Closing the legal briefcase on Mambo vs. Furthermore copyright dispute (NewsForge)

Posted Sep 29, 2004 15:33 UTC (Wed) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]

It's not enough that he has been shown the error of his ways in media just as he has espoused his convoluted logic in the media.

Now he's making a bigger fool of himself with his response. I think those guys in the white coats are going to be late for lunch.

Posted Sep 29, 2004 16:12 UTC (Wed) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link]

I don't support either side but aspects of the article are incorrect.

For example: "Copyright infringement is a broader term and would seem to
be a better fit for this situation; after all, the contract called for
all copyrights to be assigned to Furthermore, Inc. But the code was a
derivative of GPL-licensed code, thereby making it a derivative work of
the parent code and automatically licensing it under the GNU General
Public License."

Note "the contract called for all copyrights to be assigned to
Furthermore, Inc" means that Furthermore would own ALL the rights to the
code, GLP'ed or not, and it can do what it likes with the code. If ALL
the copyrights can not be assigned then it is a breach of contract. Not
to mention the obvious (but overlooked) that the GPL only would kick in
if Furthermore distribute the code.

The other aspect is what the contract is status of the 'residuals' (ie
information gained from the contract). Clearly these were used here but
without the contract we can not tell if these can be used.

The first key issue is the knowing if the contract is binding and if so
what it contains it. The fact that someone says they did not sign a
contract is insufficient if there is other evidence of agreement of terms
(such as the required work being done and paid for). Obviously if the
contract is not binding then this whole issue is gone.

Posted Sep 29, 2004 16:22 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link]

So because the code falls under the jurisdiction of the GPL, no one can place any restrictions on redistribution, including the copyright holder. (Emphasis added)

First, from the facts as I understand them, Conolly doesn't have a case. But the above quote from the article could be misinterpreted.

Suppose I hire Joe Programmer to customize some third-party, GPL'd application for me. I have no intention of ever distributing that customized app to anybody else, and, as a work for hire, I get the copyrights on the code that Joe Programmer created.

Now, if I never sell, copy, or otherwise distribute my custom app to a third party, if Joe Programmer then, without permission, copies the code he wrote for me to some other app, he has committed copyright infringement. (If he independantly reimplements the same ideas with different code, he hasn't). Just because Joe releases my code under the GPL doesn't make my code GPL'd -- only the copyright holder can grant a license. If I distribute my code, I must grant that license as part of the terms of copying the original GPL'd code, and anyone who then redistributes it can do whatever they wish (subject to the GPL) with it. However, if somebody else distributes my unreleased code, they're infringing and so is anyone else who redistributes it (although if they don't know its status, they may be innocent infringers, and the original copier is also liable for any damages they cause me.)

In other words, the above quote is true, except that unreleased (by copyright holder) code, even if derivative of GPL'd code, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the GPL. (Where "unreleased" means "never distributed in source or binary form".) If Conolly ever distributed or sold a copy of "his" GPL-derived code, he's SOL.