4 ms·

Not a lawyer, but IIUC it's never going to be the case that a GPL violation legally compels someone to release the resulting source code. There is no rule in co

by tga_d 3y ago

Not a lawyer, but IIUC it's never going to be the case that a GPL violation legally compels someone to release the resulting source code. There is no rule in copyright law that says you have to do that, and the GPL is just a license agreement at the end of the day, not a law. The best you can do is say you'll collect some fine for copyright violation or breach of contract if they don't release the source code, which was the issue of substance here too. As an analogy, if I have a plot of land with a sign that says "$1 million to enter", and someone enters without paying, the worst I can do is something like a trespassing charge, not collect $1 million because the sign said so.

hn_acker 3y ago
> There is no rule in copyright law that says you have to do that, and the GPL is just a license agreement at the end of the day, not a law. The best you can do is say you'll collect some fine for copyright violation or breach of contract if they don't release the source code, which was the issue of substance here too. In the US, a GPL can be both a license and a contract at the same time [1]. The distribution rights granted by a GPL to the user are conditional on the user's compliance with the GPL. Contract law allows for punitive damages. Copyright law allows for 1. permanent injunctions against the defendant's continued use and/or distribution of the copyrighted work and 2. statutory damages xor actual damages. Every GPL requires distribution of source code under the same licensing terms to users already given the object code, so the party suing to enforce the GPL can request that the court compel distribution of the source code; the court can agree or disagree. The court can also decide to give the GPL violator the choice of 1. releasing the source code or 2. no longer distributing any copies or derivatives of the GPL'd software until the violator releases the source code or 3. whatever else. The court may impose a punitive fine in any case. [1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/
codethief 3y ago
Tangential question (not a lawer, either): The damages to the copyright holder are one thing. What about the damages of the users of the software, though, due to the fact that they couldn't access the source code and modify it to their liking, which is what the GPL promises them? And what about damages incurred by competitors who, in their software, complied with the terms of the GPL and made their source code available? I know, those are all very hard to quantify but still.
infamouscow 3y ago
This is true until a Judge decides otherwise under penalty of permanent imprisonment. As for the AGPL, the AGPL is regarded as the most deadly toxic irradiated poison ever concocted to big tech. You'll be in a very serious meeting with your supervisor, HR, and lawyers if you use AGPL code in big tech. But they'll more likely just outright terminate you. If you maintain a prominent AGPL project, they will not hire you and put you on a blacklist when they find out. The virality of the AGPL is something no lawyer wants to test in court. They're scared shitless of it.

by tga_d 3y ago

hn_acker 3y ago

> There is no rule in copyright law that says you have to do that, and the GPL is just a license agreement at the end of the day, not a law. The best you can do is say you'll collect some fine for copyright violation or breach of contract if they don't release the source code, which was the issue of substance here too. In the US, a GPL can be both a license and a contract at the same time [1]. The distribution rights granted by a GPL to the user are conditional on the user's compliance with the GPL. Contract law allows for punitive damages. Copyright law allows for 1. permanent injunctions against the defendant's continued use and/or distribution of the copyrighted work and 2. statutory damages xor actual damages. Every GPL requires distribution of source code under the same licensing terms to users already given the object code, so the party suing to enforce the GPL can request that the court compel distribution of the source code; the court can agree or disagree. The court can also decide to give the GPL violator the choice of 1. releasing the source code or 2. no longer distributing any copies or derivatives of the GPL'd software until the violator releases the source code or 3. whatever else. The court may impose a punitive fine in any case. [1] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/

codethief 3y ago

Tangential question (not a lawer, either): The damages to the copyright holder are one thing. What about the damages of the users of the software, though, due to the fact that they couldn't access the source code and modify it to their liking, which is what the GPL promises them? And what about damages incurred by competitors who, in their software, complied with the terms of the GPL and made their source code available? I know, those are all very hard to quantify but still.

infamouscow 3y ago

This is true until a Judge decides otherwise under penalty of permanent imprisonment. As for the AGPL, the AGPL is regarded as the most deadly toxic irradiated poison ever concocted to big tech. You'll be in a very serious meeting with your supervisor, HR, and lawyers if you use AGPL code in big tech. But they'll more likely just outright terminate you. If you maintain a prominent AGPL project, they will not hire you and put you on a blacklist when they find out. The virality of the AGPL is something no lawyer wants to test in court. They're scared shitless of it.