Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimIvey]

... win?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129
[TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/4tyv6]

Hard to say.  The GPL was involved, but I don't see where its provisions were used to determine the result.  It looks to me more like the issue is about ownership of copyrights and what copyrights cover rather than the specific terms of the GPL (GNU Public License -- one of a number of licenses under which Open Source Software is distributed).

As I read it, the main issue was that the SAE was claiming ownership of software written by another on the notion that the software complied with the SAE's standards -- that SAE had provided the idea of which the software was an expression.  Anyone familiar with copyright law knows that's a big no-no.  The idea/expression dichotomy is a big part of copyright law -- ideas are not copyrightable but expressions of the idea are.

The fact that the software developers released the software under the GPL seemed to me to be a bit ancillary.  Even if the software was maintained as proprietary to the software developing company, I don't think SAE would have had much of a chance at successfully claiming ownership, from what little I know of the facts.

I suppose it's a win for the GPL in the sense that the software is still available under the GPL and is still part of the universe of OSS.  But I was hoping for more substantive evaluation of the merits of the terms of the GPL itself.  I didn't see that.

Regards.