use Perl

Court ruling weakens Artistic License

posted by brian_d_foy on 2007.08.26 8:59   

ggoebel writes "There's a story on Slashdot about a recent court decision concerning the Artistic License. The decision interprets the violation of the Artistic License as breach of contract instead of copyright infringement, I.e., the licensor in this case was not granted an injunction on the licensee to prevent them from continuing to redistribute their code.

The slashdot article references Law & Life and the JMRI project page

Looks like we may all be thanking Allison Randal and her efforts developing the Artistic 2.0.

• Could the same thing happen under the Artistic 2.0 or Will further revisions to the Artistic license be required?
• Should adoption of Artistic 2.0 wait until Perl 5.10?

"

«  Perl 5.10 Advanced Regular Expressions | use Graph::Easy;  »

• I am curious about this...

  (Score:1)

  by sigzero (5768) on 2007.08.26 13:44 (#57204)
  ( Last Journal: 2007.08.02 10:59 )

  Why have our own when there is a plethora of others already out there? What differs in the Artistic from say the Apache?
  
  I ask because David Golden for the new Class::InsideOut changed to the Apache 2.0 from the Artistic stating:
  
  "changed to the Apache License, version 2.0; (it's clearer, relicensable, and is explicit about contributions)"
  

  [ Reply to This ]
• No decision, actually

  (Score:2)

  by brian_d_foy (44) <brian.d.foy@gmail.com> on 2007.08.26 21:46 (#57210)
  ( http://www.pair.com/~comdog/ | Last Journal: 2007.08.26 19:38 )

  The court made no decision on the Artistic License, and it wasn't a claim before the court. The court did rule on a motion to dismiss a claim of copyright infringement because the Artistic License gives everyone (i.e. non-exclusive) the right to copyright, so there can be no infringement.
  
  The court did not say that the Artistic License was a contract, either. They dismissed the claim of infringement but noted that another claim might (might!) be made under contract law instead of copyright law.
  
  The plaintiff did not adequately make his case for the claim, so it was dismissed and is no longer part of the case. However, the Artistic License was not weakened. It just wasn't relevant to ability of the court to issue an injunction.

  [ Reply to This ]
  • Re:No decision, actually by atcc (Score:1) 2007.08.29 16:09
    • Re:No decision, actually by brian_d_foy (Score:2) 2007.08.29 16:30