Derrick
ლ(ಠ_ಠ )ლ
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,085
- Reaction score
- 5
Open source software advocates are applauding what they call a landmark case involving copyright infringement under an agreement called Artistic Licence.
The case
The case involves a commercial software developer Matthew Katzer who used open source software without attributing the author, highlighting the original source of the files or explaining how the code had been modified.
All these conditions were laid out by Robert Jacobsen, the manager of the open source software group Java Model Railroad Interface, under an Artistic Licence which is enforceable under copyright laws.
According to the BBC Jacobsen accused Katzer of ignoring the terms of the Artistic Licence when he used the code to develop commercial software products for trains.
Court ruling
Initially the US Court ruled in favour of Katzer saying that the terms of the licence were intentionally broad but added that the plaintiff could perhaps claim breach of contract.
The US appeals court has however taken a different view of the matter:
“Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted materials,” Judge Jeffrey White wrote in his decision. “Open source licensing has become a widely used method of creative collaboration that serves to advance the arts and sciences in a manner and at a pace few could have imagined just a few decades ago.”
Open source community welcomes ruling
The ruling has been widely applauded by the Open Source community with many saying that although some rights are relinquished when a developer releases open source code not all rights are given up.
The general counsel for Creative Commons, Diane Peters told BBC News “The federal court recognised that even though licensors give up some rights it doesn’t mean they have any less rights to access the remedies our law provides. This opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of a basic economic principle of the internet; that even though money doesn’t change hands, attribution is a valuable economic right in the information economy.”
The case
The case involves a commercial software developer Matthew Katzer who used open source software without attributing the author, highlighting the original source of the files or explaining how the code had been modified.
All these conditions were laid out by Robert Jacobsen, the manager of the open source software group Java Model Railroad Interface, under an Artistic Licence which is enforceable under copyright laws.
According to the BBC Jacobsen accused Katzer of ignoring the terms of the Artistic Licence when he used the code to develop commercial software products for trains.
Court ruling
Initially the US Court ruled in favour of Katzer saying that the terms of the licence were intentionally broad but added that the plaintiff could perhaps claim breach of contract.
The US appeals court has however taken a different view of the matter:
“Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted materials,” Judge Jeffrey White wrote in his decision. “Open source licensing has become a widely used method of creative collaboration that serves to advance the arts and sciences in a manner and at a pace few could have imagined just a few decades ago.”
Open source community welcomes ruling
The ruling has been widely applauded by the Open Source community with many saying that although some rights are relinquished when a developer releases open source code not all rights are given up.
The general counsel for Creative Commons, Diane Peters told BBC News “The federal court recognised that even though licensors give up some rights it doesn’t mean they have any less rights to access the remedies our law provides. This opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of a basic economic principle of the internet; that even though money doesn’t change hands, attribution is a valuable economic right in the information economy.”