decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
GPL supported by JMRI case | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
GPL supported by JMRI case
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT
I think that was the most important defeat of violators of a FOSS license so far, in the US. It did not involve the GPL, but it would be rather difficult to see that as more than a mere technicality, as a FOSS license was successfully upheld and there is not a lot of difference in principle. Look at it as violating the only licence that was available to allow copying, and thus falling foul of simple copyright law, and it seems to me (IANAL) that it scarcely matters what the licence was, the problem was that they breached its terms, resulting in a simple case of copying with no valid license to do so.

Even a very weak license like BSD would stand up to that, I think. And, there are ways of violating the BSD license, such as failing to include the licence on the copy you distribute. Every license has conditions that you can violate, if you are sufficiently stupid, or just plain criminal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )