4 ms·

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 rel

by 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.

by 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.