The federal appeals court in the US has ruled that copyright laws apply to open-source software, regardless of whether the software is distributed free of charge. That could mean much higher penalties for people ripping-off open-source developers.

The case in question involved software for the chips used in model trains. It was developed by Robert Jacobson, who gave away his software for free downloading. He later sued Matthew Katzer for copying the software and using it in his own firm’s products (pictured), despite such actions being banned by the terms Jacobson put upon the downloads.

The terms were part of the Artistic License, a commonly used license for distributing free software which first appeared with the Perl programming language.

Katzer didn’t deny copying the software, but a California court which initially heard the case ruled that though he broke the terms of the licence, he hadn’t fallen foul of copyright laws. Instead, it ruled Jacobson’s only comeback was to bring a civil suit for breach of contract.

The federal court overturned this decision and said copyright laws still applied to ‘free’ licences. The big difference is that people bringing cases under copyright laws can demand damages merely for the fact their copyright has been breached, rather than having to prove specific losses.

The judges in the case pointed out that “open source licensing has become a widely used method of creative collaboration that serves to advance the arts and sciences in a manner and at a pace that few could have imagined just a few decades ago.

And they reiterated that such projects don’t escape basic legal principles simply because the end result isn’t bought and sold: “There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties.”

Related:

Entry was posted on Friday, August 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm under Legal, Open source.

Read more entries by John Lister.
Stumble It!