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...
- Wikimedia Takes Down Diary Of Anne Frank, Uses It To Highlight Idiocy Of DMCA Rules, Copyright Terms
- Dish Agrees To Cripple Its Ad-Skipping DVR To Settle Fox Lawsuit
- Law Students Line Up Behind 'Baby Blue' -- Will Harvard Law Review Sue?
- Years Later, White House Sends Two Copyright Treaties To Senate For Ratification: One Good, One Bad
- Artist Sues Wu-Tang Clan Member, Martin Shkreli,
Vice MagazineFor Copyright Infringement