|
Home: Software Licenses
Copyright Issues
Open Source & Derivative Works
GPL Issues
GPL Validity
GPL Violations
WordPress & the GPL
Legal Cases
ProCD v. Zeidenberg
USL v. BSDi
Advertising Clause
Click-Through License
Compatible Licenses
Copyleft
Derivative Works
Dual Licensing
EULA
FLOSS
FOSS
Free Software
Incompatible Licenses
OSD
OSI Certified
OSS
Permissive Licenses
Shrink Wrap License
Viral Licenses
Licenses
AGPL
Apache
Apple
Artistic
BSD
CDDL
CPL
EPL
GPL v2
GPL v3
IPL
LGPL
MIT
Mozilla
SPL
X License
X11 License
Organizations
ASF
FSF
OSI
SFLC
People
Bruce Perens
Eben Moglen
Eric Raymond
Lawrence Lessig
Linus Torvalds
Richard Stallman
Licenses
Closed Source
Freeware
Shareware
Organizations
BSA
MS Community License
MS Permissive License
Public Domain
Books
|
|
|
|
Is the GPL a Valid License?
There have been a number of legal disputes in
the USA and
Germany related to the GPL.
In all the cases which have been resolved, the
GPL has proven to be both enforceable and legally binding.
The
SCO vs
IBM
case has not yet been resolved, however in that case, the principal remaining GPL-related
issue appears to be whether
SCO
violated the GPL
(IBM alleges that they did,
but
SCO
claims that they did not).
- In cases in
Germany, copyright-holders
have won injunctions and judgements preventing copyright-infringing use
of GPL licensed software (where the copyright infringement arises from
breaching the license's terms through GPL violations).
- In
2005,
a private individual, Daniel Wallace, filed two law suits in Southern
Indiana,
one against the
Free Software Foundation,
and the other against
IBM,
Novell
and
Red Hat,
alleging that the use of the GPL violated anti-trust law.
Wallace's lawsuits were however ultimately dismissed by the court, which
comprehensively rejected his arguments.
- The SCO Group
has made various allegations (and filed lawsuits based on these allegations)
relating to
Linux,
claiming that some of the code in
Linux
is there in violation of
SCO's
alleged intellectual property rights.
In the course of these lawsuits, as well as on their web site and in other
public statements, the
SCO Group
has made various claims and assertions about the GPL, including:
- The assertion that the GPL
"violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws"
(in a letter that the
SCO Group's
CEO, Darl McBride, sent to the US Congress and published on its web site).
- A defense (subsequently dropped) in a lawsuit to
IBM
counterclaims, alleging that
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
- A defense (also subsequently dropped) in a lawsuit to
IBM
counterclaims, seeming to allege that
IBM
could not enforce the copyrights of
IBM-owned but
GPL-licensed works, without the presence of various third parties:
"IBM has failed to join one or more parties needed for just adjudication of the counterclaims, including but not limited to the Free Software Foundation and contributors to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels."
- That the
SCO Group's
distribution of
Linux
(including IBM copyrighted works)
did not violate the GPL,
even though
SCO
was simultaneously attempting to impose licensing fees and various restrictions
on
Linux
users
(IBM
counterclaims in the lawsuit include a copyright claim based on
SCO's alleged
distribution of
IBM-copyrighted
programs in Linux
in alleged violation of the GPL).
So, to summarize, so far, wherever tested, the GPL has proven to be both a valid
and enforceable license.
Related Links
Related Pages
Discuss GPL Validity
Please feel free to post your comments:
Facebook Comments:
|
|