Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision that could push FOSS questions into a more litigious arena. In the matter of Jacobsen v. Katzer, the court ruled that breach of an open source license can support a claim for copyright infringement with associated remedies. The court's ruling may also require recognizing that the open source copyright owner has standing to sue downstream licensees for copyright infringement.
Jack,
Kindly think before you write. This article is so badly written, I couldn't believe it.
1) The Jacobsen vs Katzner case changes nothing. Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, as Katzner found out. Acting like Slime has a tendency to backfire.
2) Jonathan Moskin may be a lawyer, however he shows a lack of ability. The Jacobsen case raised no new concerns. Nothing has changed. Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
3) This is not new legal ground. Copyright cases involving software are common, and the infringer has always lost in every case I am aware of.
4) Michael Overly is incorrect. While the courts have not addressed the GPL directly, they have addressed proprietary software licenses, and since legally a software license is a software license, the GPL is as strong as Microsoft's license, and would be treated the same way in court. Again, copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
5) I notice that you didn't interview anyone at the Free Software Foundation. Curious. A good part of the article is about them, why wouldn't you interview them?
6) What this article comes down to, is that theft (whether theft of source code, or theft of money) is still theft. The copyright act is a strong protection for code written under the GPL and other Free Software licenses.
7) Keeping code in-house may be a partial protection for a business trying to steal Free Software code, however if it is put on a web site (like a content management system) it may have to be released (see the AGPL).
8) Why is everyone so excited about having to release source code? Why do lawyers seem to be so worried about this? Is it possible that the lawyers themselves have been stealing GPL code? Or is it just that they are trying to drum up business by getting potential customers worried about something that is easily understood.
Quite frankly, the excitement about GPL compliance is ridiculous. You are either compliant, or you aren't. If you aren't, take the steps required to be compliant.
GPL Compliance is not difficult. Neither the Free Software Foundation, nor Free Software authors like myself want to kill your company. All we want is that you comply with the license. Do that, and we are happy if you use our code.
Kindly think before you write. This article is so badly written, I couldn't believe it.
1) The Jacobsen vs Katzner case changes nothing. Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, as Katzner found out. Acting like Slime has a tendency to backfire.
2) Jonathan Moskin may be a lawyer, however he shows a lack of ability. The Jacobsen case raised no new concerns. Nothing has changed. Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
3) This is not new legal ground. Copyright cases involving software are common, and the infringer has always lost in every case I am aware of.
4) Michael Overly is incorrect. While the courts have not addressed the GPL directly, they have addressed proprietary software licenses, and since legally a software license is a software license, the GPL is as strong as Microsoft's license, and would be treated the same way in court. Again, copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
5) I notice that you didn't interview anyone at the Free Software Foundation. Curious. A good part of the article is about them, why wouldn't you interview them?
6) What this article comes down to, is that theft (whether theft of source code, or theft of money) is still theft. The copyright act is a strong protection for code written under the GPL and other Free Software licenses.
7) Keeping code in-house may be a partial protection for a business trying to steal Free Software code, however if it is put on a web site (like a content management system) it may have to be released (see the AGPL).
8) Why is everyone so excited about having to release source code? Why do lawyers seem to be so worried about this? Is it possible that the lawyers themselves have been stealing GPL code? Or is it just that they are trying to drum up business by getting potential customers worried about something that is easily understood.
Quite frankly, the excitement about GPL compliance is ridiculous. You are either compliant, or you aren't. If you aren't, take the steps required to be compliant.
GPL Compliance is not difficult. Neither the Free Software Foundation, nor Free Software authors like myself want to kill your company. All we want is that you comply with the license. Do that, and we are happy if you use our code.
Free Software is not License-Free Software
Posted by: Sadien 2009-05-30 18:23:57 In reply to: Jack M. Germain
It is true that one's exposure to liability is reduced when using free software, however there are still numerous points of legal liability associated with using ANY piece of software.
The cost of the license and software is immaterial.
The liability of utilizing free software comes from the agreement, and the binding terms, thereof. With commercial products, like Microsoft, Adobe, etc, the terms are centered around fiduciary obligations.
Often with freeware, the terms are centered around specific performance, disclosure and distribution.
As the FSF recently explained to Cisco in a federal lawsuit... "It's all about the contract."
My group has a video about "Freeware" and the associated problems with utilizing such located here... http://video.sadien.com/Freeware-224.html
G.C. Hutson
Chief Executive and Senior Partner
Sadien Intellectual Property, Inc.
The cost of the license and software is immaterial.
The liability of utilizing free software comes from the agreement, and the binding terms, thereof. With commercial products, like Microsoft, Adobe, etc, the terms are centered around fiduciary obligations.
Often with freeware, the terms are centered around specific performance, disclosure and distribution.
As the FSF recently explained to Cisco in a federal lawsuit... "It's all about the contract."
My group has a video about "Freeware" and the associated problems with utilizing such located here... http://video.sadien.com/Freeware-224.html
G.C. Hutson
Chief Executive and Senior Partner
Sadien Intellectual Property, Inc.
Your video is of limited usefulness to anyone, as you don't explain properly what "freeware" is.
Or why anyone would use "freeware" when there is usually GPL or BSD licensed programs that will do the same thing, are usually better written, and don't have the limitations that "freeware" has. Because "freeware" isn't free, just like "free software" isn't free in a monetary sense. There's more than one meaning of the word free, with free software being free in the "free speech" sense.
Or why anyone would use "freeware" when there is usually GPL or BSD licensed programs that will do the same thing, are usually better written, and don't have the limitations that "freeware" has. Because "freeware" isn't free, just like "free software" isn't free in a monetary sense. There's more than one meaning of the word free, with free software being free in the "free speech" sense.
