Another Netfilter GPL enforcement [LWN.net]

Another Netfilter GPL enforcement

Posted Mar 2, 2004 20:32 UTC (Tue) by mongre26 (guest, #4224)
Parent article: Another Netfilter GPL enforcement

It seems that FSC's lawyers found the strength of the GPL compelling enough to settle without a fight and agree to fully comply with the GPL. Once again the GPL demonstrates its formidable strength by ensuring the rights of copyright holders without going to court.

I suspect however that this most recent triumph of the GPL will be overlooked when the next "GPL not tested in court" FUD comes out.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
- Sun Tzu

(Log in to post comments)

Another Netfilter GPL enforcement

Posted Mar 3, 2004 11:01 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

I suspect however that this most recent triumph of the GPL will be overlooked when the next "GPL not tested in court" FUD comes out.

To counter it, it would be useful if some well-known web site listed a comprehensive collection of the publicly known cases where a GPL violation has been resolved out of court. At least it would demonstrate that "untested in court" does not equal "ineffective".

A question for lawyers (or armchair lawyers): assuming that GPL keeps this "untested in court but still obeyed" status for a long time, would it count as precendent in an eventual court case? I'm aware this depends on the jurisdiction. In the old Swedish legal system, on which Finnish law is also based, "customs of the land" were considered as legally binding, if they are consistent, and there is no other applicable law. That advice can still be found in the prologue of Finnish law books, although I don't know if it affects rulings any more, especially as there are now laws about almost everything unlike in the old days. But a judge trying to make sense of a GPL violation case might make use of it.

Another Netfilter GPL enforcement

Posted Mar 3, 2004 20:13 UTC (Wed) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

GPL doesn't need to be tested in court. It goes like this:

"You're using our copyrighted works, have you a license?"
-> No, we're violating your copyright
-> Yes, it's GPL

"Are you complying with it?"
-> No (i.e. their license is not valid and again they're violating the copyright)
-> Yes, we're complying with it

Case closed.

It's in *defendent*'s best interests to argue that GPL is a valid license, otherwise they would be in copyright violation.

See Eben Moglen's excellent article on What's Free:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.html