by Mike Masnick
Fri, Apr 17th 2009 9:49am
When CAFC ruled last summer about the legality of open source licenses and their connection to copyright in the Jacobsen case, we were a little worried that the ruling appeared to conflict with some other copyright rulings, in a way that could eventually cause problems. However, on the whole, it was a good ruling, putting weight behind the core concept behind open source/Creative Commons-style license, which mostly rely on copyright to backstop what those licenses require. However, a law firm has been running around trying to push the idea that the ruling means using any open source software increases your copyright infringement liability. Of course, that's only true if you don't abide by the terms of the license. In other words, the risks are no different than if you're using proprietary code: if you obey the terms of the license, there's no problem. If you don't, there is. All the ruling really stated was that there could be greater damages to those who don't abide by the license. So, really, the law firm's advice seems to be directed entirely to firms who plan to not live up to the requirements of an open source license. That's hardly an increased liability for those who comply.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- UK Publishers Don't See Why Anyone's Complaining About Copyright Law
- How Section 1201 Of The Copyright Statute Threatens Innovation
- German Court Says YouTube Isn't Liable For Infringement, But Wants A Notice-And-Staydown Process
- MLB Network DMCAs Video Of Bob Costas Torching MLB Pitcher, Which We'll Now Discuss At Length
- What's Behind The Attack On EU's Outdoor Photography? The Usual Copyright Maximalism And Anti-Americanism