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...
- As CBS/Paramount Continue Lawsuit Over Fan Film, It Releases Ridiculous & Impossible 'Fan Film Guidelines'
- Good News: California Legislature Dumps Stupid Plan To Copyright All Government Works
- Led Zeppelin Wins Copyright Case Over Stairway To Heaven
- Terrible Ruling In Germany: Digitizing The Public Domain Creates New Copyright
- MPAA Happily Gets Into Bed With Russian State Censor Agency... To Protect Copyright!