Is GPL done for?
>The judges' conclusion says the State of Claim “fails in more than one respect to state the cause of action, because it makes clear neither which 'parts' of Linux are supposed to be involved, nor which modifications the Plaintiff made in that respect, and it does not state which parts of code specifically originating from him are supposed to have been used in 'vmklinux'.”
theregister.co.uk
Other urls found in this thread:
sfconservancy.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
Having read the article, this has very little influence on the GPL. The only thing they're stating is that the muppet who brought this to court doesn't have his shit together and there can't be a ruling in his favour until he does.
But I assume you already knew that and went with a clickbaity post instead of actual facts. Next time go with feminism instead, Sup Forums has an irrational hatred of feminism.
>But the three judges say Hellwig didn't establish exactly which lines of code ended up in ESXi. At several points in the judgement, the panel write that Hellwig just hasn't been precise enough in his description of which bits of ESXi represent a breach of Copyright.
Guy can't assert what code he owns so his case was dismissed.
Wow it's fucking nothing.
Without access to their source code how can he know which lines they copied?
>because it makes clear neither which 'parts' of Linux are supposed to be involved
Did he represent himself? It would be embarrassing if he was representing himself. It would be completely fucked if a lawyer forgot to do that.
>Pro-GPL troll also defends feminism
Who would have thought.
Reverse engineering or analysis of the behavior of the program. That's usually how GPL violations are discovered.
Apparently he did do something
sfconservancy.org
How much do you have to be able to prove in order to be able to get a subpoena of the source code used by a company?
But it apparently wasn't enough for German court.
This relies on availability of source code.
If source code isn't available, it appears it is close to impossible to prove GPL violation.
The court says they don't even know what parts of linux he's saying they copied. He fucked up hard in his complaint. It's like a DA taking you to court for murder and forgetting to name the victim. Yeah you've got some neat stuff showing a bullet was fired in to some meat from a gun the defendent owns but you haven't proven it was human meat or that the person is indeed dead.
I don't really know, it's probably very difficult to prove. The similarities between your code and the allegedly infringing code likely have to be pretty damning for you to be able to win a case. I guess stuff like similar overall structure of the binary and similar line count of the portion in question.
>Changed And Added Lines Create an Incomplete Picture
>"I own the copyright on deleting"
kek
THE PROBLEM IS THEY DID NOT EVEN BRING A WITNESS. they just went like can't your honor just google this matter lol how do courts work
> it's probably very difficult to prove
That's the thing. You don't need proof to get a subpeona for evidence. If you did you wouldn't need the evidence because you already have proof.
It has to be possible. Linksys was forced to open source their code for the wrt54 routers based on what someone found in the firmware.
>It has to be possible. Linksys was forced to open source their code for the wrt54 routers based on what someone found in the firmware.
Which court was in charge of that case?
They apparently discovered the infringement while studying a portion of the source code that was open sourced by VMware and then looking for things in common. If these numbers are accurate some of these things are way too close to be a mere coincidence so someone in all likeliness copy-pasted from someone but the question is did the person who brought VMware to court write the code himself of did they see it posted somewhere and VMware also found that same code?
GPL is communism. Use BSD or MIT if you're not a cuck.
...
>copy a copyrighted image
>crop it
>wow, it's still copyrighted!
Mona Lisa isn't copyrighted
>GPL written by a literal jew
>Using a literal jewish license
>GPL cuck calling BSD and MIT a jew license
You can't make this up!
>muh joos.
even Sup Forums finally kicked stromfags out. it's time for you to go back >>>/stormfront/
I'll go when you jump into an oven shlomo
You don't own the copyright to deleting, the deleted portion, or the portion remaining. It has no place in a copyright claim. Somebody sperged out there. "What, this is only about his additions? Deletions are contributions too! Let me add that part in to show everyone I know my stuff!" But it doesn't belong since you can't charge someone with copying your deletions.
>"We see you illegally uploaded this song. You later deleted it too. Well we deleted a copy on our side first. We own the copyright to the song and to deleting it!"
You can only charge them for code they stole, not code they didn't.
>even Sup Forums finally kicked stormfags out
Eh? So what are the kids up to now?
BSD and MIT are literally for cucks.
"I made this software free and available to everyone, feel free to take it and make money off my hard earned work!"
That analogy only works if your wife is your daughter.
>implying
>this has very little influence on the GPL
I think it's a big deal.
This is why the GNU Foundation was asking people to not only put their work under GPL, but also assign their copyrights to the GNU Foundation: so a single entity would have standing to sue for any copyright violation of any product under the GNU umbrella.
If you find a company is violating the GPL, altering the source and making binary blobs without distributing the source code for the modifications, but the GPLed project was made by hundreds of contributors who each retained their own copyright, each would only have standing if the copyright on his specific contribution was violated.
So you don't just need evidence that copyright was violated for the work you contributed to, you need evidence that copyright was violated for your specific contribution to the work. If the alterations removed your work, then your copyright hasn't been violated.
GPL and communism are basically polar opposites. GPL protects your right to personal ownership, you can actually own your copy of a piece of software. Personal ownership is not allowed under communism.
>Who would have thought.
everyone browsing Sup Forums. Feminist want you to think that they are hated by everyone while in reality no one gives a shit about them and just wants the job done.
so why did the russians reject the idea of linux/gpl/free software because they said it was too much like communism?
yep revolution os, quote by michael tiemann at approx 1:04:00
>Having read the article, this has very little influence on the GPL. The only thing they're stating is that the muppet who brought this to court doesn't have his shit together and there can't be a ruling in his favour until he does.
It's a very real threat to the GPL if enforcing it is so complicated and expensive that nobody can do it