Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dhimes 3330 days ago
This was a ruling that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant existed, not on the validity of the contract (which is the GNU GPL license).

Defendant (Hancom) was trying to say that because they didn't sign anything they didn't have a contract.

But Hancom "represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU"

Therefore, the Judge ruled that in their own words they publicly acknowledged the contract.
2 comments
ovi256 3330 days ago
It's a very narrow ruling, conditioned on the fact that the defendant, Hancom, publicly acknowledged they were using Ghostscript under GPL. It does not say much, if anything, but IANAL, about a defendant who would not have acknowledged this, which seems like the more interesting question.

Common law judges are very prudent in their ruling.

link
imanewsman 3330 days ago
The defense argued that the license was not enforceable. In the order, the federal court laid out the reasons the license _is_ enforceable. Here's the order:

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califo...

link