SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the by-reading-this-department-you-agree-to-the-following dept.
A motion for Summary Judgement in the ongoing Artefix v. Hancom GPL enforcement case has been denied. Seen previously on Soylent. From the FSF:
In the previous ruling, the judge in the case had denied a motion to dismiss those claims, allowing the case to proceed. We've now reached the next step in the suit, involving a motion for summary judgment on the contract claim, which was also denied. In a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of the allegations involved and rules on whether such allegations actually present a valid legal claim. In summary judgment, the court is asked to look at the undisputed facts and determine whether the outcome is so obvious that the matter need not go through a full trial. Such motions are routine, but making it past summary judgment does mean that the issue of recovery under contract theory is still alive in this case.
Hancom here made several arguments against the contract claim, but one is of particular interest. Hancom argued that if any contract claim is allowed, damages should only be considered prior to the date of their initial violation. They argued that since the violation terminated their license, the contract also ended at that point. The judge noted that:
the language of the GPL suggests that Defendant's obligations persisted beyond termination of its rights to propagate software using Ghostscript ... because the source code or offer of the source code is required each time a "covered work" is conveyed, each time Defendant distributed a product using Ghostscript there was arguably an ensuing obligation to provide or offer to provide the source code.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @07:45AM (1 child)
They have a point. I just don't thing they realize the consequences of what they argue.
The GPL does not require you to agree to anything. It allows you to do certain things (distribute) as long as you also do certain other things (source), anything else false back to copyright law. It also does have the part about becoming invalid if you break the conditions.
So year, they have a point in that the GPL is not a contract and they haven't agreed to anything. What they apparently don't realize is that under copyright law they have no right to distribute, and they can then either pay treble damages RIAA style - but since the price was the entire source, what's three times the entire source? - or recall the product in question, refunding every single purchase.
There is a reason that until now every time the FSF has threatened to sue anyone for GPL violations, they have chosen to distribute the source under the GPL. The alternatives are way more expensive.
Even Microsoft realizes this. That's why they forbid any use of GPL software in projects they are not willing to release the source for - and release the source for those that they do.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @12:12PM
The price I imagine will be based on how much Hancom was selling its infringing software for, or more generally how much revenue they've derived from redistribution. It's the same as with most copyright infringements even of proprietary software, and there will be attorney's fees as well for Artefix's lawyers.