3 ms·

The use of the word "illegal" seems problematic if this is a contractual dispute over (GPL) license terms. No one seems to be claiming that TikTok actually comm

The use of the word "illegal" seems problematic if this is a contractual dispute over (GPL) license terms. No one seems to be claiming that TikTok actually committed a criminal act (although, perhaps they did, if this was intentional as it appears, and TikTok is engaging in criminal-levels of distribution. Not a lawyer, so just speculating here.) It probably would have been better if the OP had said "violated the license agreement". Still, many other companies have eventually caved under GPL lawsuits, but apparently none in China; probably because it's virtually impossible as a foreigner to win a tort case against a Chinese company. https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The use of the word "illegal" seems problematic if this is a contractual dispute over (GPL) license terms No, it's not. > No one seems to be claiming that TikTok actually committed a criminal act “Criminal” is not the same as “illegal”, the latter includes any violation of law whether or not it is criminal.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  This definitely looks like egregious and apparently intentional infringement, but violating the GPL is not violating a law in most countries; it's violating a license agreement. Contracts are not law. Therefore, violating the GPL by itself probably isn't illegal (but it could probably become illegal if other statutes, like CFAA or RICO were brought into play.) If I violate deed restrictions on my property by building a shed, then that wouldn't be illegal per se; it'd simply be a breach of contract and the private organization could sue me for redress. But, if I built that same shed in the middle of a public street, then that might be illegal and the city might have me arrested and prosecuted.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > This is not violating a law; it's violating a license agreement. Contracts are not law. Following legally-valid contracts outside of any legally-valid excuse is law, which is why breach of contract is a cognizable legal cause of action.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    > This definitely looks like egregious and apparently intentional infringement, but violating the GPL is not violating a law in most countries; it's violating a license agreement. If they're not following the license, then aren't they breaking copyright laws?
nnvvhh 5y ago
Not complying with an open source license can be enforced as copyright infringement rather than a contractual dispute.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  Please cite an example. Most countries' copyright law tips civil license agreement disputes back into the civil courts, not criminal, with relatively few exceptions.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > The court disagreed that Neo4j granted a naked trademark license, pointing out that the open source licenses granted to third-parties on the open source software repository were copyright licenses, not trademark licenses. Users of the open source version of the software did not have any right to use the Neo4j trademark without a separate trademark agreement. Naked licensing does not occur where there is no trademark license. Neo4j used GPL by the way. https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/open-source-software-copyright-licenses-did-not-cause-trademark-to-be-abandoned-under-naked-licensing-theory.html https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/open-source-so...
  - ted_dunning 5y ago
    Your reply is confusing. The previous poster said that GPL could be enforced using copyright law as opposed to filing a contract dispute. There is clear precedent for that: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170515/06040337368/us-court-upholds-enforceability-gnu-gpl-as-both-license-contract.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170515/06040337368/us-co... Then you bring in the question of civil vs criminal but the point was copyright versus contract.
  - nnvvhh 5y ago
    Copyright infringement is always in civil court. What I was getting at is that you can view a license violation as a contract dispute or copyright violation. The latter may mean high statutory damages (i.e. a pre-set range of money values that can go as high as $150K per work infringed), whereas the former does not.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The use of the word "illegal" seems problematic if this is a contractual dispute over (GPL) license terms No, it's not. > No one seems to be claiming that TikTok actually committed a criminal act “Criminal” is not the same as “illegal”, the latter includes any violation of law whether or not it is criminal.

gunapologist99 5y ago
This definitely looks like egregious and apparently intentional infringement, but violating the GPL is not violating a law in most countries; it's violating a license agreement. Contracts are not law. Therefore, violating the GPL by itself probably isn't illegal (but it could probably become illegal if other statutes, like CFAA or RICO were brought into play.) If I violate deed restrictions on my property by building a shed, then that wouldn't be illegal per se; it'd simply be a breach of contract and the private organization could sue me for redress. But, if I built that same shed in the middle of a public street, then that might be illegal and the city might have me arrested and prosecuted.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > This is not violating a law; it's violating a license agreement. Contracts are not law. Following legally-valid contracts outside of any legally-valid excuse is law, which is why breach of contract is a cognizable legal cause of action.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  > This definitely looks like egregious and apparently intentional infringement, but violating the GPL is not violating a law in most countries; it's violating a license agreement. If they're not following the license, then aren't they breaking copyright laws?

nnvvhh 5y ago

Not complying with an open source license can be enforced as copyright infringement rather than a contractual dispute.

gunapologist99 5y ago
Please cite an example. Most countries' copyright law tips civil license agreement disputes back into the civil courts, not criminal, with relatively few exceptions.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > The court disagreed that Neo4j granted a naked trademark license, pointing out that the open source licenses granted to third-parties on the open source software repository were copyright licenses, not trademark licenses. Users of the open source version of the software did not have any right to use the Neo4j trademark without a separate trademark agreement. Naked licensing does not occur where there is no trademark license. Neo4j used GPL by the way. https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/open-source-software-copyright-licenses-did-not-cause-trademark-to-be-abandoned-under-naked-licensing-theory.html https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/open-source-so...
- ted_dunning 5y ago
  Your reply is confusing. The previous poster said that GPL could be enforced using copyright law as opposed to filing a contract dispute. There is clear precedent for that: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170515/06040337368/us-court-upholds-enforceability-gnu-gpl-as-both-license-contract.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170515/06040337368/us-co... Then you bring in the question of civil vs criminal but the point was copyright versus contract.
- nnvvhh 5y ago
  Copyright infringement is always in civil court. What I was getting at is that you can view a license violation as a contract dispute or copyright violation. The latter may mean high statutory damages (i.e. a pre-set range of money values that can go as high as $150K per work infringed), whereas the former does not.