Hi List,
Two stories about GPL and CC being upheld by courts in different continents.Any commentary and explanation of the impact of such rulings would very enlightening.
TIA
--arky
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [GNU/FSF Press] Press Release: GPL tested in US courts in Wallace Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:52:39 -0500 From: Peter Brown peterb@fsf.org To: info-press@gnu.org
The GPL tested in US courts - Wallace Vs FSF.
The GNU General Public License stands firm.
On Monday March 20, 2006 US Federal Judge John Daniel Tinder, dismissed the Sherman Act antitrust claims brought against the Free Software Foundation. The claims made by Plaintiff Daniel Wallace included: that the General Public License (GPL) constituted a contract, combination or conspiracy; that it created an unreasonable restraint of trade; and that the FSF conspired with IBM, Red Hat Inc., Novell and other individuals to pool and cross-license their copyrighted intellectual property in a predatory price fixing scheme.
Peter Brown, FSF Executive Director, responded to the news, "As the author of the GPL and copyright holder on the largest body of GPL'd covered free software, the FSF hears many theories of potential legal claims and challenges to the GPL. We hear the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) expressed, that the GPL has never been tested in court, and that somehow that is a sign of its weakness. Nothing could be further from the truth of course. Put quite simply, if you don't accept the terms of the GPL, then you have no rights to the copyrighted works it covers. What is there left to test? The GPL is a software license, it is not a contract. It gives permissions from the copyright holder. You don't want to accept those permissions? End of discussion."
On Monday, a US Federal Court Judge dismissed Daniel Wallace's case saying "[The GPL] acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation."
Brown continued, "Let us all stop and consider the consequences of what this US Federal Judge has said. On being presented with the facts surrounding the GPL, he was able to define a range of benefits available to those that value the freedoms delivered by the GPL. The question we are all left with is, why would anyone put up with the inferred consequences of proprietary software?", and, "If you care about lower prices, better access to software, or more innovation, then GPL'd software is for you. Or as the Free Software would describe that, you value freedom".
Having dismissed the case, and finding in favor of the FSF and against Wallace. The Judge also allowed FSF costs against Wallace. Wallace, now has thirty days to appeal the decision, but the FSF expects no relevant news on this matter.
-- About the Free Software Foundation The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software - particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants - and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software. Their Web site, located at www.fsf.org , is an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support their work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Their headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES UPHELD IN DUTCH COURT Submitted by Mia Garlick on 2006-03-16 10:49 AM.
San Francisco, USA, & Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 15, 2006
The first known court decision involving a Creative Commons license was handed down on March 9, 2006 by the District Court of Amsterdam. The case confirmed that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it.
The proceedings arose when former MTV VJ and podcasting guru Adam Curry published photos of his family on the well-known online photo- sharing site Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-Sharealike license. The Dutch tabloid Weekend reproduced four of the photos in a story about Curry*s children.
Curry sued Weekend for copyright and privacy infringement. As to the copyright claim, Weekend argued that it was misled by the notice *this photo is public* (which is a standard feature of all Flickr images that are viewable by the public), and that the link to the CC license was not obvious. Weekend had assumed that no authorization from Curry was needed. Audax, the publisher of Weekend, argued that it was informed of the existence of the CC license only much later by its legal counsel.
The Court rejected Weekend*s defense, and held as follows:
*All four photos that were taken from www.flickr.com were made by Curry and posted by him on that website. In principle, Curry owns the copyright in the four photos, and the photos, by posting them on that website, are subject to the [Creative Commons] License. Therefore Audax should observe the conditions that control the use by third parties of the photos as stated in the License. The Court understands that Audax was misled by the notice *This photo is public* (and therefore did not take note of the conditions of the License). However, it may be expected from a professional party like Audax that it conduct a thorough and precise examination before publishing in Weekend photos originating from the Internet. Had it conducted such an investigation, Audax would have clicked on the symbol accompanying the notice *some rights reserved* and encountered the (short version of) the License. In case of doubt as to the applicability and the contents of the License, it should have requested authorization for publication from the copyright holder of the photos (Curry). Audax has failed to perform such a detailed investigation, and has assumed too easily that publication of the photos was allowed. Audax has not observed the conditions stated in the License [*]. The claim [*] will therefore be allowed; defendants will be enjoined from publishing all photos that [Curry] has published on www.flickr.com, unless this occurs in accordance with the conditions of the License.*
The full text of the decision (in Dutch) is available here. http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/zoeken/dtluitspraak.asp?searchtype=ljn&lj n=AV4204&u_ljn=AV4204
*We are very happy with this decision as it demonstrates that the millions of creators who use creative commons licenses are effectively protected against abuses of their willingness to contribute to the commons,* said Paul Keller, Public Project Lead for Creative Commons in the Netherlands.
*This decision confirms that the Creative Commons licensing system is an effective way for content creators to manage their copyrights online,* said Lawrence Lessig, Creative Commons CEO & Chairman, *The decision should also serve as a timely reminder to those seeking to use content online, to respect the terms that apply to that content.*
About Creative Commons Netherlands
Creative Commons Netherlands is collaboration between Creative Commons Corporation, Waag Society, Netherland Knowledgeland Foundation and the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam. Creative Commons is supported by the Dutch Ministry for Education, Culture and Sciences. For general Information (in Dutch) visit their site. http://nl.creativecommons.org/
About Creative Commons
Creative Commons is a not-for-profit organization, founded in 2001, that promotes the creative re-use of intellectual and artistic workswhether owned or in the public domain. Creative Commons licences provide a flexible range of protections and freedoms for authors, artists, and educators that build upon the "all rights reserved" concept of traditional copyright to offer a voluntary "some rights reserved" approach. It is sustained by the generous support of various foundations including the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Omidyar Network Fund, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation as well as members of the public. For general information, visit their site. http://creativecommons.org/
Contact
Paul Keller Project Lead CC Netherlands, Amsterdam Email: paul@waag.org