Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Michigan Diagnostic Software Case Big Win for GPL 307

Posted by timothy from the nicely-done dept.
Pig Hogger writes "Many people claim that the validity of the GNU Public License has not been tested in court in the US. Well, it just had been, in Michigan, in a case that validated open-source car diagnostic software against the pretension of automakers who want to keep it secret. But don't take my word for it; read the story on GROKLAW." It's actually the Society of Automotive Engineers involved here; DrewTech (the developers in this case) nicely donated half of their settlement money to the SAE.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michigan Diagnostic Software Case Big Win for GPL More

Michigan Diagnostic Software Case Big Win for GPL

Comments Filter:

  • Good. (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:41PM (#12002088)
    But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis. This makes it a sometimes long and arduous process to assert rights and/or prove infringement, but hopefully more precedent will help.

    Since the provisions of the GPL have been upheld in a case in Germany as well [boingboing.net], maybe PearPC [sf.net] will be able to more easily defend itself against CherryOS [cherryos.com], which has blatantly taken GPL code, without release of source code or attribution, from PearPC and several other GPL projects:

    eWeek has a general overview of the situation:

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.as p [eweek.com]

    Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter, shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on:

    http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html [ht-technology.com]

    http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0501.html [drunkenblog.com]
    http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0503.html [drunkenblog.com]
    http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0504.html [drunkenblog.com]
    http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0507.html [drunkenblog.com]

    http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=articl e&id=348 [dnsalias.net]

    http://forums.pearpc.net/viewtopic.php?p=16178#161 78 [pearpc.net]
    http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/ [tliquest.net]
    http://dhost.info/kourge/en/projects/frauds/cherry os.php [dhost.info]

    Additionally, PearPC project authors are already asserting their rights under the GPL:

    http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg _id=11116974 [sourceforge.net]

    And a general compilation of some of the evidence so far against CherryOS:

    http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg _id=11125509 [sourceforge.net]
    • Now that people are using copyright law to protect ownership of GPL source code, people can no longer in the next breath defend copyright infringement on P2P networks.

      If you use intellectual property and copyright law to defend the GPL and go after infringers, then there is nothing wrong with the RIAA protecting its intellectual property using copyright law and going after infringers.
      • I'm glad someone realizes this.

        And I'm at least consistent [slashdot.org] in [slashdot.org] my [slashdot.org] views [slashdot.org] here [slashdot.org]...

        By the way, I was glad to see your reference to A Measure of Media Bias [ucla.edu] recently.

        But then, most people are equally hypocritical and willfully ignorant in that realm as well.

      • Re:Okay, now it's official (slightly off-topic) (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @03:52PM (#12003672) Homepage Journal
        Actually, it's pretty easy to say those two things consecutively. One has to do with using copyright to protect profits versus people taking copyrighted material for personal use, while the other has to do with using copyright to protect people's right to personal use against a company taking the source code, changing it in non-public ways, and selling it for a profit. A lot of people see those as being very different arguments. In fact, they are basically diametrically opposite uses of copyright.

        In fact, one might reasonably argue that copyright law should be altered to always allow personal use, in which case using copyright to protect against GPL infringement would be covered, while the RIAA suing their customers wouldn't. More to the point, almost all "fair use" falls into the category of "personal use", and most "personal use" has historically fallen under "fair use". The Audio Home Recording Act essentially set that as the standard when it came to infringement, so it isn't really as unreasonable as it sounds.

        As for myself, I could go either way on the issue of personal use. However, I don't think that's what the RIAA suits are really about. I think that in those suits, copyright is essentially being used as a sledgehammer to stifle potential competition. By painting P2P in such a negative light, they reduce the effectiveness of P2P technology and the internet as a whole at allowing unsigned artists to be heard---something that the recording industry desperately wants to avoid, as it significantly weakens the relevance of their role as gatekeeper....

        Sometimes coins have more than just two sides.

        • What use is there for novels other than "personal use"? Most copyrighted material is intended solely for "personal use". Why does it make sense for copyright not to be valid for "personal use"? Doesn't that circumvent the entire purpose of copyright, if I can copy anything I want to just because I'm going to use it? And my friend, because he's going to use it. And then his friend, because that's personal use, too....

