5 ms·

Big GPL copyright enforcement win in Paris Court of Appeals

38 points by soundsop 17y ago

blasdel 17y ago
This doesn't make sense at all -- the GPL is just a conditional disclaimer of copyright -- it doesn't even pretend to be a contract. Only the copyright holder has standing to make a civil infringement suit under standard international copyright law. The copyright granter (national government) has the sole ability to initiate a criminal case, and most signatories only have criminal statutes for commercial piracy. France has draconian 'moral rights', but they are not transferable even in 'work for hire'.
- Daishiman 17y ago
  Yeah, then why is it that you're so completely wrong when it comes to this case?
- astrec 17y ago
  It's a license which confers certain rights to the recipient of the software. In this case it appears the the recipient successfully sued to enforce those rights.
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago
  > the GPL is just a conditional disclaimer of copyright -- it doesn't even pretend to be a contract. Whatever else the GPL does, it absolutely does not disclaim copyright. It maintains it, but gives you a license, if you follow a certain set of conditions.
ars 17y ago
It took 7 years!?!? for this case to finish? New business model: Violate GPL Earn money for 6 years Pay massive salaries Go bankrupt on the 7th
- ovi256 17y ago
  Welcome to the Law System. But there are good reasons for the delay. Presumption of innocence, injunctions for relief etc all take time to consider.
- acg 17y ago
  Isn't this case law though? If so this case will be cited in future cases: it paves the way for future rulings on this. Future rulings are likely to come earlier making the new business model less viable.
jacquesm 17y ago
What is very interesting in this is that the case was won despite the GPL license being available in English only in distributions that I'm aware of. In France this could have been a serious hurdle to overcome, but instead it seems as though that never even entered the picture.
akamaka 17y ago
The interesting thing about this case is that the infringer was sued by a company that used their software, not by the copyright holder. I'm not sure I'm happy about that, given the way a few rabid free software fanatics have acted in the past. In particular, I remember the QuakeWorld GPL fiasco, where zealots in the community took it upon themselves to harass the leader of an open source project, rather than giving a chance for a much more level-headed John Carmack to sort things out. See: http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=20000224183445 http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=200...

38 points by soundsop 17y ago

This doesn't make sense at all -- the GPL is just a conditional disclaimer of copyright -- it doesn't even pretend to be a contract. Only the copyright holder has standing to make a civil infringement suit under standard international copyright law. The copyright granter (national government) has the sole ability to initiate a criminal case, and most signatories only have criminal statutes for commercial piracy. France has draconian 'moral rights', but they are not transferable even in 'work for hire'.

Daishiman 17y ago
Yeah, then why is it that you're so completely wrong when it comes to this case?
astrec 17y ago
It's a license which confers certain rights to the recipient of the software. In this case it appears the the recipient successfully sued to enforce those rights.
Tuna-Fish 17y ago
> the GPL is just a conditional disclaimer of copyright -- it doesn't even pretend to be a contract. Whatever else the GPL does, it absolutely does not disclaim copyright. It maintains it, but gives you a license, if you follow a certain set of conditions.

ars 17y ago

It took 7 years!?!? for this case to finish? New business model: Violate GPL Earn money for 6 years Pay massive salaries Go bankrupt on the 7th

ovi256 17y ago
Welcome to the Law System. But there are good reasons for the delay. Presumption of innocence, injunctions for relief etc all take time to consider.
acg 17y ago
Isn't this case law though? If so this case will be cited in future cases: it paves the way for future rulings on this. Future rulings are likely to come earlier making the new business model less viable.

jacquesm 17y ago

What is very interesting in this is that the case was won despite the GPL license being available in English only in distributions that I'm aware of. In France this could have been a serious hurdle to overcome, but instead it seems as though that never even entered the picture.

akamaka 17y ago

The interesting thing about this case is that the infringer was sued by a company that used their software, not by the copyright holder. I'm not sure I'm happy about that, given the way a few rabid free software fanatics have acted in the past. In particular, I remember the QuakeWorld GPL fiasco, where zealots in the community took it upon themselves to harass the leader of an open source project, rather than giving a chance for a much more level-headed John Carmack to sort things out. See: http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=20000224183445 http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=200...