Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Perl Foundation statement on the U.S. Court of Appeals Decision on Jacobsen v. K

posted by brian_d_foy on 2008.08.16 1:41   Printer-friendly

The following statement was written by Roberta Cairney, council to The Perl Foundation. The Perl Foundation has participated in the Jacobsen v. Katzer as the license in dispute, Artistic 1.0, is very popular in the Perl community and is one of the licenses under which Perl 5 is released.

A decision was rendered on August 13, 2008 in the Jacobsen v. Katzer case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that wholeheartedly supports the enforceability of Artistic License 1.0, and open source, free software, and public licenses generally. This is one of the first U.S. cases to consider open source issues.

We've reported on this case before:

The opinion is worth reading. As we mentioned in March, The Perl Foundation was part of a coalition of groups that collaborated on a "friend of the court" brief that was filed to support the appeal. Allison Randal, and Roberta Cairney, who also helped out with Artistic 2.0, worked on the brief with Chris Ridder, from Creative Commons, and representatives of several other open source, free software, and public license organizations.

At the risk of over-generalizing a complex legal record, the appeal was from a lower court ruling to the effect that -- because the plaintiff made his software available free-of-charge under Artistic 1.0 -- he was not entitled to copyright infringement remedies when the license was violated. This was a potentially dire result, because copyright law offers strong and effective remedies like injunctions, and contract law remedies are comparatively meager and often ineffectual.

The opinion describes in strong and clear language the scope and diversity of the open source community and its key role in innovation and technology development. It concludes that significant economic benefits result from open source licenses, despite that fact that no money changes hands.

In reversing the lower court's decision, the appellate court does a close and respectful analysis of Larry Wall's original Artistic License 1.0, and ends with an unequivocal statement confirming the availability of copyright remedies and the importance of enforcing the license:

"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."

As Roberta notes, "Given the court's powerful endorsement of the structure and language of Artistic 1.0, we'll probably see more projects adopting Artistic Licenses, and more new licenses emulating them."

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The mere idea that any court got it wrong once scares me. What is the international view on the licenses? What is to come if other countries in the world decide to interpret this their own incorrect way?