          • Re:Okay, now it's official (slightly off-topic) (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @04:39PM (#12004277)
            Simple. If I print up a book to give to a friend, that's personal use. If I print up 1000 novels to sell, that's not.

            • So would be an attempt to create a legal loophole for P2P? Pretty thinly veiled.

              • Oh, well. I live in Canada, where P2P is legal, and the stores still sell music.

                The OP's argument, that because the GPL rests on copyright law, the music industry's use of copyright law is right, is absurd. Copyright law was made to curtail the rights of publishers, and protect the rights of consumers. Now that we are all publishers and consumers, it can change to fit the new model. The fact remains that re-publishing for profit is different than sharing, even if said 'sharing' can amount to thousands of c

        • Actually, it's pretty easy to say those two things consecutively. One has to do with using copyright to protect profits versus people taking copyrighted material for personal use, while the other has to do with using copyright to protect people's right to personal use against a company taking the source code, changing it in non-public ways, and selling it for a profit. A lot of people see those as being very different arguments. In fact, they are basically diametrically opposite uses of copyright.

          How is u

          • "If you're going to use copyright to defend your GPL code, then you really have little choice but to respect the use of copyright to defend media content as well"

            Absolutely. Of course we would all be better off if copyright granted no rights and took no rights away. Rather if it were reduced to requiring that the anything distributed for profit have a copy sent to the library of congress FIRST and be made publically available by the library for period of 50yrs, 5yrs after submission.

            This would mostly elim
      • Now that people are using copyright law to protect ownership of GPL source code

        Copyright has always been the only way to protect the ownership of GPL code. This is not new.


        people can no longer in the next breath defend copyright infringement on P2P networks.

        Why not? Sure I can defend it. Just watch me. I won't go into detail. I'm sure plenty of others will.

    • GPL also wasn't the issue - but proved a good tool (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @04:09PM (#12003915) Journal
      But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis.

      Also: As I read it GPL wasn't strictly at issue here. The core issue was whether a standards organization can claim IP rights over the standard itself when that standard is embodied as code. Once that issue was clearly articulated both parties seemed to take the enforcability of the terms of the GPL as a given.

      What is important here is that it was the terms of the GPL that allwed Drew Technologies to haul the SAE into court, claim damages from them, and get them to settle WITH a payment of damages.

      The SAE had posted Drew Tech's code, claiming they owned the copyright because it was derivitive of the standard and demanding a "subscription fee" from both Drew Tech and from all other users of Drew Tech's GPLed code.

      The GPL violation was the hook Drew Tech chose to file a takedown demand, drag the SAE into court, and demand damages for violation of THEIR copyrights - like any other GPL software provider. B-)

      Even in the absense of an actual decision, this case shows that licensing your code under the GPL doesn't jepoardize your ability to haul offenders into court and claim (and get settlements for) damages for violating your license terms.

  • DrewTech? (Score:2, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 )
    I wondered what he was doing these days. Is Mimi still his secretary?

  • Not a win, but a settlement (Score:5, Informative)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:43PM (#12002104) Journal
    Unless I'm missing something, this ended in a settlement, not an in court win backed up by a judge.
    • Yes. But the fact is that having never got as far as the court shows the strength of the GPL rather than its weakness. Think about it: you go to court because both sides think they can win. Everyone who has been about to challenge the GPL has realised they had lost before it got that far. Plenty of licenses have never been tested in court; a well worded license that any lawyer can tell you is valid doesn't need to.

      • Re:Not a win, but a settlement (Score:5, Insightful)

        by confusion ( 14388 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:00PM (#12002349) Homepage
        Because it was settled and not ruled upon, there is no case law that other lawyers can reference from this outcome.

        I don't think the GPL can declare any court victories until a judge actually rules in it's favor.

        It is good to see that the SAE came to their senses, though.

        Jerry
        http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

        • Re:Not a win, but a settlement (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bear_phillips ( 165929 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:53PM (#12002984) Homepage
          Each settlement is a win. When the GPL is fully tested in court the number of prior settlements in favor of the GPL will be evidence that the GPL is an accepted industry contract. When a style of contract is widely accepted, judges are less likely to break them. So even though this is not binding case law, it still helps in the long run.

