Copyright Protection Problems For OSS Project 390
An anonymous reader writes "There's a federal case in the Northern District of California where copyright for open source is being challenged. The free software project JMRI discovered that a commercial company was
using some of their files in a product, in violation of the license. They added a copyright claim to an ongoing legal action about cybersquatting, software patent abuse, etc. The patent case was covered on Slashdot back in June but the copyright part is new. The other side came back with an argument that copyright law didn't apply, simply because they software was 'being given away for free.'"
Hate to break it to them (Score:4, Insightful)
See Also: Out of Germany, but even someone like D-Link couldn't shake the GPL:
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, to give credit, that came from:
h s.html
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyt
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:5, Informative)
Not that I agree with this argument, but it's what they're making. They're not making an argument that the software is public domain. In fact, the phrase "public domain" does not appear in the filing.
The filing also references Sun v Microsoft. It's also interesting because if you successfully apply this argument to other software, you would be immune from prosecution for running a warez site, though you'd still be on the hook for contract violation. IANAL, of course.
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:5, Interesting)
But the counterargument is that since they're self-evidently not following the terms of the license, then they don't have a binding contract, hence we're back to a copyright violation.
So, prediction: they're going to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:5, Informative)
They absolutely need to agree to a license [fsf.org] (not sign a contract) to use the software. The terms of the license say that you have the traditional rights granted by copyright (which means you're not allowed to copy someone else's original work), but that *if* you comply with the terms of the license, they'll grant you the right to redistribute, modify, etc.
One of the conditions in the terms of the license is that you aren't allowed to *change* the terms of the license in a number of ways. If you do, then those rights are rescinded, and you go back to only having the rights granted under copyright law (which means, you have to ask my permission to do anything with it).
You said (in part):
You're bound by the terms of the license that the software is distributed under. The person who distributed the software to you did so with the knowledge that there were certain things that had to be done to be in compliance with the license. One of those things is to make sure that the license is distributed with the software, so that it's clear what's allowed and what's not.
If you received the software without the license (i.e. the person who distributed it failed in their duties to comply with the licensing requirements), then that doesn't mean you are allowed to ignore copyright law or that your copy is magically license free. Just ask the folks at the BSA about that. Millions of illegally-licensed copies of Windows are installed and used every year, and there are very real penalties for knowingly doing so.
You also said:
If the contract was for support, then they paid for support. The license is a separate thing...it covers under what conditions you may use the software under, not whether you will receive support.
You mentioned that you wouldn't be bound by that agreement (the support one) any more than redhat would be bound to give you support. True, since you didn't enter into a support contract with them (although you could do so very easily). You then mentioned that:
This almost true, since you would be bound by the terms of the license of the software you received, not by a contract signed directly with a particular company or person. Traditionally, copyright was the only legal condition allowed for distributing a work, but the GPL is becoming common, and allows more freedom. The GPL says (in part):
The only reason you are *ever* allowed to redistribute is because of the license. If you don't accept the terms of the license, there isn't anything else that magically gives you distribution rights. It doesn't matter if you got it direct from RedHat, or from some guy in a van behind a seedy building, the only rights you have are copyright and the license the work is distributed under. Copyright gives you certain fair-use rights, none of which would apply to you distributing someone else's software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They absolutely need to agree to a license (not sign a contract) to use the software.
The GNU GPL says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted
So you do NOT need to agree to ANYTHING to USE the software. The GNU GPL (as with any other copyright license actually, despite what some would have you believe) applies to copying, distribution and modification only.
You just don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
What the heck is so hard to understand about that?
The beauty of the GPL lies in its supremely elegant hack of using copyright to fight copyright. The ONLY way the GPL can fail is if copyright itself is declared null and void. If there are ANY flaws in the GPL, those EXTRA redistribution rights would automatically be cancelled. The GPL grants EXTRA rights, and if it fails, those extra rights die with it.
"I give you permission to pass around this program based on my copyrighted work, provided that you tell everyone you pass it to that they have this same right under the same conditions to a copy of the source code."
"OK."
"Hey, Joe just said you refused to give him the source code to that program."
"Yup."
"Bingo, you no longer have any rights to redistribute the program based on my source code."
Pretty damn simple.
What you are saying doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are saying if a software company sells CDs of their programs to retailers and permits the retailers to redistribute the CDs, then they've forfeited their copyrights? Retailers buy software specificly to resell and redistribute it.
