's fine, but then they, and anyone else, distributing GPL code are infringing on copyright since they have no license to do so. So if it's ruled invalid, it's a loss for them, espically since I imagine many bitter OSS people would go after them for copyright infringement as retribution.
This ruling is just a formal legal statement on that fact. A court has formally analyzed the GPL and come to the quite obvious conclusion: It's a legit license that obeys both the letter and spirit of copyright law.
Supposing it does go to court, I bet the ruling is the same in the US.
Parent
Re:True, however (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true. However, how copyright law defines software "derived works" has never been clarified, so there might be some edge cases (such as with dynamic libraries) where the traditional FSF interpretation doesn't hold up. If there ever is a real legal question over the (L)GPL, it would likely involve the "viral" aspects of glibc or QT,
Re:True, however (Score:2, Interesting)
in germany that can't work out as PD doesn't really exist here
Very common misconception (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite conceivable that one judge would rule "against" one of the provisions of GPL for a very specific case, without invalidating the whole license. For instance: what if NVidia gets sued for not publishing their drivers under the GPL, and the judge does not consider their kernel module to be derived off the kernel ? Does that mean the GPL is invalid/unenforceable and NVidia used the linux kernel without a license? Hardly.
Parent
Re:Very common misconception (Score:3, Informative)
This still doesn't get around the fact that, if what you're distributing classifies as 'derived work', then you're caught by the GPL.
Note that the GPL can, in some cases, call on you to distribute the source code to something that -- standing by itself -- would not constitute derived code. An example might be embeded device manufacturers. Even though a Linux module, distributed on it's own, might not classify as a derivative work triggering the GPL, th
Re:True, however (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:True, however (Score:2)
Almost all GPL attacks can be refuted by one of two statements:
1) No company or individual has to accept the GPL in order to use the product.
2) Whatever your criticism of the GPL, if you reword that criticism to "INSERT PROPRIETARY EULA HERE", the GPL winds up looking 10x as good as the proprietary one (most journalists fail to ask themselves if the same criticisms applies to the proprietary licenses, and they usually do in spades).
The only legitimate criticisms I've found are those between F
It's nice (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's nice (Score:5, Funny)
anyway, can't folks in the judicial system can still use this as 'precedent' in a way?
Parent
No, it can't (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, IANAL.
Re:No, it can't (Score:2)
Re:It's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but technically, "yes and no". It can't be an actual precedent because a precedent is a prior ruling/interpretation on the SAME law, which isn't the case since it was a ruling on a German law. However, it can still be quoted by an attorney as previous ruling, to demonstrate that upholding the GPL is not so unusual and is "universal". The GPL isn't American or German, after all. The judge can do with that info as he pleases, consider or discard it. A smart judge would probably look at it and at least say "hmm".
Parent
Re:It's nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's nice (Score:2)
Exactly when do you think the US ever has?
Re:It's nice (Score:2)
That doesn't in any way mean that the GPL will be overruled in the US. Just because we don't do everything Europe does doesn't mean we never do the same thing.
My translation: (Score:5, Informative)
sorry for the messed up formating:
The open source project netfilter/iptables has won a huge success in the legal
battle against the router manufacturer Sitecom: With the decision of May 19,
2004 (Az. 21 O 6123/03) the Landgericht München [something like a district
court? R.] has confirmed the temporary injuction. Acording to this the
manufacturer Sitecom is prohibited to sell its WLAN routers until further
notice. Also the comparatively high amount of the dispute of Euro 100000 was
confirmed in the decision.
In the written opinion which was published on friday, it is clearly stated that
the judge considers the GPL valid for principal reasons. It says: "The
chamber shares the opionion that the conditions of the GPL can under no
circumstances be seen as an abandonment of copyrights and legal positions linked
to copyright." The sueing developer was legitimized to demand the rights
linked to the sourcecode
This makes it finally clear that the GPL model also works according to
German law", rejoiced Lawyer Till Jaeger, who represents the
netfilter/iptables project, in an interview with heise online. After this
"probably worldwide first decision on the validity and enforcability"
it was assured that the open source community defends itself. On the other hand
the Court has made it clear, that nobody has anything to fear if he plays by the
rules of the GPL
It is unknown if the router manufacturer plans furter legal steps. Jaeger's
client in the mean time found out that Sitecom offers one additional router
model (WL-111) with a firmware that infringes the GPL. A fine of 10000 Euro
because of infringement against the temporary injunction has already been
demanded, declared Jaeger
Truly a reason to rejoice, for Jaeger and for us!
Re:My translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
American Courts (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. McBride takes the stand... (Score:5, Funny)
Darl McBride: No no! That's German for "The GPL, the".
Jury mumblings: Well, no one that speaks German can be evil! NOT GUILTY!
Awesome (Score:2)
This is good news (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL is probably one of the least controversial copyright licences out there, and I would say it is totally watertight.
The only places where there might be problems are in countries like Iran which don't recognise copyrights from countries like the US. - if there is no copyright, there is no need to agree to the terms of the GPL to be allowed to use the software.
Re:This is good news (Score:2)
That is true anyway. The GPL does not require agreement to use the software. It only governs distribution.
brings up a question (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also a victory for good old RMS who has stated for years that the GPL is legally valid and binding.
This brings up an interesting question in my mind. Lets hypothesize for a moment that SCO loses all it's lawsuits and the GPL is proven in a US court to be valid and legally binding. How will future lawsuits dealing with violations of the GPL handled?
