6 ms·

>He can't since he is not the copyright owner of the GPL software. Isn't the whole point of the GPL that the user has rights to the software?

raverbashing 4y ago
True. Though I'd argue that maybe he'd need to be a John Deere equipment owner to sue (or partner with one I guess)
markdown 4y ago
Does he own a green and yellow tractor?
- spyremeown 4y ago
  Why are you confrontational? Maybe he does.
  - remix2000 4y ago
    Because it's but zanyism unless he does. Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      > Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used. Sort of. The relevant section is: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        In principle, maybe, but in practice, it's very hard to imagine that you would have any standing to bring a suit as a third party. If you and I sign a contract whereby you agree to pay 5$ to any stranger who calls you some name, I very much doubt a stranger who does so and doesn't receive their dollars would have any right to sue you. Of course, I could sue you for failing to perform the agreed contract.
        pabs3 4y ago
        The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases). https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        It's still a contract between the copyright holder and the redistributor, not between the redistributor and anyone in the world. It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people. I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed. Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.
        pabs3 4y ago
        Sure, in this case Conservancy aren't a party to the GPL contract, but as a recipient of GPLed binary code from Vizio they are a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Vizio and copyright holders. Actually Conservancy also are representatives of copyright holders in Linux and other software used on Vizio devices. So if they lose the third-party beneficiary suit, there will be a copyright angle they can pursue as well. GPL lawsuits aren't about hardware repair, they are about software repair and the rights given to end-users by the GPL license/contract. You don't need source code to replace broken components on a tractor, you need repairer/vendor software that performs pairing of DRM-locked parts.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - lobstrosity420 4y ago
    Because performative YouTube outrage shouldn’t be commended.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      He is a long-time right-to-repair activist. Why "performative"?
    - chongli 4y ago
      I also found his rant videos not to my taste. He is a pretty abrasive person and he seems to spend most of his time making rant videos these days. Having said all that, I support the right to repair movement. I commend him for being a gadfly and a leader on this issue. The right of ownership of the things you buy and the right to repair what you own are extremely important, fundamental rights. Without them, we are all reduced to tenants in a neo-feudalist dystopia.
    - circuit10 4y ago
      He does positive things sometimes as well, he said that it’s important to not only cover the negative things but also the positive things but that when he does people call him a shill
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Maybe he bought a replacement board computer and can't get it to run doom. All he needs to own to demand source code is the part that runs the code. That said, he doesn't make clear what, if any, John Deer hardware he owns. I don't think he's the right person to sue. However, he could use his influence and audience to help any farmer willing to take on John Deer to get a lawsuit together.
charcircuit 4y ago
In reality the license just puts extra restrictions on distribution of the software and how derivative works can be licensed. The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created. Copyright owners are not forced to stop people from infringing their copyrights. If they want they can allow people to infringe their copyright without punishment. Sometimes they just don't care and sometimes copyright infringement can be beneficial for the owner.
- bombolo 4y ago
  > The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created. This has not been established. And while there are strong economical interests in this sense… it doesn't necessarily mean they are lawful.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    Have fun downvoting… Still doesn't make me wrong. https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/ https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/
- rileymat2 4y ago
  > The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created. For the copyright violations, yes. But I'd imagine a skilled lawyer could make a suit against a company for a violation of the contract between the consumer and company on the grounds that the consumer knowingly bought a product that included those clauses and the company did not follow through with delivering the product as sold.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    That wouldn't be a GPL suit then, it would be a warranty suit. John Deere could plausibly just refund someone for their tractor, and continue violating the GPL.
    - 4y ago
kube-system 4y ago
> the user has rights to the software That's the stated rationale for the license, but not the legal framework that it is recognized under. "Copyleft" licenses are legally copyright licenses, and a violation of the GPL is simply a copyright violation. Whoever bring a suit must have standing to sue for copyright violations.
- pabs3 4y ago
  The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases). https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
  - kube-system 4y ago
    It's being tested, but it remains to be seen what California courts think about that idea, and even if they do recognize it that way, it's not exactly clear how they'd remedy it. https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2022/1/31/sfc-v-vizio-third-party-beneficiaries-in-open-source-software-licenses https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2022/1/31/sfc-v-vi...
    - pabs3 4y ago
      I expect Conservancy will push for either compliance (preferable) or preventing Vizio from using Linux, or potentially assisting Conservancy in going after whichever hardware vendor BSP their violation came from.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Yes, but as the article mentions, those are unlikely even if the court does decide to enforce the contract.
        pabs3 4y ago

raverbashing 4y ago

True. Though I'd argue that maybe he'd need to be a John Deere equipment owner to sue (or partner with one I guess)

markdown 4y ago

Does he own a green and yellow tractor?

