Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by noduerme 1604 days ago
This is true in America as well. You stated it exactly. The recipient of a binary or a set of scripts who has a right to use them in production also has a right to repair them, just not to distribute them.

I don't understand what contract law has to do with this case. I was actually mildly alarmed to hear that they think using GPL software somehow enters them into a contract. If I read it correctly. That could become quite nasty and be very bad for FOSS if a court upheld the idea, since it's often corporations relying on FOSS and not the other way around.
1 comments
pabs3 1604 days ago
The article clearly states that the GPL is both a license and a contract:

But many lawyers have advised us that contract law is a useful parallel avenue. This approach has the advantage of empowering users of the software who are not necessarily copyright holders. The mantra of “the GPL is not a contract” is a mistruth that has been so often repeated that it became widely accepted and typically unchallenged. (We expect you'll hear this theory repeated even more loudly now that the our Vizio lawsuit brought the question to the forefront in a federal court case.) Yet, prominent legal experts outside of FOSS social circles have long scoffed at the assertion. Indeed, case law in the USA has held the opposite. In multiple cases, courts have been convinced, specifically, that the GPL operates as both a contract and a copyright license. The law appears clear on this, and this is among the reasons why we believe our motion to remand will succeed. In short, we'll say it plainly here and now for everyone: the GPL operates both as a copyright license and as a contract; litigation can proceed under either of those legal theories. Our motion to remand in the Vizio case explains the legal details as to why that's true.

link
noduerme 1604 days ago
The article asserts that in their opinion, it's a valid legal theory that GPL constitutes a contract. One hopes the courts will put a limit to what that "contract" entitles the users of GPL software to sue coders for.
link
pabs3 1604 days ago
Agreed with the second part, hopefully users of GPL software would only be able to sue for GPL violation and only be able to obtain GPL compliance, rather than damages of any kind. Also, at least with GPLv3 there are some ways to get the license back by coming into compliance.
link
pabs3 1604 days ago
They assert that it has been courts opinions too.
link
noduerme 1604 days ago
True. They assert it. I think as a brief, they doth protest enough to make you wonder how much is settled law and how much is looking for precedent.
link
pabs3 1604 days ago
They are absolutely looking to create precedent on the "third-party beneficiary of the GPL" idea, which will be great for users of GPL software if it happens.

As IANAL, I'm unable to judge if the cases they cite in the motion back up the "GPL is a contract too" idea though.

link
noduerme 1604 days ago
I think we're on the same page, as I'm no fan of allowing intermediaries to copyright something that was copied left. But the idea that a third or even a second party can treat GPL as a contract ... doesn't that potentially create enormous liability for the creators of the original code? I mean I guess "as is" is plain enough, but...

After Log4J this was the first thing that jumped at me, not the anticapitalist argument.

link
DarylZero 1604 days ago
There's really no such thing as settled law. E.g. Roe.
link