<s>
Open	B-License
source	I-License
license	I-License
litigation	I-License
involves	O
lawsuits	O
surrounding	O
open-source	O
licensed	O
software	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Free	B-Application
and	I-Application
open	I-Application
source	I-Application
software	I-Application
(	O
FOSS	O
)	O
is	O
distributed	O
under	O
a	O
variety	O
of	O
free-software	B-License
licenses	I-License
,	O
which	O
are	O
unique	O
among	O
other	O
software	B-License
licenses	I-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
Jacobsen	O
made	O
code	O
available	O
for	O
public	O
download	O
under	O
an	O
open	O
source	O
public	O
license	O
,	O
Artistic	B-License
License	I-License
1.0	I-License
,	O
which	O
Katzer	O
copied	O
into	O
their	O
own	O
commercial	O
software	O
products	O
without	O
recognizing	O
the	O
code	O
's	O
source	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
During	O
2007	O
to	O
2009	O
,	O
Software	O
Freedom	O
Conservancy	O
(	O
SFC	O
)	O
filed	O
a	O
series	O
of	O
copyright	O
infringement	O
lawsuits	O
on	O
behalf	O
the	O
principal	O
developers	O
of	O
BusyBox	B-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
These	O
lawsuits	O
claimed	O
violations	O
of	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
General	I-License
Public	I-License
License	I-License
Version	O
2	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
September	O
2007	O
,	O
SFC	O
filed	O
a	O
lawsuit	O
against	O
Monsoon	O
Multimedia	O
,	O
Inc	O
.	O
alleging	O
that	O
Monsoon	O
had	O
violated	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
General	I-License
Public	I-License
License	I-License
(	O
GPL	B-License
)	O
by	O
including	O
BusyBox	B-Application
code	O
in	O
products	O
without	O
releasing	O
the	O
source	O
code	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
October	O
2007	O
,	O
an	O
SFC	O
press	O
release	O
announced	O
the	O
parties	O
had	O
reached	O
a	O
financial	O
settlement	O
,	O
and	O
Monsoon	O
had	O
agreed	O
to	O
comply	O
with	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
Xterasys	O
agreed	O
to	O
stop	O
shipment	O
of	O
infringing	O
products	O
until	O
it	O
published	O
the	O
complete	O
source	O
code	O
licensed	O
under	O
GPL	B-License
and	O
to	O
pay	O
an	O
undisclosed	O
financial	O
settlement	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
December	O
2007	O
,	O
SFC	O
filed	O
a	O
lawsuit	O
against	O
Verizon	O
Communications	O
,	O
Inc	O
.	O
alleging	O
Verizon	O
had	O
violated	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
by	O
distributing	O
BusyBox	B-Application
in	O
wireless	O
routers	O
without	O
providing	O
corresponding	O
source	O
code	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
A	O
settlement	O
announced	O
in	O
March	O
2008	O
included	O
an	O
agreement	O
to	O
comply	O
with	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
and	O
to	O
pay	O
an	O
undisclosed	O
financial	O
settlement	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
December	O
2009	O
,	O
SFC	O
filed	O
a	O
lawsuit	O
against	O
14	O
companies	O
,	O
including	O
Best	O
Buy	O
,	O
Samsung	O
,	O
and	O
Westinghouse	O
alleging	O
violation	O
of	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
December	O
11	O
,	O
2008	O
,	O
the	O
Free	B-Application
Software	I-Application
Foundation	O
(	O
FSF	O
)	O
initiated	O
a	O
lawsuit	O
against	O
Cisco	O
Systems	O
in	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
District	O
Court	O
for	O
the	O
Southern	O
District	O
of	O
New	O
York	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Most	O
of	O
these	O
programs	O
were	O
licensed	O
under	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
General	I-License
Public	I-License
License	I-License
Version	O
2	O
,	O
and	O
a	O
few	O
under	O
the	O
GNU	O
Lesser	O
General	B-License
Public	I-License
License	I-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
May	O
20	O
,	O
2009	O
,	O
the	O
parties	O
announced	O
a	O
settlement	O
agreement	O
that	O
included	O
Cisco	O
appointing	O
a	O
director	O
who	O
would	O
ensure	O
Linksys	O
products	O
comply	O
with	O
free-software	B-License
licenses	I-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
McHardy	O
case	O
,	O
heard	O
by	O
the	O
Higher	O
Regional	O
Court	O
of	O
Cologne	O
(	O
OLG	O
Köln	O
)	O
,	O
Germany	O
in	O
2018	O
,	O
was	O
the	O
culmination	O
of	O
a	O
string	O
of	O
abusive	O
litigations	O
by	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
kernel	I-Operating_System
developer	O
Patrick	O
McHardy	O
concerning	O
the	O
noncompliance	O
of	O
GPL	B-License
licensing	O
terms	O
