8 ms·

To use Ghostscript for free, Hancom would have to adhere to its open-source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL requires that when you us

by apo 9y ago

To use Ghostscript for free, Hancom would have to adhere to its open-source license, the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL requires that when you use GPL-licensed software to make some other software, the resulting software also has to be open-sourced with the same license if it’s released to the public. That means Hancom would have to open-source its entire suite of apps. Alternatively, Hancom could pay Artifex a licensing fee. Artifex allows developers of commercial or otherwise closed-source software to forego the strict open-source terms of the GNU GPL if they’re willing to pay for it. This obligation has been termed "reciprocity," and it lies at the heart of many open source business models. http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch06.pdf http://www.rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The more important issue here is reciprocity, not whether an open source license should be considered to be a contract. AFAIK, the reciprocity provision of any version of the GPL hasn't been tested in any meaningful way within the US. In particular, the specific use cases that trigger reciprocity remain cloudy at best in my mind. Some companies claim that merely linking to a GPLed library is sufficient to trigger reciprocity. FSF published the LGPL specifically to address this point. So I believe a ruling on reciprocity would be ground breaking.

matt4077 9y ago
It appears that Rosen's "reciprocity" is simply another term for the "infectious", or "copyleft" nature of GPL. In that case I fail to see the significance. There isn't really any remaining doubt about the enforceability of GPL, which may actually be the reason for the relative dearth of case law.
- apo 9y ago
  I'd be interested in knowing which cases you're thinking about.
10165 9y ago
Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available? What happens when users discovers that they are paying for something that others are getting for free? Do they care? Is this a case of taking something that was free (but valuable), i.e., the original GPL source code, and concealing it as a closed source work in order to generate revenue/profit for some specific person or entity? Stupid question: If someone fixes or adds something valuable to GPL source code and wants to charge for it, then why not just charge for the patch or the additional code? (Assume that patches or additional source code files are distributed by themselves without the original GPL source code and that they do not contain any functional portion of the original GPL source code. Assume further that they do not use "interfaces" designed by the GPL source code author. Finally, assume that the end user can compile their own software and no binaries are distributed.)
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  "Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.)" I've often thought that this was a pretty ideal way of licensing OSS. It provides a revenue stream for improving upon open source from those with the deepest pockets and the greatest ability to pay which clearly works (QT, for instance, probably wouldn't exist without this model). Moreover, it doesn't remove others' freedom to be able to develop free software from it. It's telling that the biggest whinges about the GPL often come from large (often abusive) corporations with deep pockets, an inflated sense of entitlement, paranoia about "their" intellectual property and a desire to get freebies from ordinary developers.
- Nursie 9y ago
  Answer to stupid question: Nothing is stopping you doing that. As it would be a derivative work, your users/customers would be entitled to your source and have distribution rights.
  - qb45 9y ago
    Your customers are only entitled to the source if you accepted the terms of the GPL and technically you can claim that you didn't accept them and that you simply distributed the derived work illegally. If your customers wanted the source, they would have to ask the original authors to sue you and have the court force you to accept the GPL post-factum. It's not clear how this would turn out because afaik such line of "defense" has never been tried by violators so far. A few such lawsuits settled out of court, usually with source code being part of the deal. A ruling in this kind of case, where the violator stubbornly refused to comply and maybe tried to escape with just paying damages or some other trickery, that would be interesting.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      I agree, a real, thorough test of this in court would be a great precedent. And yes, if you refuse source to your customers that's where you are - software copyright violation. Just the same as if you did this with proprietary stuff. Someone with standing would have to start the ball rolling.
dhimes 9y ago
That is the most important issue, but not the most important issue here. This ruling hasn't gotten that far. This merely throws out Hancom's argument that because the contract wasn't signed it wasn't a contract. Contract terms should be up next (but I smell a settlement, frankly).
AndrewKane 9y ago
she was a waitress in a cocktail bar now she owns a jet... http://www.trends88.com http://www.trends88.com
AndrewKane 9y ago
she was a waitress in a cocktail bar now she owns a jet... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 9y ago
The more important issue here is reciprocity, not whether an open source license should be considered to be a contract. From your ethical perspective, yes. From a court's perspective, reciprocity can't be enforced without the existence of a valid contract because there is no legal obligation for people to be nice to each other. Contracts are the mechanism we use to establish obligations between private parties.
- apo 9y ago
  Maybe I'm mistaken then but I seem to remember having seen numerous cases in which GPL was involved, but only in the sense that the software was being redistributed as an unmodified unit or with modifications. But those cases may have been settled - I'm not sure. Reciprocity and the conditions that trigger it (I link to your GPL library and so must release my application source code) has never been ruled on from what I've seen.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Reciprocity is an ethical concept. I told you, there is no law that mandates people have to be nice to each other. Courts do consider matters of pure equity from time to time, but such disputes are heavily fact-based and don't generalize well. That's why contracts exist; they're a mechanism for establishing predictability between people who may have very different moral assumptions, but (ideally) negotiate agreements of limited scope to which they are both willing to adhere while still maintaining their different interests/ moral beliefs/ tribal membership etc. Courts don't want to be moral arbiters if they can possibly avoid it because questions of morality are inherently political. Contractual relations are a mechanism for dealing with that problematic social reality. Edit: if it helps, think of contract law as a language specification. The compiler cannot and does not evaluate the worthiness or value of a program, only its semantic consistency. An individual contract is like a program, the law as a whole is like the operating system, institutions are the firmware, physical assets are the hardware. It's an imperfect analogy but it might make the scope issues easier to understand.
sova 9y ago
Groundbreaking yes, but also just really good.

