3 ms·

Lemme see if I've got this straight. The Conservancy is arguing that the GNU Public License is not a license, because then they couldn't sue. (Only the person w

Lemme see if I've got this straight. The Conservancy is arguing that the GNU Public License is not a license, because then they couldn't sue. (Only the person who owns the copyright, and made it available under the license, can sue.) They're arguing that it's really a contract, and can sue because they're someone who benefits from the contract. (And really, anyone could, since we're all intended to benefit from the release of source code.) If they lose, they would have to track down whoever originally wrote the software and get them to sue. Or maybe convince them to give ownership to the Conservancy? Have I got that right?

gavinhoward 3y ago
IANAL, but I wrote a few licenses and am working with a lawyer on them. Minus details, yes, that's what I understand as well. My licenses will have to make it clear that they are both licenses and contracts, including with third parties.
- mr_toad 3y ago
  I guess it doesn’t do any harm but does that really need to be spelled out? Under what circumstances could a license be enforced if it wasn’t a contract? Further, if Vizio are claiming to not have a contract, then they don’t have a license, which means they are admitting in court to have wilfully and knowingly committed copyright infringement.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    By spelling it out, a good judge would give summary judgment (read "judgment without expensive litigation") that the license is a contract and that the plaintiff (SFC in this case) has a right to sue. Basically, this whole question would have been less costly for the SFC with it spelled out.
comex 3y ago
They’re arguing that it’s part license part contract, not that it isn’t a license at all. The rest is as you say.
kemitchell 3y ago
I do not believe Conservancy is arguing contract to the exclusion of license. They are arguing that they can sue under the source code requirement as a promise enforceable under contract law. Vizio is arguing that the source code requirement is only a license kind of requirement, so they'd have to be sued in federal court, and probably only by an owner of copyright in the software. The awkwardness in the evidence comes from all the old writing, tracing back to FSF, arguing license to the exclusion of contract.

gavinhoward 3y ago

IANAL, but I wrote a few licenses and am working with a lawyer on them. Minus details, yes, that's what I understand as well. My licenses will have to make it clear that they are both licenses and contracts, including with third parties.

mr_toad 3y ago
I guess it doesn’t do any harm but does that really need to be spelled out? Under what circumstances could a license be enforced if it wasn’t a contract? Further, if Vizio are claiming to not have a contract, then they don’t have a license, which means they are admitting in court to have wilfully and knowingly committed copyright infringement.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  By spelling it out, a good judge would give summary judgment (read "judgment without expensive litigation") that the license is a contract and that the plaintiff (SFC in this case) has a right to sue. Basically, this whole question would have been less costly for the SFC with it spelled out.

comex 3y ago

They’re arguing that it’s part license part contract, not that it isn’t a license at all. The rest is as you say.

kemitchell 3y ago

I do not believe Conservancy is arguing contract to the exclusion of license. They are arguing that they can sue under the source code requirement as a promise enforceable under contract law. Vizio is arguing that the source code requirement is only a license kind of requirement, so they'd have to be sued in federal court, and probably only by an owner of copyright in the software. The awkwardness in the evidence comes from all the old writing, tracing back to FSF, arguing license to the exclusion of contract.