3 ms·
To some extent this is true, yes. But legal jurisdictions defer to one another, to the point wherein that is even becoming more formalized, especially for smal
by jariel 6y ago
To some extent this is true, yes.
But legal jurisdictions defer to one another, to the point wherein that is even becoming more formalized, especially for smaller countries [1]. And it's possible that an IP ruling in 'some important place' sets the material precedent anyhow.
If the US or EU rules one way, then others will be influenced by that on some level.
A lot of this could possibly be more clarified by legislation, but I only think the EU and maybe the UK really have the wherewithal or importance to make an impact. Germany possibly but I see them wanting to do that at the EU level. I don't see anything on the horizon for the US.
I would definitely double down on my heretofore down-voted statement: if you care about open source, you really, really want to have 'good, clean cases' pushed through and tested in the courts.
If Open Source proponents leave it to the wind, patent trolls, or big corps - you may see 'bad cases' go through the system and set really bad precedent that hinges on weird corners cases.
Do not underestimate how much of a big deal this is. IP is a discussion at every point along the way when contemplating investing in independent or internal projects and 'ambiguity' is a huge factor in risk aversion.
All of these IP licences are just 'ideas' waiting to be 'more or less law' when they face legal scrutiny, so if I were the 'God of Open Source' I'd be looking to find cases to build a favourable pipeline to the Supreme Court. Major rulings will have a beneficial impact for everyone.
[1] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/domestic-judgment/canada.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/domestic-judgment/canada.php
- andi999 6y agoI care about open source, but I also think these litigations might be harmful, I mean if the software is the product companies cannot publish the source. What probably works (and the GPL is good for) is dual licensing, one free GPL version and one paid version. If you do not want to do this, then maybe some clearly permissive license like MIT or putting it into public domain might be a good alternative.
- jariel 6y agoI don't think you're understanding my point. The 'licenses' which you are describing may be worthless, in that they have no actual meaning. Some more so than others. Someone could sue over GPL tommorow, goes to the Supreme Court, and the GPL is invalidated and ruled invalid. Then what? The entire software industry turns upside down. So when the 'licence has little meaning' and it can be overruled in a court ... then companies are very scared of that and act accordingly - with risk aversion. In other words the 'GPL' is not 'the GPL'. It's just 'maybe the GPL'. And that is a huge maybe if you're betting the company on it. To make the 'GPL' actually the 'GPL' and to validate the strategy articulated in your comment - you need to either have 1) laws passed in support of this stuff or 2) have major courts rule on it. The contracts seem reasonable, it would be nice to have them validated in court. Copyright, a similar issue, is being tested right now in Oracle v. Google and it's going to have a big impact. To give you some small hint at how big this issue is: Android is switching from Java to Kotlin over this. Literally the #1 most popular OS in the world has to fundamentally shift gears due to IP litigation risks. If the laws were clear then either a) Android would have never used Java to begin with or b) Android would have no problem using Java. Instead, we're in limbo. Which is why clear contract laws are good for everyone.