Open Source Licenses FTW!

[BlueBard]

Open Source Licenses (at least some of them) are legally enforceable copyright protections, according to a recent court ruling.

[BWPS]

I don't even understand the non-technical terms.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Basically, it means that free software licenses are now recognized by the court.  This means the author can set limits, like don't sell my work.

Really simply translation--free stuff can stay free.

[stumpy]

Another write-up of the ruling is at ars (here). Additionally, I would say that the court's ruling itself is, frankly, very readable to the layman.

I won't attempt to analyze or even mention the possible implications of this. But, I will say that a very direct implication is that these open source licenses are to be treated as copyrights (conditions on copying / distributing copies) and not just contracts.

Why is that important? Because contract violations essentially can only be remedied by determination of monetary damage from the violation. In other words, if you violate a contract and the other party proves it, a court will typically award that party the money it thinks you cost him. Obviously, in the case where the violation involves something you have created and were giving away for free, it is tough to come up with a number. On the other hand, if a copyright is violated, no one has to prove that there was any direct economic damage to the copyright holder. A court can issue an injunction against the violator demanding that he stop distributing the violating material / software / product / whatever and that he pay fines and there need be no determination that the copyright holder lost any money, just that the conditions of the license were violated.

That means, for instance (and a very simplified retelling of what happened in this case), that if you create something, release it and say that others can modify it and release their own versions as long as they make clear your contribution and where their version differs, but then someone releases their own version but without any reference to your work or what they have changed, then you can go to court and have them shut down and/or fines paid without having to show that you lost any money.

I hope that was clear enough. The very short version is that you don't have to be making money from something you created in order to have rights to it that are enforceable.


BTW, for sure, copyright law is itself open to all sorts of abuse in itself (parts of the DMCA come to mind) and that could be a problem. But, I think it's important that the courts recognize that things given away without charge have value and can have legal protection.

[BWPS]

Another write-up of the ruling is at ars (here). Additionally, I would say that the court's ruling itself is, frankly, very readable to the layman.

I won't attempt to analyze or even mention the possible implications of this. But, I will say that a very direct implication is that these open source licenses are to be treated as copyrights (conditions on copying / distributing copies) and not just contracts.

Why is that important? Because contract violations essentially can only be remedied by determination of monetary damage from the violation. In other words, if you violate a contract and the other party proves it, a court will typically award that party the money it thinks you cost him. Obviously, in the case where the violation involves something you have created and were giving away for free, it is tough to come up with a number. On the other hand, if a copyright is violated, no one has to prove that there was any direct economic damage to the copyright holder. A court can issue an injunction against the violator demanding that he stop distributing the violating material / software / product / whatever and that he pay fines and there need be no determination that the copyright holder lost any money, just that the conditions of the license were violated.

That means, for instance (and a very simplified retelling of what happened in this case), that if you create something, release it and say that others can modify it and release their own versions as long as they make clear your contribution and where their version differs, but then someone releases their own version but without any reference to your work or what they have changed, then you can go to court and have them shut down and/or fines paid without having to show that you lost any money.

I hope that was clear enough. The very short version is that you don't have to be making money from something you created in order to have rights to it that are enforceable.


BTW, for sure, copyright law is itself open to all sorts of abuse in itself (parts of the DMCA come to mind) and that could be a problem. But, I think it's important that the courts recognize that things given away without charge have value and can have legal protection.

:doh: What's dumber than a layman?

Thank you. I was just getting confused because it seemed like a new more strict copyright law, and yet people on the internet were happy about it. But I see how it's definitely a good one.

[BlueBard]

Well, obviously folks who violate copyright terms on a routine basis won't like it.  And it could cause problems down the road with works that appear derivative (whether or not they are intentionally derivative).  People are going to have to be more careful about "forking" (modifying) existing open source code to make sure that everything is properly attributed.

And I certainly hope that I won't get into trouble copying code examples out of my Perl Cookbook without putting attributions in all of my scripts!

But most Open Source Programmers will definitely love it, the FSF should be positively giddy about it, and users of Open Source applications can breathe easier knowing their free software will stay free.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Thank you. I was just getting confused because it seemed like a new more strict copyright law, and yet people on the internet were happy about it. But I see how it's definitely a good one.

No, not more strict, it just means that copyrights of free software will be treated exactly the same as copyrights of comercial software.