Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
The central issue in the case is whether the conditions in the open source Artistic License limit the scope of the license (in which case a failure to comply with those conditions constitutes copyright infringement) or whether those conditions are in fact merely covenants, the breach of which gives rise only to a cause of action for damages.... The appeals court concluded that the Artistic License 'on its face ... creates conditions.' The court pointed to the literal language of the license, which expressly refers to 'conditions under which a Package may be copied,' and the use of traditional language to create conditions, i.e., the use of the term 'provided that,' which creates a condition under California law." (Via Groklaw).
Posted Aug 13, 2008 19:41 UTC (Wed)
by spot (guest, #15640)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Aug 13, 2008 21:23 UTC (Wed)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 13, 2008 23:54 UTC (Wed)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 17:21 UTC (Thu)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 14, 2008 18:07 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
Posted Aug 16, 2008 0:04 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (1 responses)
Is it? The decisions was whether the terms in question are license conditions or contract covenants. Each has its own power.
If they were contract covenants, for example, the GPL author could actually do what the uninformed keep saying they're afraid of: force a publisher who incorporates the code into his object-code product to disclose his source code. (Whereas as license conditions, the most he can get is royalties for the code the publisher copied).
Posted Aug 17, 2008 0:38 UTC (Sun)
by ejhuff (guest, #3150)
[Link]
No, he can get an injunction, preventing the publisher from distributing the code.
Posted Aug 14, 2008 12:33 UTC (Thu)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 15, 2008 23:58 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
If I edited a Hollywood movie to remove the credits and then sold copies of it, I'm sure the
same judges would see that as copyright infringement.
I think you missed your analogy. To be analogous to the case the court was considering, it has to be an independent film that the producer was giving away (I mean distributing free DVDs of it). Otherwise, calling it copyright infringement is consistent with "copyright exists only to extract money from others."
Posted Aug 14, 2008 18:33 UTC (Thu)
by branden (guest, #7029)
[Link]
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
This is really good news for open source licensing, but unfortunately, it doesn't make
Artistic 1.0 a good license to use. I wish this ruling had come on a Free (as in FSF) license,
but I suspect that such a license wouldn't have caused the strange interpretation from the
original ruling.
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
That doesn't actually matter much; it's really about the form of the license, which is shared
by all free software licenses ("You may (do these things), provided that you (also do other
things).") The GPL, in particular, uses the same "provided that" term that the decision
depends on.
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
Indeed. That reasoning should have fairly broad applicability, not least because this ruling
comes from a three-judge panel at the the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Washington (one rung below the US Supreme Court).
The panel remanded the case back to the Circuit Court in San Francisco for further trial of
Jacobsen's claims for equitable relief (an injunction), which he'll very likely now get.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
Now that a court has ruled that copying without license compliance is infringement, copyleft developers will be able to use the US Customs Service to seize infringing embedded devices at the port of entry. There's an incentive to come into compliance for you.
Infringement and the US Customs Service
Infringement and the US Customs Service
(/me is awestruck at dmarti's bureaucracy-hacking skilz.)
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
This is really good news for open source licensing,
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
Whereas as license conditions, the most he can get is royalties for the code the publisher copied
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as
Copyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
The original ruling was so bad, this really should be a no-brainer. I am amazed that there
are judges that can't see that copyright doesn't exist only to extract money from others.
If I edited a Hollywood movie to remove the credits and then sold copies of it, I'm sure the
same judges would see that as copyright infringement.
Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable asCopyright Condition (New Media and Technology)
I am amazed that there
are judges that can't see that copyright doesn't exist only to extract money from others.
Gloating
HA! In your face, Flanders!
(I agree with spot that AL 1.0 is a sub-optimal license for contemporary use, however.)