5 ms·

Are there no legal recourse options for breaking the license so blatantly?

by rorykoehler 5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago
As he said, he did not want to burn his bridges.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  That’s a pretty interesting thought experiment. How likely is it to burn bridges with a multibillion dollar corp by taking them to court to protect your IP? They might even respect you for it. Most likely the people working there will move on eventually and especially if they are responsible for IP theft that results in a heavy legal bill. Companies sue each other over ip all the time and then still do business with each other. I’m also assuming OP’s bridges with the persons directly responsible are already burnt. So which bridges exactly are being protected?
  - scubakid 5y ago
    I don't know much about law, but I wonder what the ballpark out-of-pocket legal costs might look like for an individual going after a large corporation with an IP suit... i.e. how likely is it the corporation could win simply by dragging out proceedings and exhausting your resources / burying you with legal fees?
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      You’re right but it kind of renders copyright law to be another elitist construct. I wonder if there are lawyers or organisations who take up these types of cases to negate the behaviour you have outlined. Would EFF for example find it in conflict with their mission?
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      You don't need to get into legal proceedings, if the facts are clear. If you can prove it's your invention, and they're distributing it without your permission, they won't want to waste money defending a suit. You may be a little guy, without enough dosh to launch a suit; but you could sell your interest to $COPYRIGHT_TROLL, then they'd be in trouble. So just ask them nicely to propose a settlement. It's not like war, or anything; tech-company legal departments are there for just this kind of thing. Unless there are arseholes involved, it can all be friendly and business-like.
ivanbakel 5y ago
Was there a license violation if the software wasn't distributed?
- gpm 5y ago
  Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... Performing it to Brendan might also have been (but not sure on that one).
  - oefrha 5y ago
    > Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... > Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? > No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. > However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. Please consult sources before making a strong statement.
    - gpm 5y ago
      > No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution Which couldn't be more irrelevant, because a) This software doesn't appear to be licensed under the GPL. b) The question here is not whether or not it's distribution, it's if it's copyright infringement. Making copies of copyrighted material is illegal (up to fair use and licenses) regardless of whether or not you distribute them. c) The GPL also requires you maintain the license header when you are making copies (GPLv2 term 1, "You may copy [...] the Program's source code as you receive it [...] provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License [...]" (other terms and conditions do apply, hence the ...'s). d) The license (and the law, and court rulings) is the source material, not GNU's not legally binding faq.

Are there no legal recourse options for breaking the license so blatantly?

user-the-name 5y ago

As he said, he did not want to burn his bridges.

rorykoehler 5y ago
That’s a pretty interesting thought experiment. How likely is it to burn bridges with a multibillion dollar corp by taking them to court to protect your IP? They might even respect you for it. Most likely the people working there will move on eventually and especially if they are responsible for IP theft that results in a heavy legal bill. Companies sue each other over ip all the time and then still do business with each other. I’m also assuming OP’s bridges with the persons directly responsible are already burnt. So which bridges exactly are being protected?
- scubakid 5y ago
  I don't know much about law, but I wonder what the ballpark out-of-pocket legal costs might look like for an individual going after a large corporation with an IP suit... i.e. how likely is it the corporation could win simply by dragging out proceedings and exhausting your resources / burying you with legal fees?
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    You’re right but it kind of renders copyright law to be another elitist construct. I wonder if there are lawyers or organisations who take up these types of cases to negate the behaviour you have outlined. Would EFF for example find it in conflict with their mission?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    You don't need to get into legal proceedings, if the facts are clear. If you can prove it's your invention, and they're distributing it without your permission, they won't want to waste money defending a suit. You may be a little guy, without enough dosh to launch a suit; but you could sell your interest to $COPYRIGHT_TROLL, then they'd be in trouble. So just ask them nicely to propose a settlement. It's not like war, or anything; tech-company legal departments are there for just this kind of thing. Unless there are arseholes involved, it can all be friendly and business-like.

ivanbakel 5y ago

Was there a license violation if the software wasn't distributed?

gpm 5y ago
Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... Performing it to Brendan might also have been (but not sure on that one).
- oefrha 5y ago
  > Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... > Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? > No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. > However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. Please consult sources before making a strong statement.
  - gpm 5y ago
    > No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution Which couldn't be more irrelevant, because a) This software doesn't appear to be licensed under the GPL. b) The question here is not whether or not it's distribution, it's if it's copyright infringement. Making copies of copyrighted material is illegal (up to fair use and licenses) regardless of whether or not you distribute them. c) The GPL also requires you maintain the license header when you are making copies (GPLv2 term 1, "You may copy [...] the Program's source code as you receive it [...] provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License [...]" (other terms and conditions do apply, hence the ...'s). d) The license (and the law, and court rulings) is the source material, not GNU's not legally binding faq.