| |||||||||||||
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica)MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica)Posted Dec 5, 2007 20:18 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)Parent article: MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica)
I thought that violation of the GPL revoked your permission to use it, and that they would not be able to distribute it again, even with the sources, until they had express permission from the copyright holders that their permission to distribute was reinstalled.
(Log in to post comments)
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica) Posted Dec 6, 2007 2:15 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I'm pretty sure it's never been tested. It's certainly possible to read it that way, but the language is at least somewhat ambiguous. It says your rights are terminated, but doesn't make clear the scope of that termination or whether it's a permanent termination or not. Courts tend to not be too heavy-handed in dealing with harmless errors (which this clearly is). It's a mistake that has been made by a lot of companies, including some that are generally thought of as Linux good-guys. Also, a lot of previous instances of failure to offer source for unmodified binaries have occurred and renewed distribution not pursued as a violation, so there's at least a chance that an argument of estoppel could be made - that by not pursuing in previous cases, the massed copyright holders had established a precedent against doing so. IANAL. My non-legal opinion, however, is that this is all untested water and it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie unless there's an obvious cause for action, rather than wasting resources chasing people who have already come into compliance.
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica) Posted Dec 6, 2007 13:53 UTC (Thu) by hentosh (subscriber, #6115) [Link] Just like any license, if you fail the terms of the license you can't use the software. The license can't state that you can not use software with a copyright held by someone else. That other copyright is not yours and you don't have control over its usage. It doesn't revoke all GPL code, it can be invoked by an copyright owner to deny usage / license rights to other GPL copyrights he and he alone holds. One of the things a copyright owner can do is sign over their copyright ownership to the FSF (Free Software Foundation) which some do and FSF holds the copyrights to many GPL licensed software. Now when someone violates one of their licenses they can deny license rights to the other FSF GPL copyrighted software they hold. But this is only used as a last resort to get the violators to comply and doesn't automatically occur if someone violates the license. Usually, the FSF legal team will get involved and discuss with the violator what went wrong and how it can be corrected, in return they may ask for legal fees for that advice. (AFAIK / IANAL and do not work for FSF) Not all developers sign over their copyright to the FSF.
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica) Posted Dec 6, 2007 16:16 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] If you violate (not `fail') the license, you can't *distribute* the software. Copyright does not cover usage, except in jurisdictions where the temporary copy into RAM is considered (which I consider a nice way to enusre that the general public loses all respect for this law, as has happened long since in the UK). -- N., not a lawyer but mostly cloning his cousin the copyright lawyer's opinions on this
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica) Posted Dec 6, 2007 16:31 UTC (Thu) by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022) [Link] > If you violate (not `fail') the license, you can't *distribute* the software. But can you keep a copy of this infringing software on your PC? You did the copy accepting a license - if you meant to refuse the license you probably have to undo all its consequences. So the result is the same. > The license can't state that you can not use software with a copyright held by someone else. The license states that you can no more use the license itself.
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica) Posted Dec 6, 2007 17:29 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] Of course you can continue to use GPL software. Who is doing the distributing and copying? Not the user. The CDROM publisher or web site owner is the one producing the copy.
MPAAs University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation (ars technica) Posted Dec 7, 2007 10:50 UTC (Fri) by etienne_lorrain@yahoo.fr (guest, #38022) [Link] > Who is doing the distributing and copying? Not the user. The act of installing the software from a CDROM to the hard disk is probably "creating a copy" under most copyright laws, because the user ends up with two instance of the software. > The CDROM publisher or web site owner is the one producing the copy. Only the shop selling his costumer a pre-installed Linux system enables the user not to do the copy himself. But anyway there is nothing to fear as a user, he cannot break the terms of the GPL license so cannot be refused his rights under the license.
I miswrote what I meant Posted Dec 6, 2007 20:28 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] I was sloppy; I said "use" when I meant distribute. Maybe I was thinking of using the GPL, but that doesn't make much sense either. Maybe it was just a brain fart, or old age :-) I did not mean violating the GPL in terms of distribution meant you could no longer use the software itself, but that your right to redistribute was revoked until you had express permission to redistribute once again. There was a case recently where just that happened; I do not remember now where or who, altho some part of my brain thinks maybe it was in Germany. Apologies to all who thought me dumber than a monkey's uncle, because I thought y'all were the dumb ones. One might have been, but not that many telling me I was wrong :-)
|
|||||||||||||