Or how about software companies who make libraries for other software companies to use? If the companies who buy couldn't redistribute the libraries, the software they make themselves wouldn't be very useful. (Have you ever tried to run a program without a library it requi
Re:What you are saying doesn't make sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What you are saying doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, IANAL (but I play one on /.). I read the decision that you have sited, and it cannot be applied to a case involving the GPL, for several reasons. First, the contract between Graham and James was strictly an oral contract for distribution rights, many terms of which had to be inferred by the district court. From the decision:
The GPL states explicitly that all rights granted by it are recinded if the terms are violated. So it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the agreement is void.
Further, the decision is based on whether the defendant could conclude that they maintained rights under the license, even though they had violated some terms. Check this out:
The court makes the distinction here - and the GPL makes it explicit. The court is re-stating the affirmation that is used in the GPL itself, paraphrased as "violate the conditions of this license, and you have no rights to the code".
Sorry, but there is NO WAY that that decision can be used to argue that you are not liable for copyright infringement just because the code is being distributed under a license. Your interpretation of the case is just too simplistic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to put it in my own words, the paragraph (from the court decision above) is making the distinction between failing to uphold a duty (convenant) imposed by the license (like making a payment required by the license), and failing to satisfy a condition of the license (like you are allowed to distribute binaries compiled from the source but not source code itself, or you are allowed to distribute sou
Re:You're missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Try run that one past Microsoft's attorneys when you start selling burned CDs of Vista, then come back and tell us how that went.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand US law, a licence is contract. A specialised form of contract, but a contract nevertheless.
That's not how the GPL licence works:
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is that the license and the license alone is what permits the redistribution of the copyrighted materials. If you breach the license/contract/whatever, then without it, you have copyright infringement. Neither does receiving copyrighted materials from someone else absolve you of the restrictions placed on you by copyright law.
Unless, of course, your belief is that it is a perfectly valid position to claim that the license is invalid and you're not going to follow the restrictions on it, but the license is still valid. I'd love to see what happens to the world if that becomes a precedent. "I think my cellphone contract is bogus so I'm not going to pay you. But I expect you to continue to provide cell service for the rest of the year because we have a contract." Or maybe "I think our cellphone contract is bogus so we're turning off your service tomorrow. But I expect you to continue to pay us for the rest of the year because we have a contract, or pay the early termination penalty." Sounds fun.
it's "precedent" (Score:3, Funny)
is that a 1998 precident
Argh, that's twice, dude. It's spelled "precedent".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's spelled "precedent".
Careful! George Bush will think you are referring to him.
Hate to break it to you (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me. Violation of the GPL terminates your redistribution rights and it falls back to a standard copyright violation. The 1998 precedent has no bearing whatsoever because you are violating copyright law.
Keeriminy it's simple.
Re:Hate to break it to them (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Distinguishment: (Score:3, Interesting)
The determination in the Sun Vs MS case wasn't that Sun
Re: (Score:2)
It's not being given away for free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL grants certain allowances of redistribution. It's something like "I'm going to let you download this. I have a copyright on it, though, so you can only give it to others if you follow these rules. If you don't follow these rules, you can't give it to others."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, there are technically conditions imposed if you chose not to agree to the license. but those conditions are only the legal rights to distributing the software/code. If you refuse the license (with a GPLed piece of code), you are refusing the only condition to get those rights. SO if you refuse, you cannot give the stuff to anyone else for any reason other then what fair use on copy written work policy might allow.
Everyone who is claimin
Promotional CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that this defense won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you didn't install them and invoke the EULA, you sure can. Or are you telling me that you are subject to an illegal EULA you didn't even click-thru? If so, the industry has succeeded in brainwashing you!
Re: (Score:2)
Note the word "copies" in my one-liner. You can't sell copies of a CD without express permission of the rights holder, EULA or no EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd hate to see copyright law go away altogether. I'd prefer that it only apply to commercial transactions, however. I'd also like the term to be something like 15 years - I don't understand why copyrights are so much longer in duration than patents... the goal is essentially the same.
What part of the copyright act requires money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What part of the copyright act requires money? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the actual case is more complicated and nuanced that that, however.
I can do that too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Using their argument, I guess that if the publisher sends me a free book I can make copies. I put my name on as the author and sell too.
IT'S FREE!
ANYTHING GOES!
