
Big GPL copyright enforcement win in Paris Court of Appeals - soundsop
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/big-gpl-copyright-enforcement-win-in-paris-court-of-appeals.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
======
jacquesm
What is very interesting in this is that the case was won despite the GPL
license being available in English only in distributions that I'm aware of.

In France this could have been a serious hurdle to overcome, but instead it
seems as though that never even entered the picture.

------
akamaka
The interesting thing about this case is that the infringer was sued by a
company that used their software, not by the copyright holder.

I'm not sure I'm happy about that, given the way a few rabid free software
fanatics have acted in the past. In particular, I remember the QuakeWorld GPL
fiasco, where zealots in the community took it upon themselves to harass the
leader of an open source project, rather than giving a chance for a much more
level-headed John Carmack to sort things out.

See: [http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-
bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=200...](http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-
bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=20000224183445)

------
ars
It took 7 years!?!? for this case to finish?

New business model:

    
    
      Violate GPL
      Earn money for 6 years
      Pay massive salaries
      Go bankrupt on the 7th

~~~
ovi256
Welcome to the Law System.

But there are good reasons for the delay. Presumption of innocence,
injunctions for relief etc all take time to consider.

------
blasdel
This doesn't make sense at all -- the GPL is just a conditional disclaimer of
copyright -- it doesn't even pretend to be a contract.

Only the copyright holder has standing to make a civil infringement suit under
standard international copyright law. The copyright granter (national
government) has the sole ability to initiate a criminal case, and most
signatories only have criminal statutes for commercial piracy. France has
draconian 'moral rights', but they are not transferable even in 'work for
hire'.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> the GPL is just a conditional disclaimer of copyright -- it doesn't even
> pretend to be a contract.

Whatever else the GPL does, it absolutely does not disclaim copyright. It
maintains it, but gives you a license, _if_ you follow a certain set of
conditions.

