3 ms·

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 ab

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.

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.