Should be open and shut case. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Should be open and shut case. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember this story when it first came into public light. Given the volume of documentation available via JMRI [sourceforge.net], additionally via groklaw [groklaw.net], and elsewhere, I'll avoid going into specifics, but it was and remains quite clear that JMRI's copyright was being flagrantly infringed by an aggressive and offensive party.
Please read the brief summary of legal proceedings available here on their site. [sourceforge.net]
There is no way I can see JMRI losing, if the American court system has any integrity left at all.
As you'll see, they're not exactly doing too well. This is unfortunate and greatly diminishes my confidence in the American legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like USL v Berkeley all over again....
Re:Should be open and shut case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should be open and shut case. (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to think that a career change from software developer to lawyer would be a fairly easy and natural progression. After all both professions are all about understanding the rules and figuring out the more optimal paths that both follow the rules and produce the desired result. It ought to be a cinch.
Except for one crucial difference.
In the software world each code path either works or is broken - there may be multiple paths that produce the same result, but their correctness is black and white. In the legal world, nothing is black and white. What "works" one day, may be broken the next day depending on who the observers are (judge, different lawyers, etc).
That kind of behavior is so totally effed up from an engineer's perspective that only an insane engineer could ever become a good lawyer. The law is really just a huge collective bong party - everybody toking up and then speculating out loud about their deepest philosophical insights into the universe. It all comes down to how well you can convince other people that the words of the law mean what you want them to mean and not what someone else wants them to mean.
People all laughed when Clinton (a lawyer, like most politicians) made that statement about "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" But given the context that the law is all about arguing over the meaning of words, it is perfectly natural that he would say that. Still totally effed up, but in a perfectly natural way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you pay the access fee - exorbitant private attorney fees - or you risk going into debt, even when no sane p
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if they lost (Score:2)
If they lose then that means that all images and text from all websites are free to use whether there is a copyright on them or not since they have been 'given away' to your PC free of charge.
Apart from that only a dope would rule against JMRI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Should be open and shut case. (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it this way: Internet Explorer is free. Broadcast radio is free. Broadcast television is free. Demo software is free. Lots of newspapers are free. All of these things have moneyed companies behind them that would be completely screwed if the court rules that copyright protection only applies to things that are sold.
So regardless of whether the court system has integrity or is up for sale to the highest bidder, I think JMRI wins this one.
Naked woman on the roof! (Score:4, Funny)
It is kind of weird to expect that someone ought to play your game when you've already given up your whole hand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That won't fly in court (Score:5, Insightful)
Your honor, since Star Wars was shown on TV, for free, I had every right to edit in some new scenes and sell it as Matt's Space Adventure.
Yeah, right. This sounds like the defense of last resort.
Re: (Score:2)
If the case is as simple as, "They showed their hand without being protected by patent, and therefore we can steal it," well, then we have a problem. Software is subject to copyright, even tho you don't spend any money to *anybody* on your behalf who is licensing it. Its not like you're not paying your television companies, who in term pay for licensing the
Re: (Score:2)
No, you pay for (over the air) TV by watching ads...
you'd think, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, right.
You'd think- but the asshole (Matt Katzer) filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit in response to a lawsuit seeking him to cease and desist (he was hounding a government research facility that was employing one of the JMRI authors and JMRI had enough)..basically won it, and got over $30K for his attorneys...and that's AFTER their claims for legal fees were determined to be excessive/unreasonable, and reduced!
He's run out and filed patents for stuff days after someone else announced they developed it...then turned around and demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties. Made absolutely insane, blatantly false assertations.
Both his lawyers should be disbarred based on the level of falsehoods present in court filings. EFF, where the hell are you? I'm always hearing about I should donate to the EFF, but I don't see them doing a fucking thing for JMRI to fend off this sleaze.
Re:you'd think, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's despicable, but that's how justice works in this country.
We need a system where a guy like Jacobsen here can just go down to the court, tell the judge in plain words what this fucker Katzer is doing to him, and get relief without having to put up big bucks for a lawyer and without facing $30,000 in essentially fines because of a technical screwup that someone without legal training can't be expected to have forseen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because they've managed to get the system into such a state that you can't get justice in cases like this unless you've got a *big* checkbook to throw at it, have made the entire system so convoluted that the average person can't effectively represent himself in court, and hold enough positions of power in the government such that they can ensure the gravy train continues perpetually.
