4 ms·

In order to dismiss the motion, the court had to explain why the GNU GPL is an enforceable contract: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/cali

In order to dismiss the motion, the court had to explain why the GNU GPL is an enforceable contract: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2016cv06982/305835/32 https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califo...

rlpb 9y ago
No. The plantiff made two key claims: breach of contract and copyright infringment. This is sensible, because the defendant has either accepted the GPL (and thus is in breach of contract), or has infringed copyright. This is key to the mechanism of copyleft. By suing for both, the defendant cannot just choose whichever is the most convenient and win on the technicality that the other was not considered by the court. The judge ruled that the claim of breach of contract cannot be dismissed on the basis that the contract does not exist, because the defendant has effectively admitted that it did exist. The judge also ruled that the claim of copyright cannot be dismissed on the basis of jurisdiction. None of these things relate to the enforceability of the GPL in general.
- imanewsman 9y ago
  I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're splitting hairs. The order says the license is a contract that exists, sure. Contracts are enforceable.
  - __ddd__ 9y ago
    Not all contracts are enforceable. I would be surprised if the entirety of v3 is enforceable
    - uiri 9y ago
      Out of curiosity: which parts of v3 do you believe to be unenforceable? I think that, given the time, effort, and professional expertise which went into drafting it, that the entire thing should be enforceable.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    No. The order says that iff what the plaintiff says is true, a contract probably exists :)
    - mjw1007 9y ago
      I hope you don't really mean 'iff' there.
      - delinka 9y ago
        Why not? Read it as "if and only if." If you disagree, then explain your disagreement.
        qb45 9y ago
        I think the "only" part is dubious, i.e. a contract could possibly exist in various other circumstances as well :)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - mjw1007 9y ago
      I see no justification for the arm of that 'iff' which is equivalent to "if what the plaintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that a contract probably exists".
      - qb45 9y ago
        "If what the paintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that certainly a contract probably exists". Apparently parent is an intuitionist ;)
      - DannyBee 9y ago
        Let's go to the decision: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract. See, e.g., MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 507, 519 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (concluding that the software owner had adequately pled a claim for breach of a shrink-wrap license). Note the part that: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract." IE if what the plaintiff said is true, it's a contract. I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true.
  - delinka 9y ago
    "...I just think you're splitting hairs." And splitting hairs is pretty much what the legal system is about. It matters. The difference is the defendant said "yes, we entered a contract" and not that the judge ruled "whether you admit it or not, you entered a contract." The former does not set legal precedent. The latter probably does.
  - otterley 9y ago
    It may seem like "splitting hairs," but it's basic legal analysis. Learning when a contract is formed (which is the question at issue here; it's not about the substantive terms of the contract) is covered in everyone's first year of law school. And learning how contract and copyright relate is covered in the second or third year of law school, depending on when you take the course.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

rlpb 9y ago

No. The plantiff made two key claims: breach of contract and copyright infringment. This is sensible, because the defendant has either accepted the GPL (and thus is in breach of contract), or has infringed copyright. This is key to the mechanism of copyleft. By suing for both, the defendant cannot just choose whichever is the most convenient and win on the technicality that the other was not considered by the court. The judge ruled that the claim of breach of contract cannot be dismissed on the basis that the contract does not exist, because the defendant has effectively admitted that it did exist. The judge also ruled that the claim of copyright cannot be dismissed on the basis of jurisdiction. None of these things relate to the enforceability of the GPL in general.

imanewsman 9y ago
I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're splitting hairs. The order says the license is a contract that exists, sure. Contracts are enforceable.
- __ddd__ 9y ago
  Not all contracts are enforceable. I would be surprised if the entirety of v3 is enforceable
  - uiri 9y ago
    Out of curiosity: which parts of v3 do you believe to be unenforceable? I think that, given the time, effort, and professional expertise which went into drafting it, that the entire thing should be enforceable.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  No. The order says that iff what the plaintiff says is true, a contract probably exists :)
  - mjw1007 9y ago
    I hope you don't really mean 'iff' there.
    - delinka 9y ago
      Why not? Read it as "if and only if." If you disagree, then explain your disagreement.
      - qb45 9y ago
        I think the "only" part is dubious, i.e. a contract could possibly exist in various other circumstances as well :)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - mjw1007 9y ago
    I see no justification for the arm of that 'iff' which is equivalent to "if what the plaintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that a contract probably exists".
    - qb45 9y ago
      "If what the paintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that certainly a contract probably exists". Apparently parent is an intuitionist ;)
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      Let's go to the decision: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract. See, e.g., MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 507, 519 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (concluding that the software owner had adequately pled a claim for breach of a shrink-wrap license). Note the part that: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract." IE if what the plaintiff said is true, it's a contract. I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true.
- delinka 9y ago
  "...I just think you're splitting hairs." And splitting hairs is pretty much what the legal system is about. It matters. The difference is the defendant said "yes, we entered a contract" and not that the judge ruled "whether you admit it or not, you entered a contract." The former does not set legal precedent. The latter probably does.
- otterley 9y ago
  It may seem like "splitting hairs," but it's basic legal analysis. Learning when a contract is formed (which is the question at issue here; it's not about the substantive terms of the contract) is covered in everyone's first year of law school. And learning how contract and copyright relate is covered in the second or third year of law school, depending on when you take the course.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]