3 ms·

Yup. The best thing we can all do is shine a light on it. I'm a lawyer and one thing that's important to remember in all of this is the interconnectedness of th

by jrm4 5y ago

Yup. The best thing we can all do is shine a light on it. I'm a lawyer and one thing that's important to remember in all of this is the interconnectedness of things, and being strategic about how to proceed is important. Shine the light everywhere. As in, one thing to consider is that some proponents of Free Software do not actually want certain types of high-profile public cases on the GPL even when they law appears to be very much on their side, mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent.

bogwog 5y ago
> mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent. At this point, isn't precedent already set? There have been more than a few GPL lawsuits where the courts ruled in favor of the GPL. This wiki has a list (https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases) of them. Some of those are in the US, others in the EU. Not sure if US judges have to consider precedents set in EU countries?
- jrm4 5y ago
  I'd say there's not "enough," and in a sense, precedent is never binary, like "yes or no?" The law having distinctions and extensions and so on. US will probably find EU law persuasive but not binding. So broadly, I think at least part of the strategy is "don't wake the beast." You really don't want e.g. "Microsoft v. Tiny GPL guy" as a big case because the law is far from perfect and there would be a lot of potential incentive/influence in MS's favor. (True, you'd get lots of Amicus action from Mozilla et al, but that would probably not be enough)
  - pabs3 5y ago
    There is precedent from 2003 in the USA: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-st...

by jrm4 5y ago

bogwog 5y ago

> mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent. At this point, isn't precedent already set? There have been more than a few GPL lawsuits where the courts ruled in favor of the GPL. This wiki has a list (https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases) of them. Some of those are in the US, others in the EU. Not sure if US judges have to consider precedents set in EU countries?

jrm4 5y ago
I'd say there's not "enough," and in a sense, precedent is never binary, like "yes or no?" The law having distinctions and extensions and so on. US will probably find EU law persuasive but not binding. So broadly, I think at least part of the strategy is "don't wake the beast." You really don't want e.g. "Microsoft v. Tiny GPL guy" as a big case because the law is far from perfect and there would be a lot of potential incentive/influence in MS's favor. (True, you'd get lots of Amicus action from Mozilla et al, but that would probably not be enough)
- pabs3 5y ago
  There is precedent from 2003 in the USA: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html#brief-history-of-user-focused-gpl-enforcement https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-st...