[Discussioni] Fwd: Update on Artifex v. Hancom GNU GPL compliance case

[Francesco Potortì]

Per chi si interessa a questioni di licenze

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:48:23 -0400
From: "Donald Robertson, III, FSF" <info at fsf.org>
Subject: Update on Artifex v. Hancom GNU GPL compliance case

Read online: <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1>

Dear Free Software Supporter,

A new ruling was issued on September 25th in the ongoing GNU General
Public License (GPL) compliance case of *Artifex v. Hancom*. The case
involves a piece of software licensed under the GPL version 3 or
later, called Ghostscript. It is a project from Artifex for handling
PostScript, PDFs, and printers (GNU Ghostscript is a separate version
of the project, and is not involved or implicated in the case). As we
wrote [previously][1]:

> In its suit, Artifex claimed two counts based on Hancom's inclusion
> of Ghostscript: (1) a violation of copyright; and (2) a breach of
> contract based on the GPL. ... While a violation of a free license
> giving rise to a copyright violation is now old hat, whether
> violation of a license like the GPL could be treated as a breach of
> contract has been long a topic of discussion among licensing
> geeks.

[1]: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/motion-to-dismiss-denied-in-recent-gnu-gpl-case

In the previous ruling, the judge in the case had denied a motion to
dismiss those claims, allowing the case to proceed. We've now reached
the next step in the suit, involving a [motion for summary
judgment][2] on the contract claim, which was also denied. In a motion
to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of the allegations involved
and rules on whether such allegations actually present a valid legal
claim. In summary judgment, the court is asked to look at the
undisputed facts and determine whether the outcome is so obvious that
the matter need not go through a full trial. Such motions are routine,
but making it past summary judgment does mean that the issue of
recovery under contract theory is still alive in this case.

[2]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2016cv06982/305835/54

Hancom here made several arguments against the contract claim, but one
is of particular interest. Hancom argued that if any contract claim is
allowed, damages should only be considered prior to the date of their
initial violation. They argued that since the violation terminated
their license, the contract also ended at that point. The judge noted
that:

> the language of the GPL suggests that Defendant’s obligations
> persisted beyond termination of its rights to propagate software
> using Ghostscript ... because the source code or offer of the
> source code is required each time a “covered work” is conveyed,
> each time Defendant distributed a product using Ghostscript there
> was arguably an ensuing obligation to provide or offer to provide
> the source code.

The judge also found that there was insufficient evidence at this
point to rule on this issue, so we can't read too much into it. But
the judge's thoughts on how conditions of the GPL persist after a
violation is an important clue on how this issue could develop as the
case proceeds. Although the GPL does not need to be upheld as a
contract in order to protect user freedom -- it has worked
successfully as a copyright license for decades -- procedural rulings
like this are just more evidence that claims about it not standing up
in court or being easy to defeat are baseless fear-mongering.

With summary judgment denied, the case will move forward, and will be
very interesting to watch. To keep up to date on this case and more:

* Using your favorite free software RSS reader, subscribe to the Licensing & Compliance blog at 
 <https://www.fsf.org/static/fsforg/rss/licensing.xml>.
* [Donate][3] or become an [associate member][4] to help support our
  licensing team.

[3]: https://donate.fsf.org
[4]: https://www.fsf.org/join

Sincerely,  
Donald Robertson, III
Licensing and Compliance Manager  

- -- 
* Follow us at <https://status.fsf.org/fsf>. 
* Subscribe to our RSS feeds at <https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS>.
* Join us as an associate member at <https://www.fsf.org/jf>.

Sent from the Free Software Foundation,

51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1335
UNITED STATES


You can unsubscribe from this mailing list by visiting 

https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/mailing/unsubscribe?reset=1&jid=154336&qid=28543449&h=5d74143321a8997c.

To stop all email from the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design,
and the Free Software Supporter newsletter, visit

https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=154336&qid=28543449&h=5d74143321a8997c.
------- End of forwarded message -------