Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm
Palms own documentation admits including Artifexs muPDF in Palms Pre product as the PDF rendering engine in their PDF viewer application, but Palm neither obtained a commercial license from Artifex nor complied with the terms of the GPL. Palms intentional refusal to comply with the terms of the GPL means that Palm willfully copied and distributed muPDF without authorization, and any and all such copies infringe Artifexs exclusive copyright."
Posted Dec 7, 2009 16:02 UTC (Mon)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2009 16:54 UTC (Mon)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link] (10 responses)
When the terms of the GPL are broken, the GPL is no longer applicable. And so with GPL-only sofware, and also with this case, use of the code in a non-compliant manner is pure copyright infringement.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 17:55 UTC (Mon)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (7 responses)
You do have a point that we should be saying "copyright infringment" consistently for this kind of thing. The GPL itself can't be infringed. As its own text says, "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." So there are only three choices: accept and follow the license terms; don't modify or distribute the software; illegally distribute a copyrighted work without permission.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 18:45 UTC (Mon)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2009 19:04 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (4 responses)
Since the EULA invokes contract law and not copyright law then that gives them a lot more flexibility in the type of restrictions and requirements that they can place on you for using their software.
For example using Microsoft Office or Windows requires you to submit to a software audit if they suspect you of violating their EULA; at your expense. (I _think_)
Depending on were you are at in the world EULAs have different effects. Some states in the USA there are some restrictions on them based on the fact that you only can agree to most AFTER you purchased and openned the software and that gives you some leverage in fighting EULAs to a limited extent... but in most states they are on solid legal ground. I expect that different countries are all over the map in terms of legality and enforceability.
IANAL
Posted Dec 7, 2009 21:16 UTC (Mon)
by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256)
[Link] (3 responses)
If you enter into a purchasing/licensing agreement directly with a software vendor (or authorized agent thereof) then it's pretty clearly a matter of contract law.
However if you purchase a product in a retail environment (possibly including downloads from public internet sources) then there's a reasonably good argument that the UCC (uniform commercial code) or UCITA (for those jurisdictions that have adopted it) are the legal framework governing the transaction).
In other words there have been arguments that EULAs (presented in shrink-wrapped or click-through forms) are not enforceable contracts because the overwhelming expectations of the majority of the parties involved believe themselves to be engaged in a retail transaction which, implicitly, as a matter of long-standing historical tradition, has been governed by its own rules.
So far as I know that argument has not been unequivocally refuted.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 22:00 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
Different states have different court precedent, but the majority of states
Posted Dec 7, 2009 22:03 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
I am really stretching here, so don't take what I am saying with much
Posted Dec 13, 2009 2:20 UTC (Sun)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
EULAs are contracts of adhesion; anywhere they have effect, the courts have sold out to the corporations.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 19:04 UTC (Mon)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link]
That's the kicker with the GPL, if you rule the license doesn't apply is or invalid the code reverts to standard copyright law meaning you have to have the individual owners permission to copy (which they won't have) and it's straight up copyright infringement. The GPL is your only right to distribute the software and it's not a severable license, if any portion of the license is ruled invalid the whole license is gone (at least under US law) and you are liable for infringement for any use.
Anyone (like tSCOg) that attacks the GPL as being invalid or not applying simply reverts themselves to standard copyright and lose all rights to distribution which is just about the worst outcome possible because the GPL gave rights to distribute, standard copyright doesn't.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 22:06 UTC (Mon)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (1 responses)
I bet Palm settles, though. Artifex doesn't generally want a ton of money, and previously parties challenged have settled, most before a lawsuit was brought.
Posted Dec 8, 2009 17:34 UTC (Tue)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link]
-jef
Posted Dec 7, 2009 18:28 UTC (Mon)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2009 20:58 UTC (Mon)
by armijn (subscriber, #3653)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2009 17:59 UTC (Mon)
by armijn (subscriber, #3653)
[Link] (6 responses)
http://www.artifex.com/indexlicense.htm
<quote>
...
3. Distributing Ghostscript or MuPDF embedded within hardware.
But it is not clarified what 'embedded' is.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 18:50 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (5 responses)
They consider that if your shipping a complete product that includes their software as derivative work. So, for example, if I ship a print server that uses a proprietary GUI interface and it requires CUPS + Ghostscript to operate I would be violating the GPL license since the GPL'd software is required for my application to work. They consider that shipping a working product is not a 'mere aggregation' and thus does not qualify under the GPL's exception.