(	O
version2	O
)	O
by	O
a	O
number	O
of	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
distributors	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
For	O
about	O
a	O
decade	O
,	O
McHardy	O
had	O
contributed	O
to	O
the	O
development	O
of	O
the	O
Netfilter	B-Application
subsystem	O
that	O
provides	O
network‑related	O
operations	O
to	O
the	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
kernel	I-Operating_System
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
actual	O
devices	O
in	O
question	O
are	O
a	O
series	O
of	O
satellite	O
TVreceivers	O
manufactured	O
by	O
Geniatech	O
that	O
employ	O
the	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
operating	B-General_Concept
system	I-General_Concept
.	O
</s>
<s>
Specifically	O
,	O
the	O
Cologne	O
court	O
advanced	O
the	O
view	O
that	O
McHardy	O
is	O
not	O
a	O
coauthor	O
of	O
the	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
kernel	I-Operating_System
nor	O
of	O
Netfilter	B-Application
and	O
that	O
although	O
McHardy	O
might	O
have	O
rights	O
in	O
derivative	O
works	O
,	O
he	O
did	O
not	O
provide	O
sufficient	O
evidence	O
of	O
the	O
copyrightability	O
of	O
his	O
contributions	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
McHardy	O
's	O
strategy	O
was	O
to	O
approach	O
a	O
commercial	O
entity	O
with	O
minor	O
GPL	B-License
violations	O
such	O
as	O
attribution	O
deficiencies	O
,	O
lack	O
or	O
inadequacy	O
of	O
a	O
written	O
offer	O
for	O
source	O
code	O
,	O
or	O
an	O
EULA	O
conflicting	O
with	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
license	I-License
for	O
the	O
sole	O
purpose	O
of	O
obtaining	O
an	O
undertaking	O
to	O
cease	O
and	O
desist	O
from	O
further	O
infringing	O
activity	O
and	O
including	O
a	O
clause	O
imposing	O
contractual	O
payments	O
on	O
any	O
future	O
infringements	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
early2022	O
,	O
the	O
Netfilter	B-Application
project	O
announced	O
that	O
a	O
legallybinding	O
settlement	O
between	O
Patrick	O
McHardy	O
and	O
three	O
members	O
of	O
it	O
coreteam	O
had	O
been	O
reached	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Following	O
Jacobsen	O
v	O
Katzer	O
,	O
Artifex	O
Software	O
Inc	O
v	O
Hancom	O
Inc	O
.	O
in	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
District	O
Court	O
for	O
the	O
Northern	O
District	O
of	O
California	O
centered	O
on	O
breaches	O
of	O
open	O
source	O
software	B-License
licenses	I-License
,	O
including	O
breaches	O
of	O
contract	O
as	O
well	O
as	O
infringements	O
of	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Artifex	O
is	O
the	O
exclusive	O
licensor	O
of	O
the	O
software	O
product	O
,	O
Ghostscript	O
,	O
under	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
General	I-License
Public	I-License
License	I-License
Version	O
3	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
provides	O
that	O
the	O
Ghostscript	O
user	O
agrees	O
to	O
its	O
terms	O
,	O
thus	O
creating	O
a	O
contract	O
,	O
unless	O
the	O
user	O
obtains	O
a	O
commercial	O
license	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Artifex	O
alleged	O
that	O
Hancom	O
did	O
not	O
obtain	O
a	O
commercial	O
license	O
to	O
use	O
Ghostscript	O
,	O
and	O
claimed	O
that	O
its	O
use	O
of	O
Ghostscript	O
was	O
licensed	O
under	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
This	O
case	O
establishes	O
that	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
constitutes	O
a	O
contract	O
between	O
the	O
owner	O
of	O
the	O
source	O
code	O
and	O
the	O
person/company	O
that	O
uses	O
that	O
code	O
through	O
the	O
license	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Eben	O
Moglen	O
,	O
the	O
counsel	O
for	O
the	O
Free	B-Application
Software	I-Application
Foundation	O
(	O
FSF	O
)	O
,	O
released	O
a	O
statement	O
regarding	O
the	O
lawsuit	O
:	O
As	O
to	O
its	O
trade	O
secret	O
claims	O
,	O
which	O
are	O
the	O
only	O
claims	O
actually	O
made	O
in	O
the	O
lawsuit	O
against	O
IBM	O
,	O
there	O
remains	O
the	O
simple	O
fact	O
that	O
SCO	O
has	O
for	O
years	O
distributed	O
copies	O
of	O
the	O
kernel	B-Operating_System
,	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
,	O
as	O
part	O
of	O
GNU/Linux	O
free	B-Application
software	I-Application
systems	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
 [ ... ] 	O
There	O
is	O
simply	O
no	O
legal	O
basis	O
on	O
which	O
SCO	O
can	O
claim	O
trade	O
secret	O
liability	O
in	O
others	O
for	O
material	O
it	O
widely	O
and	O
commercially	O
published	O
itself	O
under	O
[	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
