3 ms·

Everybody whose rights were infringed. The GPL often technically makes that "everybody else" by granting what were otherwise exclusive rights (to make and distr

Everybody whose rights were infringed. The GPL often technically makes that "everybody else" by granting what were otherwise exclusive rights (to make and distribute copies) to everybody and then taking them away from infringers. So e.g. Company X makes a GPL'd program to do A, but Company Y just copy pastes it into famous product P and acts as though they made it and obviously doesn't give out source. As a random person who doesn't even own P, the argument would be that technically the GPL says you should be able to get source code for the program from Y, even though you didn't buy their product P - you were harmed by their refusal to do what the GPL requires, so you can sue them. Now, suing is probably not a good idea in this case, a court is likely to either insist you aren't really injured or that they can't help you, or both, but I think it could work at least in theory.

kelnos 2y ago
> the argument would be that technically the GPL says you should be able to get source code for the program from Y, even though you didn't buy their product P - you were harmed by their refusal to do what the GPL requires, so you can sue them. I don't think that's the case. Whenever I see discussion about GPL violations, the copyright holder is the one who has to go after the violator (and often getting them to do something is difficult, because legal challenges can be expensive); the consensus seems to be that users who receive the software in a manner not compliant with the GPL don't have standing to sue. I'm not sure if a user has ever tried, though, so not sure if this has been tested in court.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  SFC versus Vizio is exactly what you say doesn't exist. The SFC deliberately brought a case where they don't own the copyright, and says they are harmed and here's why the court should find for them.
  - kbenson 2y ago
    I assume that's because even if they aren't the original rights holder, they still have standing because they (as the public) were given rights under the GPL implicitly by anyone using the GPL, for the GPL covered items. Since they were denied those rights, they were harmed, and thus have standing. At least that would be my "layman that finds court cases and discussions of them interesting so consumes that as entertainment fairly regularly" best guess.

kelnos 2y ago

> the argument would be that technically the GPL says you should be able to get source code for the program from Y, even though you didn't buy their product P - you were harmed by their refusal to do what the GPL requires, so you can sue them. I don't think that's the case. Whenever I see discussion about GPL violations, the copyright holder is the one who has to go after the violator (and often getting them to do something is difficult, because legal challenges can be expensive); the consensus seems to be that users who receive the software in a manner not compliant with the GPL don't have standing to sue. I'm not sure if a user has ever tried, though, so not sure if this has been tested in court.

tialaramex 2y ago
SFC versus Vizio is exactly what you say doesn't exist. The SFC deliberately brought a case where they don't own the copyright, and says they are harmed and here's why the court should find for them.
- kbenson 2y ago
  I assume that's because even if they aren't the original rights holder, they still have standing because they (as the public) were given rights under the GPL implicitly by anyone using the GPL, for the GPL covered items. Since they were denied those rights, they were harmed, and thus have standing. At least that would be my "layman that finds court cases and discussions of them interesting so consumes that as entertainment fairly regularly" best guess.