OSNews

It wasn’t a case brought on to win money, all they sought was compliance with the licence the code was licensed under (GPL).

and if money IS won, where does it go?

That I can see they are not even a registered charity..

If I am wrong, please show me a link proving otherwise

you seem confused. there is no "money won", because they are not suing for damages, they are suing for compliance and a 'cease and desist' until conditions have been met.

should the actual copyright holders want to sue for damages then they would have to prove that they have lost money due to the gpl violation, and if they would do so then naturally any money awarded would go to the copyright holders since they would be the plaintiff.

is it clear now?

and if money IS won, where does it go?

That I can see they are not even a registered charity..

If I am wrong, please show me a link proving otherwise "

In all copyright cases ... any funds are due to the holders of the copyrights.

Normally, this is the authors of the code ... unless the authors have transferred (in writing) the copyrights to someone else.

Software is just like a book ... if you write it, then as the author you enjoy the copyrights.

If you didn't write it and you publish it to make some money for yourself ... then you had better have the author's permission or you are in all sorts of legal trouble if you don't.

In this case, the authors permission is readily given ... as long as you give out the source code with the product when you distribute it. Without giving out the source code ... you have no permission to distribute from the authors.

PS: Open source software is more like a book than normal software. If you reprint a book without the copyright holder's permission, then you are in trouble ... even though the text of the book itself is out there in the open (in bookstores) for anyone to read or buy a copy.

PPS: In fact, you must publish something in order to have a copyright on it. In the case of proprietary software, the source code is not published, so it cannot have copyrights. Therefore, it is illegal only to copy the binary executable without the copyright holder's permission in that case.

Edited 2008-05-12 10:51 UTC

Hehe... more or less, what probably happened!

I think they wanted to declare /part/ of the license terms invalid, otherwise yeah, it would have been a very dumb move

But that doesn't work. If you succeed in getting the GPL declared invalid, and you ship GPL code, you're still screwed. Without the GPL, you have no agreement with the copyright holder that allows you to distribute or modify the code, so you still have to take your product off the market.

The judge in the case said that if an author demands that a publisher publish his work in a green envelope, then the publisher has to either use a green envelope, or not publish, and it doesn't matter whether it's a stupid condition.

What's the hurry? I'm quite content to see one company after another voluntarily comply. A more serious problem , I should think, would be those companies who violate the licensing and go undetected.

Edited 2008-05-09 15:10 UTC

Agreed.

Once again, I'll state the simple facts - if you don't like the GPL code, then don't use our GPL software. This is really why I want GPL v3 pushed, it *protects* that code from abuse even better than GPL v2 does (which doesn't do a bad job of it I do admit).

Dave

Antik, you do everything you can to stir up license wars. Hey people, let's just ignore this flamebait and have an interesting and constructive discussion instead. Disagreement is the basis for a good conversation, but license flames are just a waste of time, and generate all sorts of unnecessary bad blood.

GPL is not enforced to make someone rich, it is enforced to make sure you give back to the community if you modify the code. Nobody forces you to use GPL code, you can always write your own. But if you improve the code, you give it back to the community, then someone else improves the code and everybody benefits, including the users that get low cost or free applications.

Huh?!? Viral license? Did Steven Ballmer perhaps hit you too hard with a chair that you can't think straight anymore? The GPL license is a respectable and very well-liked license by many (including Fortune 500 corporations), and it has brought lots of improvements and progress to big and important projects which wouldn't be where they are today without the GPL. Those who oppose it simply use their own license for their own products, so I fail to see what the problem is.

I know I shouldn't reply to the troll ... but it is worth mentioning anyway.

It wasn't Skype's code to begin with. The GPL applied to that code before Skype used it in a product, and it still applies to the same code after this case.

Hence, the GPL isn't viral.

Well more or less. The source code must be available to the one who owns the program, and for free, or at least not more expensive than the shipping cost.

Actually, I think the GPL requires that the source code must be made available to anyone who asks for it, and for no cost other than reasonable costs of reproduction and/or mailing.