3 ms·
Yes, but the endgame of the GPL is not to generate copyright infringement lawsuits[0]. It's to compel modifiers of the code to license their changes back and re
by kmeisthax 4y ago
Yes, but the endgame of the GPL is not to generate copyright infringement lawsuits[0]. It's to compel modifiers of the code to license their changes back and respect user freedom - i.e. to keep the software effectively uncopyrighted.
If you sue in a court of law, they will give you money damages, and maybe an injunction specifically requiring the developer delete their copy of the program. Under no circumstances will a court demand specific performance of GPL obligations to release source code. But that's what the SFC wants. So the only way to get people to comply with the GPL is to use the threat of a lawsuit to encourage compliance.
This is contrary to what we normally think of with copyright litigation, but that's mostly because the lawsuits we see are either breakdowns of negotiation, or against individual infringers and pirate sites that would never be granted a license under any circumstances whatsoever. When you want a licensee to actually do something, you are better off threatening litigation and negotiating rather than going straight to the nuclear option.
[0] Nobody told that to the Lawnmower Man[1] unfortunately
[1] Larry Ellison
- nier 4y agoDid you just anthropomorphize Larry Ellison?
- pabs3 4y agoMost of these violating companies don't care about lawsuits, the big ones could probably bankrupt anyone trying to sue them by dragging things out and the small ones just make a product, fold the company and start a new one. I found the latest Conservancy lawsuit interesting, they are suing as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL (ie as a recipient of GPL code), not as a copyright holder. They are suing solely for compliance, not for damages. Hopefully they get back their costs too though. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
- vineyardmike 4y ago> Under no circumstances will a court demand specific performance of GPL obligations to release source code. I wonder why not though. If that’s the clear terms of the license, and there’s some implied consent when using a library, and others knowingly used the library with the right terms, why can’t the courts find it fair?
- kmeisthax 4y agoThe SCUMMVM case is instructive: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat... Basically, Atari wanted to port some old Humongous Entertainment games to Wii, they hired a contractor, who hired a contractor, who downloaded SCUMMVM and ported it to the Wii. Of course, Nintendo's SDK terms specifically forbid source code disclosure, and they did not disclose source code of their port of this emulator. So if a court specifically compelled performance of the GPL's license obligations, then they'd also be compelling Atari to violate their agreement with Nintendo. So does Nintendo now get to sue Atari for being sued by SCUMMVM's development team and losing? Or does the court get to override Nintendo's NDAs to satisfy the GPL? What if they chose the opposite: overriding the GPL to preserve Nintendo's NDAs? Neither of those outcomes really jive with the core idea of copyright, because they all rely on having one infringed party "step on" the other's ownership, with courts having to decide who wins and loses.
- pabs3 4y agoPresumably the judge wouldn't want either agreement to be violated, so would go with the third option, which hopefully satisfies both agreements at the same time; the Nintendo store gets to take down the ported old games from Atari. Then perhaps the contractor gets sued for not providing source code legally suitable for the Wii SDK.