3 ms·

> You can not be forced to give out code. You can be forced to do whatever you agreed to do in a binding contract, if the action or contract isn't illegal. Yo

> You can not be forced to give out code. You can be forced to do whatever you agreed to do in a binding contract, if the action or contract isn't illegal. You don't present any basis for your claim. A court case like this could settle the matter. Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code.

jeroenhd 4y ago
I'm not so sure about that. The GPL does spell out the rights for end users pretty clearly, but the terms being violated apply between the copyright holder and the company violating the terms. Violating "you can use this code with these conditions" means you can't use the code (and may need to pay damages to the people you've stolen the code from), not that you're necessarily forced to apply those conditions. IANAL but I think you need to the a copyright holder to effectively enforce these terms through the court. If you violate a contract with your employer and don't deliver a product in time, I don't think the customers can sue you. Instead, as far as I know, the customers will sue the company and the company will sue you to cover the costs.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code. This is definitely wrong. If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license, and thus presumably have no right to distribute that code. However, unless you are a copyright holder of the code they are distributing, there is no harm to you as a third party if the distributor is not respecting the terms of the license of the creator. At best, if they lose a lawsuit with the copyright holder and are forced to stop distributing the software and/or recall already distributed versions, you could then sue them for damages caused by their irresponsible behavior.
- teddyh 4y ago
  > If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are. And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? I can see some sense if the offer is provided to anyone receiving the binary from the company, in which case you could argue that it is a part of the distribution contract between the company and the recipient. But a third party doesn't seem to have any relationship, even if the promise nominally mentions ant third party. At best, you could argue that the original receiver of the code could sue the company for not providing code to a third party as per the promise. > And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately Yes, but only by a copyright holder of that source code, not by a third party (not even by the person who received the binary code without a copy of the source or a promise to provide it on request). By the way, it should be noted that, per Stallman, it's perfectly valid for a company to sell GPL-based binaries and only distribute the source code to those who buy the binaries (though of course they must be allowed to distribute it further). So it's absolutely clear that a random person who neither purchased the product nor holds copyright in the GPL work has no standing whatsoever.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      > By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? Are promises not binding? Can a company not get sued for breaking a promise? (I agree with the rest of your comment.)
pie_flavor 4y ago
If you're violating your obligations under the GPL, then that means you no longer have a license to the software, and are committing copyright infringement by continuing to distribute it. When you commit copyright infringement and used to have a license, the court doesn't demand that you do things listed on the license you used to have, it just fines you and tells you to stop committing copyright infringement. The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do. As a copyright license, it is used to protect your own work from being abused, and nothing else. And it is an agreement between the licensor and the licensee, irrespective of who else it benefits, so only they have standing.
- pabs3 4y ago
  The idea that the GPL is also a contract (that also benefits third-parties) 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
- tialaramex 4y ago
  > The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do. On the other hand, court orders in many ways are magic spells, and there are circumstances where you can get the court to order Specific Performance as remedy. Courts don't love Specific Performance, you won't get far asking a court for this when monetary compensation seems effective, but sometimes the Court can see that's not an appropriate remedy and will order Specific Performance. Specific Performance requires that you do what the court demands, if you won't do what they demand that's contempt for which you can be imprisoned.

jeroenhd 4y ago

I'm not so sure about that. The GPL does spell out the rights for end users pretty clearly, but the terms being violated apply between the copyright holder and the company violating the terms. Violating "you can use this code with these conditions" means you can't use the code (and may need to pay damages to the people you've stolen the code from), not that you're necessarily forced to apply those conditions. IANAL but I think you need to the a copyright holder to effectively enforce these terms through the court. If you violate a contract with your employer and don't deliver a product in time, I don't think the customers can sue you. Instead, as far as I know, the customers will sue the company and the company will sue you to cover the costs.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> Since the GPL requires the derivative source to be released, anyone has standing to sue since anyone can request that code. This is definitely wrong. If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license, and thus presumably have no right to distribute that code. However, unless you are a copyright holder of the code they are distributing, there is no harm to you as a third party if the distributor is not respecting the terms of the license of the creator. At best, if they lose a lawsuit with the copyright holder and are forced to stop distributing the software and/or recall already distributed versions, you could then sue them for damages caused by their irresponsible behavior.

teddyh 4y ago
> If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are. And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? I can see some sense if the offer is provided to anyone receiving the binary from the company, in which case you could argue that it is a part of the distribution contract between the company and the recipient. But a third party doesn't seem to have any relationship, even if the promise nominally mentions ant third party. At best, you could argue that the original receiver of the code could sue the company for not providing code to a third party as per the promise. > And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately Yes, but only by a copyright holder of that source code, not by a third party (not even by the person who received the binary code without a copy of the source or a promise to provide it on request). By the way, it should be noted that, per Stallman, it's perfectly valid for a company to sell GPL-based binaries and only distribute the source code to those who buy the binaries (though of course they must be allowed to distribute it further). So it's absolutely clear that a random person who neither purchased the product nor holds copyright in the GPL work has no standing whatsoever.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? Are promises not binding? Can a company not get sued for breaking a promise? (I agree with the rest of your comment.)

pie_flavor 4y ago

If you're violating your obligations under the GPL, then that means you no longer have a license to the software, and are committing copyright infringement by continuing to distribute it. When you commit copyright infringement and used to have a license, the court doesn't demand that you do things listed on the license you used to have, it just fines you and tells you to stop committing copyright infringement. The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do. As a copyright license, it is used to protect your own work from being abused, and nothing else. And it is an agreement between the licensor and the licensee, irrespective of who else it benefits, so only they have standing.

pabs3 4y ago
The idea that the GPL is also a contract (that also benefits third-parties) 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
tialaramex 4y ago
> The GPL is not a magic spell; you can't use it to force your enemies to do things they don't want to do. On the other hand, court orders in many ways are magic spells, and there are circumstances where you can get the court to order Specific Performance as remedy. Courts don't love Specific Performance, you won't get far asking a court for this when monetary compensation seems effective, but sometimes the Court can see that's not an appropriate remedy and will order Specific Performance. Specific Performance requires that you do what the court demands, if you won't do what they demand that's contempt for which you can be imprisoned.