Of course there are decent lawyers out there too. I know several that
Get the devil to help (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no such thing as "free" lunch.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright fallacy in a nutshell, finally! (Score:4, Informative)
The other side came back with an argument that copyright law didn't apply, simply because they software was 'being given away for free.
Copyright is not a guarantee of a revenue stream, or even an implication of one. It's about ownership.
What you choose to do with that ownership is your own business. Make a fortune, or not. Your copyright, your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Program in Question (Score:2)
One by one the dominoes fall... (Score:4, Informative)
This case looks like it'll help shut up those morons who think free software licenses (i.e. the GPL) are unenforcable.
We've had Sitecom's laughable 'exhaustion of rights/first sale' argument thrown out of court in Germany.
In another German case, D-Link tried to claim that the GPL was invalid, therefore they had a right to use GPL'ed code as if it was public domain. That didn't get them anywhere.
And Daniel Wallace has been slapped eight ways to Sunday in two court cases (one of them being taken to appeal) for attempting to claim that the GPL violated the antitrust laws. Impressively, he spurred three different judges to each give a ringing endorsement to the GPL, one of them going so far as to refer to Linux as 'GNU/Linux' exclusively throughout his final ruling!
Now here, the defendant is mirroring a common anti-GPL troll, by claiming the Artistic License is a contract, not a license, and that code given for free on the internet is public domain. He's going to lose of course, and the precedent will almost certainly apply to the GPL when he does.
Now all we need is for some kook to try claiming that the GPL, or some other similar license, is preempted by the US constitution (You still there, SCO?), and that's pretty much all the standard anti-GPL attacks exhausted.
Looks like free software's legal foundations are being solidly built as we speak...
Cool! (Score:2)
Established precedent in print journalism (Score:5, Informative)
While those copies are being offered for free, they were not produced for free. This is why so many of such free papers now bear a label similar to "Take one, if you want more, contact the editor."
In the software world, the open source plaintiffs could argue that, while their product is offered for free, it was not produced for free. That, and the license under which the defendant agreed to use the software specifically states that they must follow the terms of the license in order to use the software.
Take that analogy a step further (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I Think That SCO Tried This (Score:3, Interesting)
This half-assed defense also presumes that money is the only legitimate cause of action in the courts.
Rong.
Another example (Score:2, Interesting)
The most troublesome part - lawyer comments please (Score:2, Interesting)
Hello!?!? This alone stands to kill any and every small Open Source project in California. I know of a few here, in Silicon Valley no less.
Could someone with a legal background (or even reasonable knowledge here) please explain how this could possibly happen, and what defense on Open Source project has!?!?!
Thanks.
It's an old argument (Score:2)
a.k.a. "Yer honor, I couldn't possibly have raped that woman, because she's a slut who gives it away for free"
Who they are (Score:4, Informative)
KAMIND Associates [kamind.net] delivers Microsoft solutions for small business customers. We use a standards methodology in understanding our customer's needs. Our policy is to evaluate the customer requirements and generate a phase plan of action that details the work needed to accomplish the task - fully disclosing all problems and issues.
As part of our service model, we work with customers to develop an integrated IT services plan that solves the customers need and results in long term bottom line savings.
As a locally own small business owner, we are very much aware of the cost of an improper IT solution that does not deliver the productivity gains expected. Our phased approach for small business is a win-win business model. Our customers win by having an efficient solution for the their problem, and we win by delivering the solution on time, on budget and on schedule.
KAMIND Associates specializes using Microsoft technologies for commercial and retail market. These areas of include.
I would personally stay away from any company whose management cannot understand basic copyright regulation and attempts to defend itself with such a nonsense argument as "the software is being given away for free".
Pro Se (Score:2, Funny)
From that statement I assumed that this is a Pro Se case then I went and read the article. I think the defendant needs to get another lawyer because his current one is fucking stupid.
Just because you include the source code in no way nullifies your copyright. IANAL but even I know that much. The fact that the user accepted the license testifies to the fact that he ackn
EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)
The important legal question (Score:4, Funny)
Have you ever seen milk come out of a judge's nose?
Already a $30,000 miscarriage of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Jacobsen basically made the wrong technical legal charges in an effort to gain relief from Katzer's false accusations and harassment, Jacobsen, the open source developer, ended up being forced to pay Katzer approximately $30,000 in legal fees.
It appears that Jacobsen represented himself.