Version	O
2 ]	O
that	O
specifically	O
permitted	O
unrestricted	O
copying	O
and	O
distribution	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
May	O
14	O
,	O
2003	O
,	O
SCO	O
Group	O
announced	O
they	O
would	O
no	O
longer	O
distribute	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
.	O
</s>
<s>
SCO	O
said	O
it	O
would	O
"	O
continue	O
to	O
support	O
existing	O
SCO	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
and	O
Caldera	O
OpenLinux	O
customers	O
and	O
hold	O
them	O
harmless	O
from	O
any	O
SCO	O
intellectual	O
property	O
issues	O
regarding	O
SCO	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
and	O
Caldera	O
OpenLinux	O
products	O
"	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
SCO	O
claimed	O
and	O
maintains	O
that	O
their	O
employees	O
used	O
code	O
licensed	O
under	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
without	O
proper	O
authorization	O
,	O
and	O
thus	O
the	O
license	O
terms	O
were	O
not	O
legally	O
binding	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
For	O
code	O
to	O
be	O
licensed	O
under	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
,	O
the	O
copyright	O
owner	O
must	O
place	O
a	O
GPL	B-License
notice	O
before	O
the	O
code	O
,	O
and	O
SCO	O
did	O
not	O
add	O
the	O
notices	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
open	O
source	O
community	O
has	O
an	O
interest	O
in	O
limiting	O
the	O
reach	O
of	O
patent	O
law	O
so	O
that	O
free	B-Application
software	I-Application
development	I-Application
is	O
not	O
impeded	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
Wallace	O
v	O
.	O
International	O
Business	O
Machines	O
Corp.	O
,	O
the	O
U.S.	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
for	O
the	O
Seventh	O
Circuit	O
determined	O
that	O
under	O
U.S.	O
law	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
Version	O
2	O
did	O
not	O
contravene	O
federal	O
antitrust	O
laws	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
This	O
suit	O
followed	O
a	O
dismissed	O
action	O
,	O
Wallace	O
v	O
.	O
Free	B-Application
Software	I-Application
Foundation	O
where	O
the	O
Free	B-Application
Software	I-Application
Foundation	O
(	O
FSF	O
)	O
and	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
Version	O
2	O
were	O
accused	O
of	O
price	O
fixing	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
claim	O
was	O
quickly	O
dismissed	O
because	O
of	O
the	O
increasing	O
number	O
of	O
proprietary	O
operating	B-General_Concept
systems	I-General_Concept
and	O
persisting	O
competition	O
in	O
the	O
market	O
despite	O
some	O
software	O
being	O
free	O
of	O
charge	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
So	O
it	O
was	O
confirmed	O
that	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
and	O
open	O
source	O
software	O
cannot	O
be	O
challenged	O
by	O
antitrust	O
laws	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
2018	O
,	O
Oracle	B-Application
America	I-Application
Inc	O
v	O
.	O
Google	B-Application
LLC	I-Application
was	O
adjudicated	O
by	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
Federal	O
Circuit	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
case	O
concerned	O
Google	B-Application
's	I-Application
fair	O
use	O
of	O
source	O
code	O
licensed	O
by	O
Oracle	B-Application
under	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
Version	O
2	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Google	B-Application
had	O
copied	O
37	O
Application	O
Programming	O
Interface	O
packages	O
(	O
APIs	O
)	O
to	O
aid	O
in	O
building	O
its	O
free	O
Android	O
software	O
for	O
smartphones	O
and	O
launched	O
a	O
product	O
which	O
competed	O
with	O
Oracle	B-Application
's	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Google	B-Application
used	O
the	O
APIs	O
in	O
a	O
competing	O
product	O
without	O
paying	O
a	O
licensing	O
fee	O
,	O
which	O
Oracle	B-Application
contended	O
was	O
a	O
breach	O
of	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
decided	O
in	O
favor	O
of	O
Oracle	B-Application
,	O
after	O
considering	O
the	O
applicability	O
of	O
fair	O
use	O
laws	O
,	O
and	O
found	O
Google	B-Application
failed	O
on	O
a	O
majority	O
of	O
accounts	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
2019	O
,	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
Supreme	O
Court	O
decided	O
to	O
allow	O
an	O
appeal	O
,	O
with	O
Google	B-Application
facing	O
liability	O
for	O
$9	O
billion	O
in	O
damages	O
if	O
the	O
court	O
ruled	O
against	O
them	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
