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...
- The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
- Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich
- Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns
- Recording Industry Thinks Famous Dead Musicians And Their Personal Struggles Will Get People To Stop Pirating
- Will Australian Government Use Cost-Benefit Analysis To Kill Off Fair Use Proposal Once And For All?