If you want to run a configuration like that they recommend that you distribute either your application or the GPL'd portion of your firmware as a optional item that a customer can put together themselves, if I remember correctly.
Since that is their interpretation we honored that for their product. Trying to fight them on their intrepation of copyright law and trying to use their software against their wishes would of been a stupid thing to do.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 18:55 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
> If you want to run a configuration like that they recommend that you distribute either your application or the GPL'd portion of your firmware as a optional item that a customer can put together themselves, if I remember correctly.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 20:31 UTC (Mon)
by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024)
[Link] (3 responses)
If they want to argue shipping an embedded device with some part of it's firmware
Artifex is not working in the interest of freedom here, it's a business model thing.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 21:14 UTC (Mon)
by johill (subscriber, #25196)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2009 21:24 UTC (Mon)
by johill (subscriber, #25196)
[Link]
It does seem that they didn't publish the code to the pdf viewer application though.
Posted Dec 7, 2009 22:10 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
My personal opinion is what they said makes some sense and I am not a big
Maybe I just misunderstood them.
Posted Dec 8, 2009 4:14 UTC (Tue)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link] (2 responses)
If that was the case, they would have the option to release the source code to their PDF reader as a way to regain their right to distribute the code (provided they did so within 30 days).
With the GPLv2 version they used, they've lost all rights to distribute the code by infringing the license, so Artifex could potentially take out an injunction against the sale of Palm's products.
In this respect, the GPLv3 is a bit more business friendly than the GPLv2.
Posted Dec 8, 2009 9:44 UTC (Tue)
by forthy (guest, #1525)
[Link] (1 responses)
I have no idea what they are complaining about. When I go to opensource.palm.com
I can download the mupdf source tarball and the patches applied to it. I
haven't bought a Palm Pre, so I don't know if the written offer to
obtain source is GPL conforming, but the source itself is
available.
Posted Dec 8, 2009 23:57 UTC (Tue)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link]
That application is clearly a derivative work of the PDF library it is built on, so they would need to release the source code to that too in order to comply with the GPL (or take out a commercial license from Artifex).
Artifex is in the business of selling commercial licenses to their code. They also make it available under the GPL. If a commercial company does not obtain a commercial license and uses it in violation of the terms, they are a straight copyright infringer. It would be the same if the terms were different (that is, if Artifex offered a choice of buying a license and some other limited use, like "for internal purposes only" or some such) and someone violated those terms.
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
I think "GPL-infringement" might be the right term if the software is offered to the public only under the GPL. The fact that there's also a commercial license, and that many others have paid up (Artifex has sold lots of commercial licenses) in many ways makes the case simpler, and makes it a lot easier for a court to figure out just how much money has been stolen from Artifex (assuming that the article is correct and the Palm Pre contains Artifex's software without permission).
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
Since a EULA invokes contract law ...
Since a EULA invokes contract law ...
are pro-EULA. Just depends on what happened when people challenged EULA in
their particular courts.
Since a EULA invokes contract law ...
think, stems from how effective they are in the retail-type environment.
weight.
Since a EULA invokes contract law ...
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
This one might turn on the dynamic-linking issue, and thus might be more about the GPL terms than not. The question is whether a dynamic-linked application is a derivative work or not.It is not a GPL-infringement suit
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
It is not a GPL-infringement suit
GPLv3? Nope.
Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm
Some examples of distribution requiring a commercial license include:
</quote>
Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm
Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm
Artifex interprets the GPL and...
in the FLASH being GPL makes the whole of the firmware derivative, they will find
it a large hill to climb... there have been many cases of GPL enforcement to point to.
Many of us who write code, both GPL and not, for embedded devices will happily give
expert testimony that this does not constitute derivation.
Artifex interprets the GPL and...
Artifex interprets the GPL and...
Artifex interprets the GPL and...
some part of my job much easier. I am in absolutely no position to argue
with them.
advocate of trying to use the software contrary to the wishes of the
original author, at least not in a professional environment.
Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm
Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm
Artifex launches a GPL-infringement suit against Palm