Examining an attack on the GPL [LWN.net]

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:09 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)
In reply to: Examining an attack on the GPL by vblum
Parent article: Examining an attack on the GPL

Well, placing your infringing code under the GPL is an option. It's one of the ways you can remedy an infringement. The other ways are to cease infringing by ceasing distribution of the GPL code, or to negotiate a separate license with the copyright holder(s).

And then, you may have some damages as a result of the infringement.

It seems very unlikely that a judge would actually force someone to GPL their code if that someone was willing to take one of the other paths to remedy infringement.

Bruce

(Log in to post comments)

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 24, 2003 23:19 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

I agree with you regarding the likelihood: It's rather unlikely that a GPL author could force Evil Software Company X's infringing code into the open.

But, Mr Henry is evidently a lawyer. There is nothing factual in the GPL which _prevents_ a GPL copyright holder (e.g. FSF) from suing for exactly that, instead of other damages. The judge's decision is another matter, but technically it's not predetermined.

And, who knows what side circumstances might apply that render the payment of damages, negotiating a separate agreement etc. impractical in a given case.

Yet again, just to make sure: There is nothing viral about this anyway. Whoever falls for this virus has to do so maliciously, as for the famous text virus.
("I am a virus. Please copy me (by hand!) to every email address in your address book. Thank you very much.")

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 2:11 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

There is nothing specific in the GPL about that. People can sue
for just about any reason and just about any result is possible.

In a lawsuit with two non-free programs it is completely
possible that instead of monetary damages the winner might be
granted the copyright interests in the illegally distributed
program which were owned by the loser.

There are lots of ways to settle and there are lots of ways for
a judge or jury to award damages.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 6:00 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

It's also possible that the judge could repeal the law of gravity or legislate Pi equal to 3.0 . But not likely. There are appeals courts to handle much smaller breaches than that.

Bruce

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Nov 25, 2003 14:48 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Err ... white flag. I am almost ready to declare defeat, and do so here re: also the remainder of my comments in this thread.

I guess what I am trying to say is this:

I can perfectly see how a lawyer could read the GPL to be intended to force you to open your infringing code after the fact. Pars 2b, 6, together with 5 allow a lawyer to construe such an argument before a court with great ease. Whether it holds up is another matter, but the wording (esp of par. 5) sounds as if it were preparing the ground for such an outcome.

Most legal professionals are not Eben Moglen; most of them probably even believe in the legality/enforceability of "click-to-accept" after-purchase shrink-wrap licenses, after all; and if need be, they would probably even sue on behalf of a GPL client to force someone else to open their code, either; as long as it pays.

My conclusion from all this is that if the GPL _does not_ intend to force anyone to open up infringing code after the fact (which it evidently does not, I know!), it should best say so explicitly; that would immediately end confusion such as the above press-release.

Examining an attack on the GPL

Posted Dec 4, 2003 11:47 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

"There is nothing factual in the GPL which _prevents_ a GPL copyright holder (e.g. FSF) from suing for exactly that, instead of other damages."

And don't forget. Replace FSF with IBM, and assume that the software in question is OpenServer, and/or UnixWare, and you have EXACTLY that scenario.

IBM *HAS* sued for copyright infringement, and HAS asked the judge to place those two programs under the GPL should any infringement be found to have occurred!

Cheers,
Wol

Please tell me where IBM makes that claim

Posted Dec 4, 2003 14:12 UTC (Thu) by brokeninside (guest, #8722) [Link]

I am aware that IBM is suing the SCO Group (TSG) for copyright infringement over TSG's continued distribution of the Linux kernel which contains IBM copyrighted code.

And I am aware of IBM suing TSG for infringement of IBM owned patents in pretty much the entire product portfolio purchased from SCO. As part of this counterclaim, IBM is asking that TSG be prohibited from distributing OpenServer, UnixWare, etc.

I am not aware of any IBM counterclaims that are suing for release of TSG proprietary sofware purchased from SCO under the GPL.

As most of the documents for the case can be found at Groklaw and/or IBMSCOWeThey, would you please point me to where in IBM's counterclaims against TSG that IBM is suing for TSG proprietary code to be released under the GPL?