spyremeown 4y ago
Why are you confrontational? Maybe he does.
- remix2000 4y ago
  Because it's but zanyism unless he does. Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > Simply put, GPL does not allow you to request "source code" for what you never used. Sort of. The relevant section is: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, If the company elects to go with option b, then yes - the GPL does allow you to request "source code" for what you never used.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      In principle, maybe, but in practice, it's very hard to imagine that you would have any standing to bring a suit as a third party. If you and I sign a contract whereby you agree to pay 5$ to any stranger who calls you some name, I very much doubt a stranger who does so and doesn't receive their dollars would have any right to sue you. Of course, I could sue you for failing to perform the agreed contract.
      - pabs3 4y ago
        The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases). https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        It's still a contract between the copyright holder and the redistributor, not between the redistributor and anyone in the world. It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people. I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed. Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.
        pabs3 4y ago
        Sure, in this case Conservancy aren't a party to the GPL contract, but as a recipient of GPLed binary code from Vizio they are a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Vizio and copyright holders. Actually Conservancy also are representatives of copyright holders in Linux and other software used on Vizio devices. So if they lose the third-party beneficiary suit, there will be a copyright angle they can pursue as well. GPL lawsuits aren't about hardware repair, they are about software repair and the rights given to end-users by the GPL license/contract. You don't need source code to replace broken components on a tractor, you need repairer/vendor software that performs pairing of DRM-locked parts.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- lobstrosity420 4y ago
  Because performative YouTube outrage shouldn’t be commended.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    He is a long-time right-to-repair activist. Why "performative"?
  - chongli 4y ago
    I also found his rant videos not to my taste. He is a pretty abrasive person and he seems to spend most of his time making rant videos these days. Having said all that, I support the right to repair movement. I commend him for being a gadfly and a leader on this issue. The right of ownership of the things you buy and the right to repair what you own are extremely important, fundamental rights. Without them, we are all reduced to tenants in a neo-feudalist dystopia.
  - circuit10 4y ago
    He does positive things sometimes as well, he said that it’s important to not only cover the negative things but also the positive things but that when he does people call him a shill
jeroenhd 4y ago
Maybe he bought a replacement board computer and can't get it to run doom. All he needs to own to demand source code is the part that runs the code. That said, he doesn't make clear what, if any, John Deer hardware he owns. I don't think he's the right person to sue. However, he could use his influence and audience to help any farmer willing to take on John Deer to get a lawsuit together.

charcircuit 4y ago

In reality the license just puts extra restrictions on distribution of the software and how derivative works can be licensed. The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created. Copyright owners are not forced to stop people from infringing their copyrights. If they want they can allow people to infringe their copyright without punishment. Sometimes they just don't care and sometimes copyright infringement can be beneficial for the owner.

bombolo 4y ago
> The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created. This has not been established. And while there are strong economical interests in this sense… it doesn't necessarily mean they are lawful.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Have fun downvoting… Still doesn't make me wrong. https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/ https://lwn.net/Articles/873415/
rileymat2 4y ago
> The copyright owner is the only person who can sue people for violating the license of the software they created. For the copyright violations, yes. But I'd imagine a skilled lawyer could make a suit against a company for a violation of the contract between the consumer and company on the grounds that the consumer knowingly bought a product that included those clauses and the company did not follow through with delivering the product as sold.
- kube-system 4y ago
  That wouldn't be a GPL suit then, it would be a warranty suit. John Deere could plausibly just refund someone for their tractor, and continue violating the GPL.
  - 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

> the user has rights to the software That's the stated rationale for the license, but not the legal framework that it is recognized under. "Copyleft" licenses are legally copyright licenses, and a violation of the GPL is simply a copyright violation. Whoever bring a suit must have standing to sue for copyright violations.

pabs3 4y ago
The idea that the GPL is also a contract is being tested in California. So far the federal court (which hears copyright cases) agreed to send the case back to state court (which hears contract cases). https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
- kube-system 4y ago
  It's being tested, but it remains to be seen what California courts think about that idea, and even if they do recognize it that way, it's not exactly clear how they'd remedy it. https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2022/1/31/sfc-v-vizio-third-party-beneficiaries-in-open-source-software-licenses https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2022/1/31/sfc-v-vi...
  - pabs3 4y ago
    I expect Conservancy will push for either compliance (preferable) or preventing Vizio from using Linux, or potentially assisting Conservancy in going after whichever hardware vendor BSP their violation came from.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Yes, but as the article mentions, those are unlikely even if the court does decide to enforce the contract.
      - pabs3 4y ago