          • Re:Not a win, but a settlement (Score:4, Interesting)

            by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:59PM (#12003045)
            Not necessarily. Simply being a widely accepted contract doesn't mean the contract is legal. I'm not saying the GPL isn't, just that your argument is faulty.

            As an example, Microsoft's OEM contracts were widely accepted. That didn't mean they were legal.

            • Re:Not a win, but a settlement (Score:2, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Industry standard is used all the time in contracts. Go read UCC article 2. These implied warranties may be disclaimed by using language such as "as is" by the buyer examining or refusing to examine the goods, or if the industry standard or past conduct between the parties limits the warranties. As far as Microsoft goes, I disagree that they were widely accepted. Being widely used is not the same as accepted. People keep saying the GPL is unclear on things. Settlements like this clear up what industry
        • Not entirely true- laywers in GPL cases will research past cases and see that all the others have been settled, with the SCO case being the expection to the rule.
          After taking a long hard look at the "One smoking crater" the SCO case has been so far, I think the wise laywer will ever so strongly recommend that they too settle and be done with it.
          Better a slap on the wrist with a settlement than being HBS case study in self destruction.
      • Maybe. But it appears the case was settled, not because of the GPL, but because the SAE couldn't legally lay copyright to code that was already copyrighted, GPL or not. It doesn't seem like it supports the GPL at all.

        In any event, the article submitter (and Groklaw) claim this is a test of the GPL in court. It's not. There was no ruling.
        • Thank you. The only thing that was tested here was the SAE's lame ownership attempt, based on a usage policy buried in a disused lavatory on their website that essentially said "all your base....". The GPL is orthogonal to the dispute.
      • OK, but that's not what it says in the article submission. That's the point.
      • I disagree. The reality of our system is such that parties cave in to settlement offers not based on true innocence or guilt but on cost-benefit analyses of pursuing the case in court and possibly winning (but at a high price), or losing at an even higher price, versus cutting losses and settling out of court. Settlements are not effective precedent setters as future battles may involve parties with different political liability and cash flow.
    • It also had nothing to do with the GPL - the license wasn't even an issue.

      It's talking about whether deriving a program from a published standard constitutes a derived work of the standard or not.. copyright law, and the judge, said no.

      This may even be bad for the GPL - the FSF are big on how everything is a derived work of everything else, and asserting that there are limits to that starts to chip away at their interpretation.

      • Re:Not a win, but a settlement (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It also had nothing to do with the GPL - the license wasn't even an issue.

        It's talking about whether deriving a program from a published standard constitutes a derived work of the standard or not.. copyright law, and the judge, said no.

        Please read TFA. The plaintiff disagrees that the GPL is irrelevant. In fact, it's very relevant--the fact that the code in question was released under the GPL, and therefore not SAE's exclusive property, was one of the plaintiff's major claims.

        Most GPL issues ARE copy
        • "Please read TFA. The plaintiff disagrees that the GPL is irrelevant. In fact, it's very relevant--the fact that the code in question was released under the GPL, and therefore not SAE's exclusive property, was one of the plaintiff's major claims."

          However, that would be true of ANY license -- there's nothing about the claims of the GPL that are unique to this case. If they had released it under a commercial license, it would have been the same argument, just on a more limitted scale. The terms of the GPL
          • "In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away."

            Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective.

            Certainly licensing software under the GPL is more restrictive than releasing it in the public domain just as releasing binary code with a typical EULA is more restrictive than allowing people to copy it freely.

            On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL a

            • Re:Not a win, but a settlement (Score:4, Informative)

              by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Monday March 21, 2005 @04:36PM (#12004244) Homepage
              "Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective."

              Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them.

              "On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL and an EULA add rights."

              Incorrect. EULA's don't generally give you a right to distribute source or binary. If you know of one that does, give me a holler.

              By default, copyright allows you to (a) use your program for any purpose, (b) learn from it, (c) modify it for yourself, and (d) keep an archival copy. Most EULA's restrict (b) and (c). The GPL adds additional rights. That is why it is unique. If you know of an EULA from a major vendor that adds additional rights that normal copyright wouldn't give you, let me know.
              • "Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them."

