|
|
|
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Red Hat might have avoiding bringing in the GPL if they were the sole copyright
holder. But even there, it would have left open the question of access to the
source code.
The license terms, GPL or otherwise, are bound to be a key element of the case.
There is little to be gained by not bringing them up in the initial filings.
It's a reasonable strategy in pre-filing discussions to omit mention of the GPL.
The violators are very likely to bring it up as justification for distribution
of the code. That approach precludes them from reasonably claiming that they
didn't agree to the GPL terms.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
Red Hat's mistake (although one that should
be harmless) was
in even mentioning the GPL. It doesn't apply
here,
How
can the terms of the license not apply in a
copyright infringement
case??
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
Due Diligence is a responsibility of all parties involved.
Since you
speak to the part of the plaintiff and whether they were required to mention a
license, I respond:
In my humble, non-legal opinion, they were. Due
Diligence requires the plaintiff of a Copyright Infringement action to examine
the different aspects involved such as:
A) Fair Right potential - we expect
this out of the RIAA, there's no reason not to expect it out of
RedHat.
B) Whether or not the plaintiff is properly licensed - again,
we expect the patent trolls to not bring lawsuit against someone properly
licensed so that applies to RedHat as well.
C) If properly licensed,
whether plantiff is in breach of the license. How they are in
breach.
After all... didn't Magistrate Wells in the SCOG vs IBM case once
say:
If you arrest someone for shoplifting at Neimann Marcus, they do
eventually expect to be told what it was they stole - not handed the catalogue
and told "it's in there somewhere, you know what you did".
I applaud RedHat
for performing the due diligence we expect out of others and clearly stating
what they believe the plaintiff did wrong.... rather then simply drawing up a
complaint and using it as a fishing expedition.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
I don't see how they could avoid mentioning the GPL. As far as I know, they
would have to be able to say, "They copied certain copyrighted without our
permission," but they can't say that because they did give everyone,
including Twin Peaks Software, permission to copy and alter and distribute the
software by offering the software to the world, subject to the GPL. So I think
Red Hat had to say what they did in paragraph 57:Red Hat has not
licensed or otherwise authorized Twin Peaks to reproduce, copy or distribute Red
Hat’s copyrighted source code or any works derived from it, except under the
conditions of the GPL, which Twin Peaks has failed to satisfy. I
don't see any way around that, assuming that it is necessary for the copyright
owner to allege that the infringer did not have permission. Notice that the FAQ at the
Copyright Office has the "without permission part":As a general
matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced,
distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work
without the permission of the copyright owner. If you know how to
say what permissions Twin Peaks Software had and didn't have in a way that
doesn't mention the GPL, I would like to see it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
I think that RH is right in mentioning the GPL.
The GPL grants certain rights including copying and creating derivative works.
Twin Peaks availed themselves of those provisions. In doing this they were not
infringing copyright even though those actions go beyond those permitted by
copyright law.
Twin Peaks' big mistake was to distribute the work. It was at this point that
they infringed the licence. At this point the licence disappears in a puff of
smoke and they haven’t a leg to stand on.
Thus Twin peaks started by tacitly accepting the GPL and then went on to
infringe it. Thus it would be correct for RH to mention the GPL if only to
provide background to events.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
