4 ms·

No, they could sue to bring them in compliance with the license. ONE of the options to be in compliance may be to release the entire project GPL. Another opti

No, they could sue to bring them in compliance with the license. ONE of the options to be in compliance may be to release the entire project GPL. Another option may be to simply remove the offending code. And the losing side (or settlement) may include attorney's fees. There is no clause to the GPL that says "if you break our license even once, we get your project!"

pavlov 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but Section 5 of GPL v2 states: "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
- delinka 10y ago
  "Another option may be to simply remove the offending code." This would remove their dependence upon GPL'd code, thus obviating applicability of the entire GPL, including section 5.
  - eli 10y ago
    Deleting a pirated movie you downloaded doesn't absolve you of the original copyright infringement.
    - delinka 10y ago
      The music and movie industries have changed tactics in that they go after the uploader/sender of a copyrighted work. And you would be correct that a simple "oh, sorry, I'll stop sharing that" would probably not suffice to remediate a case that's gone to court - the damage is already done: those that downloaded can't 'unwatch' the movie, and a sale can probably be proven to have been 'lost' as a result. However, we've seen software copyright cases over source code being remedied in this exact manner. Courts take the type of IP into account. Perhaps a judge might think if the code can simply be replaced without tremendous effort and without drastically affecting the end users' experience, then that infringing piece of software probably wasn't that instrumental in the full app and thus the monetary benefit to the infringer from the infringing code wasn't all that great. Further, in GPL infringement cases, I don't know that the owner could demonstrate damages; we'd be stuck with a punitive award from the court. And here's the rub: GPL hasn't gone to court in the US.
      - pluma 10y ago
        > Perhaps a judge might think if the code can simply be replaced without tremendous effort and without drastically affecting the end users' experience, then that infringing piece of software probably wasn't that instrumental in the full app and thus the monetary benefit to the infringer from the infringing code wasn't all that great. Exactly. If Wordpress can make a case that the code was integral to Wix's product (maybe even to the point that the product is considered a derived work under copyright law, not just in the GPL sense) or that violating the license gained them an unfair market advantage, they might be able to sue for damages.
brazzledazzle 10y ago
Isn't that exactly what it does if enforced to the letter? That's exactly why companies not building SaaS applications have historically been cautious about it. Of course it comes down to the definition of "derived" and how a judge and jury interpret that.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  My point was if there was a breach of the license, there are a variety of options to become compliant. The leadership of each group may negotiate and find a solution. If that doesn't work, they'll hire lawyers who will attempt to negotiate a solution. If that doesn't work, it may go to court. Saying "it must be resolved by X" is premature at best.

pavlov 10y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but Section 5 of GPL v2 states: "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."

delinka 10y ago
"Another option may be to simply remove the offending code." This would remove their dependence upon GPL'd code, thus obviating applicability of the entire GPL, including section 5.
- eli 10y ago
  Deleting a pirated movie you downloaded doesn't absolve you of the original copyright infringement.
  - delinka 10y ago
    The music and movie industries have changed tactics in that they go after the uploader/sender of a copyrighted work. And you would be correct that a simple "oh, sorry, I'll stop sharing that" would probably not suffice to remediate a case that's gone to court - the damage is already done: those that downloaded can't 'unwatch' the movie, and a sale can probably be proven to have been 'lost' as a result. However, we've seen software copyright cases over source code being remedied in this exact manner. Courts take the type of IP into account. Perhaps a judge might think if the code can simply be replaced without tremendous effort and without drastically affecting the end users' experience, then that infringing piece of software probably wasn't that instrumental in the full app and thus the monetary benefit to the infringer from the infringing code wasn't all that great. Further, in GPL infringement cases, I don't know that the owner could demonstrate damages; we'd be stuck with a punitive award from the court. And here's the rub: GPL hasn't gone to court in the US.
    - pluma 10y ago
      > Perhaps a judge might think if the code can simply be replaced without tremendous effort and without drastically affecting the end users' experience, then that infringing piece of software probably wasn't that instrumental in the full app and thus the monetary benefit to the infringer from the infringing code wasn't all that great. Exactly. If Wordpress can make a case that the code was integral to Wix's product (maybe even to the point that the product is considered a derived work under copyright law, not just in the GPL sense) or that violating the license gained them an unfair market advantage, they might be able to sue for damages.

brazzledazzle 10y ago

Isn't that exactly what it does if enforced to the letter? That's exactly why companies not building SaaS applications have historically been cautious about it. Of course it comes down to the definition of "derived" and how a judge and jury interpret that.

caseysoftware 10y ago
My point was if there was a breach of the license, there are a variety of options to become compliant. The leadership of each group may negotiate and find a solution. If that doesn't work, they'll hire lawyers who will attempt to negotiate a solution. If that doesn't work, it may go to court. Saying "it must be resolved by X" is premature at best.