Jeg sakser fra nyhetsbrevet som sendes ut fra JRMI:


(This is an update on the JMRI legal case.  You can also find this at
<http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/updates.html#2007-08-17>,
along with links to individual documents, etc, in case you want to
forward a link to somebody)

On August 17th, the Court ruled on the motions from the last hearing.
We"re still digesting some of the ruling:

<http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/158.pdf>

We won on perhaps the most important issue, but lost on several
others. Perhaps the most striking part was the Court"s decision to
deny our request for a preliminary injunction. You can read the
reasoning on pages 8 through 11 of the ruling (link above), but the
conclusion is:

>The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution
>does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants" alleged
>violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a
>breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability
>for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
>Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court
>finds that Plaintiff"s claim properly sounds in contract and
>therefore Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating
>likelihood of success on the merit of his copyright claim and is
>therefore not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm.

This is very troubling, both for us and for Open Source efforts in general.

*) The facts in this case are the strongest imaginable: Katzer
admitted copying the JMRI files, admitted removing their copyright
notifications, admitted being aware that JMRI was distributed under
license, admitted redistribution of the modified version, and
admitted doing it without attribution. This kind of problem could
happen to any open source project.

*) The ruling rests on the Court"s uncertainty that an Open Source
organization will _ever_ be able to enforce copyright on software
that can be downloaded from the Internet. The Court"s reading of the
law in this area expressed uncertainty, but in the end decided that
our "claim properly sounds in contract", and therefore denied the
preliminary injunction.

*) This ruling is particularly troublesome, because the logic it
contains can be used for any project which freely distributes
software using something that can be construed as a "nonexclusive
license".

*) We are carefully considering an appeal of this decision. As long
as the Court"s logic stands, we can"t enforce our copyrights.
Further, we need to get the strongest possible decision from an
appeal, because the "uncertain law" will be clarified by that appeal
and will apply to other cases in the future.  We"re going to need
help to do that, and we"re actively looking for that help.


We"re still working through the implications of the other parts of
the decision,  and will post another update when we have information
we can share.


Edited by einjen - 22 august 2007 at 21:39

Siste, og svært gledelig utvikling angående JMRI (jeg ble klar over dette fordi det stod en artikkel om saken i International Herald Tribune):

August 13, 2008 Copyright Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its decision in our copyright appeal, and it"s a ringing victory for JMRI and open-source in general.

In summary, the Court decided:

• The Artistic License does put valid conditions on the use of licensed software.
• Those conditions limit the copyright license, and actions outside them are infringement.
• An injunction to stop that infringement is a suitable remedy.

Specifically, the Court wrote:

It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and a tracking of modifications from the original computer files. If a downloader does not assent to these conditions stated in the COPYING file, he is instructed to "make other arrangements with the Copyright Holder." Katzer/Kamind did not make any such "other arrangements." The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce. Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the copyright holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others" knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases.

The Appeals Court ruled that the lower court"s decision is "vacated and remanded". This returns the case to the District Court for Northern California, which must decide on a remaining question before issuing the injunction.

Although there will be some further proceedings, this is a huge step forward for us. The appellate judges have ruled that when Kater took JMRI files, modified them, and distributed them as if there were his own, he was violating copyright law and we can hold him accountable.

It"s also an important result for open-source software in general, because (to quote Larry Lessig"s blog):

In non-technical terms, the Court has held that free licenses such as the CC licenses set conditions (rather than covenants) on the use of copyrighted work. When you violate the condition, the license disappears, meaning you"re simply a copyright infringer. This is the theory of the GPL and all CC licenses. Put precisely, whether or not they are also contracts, they are copyright licenses which expire if you fail to abide by the terms of the license.

Important clarity and certainty by a critically important US Court.

There"s been a lot of public reaction to this ruling. Our "Articles by Others" page carries links to some of the commentary.