3 ms·

It's always seemed to me that IP laws state you can not copy copyright material and use it (outside of a few specific fair use cases), unless you have permissio

It's always seemed to me that IP laws state you can not copy copyright material and use it (outside of a few specific fair use cases), unless you have permission from the person who owns the copyright. I don't see why the Linux kernel is any more or less covered by that than say the Windows kernel or Avengers Endgame Now I can see arguments about whether loading such code into memory is "copying" it or "using" it, but I think everyone agrees that you can't take 30 minutes of avengers, or half the windows or linux code, and incorporate it into your product, unless you have permission of the person who owns the copyright. The GPL is an offer to allow you to do things with the copyrighted code if you maintain certain specific. You don't have to accept that, you're then just covered under copyright (no copying, reproducing small amounts for review or critique is fine, selling it to someone else is fine, etc) Arguably you could use it even if that involves transitory copying of the code into memory, arguably you can modify that code to yourself as long as you don't copy it (presumably that means you have to accept that "to copy" doesn't mean loading it into memory, or even moving it from one disk sector to another, etc) But the principles of copyright law and how various microsoft, gnu, linux, and disney licenses can apply to give you more rights has always been clear to me. However what's interesting in this case, and what I would agree isn't clear, is the person bringing the case isn't the copyright owner though. If someone sells you stolen goods, can you sue them? > In this case, Software Freedom Conservancy hopes to demonstrate that it's not just the copyright holders, but also the receivers of the licensed code who are entitled to rights.

bdowling 4y ago
> However what's interesting in this case, and what I would agree isn't clear, is the person bringing the case isn't the copyright owner though. You're right, which is why SFC's case is entirely a contract law case. SFC argues (1) the GPL is a contract between the software creator and Vizio, (2) Vizio has a contractual obligation to publish their modified source code, and (3) SFC has the right to sue because they are a third-party beneficiary of that contract. Here, this decision only states that SFC's contract claims aren't preempted by the Copyright Act and therefore the case belongs in state court. The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. (Edit: I was wrong about the procedure. See reply by dragonwriter.) So, now it's back to state court where the court will decide whether there is any merit to the contract claims.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. Vizio unsuccessfully argued that: this is the decision on Vizio’s attempt to remove the case to federal court, which SFC opposed. (The nature of removal is such that it always “succeeds” in the limited sense that the removal itself is a federal question resolved in federal court, but Vizio never succeeded in convincing any court that the case should be removed.)
  - bdowling 4y ago
    Ah, you're right. The initial filing by Visio was a notice of removal. There is no argument or decision by the court on the notice. SFC responds by filing a motion to remand, which is what this decision relates to.

bdowling 4y ago

> However what's interesting in this case, and what I would agree isn't clear, is the person bringing the case isn't the copyright owner though. You're right, which is why SFC's case is entirely a contract law case. SFC argues (1) the GPL is a contract between the software creator and Vizio, (2) Vizio has a contractual obligation to publish their modified source code, and (3) SFC has the right to sue because they are a third-party beneficiary of that contract. Here, this decision only states that SFC's contract claims aren't preempted by the Copyright Act and therefore the case belongs in state court. The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. (Edit: I was wrong about the procedure. See reply by dragonwriter.) So, now it's back to state court where the court will decide whether there is any merit to the contract claims.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. Vizio unsuccessfully argued that: this is the decision on Vizio’s attempt to remove the case to federal court, which SFC opposed. (The nature of removal is such that it always “succeeds” in the limited sense that the removal itself is a federal question resolved in federal court, but Vizio never succeeded in convincing any court that the case should be removed.)
- bdowling 4y ago
  Ah, you're right. The initial filing by Visio was a notice of removal. There is no argument or decision by the court on the notice. SFC responds by filing a motion to remand, which is what this decision relates to.