Are violators of the GPL going to have to pay fines or be forced to open source the code they designed in conjunction with GPL'd code. Add to this the possible stances the FSF could take on this issue.
This definitly makes things more interesting in my opinion.
Re:brings up a question (Score:2, Informative)
Are violators of the GPL going to have to pay fines or be forced to open source the code they designed in conjunction with GPL'd code
They are going to have to stop infringing, just like today. This means removing the infringing code from, or GPLing, the product. There's a choice.
Of course, repeated willful infringment can and should definitely lead to fines.
IANAL
Re:brings up a question (Score:2)
The beauty of precedent (we dont have a precedent here yet) is that you usually don't HAVE to deal with lawsuits. Once the GPL is found to be fully legal and binding, if XYZ Inc. is infringing, FSF sends a letter to them saying to release the source, then XY
Re:brings up a question (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never heard of a copyright infringer being forced to lose rights to other IP of their own. I very much doubt anybody will ever be forced to open source code. This would be like saying the New York Times has to give away all copies of their paper from now on because one of their columns was plagarized. Such ideas are total nonsense, but are always brought up by the enemies of the GPL.
One part of confusion is that the infringer may choose to obey the GPL in exchange for getting the lawsuit threat dropped and to be able to continue distributing their product. But they were not "forced" by the GPL to do this. In fact, legally, it does not in any way get them out of their liability for the previous copyright violations (otherwise you could violate the GPL for years and then release the source code at the end as a "get out of jail free" card).
Parent
Germany says yes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which means the US courts are almost certainly going to have to say "no". Could lead to an interesting case where in Europe Microsoft is a monopoly that has to change its trading rules, Linux is perfectly okay and SCO is a joke. Meanwhile in the US its Microsoft the good corporate citizen, Linux is illegal and SCO is Unix.
Start an orderly queue at the borders please gentlemen and start boarding those boats.
How important? (Score:4, Interesting)
you're right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How important? (Score:3, Informative)
This decisions was made by a fairly low level court, so it might be of interest to other judges, but doesn't really set a precendent.
The basic way this works:
-Decisions by the constitutional court are binding for all German judges
-Decisions by the 7 federal courts are not binding due to article 97
Took long enough! (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it's a testament to the plain english and common sense language of the licence.
Re:Took long enough! (Score:2)
1. The GPL is valid. Comply with the terms of the license or cease all distribution.
2. The GPL is not valid. You have no right to distibute anything released the GPL you didn't write yourself because of b
Me too (Score:2)
Damien
All I have to say is (Score:2)
Some perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft speaks against the GPL for this very reason - now the developers must reveal their source code, because it was based on GPL'ed code. But what they conveniently neglect to mention is that according to the EULA, a Windows developer cannot distribute, or even build, a derivative of Windows, under any terms . The license for GPL code covers only distribution of derivative products, whereas the MS EULA covers merely using the product. In fact, to even view the source code for an MS product requires that a developer agree to never develop a competing product!
Merely posting the source will allow these guys to continue to ship their product, but if they'd chosen the Microsoft development model, they'd owe royalties for every single product shipped!
Even though these guys might not like divulging their source code, they are still in a much better position than had they used Microsoft's code as a basis for their product.
somewhat related question (Score:4, Interesting)
I downloaded it, right? Even if it is just a '30 day eval'. Shouldn't they give me the source code?
isn't this '30 day eval' against the premise of the PGL anyway, that I should be able to redistribute the software I use?
Re:somewhat related question (Score:4, Informative)
You can also redistribute it. Make sure you remove all the copyrighted material such as the SuSE logos and the installation program and help files, however. And make sure you remove any and all non-GPL stuff that you don't have a right to redistribute, such as Acrobat or any other such included programs. And you better recompile everything from scratch so you are sure their is nothing in the binaries that you don't have rights to redistribute. There are probably a lot of other rules, too.
Parent
Re:somewhat related question (Score:2)
Re:somewhat related question (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
why was there ever a doubt? (Score:2)
what's with the time-delay? (Score:2)
Take THAT, SCO! (Score:2)
Surely no one from Germany could be evil. Right?
GPL Valid? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its a bit like a Credit Card company providing a licence to someone that grants them the permission take anything they like they find in a shop without paying, on the condition that they deposit monies equaling that value into an account at some point later. Now, when some thief ends up in court for common theft, after nicking a load of stock, The thief claiming the Credit card companies licencing agreements with him are invalid, and can't be held up in court!.....
The GPL will be proven in a case of law when:
Person A , receives some software under the GPL, makes amendments to suit their needs, releases these changes to the world, as required by the GPL.
Person B, who makes software that competes with Person A (but this software also happens to be GPL'ed), Finds that there's this really neat piece of code done by person A, That will do wonders for his 'competing' GPL'd software, and so copies this code, line by line, into his product.... This product then becomes the market leader, no one wants to know A's product anymore!
Person A, isn't to happy with person B, and so sues A for copyright infringement. person B, then will have to rely on the GPL, to get themselves off the hook. At this point, if A can claim the GPL is invalid, then A has a case, however, by winning that particular case, they then leave themselves open to as similar copyright case by person C, who's software they original ripped off in the first place.
Absolutely not. (Score:3, Informative)
Going forward they would have to either remove the offending code from their products, comply with the GPL, or risk facing another Copyright Infringement case.