Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 5:46 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
In reply to: Mono Relicensed MIT by Cyberax
Parent article: Mono Relicensed MIT

> Restoration of an iDevice from a cloud backup might well be considered "distribution".

If so, restoration of any copyright infringing material would also leave Apple with liability?

> There's a legally prescribed way to give a notice and all companies have processes to take them into consideration.

Not in every country that Apple do business in, but that's besides the point. In the US, 512(c) shields you from liability only in the case where you're unaware that you're distributing infringing material. If this is a genuine concern:

> In this case it's enough for one employee to send an internal email and for their boss to ignore it (maliciously or just because of a regular human forgetfulness).

then the same argument can be made around straight copyright infringement.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 6:15 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (3 responses)

> If so, restoration of any copyright infringing material would also leave Apple with liability?
Correct.

BTW, GPL-ed software _is_ copyrighted material.

> then the same argument can be made around straight copyright infringement.
Not really. The situation is different - in one case Apple needs to ignore an external note of an infringement and in the other case just an internal memo is enough.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 6:48 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

> Correct.

I send you an email. I attach the binary of a GPLed work. You back it up to iCloud. You restore your backup. Do Apple have an obligation to provide you with the source code on request? If not, then it's clearly not distribution under the GPL.

> BTW, GPL-ed software _is_ copyrighted material.

Well, yes.

> in one case Apple needs to ignore an external note of an infringement and in the other case just an internal memo is enough.

Like I said, that's not true. A service provider is only shielded from liability if it "does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" (512(c)(1)(A)(i)). The takedown notice procedure is the defined mechanism for an external party to inform a provider of infringement, but if the provider becomes aware in some other way (such as someone inside the organisation noticing) then the shield is removed. Note that "actual knowledge" is the exact language used in GPLv3 - there's no reason to believe that different standards apply. If someone sending an email to their manager is enough to trigger the GPLv3 language, it's enough to trigger the DMCA language.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 6:58 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

> I send you an email. I attach the binary of a GPLed work. You back it up to iCloud. You restore your backup. Do Apple have an obligation to provide you with the source code on request? If not, then it's clearly not distribution under the GPL.
Details matter. In this case iCloud acts as a dumb storage of the stuff you upload into it. Apple is not liable in this case.

However in case of iOS backups, it downloads new copies of binaries from iStore during the restoration process.

But yeah, that could be fixed fairly easily.

> but if the provider becomes aware in some other way (such as someone inside the organisation noticing) then the shield is removed. Note that "actual knowledge" is the exact language used in GPLv3 - there's no reason to believe that different standards apply. If someone sending an email to their manager is enough to trigger the GPLv3 language, it's enough to trigger the DMCA language.
Yes, OK. However, you're still missing the point.

If Apple distributes GPLv3 software then they're bound by GPL. They can't impose additional restrictions on the license. And the GPL says that Apple is on hook for patent clause.

And the only way to avoid it is to not distribute GPL-ed code. And they have requirements for authors that shield Apple from this scenario.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:10 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

> However in case of iOS backups, it downloads new copies of binaries from iStore during the restoration process.

Well sure - if Apple remove something from the store, a consequence of that would be that you wouldn't be able to obtain replacement copies from the store. Isn't that already true if an app is removed for copyright infringement?

> If Apple distributes GPLv3 software then they're bound by GPL. They can't impose additional restrictions on the license. And the GPL says that Apple is on hook for patent clause.

No. Apple have obligations if they have actual knowledge that they are relying on a patent license that they hold in order to be able to distribute the work. Once they have that knowledge, they can do three things:

1) Cease distribution
2) Ensure that they can provide a license to downstream recipients
3) Do nothing and incur copyright liability

But that applies equally well to *any* work that Apple distribute - if Apple have actual knowledge that a work they are distributing infringing someone's copyright, they can do three things:

1) Cease distribution
2) Ensure that they have a license to distribute the work
3) Do nothing and incur copyright liability

Realistically, Apple are not going to choose (2) in either scenario. And outside that, the potential liability to Apple is identical in both scenarios. If Apple's concern is that an internal failure might result in them ending up in case (3) rather than case (1) then that applies equally to both.