A federal appeals court has overruled a lower court ruling that, if sustained, would have severely hampered the enforceability of free software licenses. The lower court had found that redistributing software in violation of the terms of a free software license could constitute a breach of contract, but was not copyright infringement. The difference matters because copyright law affords much stronger remedies against infringement than does contract law. If allowed to stand, the decision could have neutered popular copyleft licenses such as the GPL and Creative Commons licenses. The district court decision was overturned on Wednesday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-15
I cannot really agree with that.
I live in a "free country" but there are still rules (i.e. laws) that I must adhere to and penalties if I do not. This is a fundamental requirement for order and affords me to live in relative peace and safety.
To me, true uncontrolled freedom would ultimately lead to an uncivilised world, which is not desirable for anyone but a few.
Some software may be classed as "free" but that "freedom" must be protected.
Member since:2006-12-16
I don't follow your logic. Firstly, just for your benefit, free doesn't necessarily mean cost. It can mean freedom, in GPL licensed software etc, it means freedom to see the src code and modify it to suit your needs. That freedom does NOT extend to abusing the GPL etc by taking the code, stripping out copyright notices, re-using it in your own branded "proprietary" software to make a profit, without returning any of the changes/improvements to the original community.
Let's put it this way - you steal a car, but change the paint job on it and put a new engine in it - is it still stealing? Under your ideals, it isn't, because it's not the original car. And since you stole it, and didn't pay for it in the first place, no crime took place. You simply cannot take someone elses hard work and ignore their rules and abuse it.
Once again I'll repeat:
If you don't like the GPL etc then don't use the software. Simple. How hard is that for individuals and businesses to comprehend?
Dave
Member since:2007-03-26
Let's put it this way - you steal a car, but change the paint job on it and put a new engine in it - is it still stealing? Under your ideals, it isn't, because it's not the original car. And since you stole it, and didn't pay for it in the first place, no crime took place. You simply cannot take someone elses hard work and ignore their rules and abuse it.
Once again I'll repeat:
If you don't like the GPL etc then don't use the software. Simple. How hard is that for individuals and businesses to comprehend?
Dave
Though i agree with what you're saying -the car analagy was a very poor one as using other peoples source isn't technically stealing (hense the whole grey area with copyright law).
Member since:2007-02-17
The definition of Free Software:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Definition
... states that it provides four freedoms:
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
Note that nowhere within these four freedoms does it say the software should be zero cost, nor does it say that one of the freedoms is to let someone else take the author's code, obscure it away and sell it to someone else for their own profit. In fact, the law of the land (copyright law) prevents people from doing that.
Edited 2008-08-15 00:17 UTC
Member since:2007-07-13
As I mentioned, in an earlier post I heard Richard Stallman talk yesterday (very enlightening and entertaining it was too). The Free Software Foundation is far from anti-business as some would make out. They wish to encourage business. At one time Stallman survived by asking users to pay for Emacs if they could.
However, the Free Software Foundation cannot tolerate institutions that serve to restrict the liberty of users. Sometimes companies are so confused the think the only way to make money is to restrict the software liberties of their customers.
Member since:2007-02-17
Member since:
2005-11-13
How the hell are you gonna get sued for violating the license for a piece of software that's supposed to be Free?
Note: That question is rhetorical, no need to answer. It's like the Conservative version of Freedom.. they're all for it, so long as your version of Freedom agrees with theirs.
IMHO, they should call it Copyleft software, because it ain't really Free.