Open Source Advocates Hail Appeals Court Ruling

Free software advocates are praising a federal appeals ruling that allows greater protection for open-source software against copyright infringement.

The case concerns a company, Kam Industries, that downloaded open-source code for use in a product that programs the chips that control model trains.

The code used was written by Robert Jacobsen, who released it under an Artistic License, which requires other people who use it to give credit to the author, identify the original source of the files and describe how the new code has been changed, among other conditions.

Link: Read the rest @ PC World

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Smartphone Is Expected via Google

Next Story

1st AutoRun Express 3.0

10 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If you release your source code and let it go as open-source you can expect some people will use it, that's why I don't really support the verdict.

In most cases, there is nothing wrong with people using it. In some special cases, you can even change it and then re-sell it as your own product AS LONG as you abide by the terms of the EULA. In this case, the EULA specified that any re-distribution should give credit to the original author AND contain the original source code. What so hard about that?

Agreed with Shadrack.

Just because I allow people to see my source code and even use it, doesn't mean that I relinquish my copyright claims to it, and lose all control over the code I created.

Keep in mind that this is the Ninth Circuit. They have elevator problems. I agree with the ruling, but wouldn't get my hopes up that this set any kind of a precedent.

The code that we create can be released under many kind of licenses, or none at all. If one person releases it under any of them, any user of the code must comply with its terms.

This is what the company failed to do.

Ooops, wrong reply. Meant for post #4.

This is a good win. Good for him for fighting it. All that Kam Industries had to do is give the original author credit and probably explain in the EULA for the software that it can be freely distributed (maybe include the source code of the modification as well).

(Danielx714 said @ #1)
good, glad to hear it, with this and the RIAA losing cases, I am glad to see how the courts are leaning

I think we're starting to see judges that have actually used a computer before. The ones in the past didn't even use email. Any judge that's been on the internet for a while and has dealt with maintaining their PC will know what's right.

(toadeater said @ #1.1)

I think we're starting to see judges that have actually used a computer before. The ones in the past didn't even use email. Any judge that's been on the internet for a while and has dealt with maintaining their PC will know what's right.

I wouldn't say they'd immediately know what's right, but they sure as **** have a better chance of knowing if they're a little bit informed.