6 ms·

Major legal victory for open source in US (Java Model Railroad Interface case)

40 points by pmjordan 17y ago

angelbob 17y ago
It's hard to tell if this validates the GPL. They were found guilty of DMCA violations for removing copyright and redistributing, but does that say anything about the validity of the license itself?
- pmjordan 17y ago
  At the very least it doesn't seem to have loosened the terms of the GPL - if the virality clause had been deemed invalid, Katzer would presumably have been able to use the code for his purposes. The GPL does however contain a defensive clause that effectively reverts to "all rights reserved" if the license is not accepted, so who knows.
  - ajross 17y ago
    It's worth pointing out that the "virality clause" doesn't actually exist; it's just spin from old internet flames. The GPL says that derived works can only be distributed under the GPL. The restriction is on distribution, not license. If you accidentally (or whatever) write something like a gdb port to a new language and try to sell it under a proprietary license, the FSF can make you stop selling it under that license. But that's it. Your new code doesn't "suddenly become GPL and public". It's your code, and you get to decide the license, even if you can't legally give it to anyone else. I guess if you want to pick a metaphor, it's been quarantined. It hasn't been "infected".
    - Herring 17y ago
      If you somehow got Windows source code into your program, you couldn't distribute it without getting sued. If you liked FUD, you could say the Microsoft license (do not distribute without MS permission) has spread to your code. That's just how all licenses work. If you don't agree to the terms, don't use the code.
- ajross 17y ago
  The license governs redistribution using copyright. The court found that such a restriction on redistribution was legal, and its violation allowed damages to be awarded (in principle). What kind of "validity of the license itself" were you thinking about? No court is every going to issue a decision that says "The GPL is OK by me!" any more than it is one about the Windows 7 EULA being cool beans. License text is a private affair, courts only step in when they are violated, and only void them when they're actually illegal. This court didn't. That's as much as the FSF could ask for.
- ZachPruckowski 17y ago
  What the judge's rulings do is loosen the standards in terms of going after monetary damages. Normally, a fair amount of the sting of copyright infringement like this would be the monetary damages you can get hit with. What this case established is that violating free-as-in-beer (and also free-as-in-speech) software's copyright can result in these monetary damages even though the software's free. So while this case doesn't specifically say "The GPL is valid", it does say that violating a copyleft license can put you on the hook for serious monetary penalties. This is crucial, because those give GPL compliance enforcers another major weapon in their arsenal (in addition to injuctions) to bring companies into line.
btilly 17y ago
For people who don't know, the license in this case is the Artistic License. It is substantially weaker than the GPL. So if the Artistic License can be upheld, then the GPL is definitely OK. Of course the important precedent isn't the final settlement. At this point that was a foregone conclusion. It is the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a year and a half ago. See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf for the details of that settlement. This precedent was doubly important given how horrible the first ruling in this case was.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
dan_the_welder 17y ago
I just took a look at the JMRI page and it's very a very cool little niche market ecosystem. Software and hardware both. Yet another advanced peripheral system, Train CNC!
- jrockway 17y ago
  It's called DCC, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Command_Control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Command_Control
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    Metaphor: "It's train CNC!" Simile: "It's like CNC for trains!" Literal truth: "It's called DCC actually" If your point was to add information, then there was a better way to do it.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      At least I was trying to add information, where you were just making a dumb joke and then a dumb personal attack.
      - dan_the_welder 17y ago
        I was enthusiastically commenting on a healthy niche market and then I used a metaphor point out that it's not just a hobby or a toy that these people are working on. It's a sophisticated tool that interfaces with the outside world much like CNC, which happens to be my area of interest.

40 points by pmjordan 17y ago

It's hard to tell if this validates the GPL. They were found guilty of DMCA violations for removing copyright and redistributing, but does that say anything about the validity of the license itself?

pmjordan 17y ago
At the very least it doesn't seem to have loosened the terms of the GPL - if the virality clause had been deemed invalid, Katzer would presumably have been able to use the code for his purposes. The GPL does however contain a defensive clause that effectively reverts to "all rights reserved" if the license is not accepted, so who knows.
- ajross 17y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the "virality clause" doesn't actually exist; it's just spin from old internet flames. The GPL says that derived works can only be distributed under the GPL. The restriction is on distribution, not license. If you accidentally (or whatever) write something like a gdb port to a new language and try to sell it under a proprietary license, the FSF can make you stop selling it under that license. But that's it. Your new code doesn't "suddenly become GPL and public". It's your code, and you get to decide the license, even if you can't legally give it to anyone else. I guess if you want to pick a metaphor, it's been quarantined. It hasn't been "infected".
  - Herring 17y ago
    If you somehow got Windows source code into your program, you couldn't distribute it without getting sued. If you liked FUD, you could say the Microsoft license (do not distribute without MS permission) has spread to your code. That's just how all licenses work. If you don't agree to the terms, don't use the code.
ajross 17y ago
The license governs redistribution using copyright. The court found that such a restriction on redistribution was legal, and its violation allowed damages to be awarded (in principle). What kind of "validity of the license itself" were you thinking about? No court is every going to issue a decision that says "The GPL is OK by me!" any more than it is one about the Windows 7 EULA being cool beans. License text is a private affair, courts only step in when they are violated, and only void them when they're actually illegal. This court didn't. That's as much as the FSF could ask for.
ZachPruckowski 17y ago
What the judge's rulings do is loosen the standards in terms of going after monetary damages. Normally, a fair amount of the sting of copyright infringement like this would be the monetary damages you can get hit with. What this case established is that violating free-as-in-beer (and also free-as-in-speech) software's copyright can result in these monetary damages even though the software's free. So while this case doesn't specifically say "The GPL is valid", it does say that violating a copyleft license can put you on the hook for serious monetary penalties. This is crucial, because those give GPL compliance enforcers another major weapon in their arsenal (in addition to injuctions) to bring companies into line.

btilly 17y ago

For people who don't know, the license in this case is the Artistic License. It is substantially weaker than the GPL. So if the Artistic License can be upheld, then the GPL is definitely OK. Of course the important precedent isn't the final settlement. At this point that was a foregone conclusion. It is the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a year and a half ago. See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf for the details of that settlement. This precedent was doubly important given how horrible the first ruling in this case was.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

dan_the_welder 17y ago

I just took a look at the JMRI page and it's very a very cool little niche market ecosystem. Software and hardware both. Yet another advanced peripheral system, Train CNC!

jrockway 17y ago
It's called DCC, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Command_Control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Command_Control
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  Metaphor: "It's train CNC!" Simile: "It's like CNC for trains!" Literal truth: "It's called DCC actually" If your point was to add information, then there was a better way to do it.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    At least I was trying to add information, where you were just making a dumb joke and then a dumb personal attack.
    - dan_the_welder 17y ago
      I was enthusiastically commenting on a healthy niche market and then I used a metaphor point out that it's not just a hobby or a toy that these people are working on. It's a sophisticated tool that interfaces with the outside world much like CNC, which happens to be my area of interest.