                Again, copyright law may be at the core of the GPL but it's not relevent to everything. If code is given to the public domain, copyright is irrelevent. Thus the maximum rights an author can give you to his code is through releasing it in the public domain. Chosing the GPL means you wish to restrict rights relative to the rights you could grant through the publ
                • "You have no right to use a copyrighted program without permission. The EULA gives you that right in exchange for money."

                  That is incorrect. The sale gives you that right. The EULA is a post-sale contract. Music does not include an EULA, yet it is covered by copyright. EULA's does not give you any right you did not already receive by paying money to legitimate channels.
                  • "The sale gives you that right."

                    Well, it would if the company were to sell it to you on those terms. They could also sell it to you as a public domain item (although you probably wouldn't buy it). As I said before, not every right or transaction automatically involves copyright and copyright alone.

                    The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license. To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial ar
                    • "The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license."

                      True, but that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.

                      "To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial argument about adding or subtracting rights."

                      No, if you look at the subject we were actually talking about, it was whether or not the GPL is enforceable in court. The answer is yes, because it ADDS rights instead of taking them a
                    • "Gain back what rights?"

                      The rights terminated by the EULA.
                • Yes, it is possible for the holder of copyright to grant more rights than the GPL grants. But the GPL always grants rights you did not have before agreeing to the GPL.

                  After all, you can GPL rather than open to the public domain (as many choose to do for good reason) but you can NOT GPL something in the public domain.
              • Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them.

                It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link).
                • "It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."

                  That is incorrect. As a user, you could do this.
                • "It also takes away your right to link with the code unless you also GPL all your code - which is a freedom I have already (and not covered by copyright law as copy!=link)."

                  No it does not. Or rather, this is not established and your argument is not logical.

                  If linked code is derivative than you do NOT have a legal right to link to copyrighted code. If Linked code is NOT derivative than the GPL does not apply.

                  Personally, I have never heard a legitimate argument to support the linking issue and find it hill
              • It is worth noting that most EULA's actually restrict A and force you to agree to refrain entirely from B, C, and D.
            • Yes but GPL'd code is copyrighted material, therefore the default as long as copyright exists, is copyright and NOT the public domain.

              In all cases the GPL grants rights because the GPL can only be applied to copyrighted code. You can't GPL code which is in the public domain.

  • Suing for damages? Inappropriate, IMHO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:48PM (#12002191) Homepage
    Wouldn't simply compelling the defendant to release the code with the appropriate acknowledgements be more in line with the community spirit of the GPL? A monetary settlement seems unnecessarily punitive.

    • Re:Suing for damages? Inappropriate, IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:52PM (#12002247)
      Well, the donated half the profits back to SAE (the defendant). Presumably the rest was for court costs/legal fees. If you read TFA, the lawyer for the plaintiff basically states this--the goal was not to win money, but to improve SAE's processes. There was no intent even from the plaintiff to punish.

    • Re:Suing for damages? Inappropriate, IMHO (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And how would you propose to deter other companies from stealing GPL code, if their only risk was a little egg on their face and a slap on the wrist?

      How would you offset the costs of determining if some code has been stolen, as well as the lawyer/court fees in order to prove it before a judge?
    • AFAIK, copyright law does not provide for compelling someone to do anything... other than to pay damages and stop violating the author's copyright.

      Besides that, why shouldn't the author's seek monetary damages??? It costs them money to go to court and to force the violator to quit infringing on their rights.

      What is in the community spirit of the GPL is something that will help ensure that future violations do not occur. Playing hardball will help that happen. Being "nice" about it will not.

      If you don'
    • Without the threat of punitive damages, why would someone pay any attention to the GPL?

  • thank you very much... not (Score:5, Informative)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:49PM (#12002206)
    I wondered why it had gone extremely slow... by the way, the article poster has got it wrong. It's not a victory per se for the GPL as it never went to the finish, the two parties settled instead. However, it is possibly good news for those of us frustrated at companies tying up international standards with submarine patents and other IP trickeries... Microsoft watch out.

  • So why start a new project? (Score:5, Informative)

    by chaffed ( 672859 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:54PM (#12002271) Homepage
    Freediag [sourceforge.net] is stagnant because people have lost interest. If they want to implement new protocols within the 0BD II standard they should pick up Freediag and continue the development. Freediag is almost completely finished the portability portion of it's development. It compiles under most operating systems.

