2017-05-13, 05:21
2017-05-13, 18:55
Wow. That's pretty cool. It won't really mean much until the same decision has been held up in a court of appeals somewhere, but it's a definite first step.
2017-05-14, 09:19
Some time ago, if memory serves me correctly, there was a court case in Germany that found GPL copywrite was enforcable though i don't remember the details tbh.
Quick search yeilds this case as discussed on cnet and further analysed here.
However, in this instance the court case is in the USofA, which to many people means this is the be all and end all of the legal decision (dispite EU getting there first)
It's just another step along the road towards the GPL being universally considered enforcable in all jurisdiction which is a good thing
Now i am no lawyer but i see the disctinction to the German case being that the defendant had the option of contacting the authors and negotiating another more suitable licence if they didn't like the GPL.
But these bad boys chose to simply take the code and not follow GPL or license in another way.
So unless the defendant appeals, the plantiff can now continue with their court case and sue the buggers.
It's the next legal steps that will be interesing.
I just wish the plantiff had asked for the defendant to comply with the GPL and release the source code as well as asking for punitive damages to deter others from acting in a similar way.
To me this would seem to be a better fit being it's GPL software, rather than plantiff saying pay $$ and you can keep your code to yourself...
In any case, this USofA decision could be a double edged sword if a "take it or leave it" click through agreement (used in commercial software) is also now considered to have the force of law.
And by take it or leave it i mean there is no way to negotiate any conditions or licenses in some other way - the power is purely in the sellers hands.
But i guess this is not a precedence until it's apealed to hight courts... as i said i'm not a lawyer
In any case, the legal world being what it is, and it's always about lots of $$$$$, open source projects simply don't have money to spend in defending their license against bad actors.
What also seems to be difficult for many open source projects is that often the code copyright belongs to multiple distinct people who contribut to a project.
In reality, it means nothing to Kodi unless they have $$$$$ to enforce their copyrights in an court of law.
Sad that bullies with deep pockets can push around an open source project with practical impunity.
Tis just highlights how i miss groklaw and the lady in red
Quick search yeilds this case as discussed on cnet and further analysed here.
However, in this instance the court case is in the USofA, which to many people means this is the be all and end all of the legal decision (dispite EU getting there first)
It's just another step along the road towards the GPL being universally considered enforcable in all jurisdiction which is a good thing
Now i am no lawyer but i see the disctinction to the German case being that the defendant had the option of contacting the authors and negotiating another more suitable licence if they didn't like the GPL.
But these bad boys chose to simply take the code and not follow GPL or license in another way.
So unless the defendant appeals, the plantiff can now continue with their court case and sue the buggers.
It's the next legal steps that will be interesing.
I just wish the plantiff had asked for the defendant to comply with the GPL and release the source code as well as asking for punitive damages to deter others from acting in a similar way.
To me this would seem to be a better fit being it's GPL software, rather than plantiff saying pay $$ and you can keep your code to yourself...
In any case, this USofA decision could be a double edged sword if a "take it or leave it" click through agreement (used in commercial software) is also now considered to have the force of law.
And by take it or leave it i mean there is no way to negotiate any conditions or licenses in some other way - the power is purely in the sellers hands.
But i guess this is not a precedence until it's apealed to hight courts... as i said i'm not a lawyer
In any case, the legal world being what it is, and it's always about lots of $$$$$, open source projects simply don't have money to spend in defending their license against bad actors.
What also seems to be difficult for many open source projects is that often the code copyright belongs to multiple distinct people who contribut to a project.
In reality, it means nothing to Kodi unless they have $$$$$ to enforce their copyrights in an court of law.
Sad that bullies with deep pockets can push around an open source project with practical impunity.
Tis just highlights how i miss groklaw and the lady in red
2017-05-16, 10:35
(2017-05-14, 09:19)skylarking Wrote: In reality, it means nothing to Kodi unless they have $$$$$ to enforce their copyrights in an court of law.If I'm not mistaken Kodi is represented by SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) as many larger not-for-profit FOSS projects are:
Sad that bullies with deep pockets can push around an open source project with practical impunity.
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_F...Law_Center
Software Freedom Law Center goal is for the GPL to really mean something legally, so that a nonprofit FOSS project does not get bullied by companies with deep pockets just to avoid following the GPL.
2017-05-17, 01:30
In this case, plaintiff offers two licenses, GPL and commercial, so the commercial license (without the requirement to open source the resulting software) would have been appropriate. Note that contract law tends to be a local (state) matter in the US under common law and the UCC which states have enacted as positive law. The court found that the GPL requirement that a user of the licensed software had to release the source code containing the GPL code was an extra element in the contract, thus state law was not pre-empted by federal copyright law.
Defendant separately argues that recovery for US copyright is barred as being a foreign company the infringement is extraterritorial and thus not subject to US copyright law; however the court found that the extraterritoriality would have to be decided at trial and hence the claim could not be dismissed at this point.
scott s.
.
Defendant separately argues that recovery for US copyright is barred as being a foreign company the infringement is extraterritorial and thus not subject to US copyright law; however the court found that the extraterritoriality would have to be decided at trial and hence the claim could not be dismissed at this point.
scott s.
.
2017-05-17, 15:07
(2017-05-17, 01:30)scott967 Wrote: In this case, plaintiff offers two licenses, GPL and commercial, so the commercial license (without the requirement to open source the resulting software) would have been appropriate. Note that contract law tends to be a local (state) matter in the US under common law and the UCC which states have enacted as positive law. The court found that the GPL requirement that a user of the licensed software had to release the source code containing the GPL code was an extra element in the contract, thus state law was not pre-empted by federal copyright law.
What? Kodi's main project code does not have commercial license. Some of its third-party dependencies might have (like the libplatinum UPnP library Kodi uses).
No one other that the original copyright owner are allowed to change the license of the file/code. It does not matter how many times the the file/code changes hands in between. If the original code/file is GPL and only GPL then they need to release any changes to the files/code that they make.
So no third-party company or otherwise could simply take Kodi's core code and release it under a other license or add an additional license to that code.
2017-05-17, 15:11
2017-05-26, 19:32
The case sounds very similar to what VidON have been doing with XBMC / Kodi Software for years now...except its worse. VidON only add minor changes to Kodi code and monetising it for profit.
And then companies like Tronsmart (Vega S95), Egreat & others distribute VidON GPL infringing software, included as part of their hardware packages.
And then companies like Tronsmart (Vega S95), Egreat & others distribute VidON GPL infringing software, included as part of their hardware packages.
