Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 13:31 UTC
The Software Freedom Law Center has filed the first US infringement case to defend the General Public License version 2. The case has been brought against Monsoon Multimedia, a specialist in video viewing and capturing devices, which has offices in Silicon Valley and in New Delhi. SFLC legal director Dan Ravicher told The Register: "This case could have far-reaching implications because it's the first case in the US to enforce copyright in GPL."
Thread beginning with comment 273791
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-17
written by somebody with greater legal experience than mine (read: zero), this is NOT the case.
Are you indicating YOUR legal experience (read zero) or the person who wrote the comment on ars (which would seem about the same).
I'm wondering if you know anything about the legal experience of the author of the GPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen#Professional_biography
Sounds like the GPL author has quite a bit more credibility (when it comes to qualifications and experience in the legal profession) that some random poster on ars with a dubious agenda and unknown qualifications.
Read some more of Eben's thoughts about the legal efforts behind free software here:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/2007/04/index.html
Related info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFLC
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/about/team/
Edited 2007-09-24 12:16
Member since:2005-07-02
If the GPL is regarded a contract, they would still have permission to distribute (but can sue for damages).
That's a pretty big if, considering that there is no signature involved, and that it doesn't resemble a contract in any other way.
If the GPL is declared invalid, there's no way that this would invalidate the copyright held by the owner. To do so would undermine the entire copyright system, which in case you aren't aware, represents tens of billion dollars in the US alone. That's *not* going to happen.
If the copyright owner doesn't want you to distribute, you can't force him to agree. You could try suing him for breach of contract (the contract being the GPL), but since you're in violation of the GPL in the first place, you would *also* be in violation of the contract, since you didn't respect its clauses.
You didn't read the ars comments either, did you?
I don't need to, because if it's anything like you describe it, it's utter rubbish. The GPL is *not* a contract.
The auto-termination you described relies on the fact that the GPL is regarded a license.
That's because that's what it is. It's not an interpretation, it's the law.
Member since:
2005-12-31
Don't forget that this depends on laws which may be different in different countries.
> If you don't recognize the GPL, however, then you are putting yourself
> in violation of copyright, because you no longer have permission to
> redistribute the software.
According to the ars comments, written by somebody with greater legal experience than mine (read: zero), this is NOT the case. If the GPL is regarded a contract, they would still have permission to distribute (but can sue for damages). That's all I can say. You didn't read the ars comments either, did you?
The auto-termination you described relies on the fact that the GPL is regarded a license. That's why the FSF is advocating for this interpretation - because it means the GPL works as intended.