Now, this situation in itself is deeply disturbing. Jacobsen apparently did not hire a lawyer, and what is disturbing is that he should NOT have had to hire a lawyer in order to get relief from bullying by Katzer and his corporation that was already interfering with Jacobsen's personal and professional life. Because he thought justice would be done for the little guy if you are just honest, he made charges that were technically wrong. An honest mistake. A technicality.
In the case of a private citizen against a corporation (KAM in this case), justice must not come down to whether the citizen dots his 'I's and crosses his 'T's. Justice must not be dependent upon the citizen's economic means. In this and many cases it clearly was. The legal system through which we must rely for relief from injustice such as this is truly a quagmire as we can see in this case by Jacobsen, clearly the victim, being forced to pay legal fees to a corporation because of a technicality.
Do you realize it is illegal in most states for an ordinary citizen to read try to help another citizen by answering questions about what a law even means - for attempting to understand on our own the laws the govern our lives? There is a tax on justice to the tune of $200/hour+.
Jacobsen should be able to go into a court, tell the court what is happening to him, and the COURT should look at the situation and say, look, you are the victim here, this is what laws this asshole is guilty of, if he does this again you come back here and we will punish him.
THAT is what should happen. I don't care how it is done. Maybe that means public attorneys who we can go to for legal advice and to file the correct charges in court. Maybe that means courts that we can just make in and the judge will be responsible for determining if and how he has been wronged. This isn't going to be popular with the trial lawyer lobby. The same as they have lobbied to make it illegal for us to try to help fellow citizens to understand the laws that govern our lives, they also strongly resist any move that would allow us people to get justice out of this system of ours without inserting quarters in their pockets just to play.
You won't see Republicans get behind this because their big business sugar daddies want to keep citizens under their thumbs. You won't see Democrats get behind this because they are in the pockets of the trial lawyer lobby.
A technicality is not justice at all. Fuck you KAM. And fuck you you goddamned lawyers who work for money not for what is just and true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't consider making false charges in a court of law to be a technicality. In this case, it seems like a legitimate mistakes by a person who has probably legitimately been wronged, but I fail to see any reliable method of judging when it's a mistake and when it's someb
Re:Already a $30,000 miscarriage of justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't they claiming they've been given a license? (Score:5, Interesting)
They certainly don't assert that copyright doesn't apply for Free Software or Open Source. This same exact argument could be used on a shrinkwrap EULA "violation."
I guess it does raise a technical issue, though. When a creator and a user don't actually meet, sign contracts, etc -- when licensing gets implied -- how do you decide it if actually happened?
For example, with either a Microsoft EULA, or GPLed Linux, or whatever, at some point a user may decide to do something that is not Fair Use under copyright. Maybe they want to modify the software and sell 10 copies to someone else (in the case of GPL) or maybe they want to .. uh .. actually I can't think of any rights that MS EULAs grant, but let's ass/u/me that there's some sort of reason a person might want to agree to it. (?!)
When the user goes ahead and does the licensed copyright violation (e.g. selling 10 copies of Linux), it is argued that either they have violated copyright, or they have agreed to the license. Now let's say they are also doing something that is not permitted by the license (such as selling copies of Linux w/out offering the source). So now, they're either violating copyright, or they're violating the license. How do you know which one they did? Just like Microsoft's relationship with their users, you don't have any evidence that they ever accepted the license.
If they sue you for copyright violation, just say you accepted the license -- and then they need to sue you for breach of contract instead. If they sue you for breach of contract, say you didn't accept the license, and then they'll have to sue for you copyright violation instead.
Without evidence of what happened, you make 'em sue you twice. Of course, the second time (assuming they have any lawyer-money left), they've got you.
The defense makes one good point... (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL - but that seems reasonable to me. Of course now they need to be stuck with a charge of breaching the license terms - but that's evidently not what the prosecution have accused them of. The problem is that the Xfree and similar licenses don't have cast-iron legal language as GPL does - so with weak language describing the 'licensing' terms - it seems possible that the defendants could indeed weasel their way out of this.
Personally, I think that if you are going to use one of those licenses, the best you could hope for is a one line mention in the very small print of the Albanian section of the user manual - somewhere between the environmental impact statement and the warning not to let children under 3 years play with the software because of choking hazards. Why the heck you'd find that important escapes me. If you want solid copyright protection, use the GPL - if you want utter freedom for people to do whatever they like with your code - then don't be surprised when they do exactly that.
