> Importantly, the new code in the infringing product is still copyrighted, and that copyright is owned by the person who wrote that code even though they also violated the GPL license of other code.
I thought the "one GPL file touched these other files and made them all GPL too!" vibe coming off the thread felt a bit weird! But I'd read something about the GPL being a viral license somewhere so wasn't quite twigging that no that's not what that means. Thanks.
I've incidentally been looking for a good dense steak to chew through on software licensing that's maybe dense but leaves me with a properly calibrated mental model that lets me answer simple non-normative questions without pining for counsel :). Something with good signal-to-noise ratio that eschews circumstantial drama to focus on theory and how things (have) play(ed) out in practice in nuanced and unintuitive situations. I wonder if something like this even exists...?
"Viral" just means that if you use GPL code, you need to release derivative work as GPL as well. If you refuse to do so, you are in violation of the license, but you still retain copyright on your code.
Microsoft FUD morphed that into "if you use GPL code, all other code you write automatically becomes GPL (and you lose copyright)", which is wrong.
I would suggest finding a law professor who writes about open source and asking them if they recommend any casebooks (voluminous textbook full of long excerpts from judicial opinions) or hornbooks (more succinct summaries of an area of law, like textbooks in other fields of study) on open source and/or software copyright generally.
To really get the issues discussed in this sub-thread and at issue in the SFC/Vizio case, you would want to know about contract remedies, privity of contract, third party beneficiaries, license agreements as a special species of contract, standing, and maybe some other areas too. But I think software engineers are actually well suited to understanding law, especially if they also have an innate interest in political/moral philosophical questions.
Wow, thanks very much for this info. I was honestly just chucking the question out there out of general curiosity - TIL what I was actually asking for :'), once I get the lid back on the mental vertigo I'm definitely going to be following up on this in the long term. I've been wanting to learn more about the subject for a while.
I thought the "one GPL file touched these other files and made them all GPL too!" vibe coming off the thread felt a bit weird! But I'd read something about the GPL being a viral license somewhere so wasn't quite twigging that no that's not what that means. Thanks.
I've incidentally been looking for a good dense steak to chew through on software licensing that's maybe dense but leaves me with a properly calibrated mental model that lets me answer simple non-normative questions without pining for counsel :). Something with good signal-to-noise ratio that eschews circumstantial drama to focus on theory and how things (have) play(ed) out in practice in nuanced and unintuitive situations. I wonder if something like this even exists...?