    I guess Yay! for GPL being upheld in court. Yay! For independent an DIY auto repair folks. However, bummer for a project that really needs some new blood.

  • I don't see anything for the GPL in here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:59PM (#12002339) Journal
    Yes, the code was written under the GPL, yes the SAE did then take that code and start selling it as if they had written it and without the GPL, but it seems that the entire process was over whether the SAE owns their own regulations after the government steps in and turns them into Law.

    The answer, as it was in the prior case cited, was "no".

    It seems that the license of the software involved wasn't related to the case at all, other than as a "starting point" for the case to begin. If the code had been BSD-licensed, they wouldn't have been suing the SAE first. If nothing else, it simply indicates that you can issue a DMCA takedown notice for GPL'd code someone else is using without obeying the GPL license.

  • GPL win how? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mooingyak ( 720677 )
    As I read this, it's a copyright case only. One side (SAE) claimed rights to code that the other side (DrewTech) had released via GPL. It could have been something proprietary, and SAE would still have lost the case from what I understand.

    It's like saying "Axemurderer convicted of killing author of GPL-released code" is a big win for the GPL. It wasn't part of the case, near as I can tell.
  • I think the most interesting point in the article is that the developers won a $75K settlement and then turned right around and donated half of it back to the people from whom they won it. Now that's a class act!
  • Eric Grimm, lawyer for DrewTech: "..the only real ruling that has been made in the case is a discovery ruling by Magistrate Judge Paul Komives, permitting DrewTech to take the deposition of a third-party witness."

    It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement, and the settlement clearly showed that they were afraid of the GPL.

    But it is not a judge ruling "yes, this license is valid and binding". Indeed, it's not a judge ruling anything.
    • It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement

      No, it's not. In a motion for summary judgement, the judge must act as if anything that has not been decided (ie is the GPL binding) must be interpreted as if it's 100% in the non-moving party's favour - so it's not a win in any sense that way.

      Think about SCO - the fact that their multi-billion-line fishing expedition probably won't get them any evidence was enough for the judge to deny IBM's motion for summary judgement.

      the

  • Legislated methods question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:40PM (#12002859)
    This case mentions that any work incorporated into law by reference can not maintain its copyright. It's happened before (the building code case mentioned) where an existing work became law, so the original authors could not charge others or claim infringement for printing (what was previously) their material. Now shouldn't the same logic apply to patents? If someone patents some algorithm that is incorporated into MPEG, and MPEG is legislated as the standard for HDTV, shouldn't that invalidate any patent claims over the algorithm the same way copyright is over-ridden? Or is this another way patents are different from copyrights?

  • NOT BIG WIN - NOT WIN, MAYBE BIG (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drteknikal ( 67280 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @03:04PM (#12003095) Homepage
    If they settle, it's not a win, it's a settlement. Does not set a very useful precedent, however correct the settlement appears to be.

    Until it is tried, adjudicated, and upheld, the original statement stands. At best, the GPL has been tested, but not proven.

    Get your facts straight. This headline is deceptive and wrong.
  • ...to stipulate ejecting the individual SAE members who decided that stealing the code was a good idea, and the individual SAE members who counterclaimed against the GPL software.

    such people should be punished, not rewarded for their idiocy. ejecting them from the SAE would be an appropriate punishment imo.

    imo that is the best way to "improve the SAE". not contributing money so they can continue more of the same.
    • replying to myself as a followup... i would also accept a public apology written by each individual member of the SAE responsible for this mess.

      if they refuse, then ejecting them from the SAE would be appropriate.

  • Why does every groklaw article that shows up here rub me the wrong way ... even when I always seem to be on their ideological side of the fence.

    Now there is a case in Michigan, which just settled, where the GPL not only stood its ground, it came off victorious, and this time it was very much a part of the case.

    IANAL (and neither is groklaw) but how can a settlement be considered a test of the GPL or even a victory? Unless their intent is to spin the result which doesn't do anyone any good. So why are th

  • From the article:

    you had the SAE, the standards body which publishes the standards, which essentially tried to claim copyright on the software and intended to charge DrewTech thousands per year to use the very software DrewTech employees had written and released under the GPL. [emphasis mine]

    Nothing says greed like charging someone else for the right to use his own work.

