Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday May 06 2017, @09:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the see-you-in-court dept.

Source article

The District Court for the Northern District of California1 recently issued an opinion that is being hailed as a victory for open source software. In this case, the court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging violation of an open source software license, paving the way for further action enforcing the conditions of the GNU General Public License ("GPL").

[...] Artifex's complaint asserts that Hancom's violations of the conditions of the GPL constitute both copyright infringement and breach of contract. Artifex has requested remedies including compensatory, consequential, and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Artifex also sought injunctive relief barring further infringement by Hancom and requiring Hancom to comply with obligations under the GPL. Hancom moved to dismiss Artifex's complaint on several grounds. The District Court denied Hancom's motion to dismiss on each ground.

[...] Here, in denying a motion to dismiss, the District Court only holds that the claims may proceed on the theories enunciated by Artifex, not necessarily that they will ultimately succeed. Still, the case represents a significant step forward for open source plaintiffs.

[...] In the past decade, while enforcement of open source licensing violations has become more common, few enforcement cases result in published law. The open source community will be watching this case carefully, and this initial decision vindicates the rights of the open source authors to enforce GPL terms on both breach of contract and copyright theories.

ARTIFEX SOFTWARE, INC. v. HANCOM, INC.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by arcz on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:25AM

    by arcz (4501) on Sunday May 07 2017, @01:25AM (#505650) Journal

    In re: Zappos
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Zappos.com,_Inc.,_Customer_Data_Security_Breach_Litigation [wikipedia.org]

    The question is implied consent, which requires at minimum a showing that you knew or should have known that there were terms and conditions attached. But I highly doubt that implied consent could serve as a basis for injunctive relief. I think that it is extremely unlikely that this action will actually result in them being forced to release source code. Instead, money damages. That theory of zero damages does not seem very good to me though.