4 ms·

They are required to provide the full source code for the versions that included the GPLv3 code. There is no exemption to this requirement. Removing the code

They are required to provide the full source code for the versions that included the GPLv3 code. There is no exemption to this requirement. Removing the code is not sufficient; it shipped, so they must abide by its terms. Otherwise, the relevant package authors should take them to court, because this should be a slam dunk win. We need more precedents for these licenses, and I am almost entirely certain that there will be lawyers that would take the case pro bono.

Scaevolus 4y ago
GPL violations are not as slam dunk as you think. Prosecuting copyright in court is very expensive. By the same logic, Animal Crossing: New Horizons is available under GPLv3 because they shipped xBRZ.
- vore 4y ago
  I wasn't sure of this claim and it looks like it's unclear if they did ship GPL xBRZ code: https://twitter.com/_Ninji/status/1242853245564919821 https://twitter.com/_Ninji/status/1242853245564919821
knome 4y ago
Violating the rules of the GPL would make it so they don't have the right to distribute that GPL code, but I can't see it making it so they are obligated to release their other code.
- mdasen 4y ago
  Yes, violating the GPL's rules means that you don't have the right to distribute that GPL code. If someone has already been distributing that GPL code against the GPL's rules, then they're committing copyright infringement. Generally speaking, most GPL copyright holders would prefer that infringers bring their distribution in line with the GPL's terms (by releasing the rest of it as GPL) than get monetary damages, but you're probably correct that they wouldn't be obliged to release their other code. I think when the original person said "they are required to provide the full source code for the versions that included the GPLv3 code," they probably meant that in order to avoid copyright infringement, they must do that. The GPLv3 does give you the opportunity to cure violations of the license which would be done by releasing the other code under the GPLv3 (or compatible license). Obligatory IANAL and I'm not commenting on voice.ai in particular.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the claimants also entitled to request that the defendant suspend use of the code while the trial is in progress? That's often as much of a punishment as any monetary damages awarded at the end of trial. You have to stop using our work because you're causing additional harm, now let's argue about how bad the harm was.
  - User23 4y ago
    US copyright law permits hefty statutory damages[1] for each willful infringement, so the copyright holder could be looking at a massive payday with competent counsel. Note that the statutory damage is per copy distributed! [1] https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/708 https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/708
    - tzs 4y ago
      > Note that the statutory damage is per copy distributed! Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per copy. See 17 USC 504 (c)(1) here [1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - kweingar 4y ago
    > Generally speaking, most GPL copyright holders would prefer that infringers bring their distribution in line with the GPL's terms (by releasing the rest of it as GPL) I think the more common request is to remove GPL components from the distribution.
hinkley 4y ago
Cleanroom exists for a reason. One of the first things I learned about code copyright is that the Ship of Theseus applies. You can't take a game engine for instance, incrementally replace every line of the original code, and then claim you have a completely independent work. It's still based on the original code.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  > Cleanroom exists for a reason Actually it does not. Cleanroom is not legally required and is actually discouraged by the (US) legal system. Directly reading the disassembled/decompiled code to learn the procedures/ideas is a fair use, as a matter of law.
forgotpwd16 4y ago
Something similar happened recently with Stockfish and ChessBase. They reached an agreement that ChessBase will no longer sell their product without complying with GPL but they aren't forced to distribute the source if they decide to stop selling. https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/chessbase-stockfish-agreement/ https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/chessbase-stockfish-agr...
- Bootvis 4y ago
  In that case it seemed to me that the Stockfish devs tried to get the maximum compensation possible but wanted to get the dispute over with.

Scaevolus 4y ago

GPL violations are not as slam dunk as you think. Prosecuting copyright in court is very expensive. By the same logic, Animal Crossing: New Horizons is available under GPLv3 because they shipped xBRZ.

vore 4y ago
I wasn't sure of this claim and it looks like it's unclear if they did ship GPL xBRZ code: https://twitter.com/_Ninji/status/1242853245564919821 https://twitter.com/_Ninji/status/1242853245564919821

knome 4y ago

Violating the rules of the GPL would make it so they don't have the right to distribute that GPL code, but I can't see it making it so they are obligated to release their other code.

mdasen 4y ago
Yes, violating the GPL's rules means that you don't have the right to distribute that GPL code. If someone has already been distributing that GPL code against the GPL's rules, then they're committing copyright infringement. Generally speaking, most GPL copyright holders would prefer that infringers bring their distribution in line with the GPL's terms (by releasing the rest of it as GPL) than get monetary damages, but you're probably correct that they wouldn't be obliged to release their other code. I think when the original person said "they are required to provide the full source code for the versions that included the GPLv3 code," they probably meant that in order to avoid copyright infringement, they must do that. The GPLv3 does give you the opportunity to cure violations of the license which would be done by releasing the other code under the GPLv3 (or compatible license). Obligatory IANAL and I'm not commenting on voice.ai in particular.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the claimants also entitled to request that the defendant suspend use of the code while the trial is in progress? That's often as much of a punishment as any monetary damages awarded at the end of trial. You have to stop using our work because you're causing additional harm, now let's argue about how bad the harm was.
- User23 4y ago
  US copyright law permits hefty statutory damages[1] for each willful infringement, so the copyright holder could be looking at a massive payday with competent counsel. Note that the statutory damage is per copy distributed! [1] https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/708 https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/708
  - tzs 4y ago
    > Note that the statutory damage is per copy distributed! Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per copy. See 17 USC 504 (c)(1) here [1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- kweingar 4y ago
  > Generally speaking, most GPL copyright holders would prefer that infringers bring their distribution in line with the GPL's terms (by releasing the rest of it as GPL) I think the more common request is to remove GPL components from the distribution.

hinkley 4y ago

Cleanroom exists for a reason. One of the first things I learned about code copyright is that the Ship of Theseus applies. You can't take a game engine for instance, incrementally replace every line of the original code, and then claim you have a completely independent work. It's still based on the original code.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
> Cleanroom exists for a reason Actually it does not. Cleanroom is not legally required and is actually discouraged by the (US) legal system. Directly reading the disassembled/decompiled code to learn the procedures/ideas is a fair use, as a matter of law.

forgotpwd16 4y ago

Something similar happened recently with Stockfish and ChessBase. They reached an agreement that ChessBase will no longer sell their product without complying with GPL but they aren't forced to distribute the source if they decide to stop selling. https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/chessbase-stockfish-agreement/ https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/chessbase-stockfish-agr...

Bootvis 4y ago
In that case it seemed to me that the Stockfish devs tried to get the maximum compensation possible but wanted to get the dispute over with.