Slashdot Log In
GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Sep 05, 2006 06:23 AM
from the never-fun-to-break-new-legal-ground dept.
from the never-fun-to-break-new-legal-ground dept.
MadFarmAnimalz writes "In what appears to be the first court test for the GPL in the Middle East, Alexander Maryanovsky, the author of the GPL licensed Jin Chess Client is taking IchessU to court for violations of the GPL license."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
This is an executable and front end chess client.
This has been extended by iChessU to support a closed source DLL which adds new functionality (notably video streaming between players).
The source code to the Expanded client is available [ichessu.com] and providing you have the closed source binary DLL, you can run the newly compiled program.
Isn't this like me releasing a GPL program which is linked to the nvidia or ATI blobs?
Hell, isn't it similar if I write a GPL application which uses the Windows API?
I personally feel as though this is an overreaction, the ichessu site does not hide the fact its based on JIN and offers sources, or am I wrong and this is infact a genuine GPL violation?
No it's not (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this like me releasing a GPL program which is linked to the nvidia or ATI blobs?It isn't, because ATI and NVidia do not link to the kernel. The portions of the NVidia and ATi driver that *do* link directly to the kernel (also known as the "kernel stub"), are indeed GPL. What happns, is the closed source X driver communicates to and from the stub indirectly, not via linking.
It's actually just a different DRM/DRI implementation, which nearly all X drivers use nowadays.
Note in this case DRM does not mean "Digital Rights management", it means "Direct Rendering Manager"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
To be specific - I am pretty sure the drivers use either a UNIX socket or a named pipe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a pretty extraordinary claim, given that the graphics card drivers should be some of the highest-performance ones in the system. I would have thought that they,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pipes, temp files, sockets, none of these are covered by the GPL. The GPL covers explicitly *linking only*. If a GPL'ed piece of software could not communicate with a closed source piece of software over a socket or pipe, the Apache web server would not ex
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps that was just an unfortunate choice of words, or a
Not pipes or sockets ... merely source (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been watching the kororaa [kororaa.org] project for a while, ever since we did one tandem session with XGL and OS X on two machines, watching XGL rule - especially in the video across cube faces demo. But a few weeks later, the developer announced that he's stoppi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole model makes the user violate GPL in principle
Actually, since the end user doesn't distribute anything there is no violation there. So the end user is still in the white. Depending on the interpretation of the GPL Nvidia may be in a gray/black
Re: (Score:3)
nVidia clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
The Law of the Land gives you only very limited permission to copy a program (see "fair use" or "fa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
And in the license itself: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
IMHO, that means Windows API = ok, Java API = ok,
And that makes sense. Otherwise I could just build all of my app in my "MainApp API" and GPL my "StartMainApp()" function call...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens if you release a GPL'd program with a plug-in API? That's fine.
Now you release a closed-source plug-in. That's not fine, since the plug-in is a derived work of the G
I don't think that's right... (Score:3, Informative)
That's not right...intentions have nothing to do with it.
You can license your code any way you want. If you want to license part of it as gpl, write a dll that is meant to work with your program only, but license it in a proprietary form, than release t
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.
Only part of the client source code is downloadable, not the whole; this is a violation of the GPL. Also, the iChessU has an EULA which violates the GPL by placing new restrictions on how the code may be used.
The bad faith negotations accusation may be an overreaction but it's hard not to think this when iChessU initially wanted to license JIN but backed out when it appeared too expensive for them and then proceeded to use it anyway.
This is not an overreaction but a devloper fighting to prevent a third party assuming legal control of that developers work.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this like me releasing ... isn't it similar if I write ...
No, because in those cases you are the original author, so you can license the code how you wish. The GPL includes a specific exception for OS libraries that covers the second of these alr
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:4, Informative)
The process of installing the nVidia Kernel stub combines GPL and non-GPL code and compiles it on your machine. The resulting binary is NOT re-distributable under any licence. This is why Linux distributions do not come with the nVidia and ATI drivers built in, but you must install them separately.