by apo 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

It appears that Rosen's "reciprocity" is simply another term for the "infectious", or "copyleft" nature of GPL. In that case I fail to see the significance. There isn't really any remaining doubt about the enforceability of GPL, which may actually be the reason for the relative dearth of case law.

apo 9y ago
I'd be interested in knowing which cases you're thinking about.

10165 9y ago

Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.) It seems like "reciprocity" has an even worse outcome than BSD source code. The origin of the source code can be completely hidden from the user. Do users deserve to know at least that the original source code was freely available? What happens when users discovers that they are paying for something that others are getting for free? Do they care? Is this a case of taking something that was free (but valuable), i.e., the original GPL source code, and concealing it as a closed source work in order to generate revenue/profit for some specific person or entity? Stupid question: If someone fixes or adds something valuable to GPL source code and wants to charge for it, then why not just charge for the patch or the additional code? (Assume that patches or additional source code files are distributed by themselves without the original GPL source code and that they do not contain any functional portion of the original GPL source code. Assume further that they do not use "interfaces" designed by the GPL source code author. Finally, assume that the end user can compile their own software and no binaries are distributed.)

crdoconnor 9y ago
"Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.)" I've often thought that this was a pretty ideal way of licensing OSS. It provides a revenue stream for improving upon open source from those with the deepest pockets and the greatest ability to pay which clearly works (QT, for instance, probably wouldn't exist without this model). Moreover, it doesn't remove others' freedom to be able to develop free software from it. It's telling that the biggest whinges about the GPL often come from large (often abusive) corporations with deep pockets, an inflated sense of entitlement, paranoia about "their" intellectual property and a desire to get freebies from ordinary developers.
Nursie 9y ago
Answer to stupid question: Nothing is stopping you doing that. As it would be a derivative work, your users/customers would be entitled to your source and have distribution rights.
- qb45 9y ago
  Your customers are only entitled to the source if you accepted the terms of the GPL and technically you can claim that you didn't accept them and that you simply distributed the derived work illegally. If your customers wanted the source, they would have to ask the original authors to sue you and have the court force you to accept the GPL post-factum. It's not clear how this would turn out because afaik such line of "defense" has never been tried by violators so far. A few such lawsuits settled out of court, usually with source code being part of the deal. A ruling in this kind of case, where the violator stubbornly refused to comply and maybe tried to escape with just paying damages or some other trickery, that would be interesting.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    I agree, a real, thorough test of this in court would be a great precedent. And yes, if you refuse source to your customers that's where you are - software copyright violation. Just the same as if you did this with proprietary stuff. Someone with standing would have to start the ball rolling.

dhimes 9y ago

That is the most important issue, but not the most important issue here. This ruling hasn't gotten that far. This merely throws out Hancom's argument that because the contract wasn't signed it wasn't a contract. Contract terms should be up next (but I smell a settlement, frankly).

AndrewKane 9y ago

she was a waitress in a cocktail bar now she owns a jet... http://www.trends88.com http://www.trends88.com

AndrewKane 9y ago

she was a waitress in a cocktail bar now she owns a jet... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 9y ago

The more important issue here is reciprocity, not whether an open source license should be considered to be a contract. From your ethical perspective, yes. From a court's perspective, reciprocity can't be enforced without the existence of a valid contract because there is no legal obligation for people to be nice to each other. Contracts are the mechanism we use to establish obligations between private parties.

apo 9y ago
Maybe I'm mistaken then but I seem to remember having seen numerous cases in which GPL was involved, but only in the sense that the software was being redistributed as an unmodified unit or with modifications. But those cases may have been settled - I'm not sure. Reciprocity and the conditions that trigger it (I link to your GPL library and so must release my application source code) has never been ruled on from what I've seen.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Reciprocity is an ethical concept. I told you, there is no law that mandates people have to be nice to each other. Courts do consider matters of pure equity from time to time, but such disputes are heavily fact-based and don't generalize well. That's why contracts exist; they're a mechanism for establishing predictability between people who may have very different moral assumptions, but (ideally) negotiate agreements of limited scope to which they are both willing to adhere while still maintaining their different interests/ moral beliefs/ tribal membership etc. Courts don't want to be moral arbiters if they can possibly avoid it because questions of morality are inherently political. Contractual relations are a mechanism for dealing with that problematic social reality. Edit: if it helps, think of contract law as a language specification. The compiler cannot and does not evaluate the worthiness or value of a program, only its semantic consistency. An individual contract is like a program, the law as a whole is like the operating system, institutions are the firmware, physical assets are the hardware. It's an imperfect analogy but it might make the scope issues easier to understand.

sova 9y ago

Groundbreaking yes, but also just really good.