SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A recent federal district court decision denied a motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Artifex Software Inc. ("Artifex") for breach of contract and copyright infringement claims against Defendant Hancom, Inc. based on breach of an open source software license. The software, referred to as Ghostscript, was dual-licensed under the GPL license and a commercial license. According to the Plaintiff, those seeking to commercially distribute Ghostscript could obtain a commercial license to use, modify, copy, and/or distribute Ghostscript for a fee. Otherwise, the software was available without a fee under the GNU GPL, which required users to comply with certain open-source licensing requirements. The requirements included an obligation to "convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License" of any covered code. In other words, under the open source license option, certain combinations of proprietary software with Ghostscript are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL.
Plaintiff alleged that because Defendant did not have a commercial license for Ghostscript, its use and distribution of Ghostscript constituted consent to the terms of the GNU GPL, Section 9 of which states:
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program...However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
Plaintiff further alleged that Hancom failed to comply with key provisions of the GNU GPL, including the requirement to distribute the source code for Hancom's software.
Hancom responded to these allegations with three arguments. First, it alleged Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract and that any such claim is preempted by copyright law. Second, it alleged Plaintiff's copyright claim must be dismissed in part because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant committed a predicate act in the United States. Finally, Defendant moved to strike portions of the relief sought in the complaint.
The Court rejected all three arguments. On the first issue, the court stated: "Defendant contends that Plaintiff's reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license." The Court added: "Plaintiff's allegations of harm are also adequately pled. Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Defendant's use of Ghostscript without obtaining a commercial license or complying with GNU GPL deprived Plaintiff of the licensing fee, or alternatively, the ability to advance and develop Ghostscript through open-source sharing. Indeed, as the Federal Circuit has recognized, there is harm which flows from a party's failure to comply with open source licensing: "[t]he lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration" because "[t]here are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties."
[...] This case highlights the need to understand and comply with the terms of open source licenses. Many companies use open source without having adequate open source usage policies or understanding of the legal risks of using open source. As this case highlights one of the key risks with using open source is that in certain circumstances, a company may be required to release the source code for its proprietary software based on usage of open source code in the software. It also highlights the validity of certain dual-licensing open source models and the need to understand when which of the options apply to your usage. If your company does not have an open source policy or has questions on these issues, it should seek advice.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @06:55PM (14 children)
Offering both the commercial and GPL is probably the most liberal offer one can make (no, MIT and PD are not as liberal because somebody can close up the source and that is anarchy not freedom), so, non compliance is a bad move, that any serious company should avoid. (no, corporations are not serious company, they are the mob).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @07:03PM (12 children)
Under dual licensing, someone can still close up the source code in exactly the same way that one could with the MIT license or with Public Domain work; there is no difference, except that dual licensing involves some kind of exchange to make it all OK.
The word "anarchy" does not mean what you think it means; it means "without a ruler".
Your context gives me no clue as to what you mean by "anarchy", but I'll note for the benefit of others that "anarchy" does not imply a lack of order, it just implies a lack of imposition: People can agree to interact in a certain way without being forced—indeed, most of the productive world exists in a state of anarchy; it's why the West has been so spectacularly good at creating wealth, because each individual has largely been able to pursue his own interests through voluntary interaction with others.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Sunday September 10 2017, @07:37PM (2 children)
Right. The licensee pays for the privilege of a closed source license. The author explicitly does this to discourage closed source while still allowing it. It's a perfect balance in my opinion. It's only fair that if you want to sell open code minus the open part, you have to pay for that privilege. The GPL is probably the best license to go this route because the GPL guards the open code against commercial exploitation.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 10 2017, @09:17PM
Dual Licensing is also used when you intend to extend an opensource package by adding functionality or features for which you intend to charge a fee.
In fact its used this way MOSTLY by the developers of the an opensource package - precisely to obtain fees.
Its attractive to second parties PRECISELY to avoid any requirement to release their own source code. They are not concerned with releasing the source code of the opensource package, merely their extensions of that code.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:31AM
It doesn't have to be to discourage closed source. It can also be a case of "you are paying, one way or the other. Code or money, your choice".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @08:56PM (4 children)
> does not imply a lack of order, it just implies a lack of imposition
Your faith in humanity is quite strong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @09:35PM (3 children)
The behavior of humans is irrelevant to the meaning of "anarchy".
Let's say humans to tend impose on each other (because imposition is a dumb man's solution to a problem, and people are pretty dumb).
So what?
The explicit recognition of that tendency can be incorporated into everyday interactions by building societal infrastructure to guide people down a different path without people even realizing it: That's the whole point of, for example, contract theory; getting people to agree to the rules of their interaction in advance is a great way to stamp out a lot of imposition, especially when every ramification of the interaction is clearly spelled out (enforcement of the contract is itself part of the contract, and thus is entirely voluntary).
If anything, what requires faith in humanity is looking to some special organization ("government") that has been blessed culturally with the power to impose its will at the point of a gun; after all, are the officials in government not also human?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @11:18PM (2 children)
This is by far the best comment about "the violently imposed monopoly" yet. Gj! No sarcasm
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @11:41PM (1 child)
My favorite part was where it begged the question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @12:20AM
Nowhere does the OP beg the question.
I suppose you think that a system of contracts or the construction of "societal infrastructure" requires some kind of imposed authority; however, by thinking that, you are the one who is begging the question.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @09:02PM (2 children)
an-archy means without authority, be it one ruler or a system of laws imposed in some way, like peer pressure, whatever. When nothing has authority laws are optional. When laws are optional somebody will ignore them. When somebody will ignore them he will become stronger than those who obey the laws. Result: first chaos then totalitarianism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @09:48PM
As soon as there is a strong man, you have "authority", and thus no longer anarchy—the bad outcome in your scenario is the replacement of anarchy with... well... archy; I mean, surely, you're not suggesting that "totalitarianism" is an example of anarchy, or that it must follow from anarchy?
Whence comes your preferred system, presumably representative democracy?
You can't have it both ways.
What is law, anyway?
The law that governs you is different from the law that governs me; you and I don't share the same obligations in life—you may be encumbered by the need to make a monthly payment for a car, while I don't, etc.
There's no reason that law must be established by this one particular group of people who call themselves "a legislature"; indeed, law could merely be the collection of all contracts between individuals (you have to pay for your car, but I don't)—it's just that society doesn't yet have the logistical machinery to handle effectively this kind of law in general, in the same way that society at one point didn't have the logistical machinery to handle effectively the masses' ability to engage in democratic voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @06:25PM
the old "if it weren't for the precious dog-shooting pigs everyone would kill their neighbor" argument. fuck you. how bout that?
(Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Monday September 11 2017, @06:26AM
Right, I'm gonna go draw a load of anarchic straight lines...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 10 2017, @08:37PM
Hmm, it seems that RMS is high off his own toejam again.
Put down the foot-cheese, Richard!