    The problem with the patent system is not that it rewards the inventor - that's fine - but that it also allows a lazy but devio

    • In fact, if one really thinks about it, patents are probably the most anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-progress part of our Constitution. They are the equivalent of economic terrorism - patent liability can strike any business, anywhere, with devastating effect.

      While I can sympathize with this sentiment, there are a couple of case I can relate to where the cease and desist orders were simply ignored.

      The most recent case occured maybe 7 or 8 years ago now, in the broadcast industry, where we all got

  • morons (Score:2)

    by XO ( 250276 )
    What morons would donate half their settlement back to the company that gave it to them, even if they do get it as a tax write off?

    If you need the tax writeoff, you can donate it somewhere else. The SAE, being part of the automotive conglomerate, tried to fuck these developers, they got busted, and the developers just rolled over and LET THE SAE fuck them.

    Some charitable good will, to say "oh, we caught you this time, now you'd better be more careful stealing other people's shit"???

    Here I thought

    • Re:morons (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ReelOddeeo ( 115880 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @04:04PM (#12003859)
      From TFA...

      PJ: Why did you donate back half of what you won under the settlement?

      Eric: The reason for donation of half back is because the purpose of the lawsuit always has been to benefit and improve the SAE. It may have been necessary to drag them kicking and screaming up the learning curve, but my client has done so precisely because the organization needed the benefit of the learning experience.

      The whole point is that DrewTech has been very generous to the SAE by donating 1/2 of the money back as a charitable contribution, to symbolize the educational benefit conferred on the organization (in particular, organization staff -- as distinct from the Membership, who mostly tend to "get" the GPL) through the mechanism of the lawsuit as a whole.

  • I thought.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Audacious ( 611811 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @04:18PM (#12004040) Homepage
    I thought that one of the important things to come out of the case was this:

    The doctrine is now enshrined in 17 U.S.C. 102(b). The relevant section says:

    (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

    A lot of people think that their ideas, procedures, processes, etc... are (or can be) protected by copyright. The answer here is - no. They can not be protected by copyright. These are protected by patents.

    Tangibles => copyrights
    Intanigbles => patents

    (I don't know about anyone else, but I do get a lot of questions on this when friends/relatives/and other stranger persons ask me about copyrights. And no, IANAL! I just like to read about the law. [Surprised my own lawyer by how much I knew about the law. :-) ])

  • nothing to do with the GPL (Score:3, Informative)

    by iamnotanumber6 ( 755703 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @04:18PM (#12004041)
    really - whether this was a settlement or a judgement, it really has nothing to do with "testing" the GPL.

    1. some people (Drew) wrote some software that complied to (implemented) a standard.
    2. the standard is copyrighted by someone else, the SAE (the issue of whether they can copyright or charge royalties on something that's part of the law I think is a side issue).
    3. SAE tried to claim ownership of the copyright of the software, claiming it was a "deriviative work" of the standard.
    4. they were unsuccessful in doing so, the core reason being because copyright only covers a particular composition of text, not the "ideas, procedures, processes, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries," that may be described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" within it. if I write a book explaining how to turn lead into gold, you can't copy the sentences and paragraphs I wrote. but you can certainly write your own book explaining the same procedure. this is a long-standing principle, and no new legal ground was broken here - no precedents.
    5. Drew was confirmed as the legal copyright owners of their software, not the SAE, which was what the case was about.
    6. Drew (had) happened to release the code under the GPL. This is an expression of how they wish to excercise their copyrights. But nothing about the GPL was tested or decided. Only that Drew owns the copyright, which allows them to release it under GPL, and SAE cannot prevent them from doing that because SAE does not own the copyright because it is not a derivative of SAE's copyrighted work.

    the validity and terms of the GPL never entered into it. talk about a "victory for the GPL" is nonsense.
  • I see this as a major screw-up for SAE. They should have had these ideas patented rather than copyrighted. Had they done so, the case would have been addressed in a completely different way.

    Of course I haven't read the software source in question, nor the works from which the software was to have been a derivative work... though if I understand it correctly, the software isn't a derivative work from software but from some form of published standard... a protocol or format. This, more or less, falls unde

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close