Re:The defense makes one good point... (Score:4, Informative)
In at least some OSS licenses, a license for distribution of the software is granted only as long as the express limitations of the license agreement are followed. If you violate the terms of the agreement, you expressly invalidate the license that permits you to distribute the software. If you then distribute it anyway, you are violating copyright law. As you say, it really depends on what this particular license says in this case, though if it were the GPL, it would probably be ironclad enough to withstand the issue that came up in Sun v Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So when did your mother change her name to "FOSS"?
Doesn't matter. (Score:2)
Me too.
thus any commentary on my behalf would mean I am talking out of my ass.
Never stopped me before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm no lawyer either, but this just doesn't make any logical sense:
IANAL, but if
Re: (Score:2)
Then they argue that this is not a copyright case, but a contract case? I know that lawyers speak a different language than the rest of us, but... can someone point out my error?
I'm envisioning the defense attorney taking potshots, seeing what'll hit. As for the copyright/contract case, they seem to be arguing that since the stuff is distributed under the GPL, they accepted that license and are now accused of violating it. Since ISTR that the GPL has a clause stating that violating the contract voids it,
Re:Read the brief they filed - he *may* be right (Score:5, Informative)
My interpretation is that as long as you provide a link to the author's web page somewhere on your site, you are golden.
Sounds like you can incorporate the open-source code into a commercial program, as long as you do not advertise that you are using it!
There are also no patent requirements -- at all! Which means someone can patent the ideas in the source code and then sue the original copyright holder -- while distributing the code! Since the existence of prior art does not render an issued patent invalid, this is a distinct possibility. Not to mention, how are you going to argue monetary damages if there are barely any restrictions?
Really, it sounds like the guy suing JMRI is mostly in the right, legally speaking. The artistic license may not be enforceable, and appears to give him the right to distribute the code commercially. The breach of contract suit won't yield any monetary damages -- the license is not restrictive enough. His patents are valid (at least until the USPTO revokes them, which may never happen). All I can say is... should have used the GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Federal courts are perfectly able to decide matters of state law, and in fact do so all the time.
Anyway, federal copyright law includes a provision that preempts state copyright law. The idea is that this way there is only one system of copyright law in the US, rather than parallel state and federal systems, where the state systems might differ amongst themselves. Remember that the federal government lacks inherent powers and instead is given powers from the states and the people. The states had c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For example, let's say you are arrested in your state, by your local police, and they make some kind of terrible procedural error. You'll end up in a county court, most likely, which is a court created by your state, but you can make an argument based on the federal constitution. The court will consider this law, which is foreign to it in that it's a state co
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. It is black and white. One may only be for or against copyright at any given moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open source/creative commons have taken the place of the public domain.
So yes, copyright law way too long.
But while it is that way, then open source is a workaround that uses copyright law to protect the work for public use through licensing.
Re:newclear power a problem for unprecedented evil (Score:2)
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is a distribution license, not an End User Licence Agreement. EULAs are licenses to use the software. The GPL is a license to distribute the software. You do not have to agree to the GPL to use any GPL software. The GPL gives you more rights than default copyright gives. EULAs give less rights than default copyright.
I believe EULAs are invalid by the doctrine of first sale. But, of course, IANAL. I feel that if EULAs are upheld we're going to start seeing EULAs on automobiles and other such property. Imagine if the computer chip in a car would keep the car from starting if you weren't using a "certified" fuel filter or gasoline. Then if you tampered with the chip (your propery, mind you since you paid for it), the manufacturer would sue you under the DMCA. You'd scream bloody hell, but for some reason when it comes to software people take it in the ass.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Same, really, if you ask me.
> We want our cake (GPL, OSS, etc) but we wanna eat it too (i.e. all EULA's are invalid, thus don't bind us or count).
No. Unless I'm severely mistaken, the GPL is nothing like a EULA because a EULA dictates rules and conditions that are supposed to govern your usage of the software as soon as you have purchased and installed it. The GPL on the other hand covers distributi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't hold up, because that's not what they really said. They're really saying, "We licensed your software, and if we're not complying with the license, then sue us for that. But once you offered the license and we accepted, then copyright was no longer an issue. The issue, now, is the contract."
Presumably they have figured out that there is some advantage to being guilty of violating a license, rather than being guilty of violating copyright. If you're going to lose, lose the way that hurts the lea