This workaround works because the GPL only comes into effect when you copy a program not when you use it, as long as you are not copying (i.e. redistributing) the results you are not bound by its terms.
iChessU could use the same trick. Download the standard JIN source, download the iChessU patch and binary and compile them yourself - noone is copying the result, so the GPL is not violated. Though the resulting program contains GPL and non-GPL code and so can never be copied under any licence.
Further information (Score:5, Informative)
In the lawsuit, it is mentioned that in Israeli law (which I cannot confirm or deny, I have no idea) the minimal fine possible for this type of offense is 10,000 NIS (about $2250).
I can translate other parts of the Hebrew documents if anyone is interested.
Re:Further information (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Further information (Score:4, Informative)
Am I right in understanding that you want 11,000 NIS (about $2250) for each screenshot of your software that appears on their site?
10,000 NIS per screenshot, not 11,000. I realize it sounds funny asking damages for screenshots, but the Israeli law only allows between 10k and 20k of damages per violation. We are also suing via a legal "fast track" (otherwise it'd take years to get a decision) where we must ask for minimum damages. So, without the screenshot damages, I could be looking at spending the same amount of money on the lawsuit as the potential damages. Plus, after a couple of weeks of futile attempts to explain to Mr. Rabinovich that he is wrong, and him basically telling me to fuck off, you could imagine I'm a bit pissed and want to nail him for everything he has.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
It all depends on the manner of linkage (Score:3, Informative)
The reason for
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
I personally feel as though this is an overreaction, the ichessu site does not hide the fact its based on JIN and offers sources, or am I wrong and this is infact a genuine GPL violation?
Actually, there are several violations:
- IChessU's released source code does not compile, so it can't possibly be considered the "complete corresponding source code", regardless of the status of the audio/video library (which to the best of my understanding of the GPL is also covered by it).
- IChessU do not release their application under the GPL, but instead under a horrendous EULA [ichessu.com]. Read it, really.
- Although they do mention Jin, they don't mention my copyright. Instead it's "Copyright (C) [2006] [unknown]", as if they don't know whose copyright Jin is.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clearly the fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
This may be an issue with the GPL wording though, which leaves this loophole that can be exploited by proprietary developers.
Given that only the GPL gives them the right to exploit this loophole, and that a copyright holder can choose to license their
Re:Right.... bit of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:3, Interesting)
It's great that we will get the benefit of this ruling during the year when GPLv3 [fsfeurope.org] is being written. This sort of thing provides great suggestions for what should be clearer or worded differently.
Re:In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you've never read a statute, or any case history then? Laws are already writte
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This mitigant layer is known as Latin, and is only spoken by academics that have never had actual sex with another human being. It is also spoken by various
Re:In a way, this is very lucky timing for GPLv3 (Score:5, Interesting)
There are very good reasons why this is impossible. Actually, what you are proposing is a very natural notion, that sadly turns out to be wrong. I say 'natural', because during the first third or so of the 20th century, philosophy (of language, in particular), was seeking exactly what you are driving at - a 'pure' language, free from ambiguity. This would have had benefits for legal matters, as well as philosophical ones, and even metamathematical implications. But this was shown to be a futile attempt (Wittgenstein being the major figure showing this). I'll briefly summarize why this is so.
First, when you refer to human-related things - as laws are, they mention e.g. 'assault', 'homicide', and so forth - there is no way to 'clean up' the language. It cannot be made unambiguous, because the underlying concepts are ambiguous. Try to define (as the famous example goes) 'game'. For any suggested definition, there are counterexamples (e.g. not all games are about winning or losing, not all games have scores, not all games are fun, etc. etc.). This is a simple consequence of the fact that life is complex - we use the word 'game' in many contexts, in many ways. Unlike in math, where we start with definitions, in the law we start with pre-existing human concepts and try to work with them. We therefore cannot arrive at unambiguous statements.
Second, and this is a more subtle issue, language is meaningless without a context of use. By this I mean, that if you see some scribbles on a page, they are worthless without someone to read them. A sentence + a reader are what is necessary for 'meaning' to exist. Thus, even if we write what we believe to be unambiguous text, we can never remove the element of the reader: for us, the statement is unambiguous, but for another person, with a slightly different mindset, it may not be so. You may claim that your interpretation is 'correct', but that will not avail you when a matter is put before the public, i.e. open to interpretation by many people, as the law must be.
