5 ms·

T̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶"̶b̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶

T̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶"̶b̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶f̶t̶w̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶i̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶c̶e̶n̶s̶e̶"̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶G̶P̶L̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶o̶n̶e̶n̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶G̶P̶L̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶i̶r̶e̶s̶.̶ Don't mind me, just being a dummy :)

bdowling 5y ago
Thanks. A statement of the court's order was included in the "press release" link, not the link I originally posted. Link updated. > The Judge, considering the articles 156 I.d.a. and 700 c.p.c., > Orders the defendants (Marco Poglie, Francesco Pesce and Nerds Farm Srl) to cease any use made available to the public, as well as any publications, of the software named E-addons for Elementor, if not after having eliminated every recurrence (exception made for a maximum amount of 500 lines) of the code included in the 1.9.5.2 version of Dynamic Content for Elementor, sub doc.2 produced by the Applicant, within seven days of the communication of this provision. https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-...
- edoceo 5y ago
  I don't understand the exception. Like less than 500 line chunks of GPL can stay? Or only chunks that are 500 or less must be removed in the time allowed?
  - aulin 5y ago
    From the italian version I understand max 500 lines of GPL code can stay... not sure about the reason, it can be quite a lot of code
- jaclaz 5y ago
  Only for the record (and IANAL), the second reference (Art.700 Codice Procedura Civile) is only related to the possibility - pending immediate financial loss - to get an accelerated/quick judgement. The decision lies on the first reference (Art. 156 Legge sul diritto d'Autore - Law on Author's rights), which is Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633: http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm interestingly, the objects protected were originally literature, music, arts, architecture, theatre and photos/movies (and was later extended to include computer programs, television, etc.).
fsckboy 5y ago
what he said is true, and therefore what you said is less than true. the GPL requires source corresponding to distributed binaries be released. They distributed GPL binaries and they have not been required to release the source. They are allowed to make future binaries which are not GPLed, but the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied.
- bdowling 5y ago
  > ...the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied. That's the intent of the GPL (GPL v3 Preamble) but it's not an outcome that a license can guarantee. A copyright license can only be enforced using copyright law, and the remedies for copyright infringement are limited to monetary damages (actual or statutory). Sometimes the threat of a copyright infringement suit may compel an infringer to release their source code rather than be ordered to pay damages, but sometimes not.
  - phonebanshee 5y ago
    That sounds like a very American thing to say. You're talking about Italian law here?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but how do software licenses differ from contracts and their stipulations? I'm under the impression that stipulations in legal contracts can be enforced by courts.
    - slavik81 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe you are referring to specific performance [1], which is rarely required (at least in common law systems). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
    - btilly 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to know the answer to this under common law. Which is what applies to most of the USA (Louisiana being the exception), but doesn't apply to Italy. I have no idea about Italian law. A common law contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. That is, one side must offer the contract. The other must accept it. And each must have some potential gain from it (consideration). Both sides are then bound by the agreement. The agreement can be quite complicated, for example it may bind the parties to resolving disputes with binding arbitration. A license is permission to do something under some conditions. If you break the license, you are without permission. The licensor can then pursue claims against you just as they could if no license ever existed. For example if you break a copyright license, the licensor can sue you for copyright infringement. But without an explicit agreement from you, they can't sue for anything else.

bdowling 5y ago

Thanks. A statement of the court's order was included in the "press release" link, not the link I originally posted. Link updated. > The Judge, considering the articles 156 I.d.a. and 700 c.p.c., > Orders the defendants (Marco Poglie, Francesco Pesce and Nerds Farm Srl) to cease any use made available to the public, as well as any publications, of the software named E-addons for Elementor, if not after having eliminated every recurrence (exception made for a maximum amount of 500 lines) of the code included in the 1.9.5.2 version of Dynamic Content for Elementor, sub doc.2 produced by the Applicant, within seven days of the communication of this provision. https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-...

edoceo 5y ago
I don't understand the exception. Like less than 500 line chunks of GPL can stay? Or only chunks that are 500 or less must be removed in the time allowed?
- aulin 5y ago
  From the italian version I understand max 500 lines of GPL code can stay... not sure about the reason, it can be quite a lot of code
jaclaz 5y ago
Only for the record (and IANAL), the second reference (Art.700 Codice Procedura Civile) is only related to the possibility - pending immediate financial loss - to get an accelerated/quick judgement. The decision lies on the first reference (Art. 156 Legge sul diritto d'Autore - Law on Author's rights), which is Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633: http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm interestingly, the objects protected were originally literature, music, arts, architecture, theatre and photos/movies (and was later extended to include computer programs, television, etc.).

fsckboy 5y ago

what he said is true, and therefore what you said is less than true. the GPL requires source corresponding to distributed binaries be released. They distributed GPL binaries and they have not been required to release the source. They are allowed to make future binaries which are not GPLed, but the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied.

bdowling 5y ago
> ...the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied. That's the intent of the GPL (GPL v3 Preamble) but it's not an outcome that a license can guarantee. A copyright license can only be enforced using copyright law, and the remedies for copyright infringement are limited to monetary damages (actual or statutory). Sometimes the threat of a copyright infringement suit may compel an infringer to release their source code rather than be ordered to pay damages, but sometimes not.
- phonebanshee 5y ago
  That sounds like a very American thing to say. You're talking about Italian law here?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but how do software licenses differ from contracts and their stipulations? I'm under the impression that stipulations in legal contracts can be enforced by courts.
  - slavik81 5y ago
    I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe you are referring to specific performance [1], which is rarely required (at least in common law systems). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
  - btilly 5y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to know the answer to this under common law. Which is what applies to most of the USA (Louisiana being the exception), but doesn't apply to Italy. I have no idea about Italian law. A common law contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. That is, one side must offer the contract. The other must accept it. And each must have some potential gain from it (consideration). Both sides are then bound by the agreement. The agreement can be quite complicated, for example it may bind the parties to resolving disputes with binding arbitration. A license is permission to do something under some conditions. If you break the license, you are without permission. The licensor can then pursue claims against you just as they could if no license ever existed. For example if you break a copyright license, the licensor can sue you for copyright infringement. But without an explicit agreement from you, they can't sue for anything else.