Sorry to go on at length, but this is a fascinating topic for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing that few judges, laywers, or lay people understand Lojban ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban [wikipedia.org] ), there isn't much choice.
The key thing is, any language that has poetry and metaphor,
Case rules can handle much of law (Score:3, Informative)
Several people have written objections to youe suggestion here, but computer-based solutions are easy to find if you use a reductionist approach and don't try to do *everything* mech
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, great, as if our current laws weren't bad enough, now we get to have them written in an unsaf
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
generous offer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
GPL doesn't need to be tested. (Score:4, Informative)
What's being "tested", if anything, is copyright laws. And I believe that we all can agree on the fact that they are already, if nothing else, fairly tested in court.
Re:GPL doesn't need to be tested. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it does. Or can you merge GPL code and non-GPL code in a single codebase? This is a restriction of how you can use the code you obtained through the GPL license.
Re:GPL doesn't need to be tested. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a restriction that GPL adds: you never were allowed to do that in the first place. Suppose the code is not under any license, then standard copyright law applies. And copyright law does not let you copy that code to your code AT ALL.
Better Jin link (I'm the author) (Score:5, Informative)
How I would fight the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
If I wanted to write a program that integrated with GPLed software but did not want release my code under GPL, here is what I would do.
My strategy, instead of looking for loopholes in GPL's terms or figure out what is permitted, would be to completely avoid getting bound by the license. If I do not accept their license, then no lawyer is going to be able to make arguments about whether I complied or not. Don't fight on their terms. Don't let any of the text in their license be admissible or relevant.
The key to doing this, is to forget that the code you want to integrate with, is GPLed. Forget you have any extra rights that you might exploit. Assume that the code you're depending on has the tightest, most restrictive and hostile license that exists. Handle integration with a GPLed chess program, the exact same way that you would handle integration with Microsoft Excel. Ask for no favors other than whatever is allowed by copyright law.
To do that, the two major hurdles are:
If you can accomplish those two things, you avoid the license, and therefore it doesn't matter what kind of license it is, and it doesn't matter whether or not the terms of that license would permit whatever you're doing.
I'm not 100% sure what the legal definition of derivative work is, but I do know that you find out by asking your own lawyer instead of FSF's lawyer. As soon as someone at FSF starts talking about what they permit, you know they're talking about their license instead of copyright law. And you need to concentrate on copyright law.
One thing you can infer from the market overall, is that calling someone else's program does not make yours a derivative work. Even if you call the other work in a way that your program 100% totally depends on it and has zero worth without the other work, that doesn't make your program a derivative work. How do we know/infer this? From the proprietary software market. In spite of various projects like WINE, it's pretty safe to say that no Windows applications have any use outside of MS Windows. They simply don't run. If WordPerfect for Windows were a derivative work of MS Windows, don't you think Microsoft would have sued WordPerfect in order to squash the competition? Of course they would have. So don't worry about calling APIs.
And it doesn't matter how public the API is. Especially in the DOS days, there were all sorts of programs that did very intimate things to MSDOS's internal structures (e.g. disk managers, many many TSRs, etc) and nowdays on MS Windows you see some of this with the AV products. But surely McAfee's AV program is not a derived work of MS Windows. So don't worry about calling or the intimacy of calling. To avoid being a derivative work, just make sure you don't use any of the other guy's code.
Packaging. This is the tricky one. It's hard to sell a program that doesn't work on its own. The amusing thing here, is that with Linux, there are all sorts of packaging systems provided by the distributions, such as apt-get or emerge, that will solve this for you. If I wanted to write a proprietary program for Gentoo that depended on some GPLed stuff, it would be really easy to to just ship an ebuild that tells portage about the dependency, and it would get installed automatically when the user wanted to install my program. Then I wouldn't have to ship any of their stuff.
MS Windows (and MacOS AFAIK) doesn't have any sort of automatic generic get-and-install-all-the-dependencies program. (That makes it actually harder to defeat the GPL on Windows than on Linux.) Of course, you can probably just ship your Windows app with an installer than downloads and installs the dependencies, but support and maintenance would be tricky. And it would be
Re:The story by the developer, Alexander Maryanovs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
MOD ME UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!