April	O
2021	O
,	O
the	O
Supreme	O
Court	O
ruled	O
in	O
a	O
6	O
–	O
2	O
decision	O
that	O
Google	B-Application
's	I-Application
use	O
of	O
the	O
Java	O
APIs	O
fell	O
within	O
the	O
four	O
factors	O
of	O
fair	O
use	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
2005	O
,	O
a	O
Korean	O
case	O
in	O
the	O
Seoul	O
Central	O
District	O
Court	O
considered	O
a	O
case	O
in	O
which	O
the	O
defendants	O
used	O
code	O
developed	O
for	O
a	O
previous	O
employer	O
and	O
licensed	O
under	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
Version	O
2	O
to	O
develop	O
a	O
competing	O
product	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Court	O
ruled	O
that	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
was	O
not	O
material	O
to	O
the	O
case	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
defendants	O
argued	O
that	O
trade	O
secrets	O
are	O
impossible	O
to	O
maintain	O
while	O
complying	O
with	O
GPL	B-License
in	O
distributing	O
the	O
work	O
,	O
so	O
they	O
could	O
not	O
be	O
in	O
breach	O
of	O
trade	O
secrets	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
United	O
States	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
,	O
Eleventh	O
Circuit	O
case	O
,	O
ruled	O
"	O
Software	O
distributed	O
pursuant	O
to	O
[	O
the	O
GPL ]	O
is	O
not	O
necessarily	O
ceded	O
to	O
the	O
public	O
domain	O
"	O
(	O
dicta	O
)	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
outcome	O
case	O
in	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
District	O
Court	O
,	O
N.D.	O
Illinois	O
,	O
Eastern	O
Division	O
determined	O
that	O
though	O
Computer	O
Associate	O
's	O
source	O
code	O
contained	O
previously	O
known	O
source	O
code	O
(	O
GNU	O
Bison	O
Version	O
1.25	O
)	O
available	O
under	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
,	O
that	O
does	O
not	O
prevent	O
them	O
from	O
protecting	O
their	O
own	O
source	O
code	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
There	O
is	O
a	O
special	O
exception	O
in	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
to	O
allow	O
the	O
unrestricted	O
use	O
of	O
output	O
files	O
for	O
versions	O
of	O
Bison	O
after	O
and	O
including	O
version	O
1.25	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
April	O
2004	O
a	O
preliminary	O
injunction	O
against	O
Sitecom	O
Germany	O
was	O
granted	O
by	O
Munich	O
District	O
Court	O
after	O
Sitecom	O
refused	O
to	O
cease	O
distribution	O
of	O
Netfilter	B-Application
's	O
GPL-licensed	O
software	O
in	O
violation	O
of	O
the	O
terms	O
of	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
Version	O
2	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
court	O
's	O
ruling	O
said:Defendant	O
has	O
infringed	O
on	O
the	O
copyright	O
of	O
plaintiff	O
by	O
offering	O
the	O
software	O
'	O
netfilter/iptables	B-Application
'	O
for	O
download	O
and	O
by	O
advertising	O
its	O
distribution	O
,	O
without	O
adhering	O
to	O
the	O
license	O
conditions	O
of	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
September	O
6	O
,	O
2006	O
in	O
the	O
District	O
Court	O
of	O
Frankfurt	O
,	O
the	O
"	O
gpl-violations.org	O
 "	O
project	O
prevailed	O
against	O
D-Link	O
Germany	O
GmbH	O
regarding	O
D-Link	O
'	O
s	O
copyright-infringing	O
use	O
of	O
parts	O
of	O
the	O
Linux	B-Operating_System
Kernel	I-Operating_System
in	O
devices	O
they	O
distributed	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
judgment	O
stated	O
that	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
is	O
valid	O
,	O
legally	O
binding	O
,	O
and	O
stands	O
in	O
German	O
court	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
September	O
22	O
,	O
2009	O
the	O
Paris	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
ruled	O
that	O
Edu4	O
violated	O
the	O
terms	O
of	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
Version	O
2	O
by	O
distributing	O
binary	O
copies	O
of	O
the	O
remote	O
desktop	O
access	O
software	O
VNC	O
while	O
denying	O
users	O
access	O
to	O
its	O
corresponding	O
source	O
code	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Olivier	O
Hugot	O
,	O
attorney	O
of	O
Free	B-Application
Software	I-Application
Foundation	O
France	O
said:Companies	O
distributing	O
the	O
software	O
have	O
been	O
given	O
a	O
strong	O
reminder	O
that	O
the	O
license	O
's	O
terms	O
are	O
enforceable	O
under	O
French	O
law	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
People	O
who	O
received	O
software	O
under	O
the	O
GNU	B-License
GPL	I-License
can	O
also	O
request	O
compliance	O
,	O
since	O
the	O
license	O
grants	O
them	O
rights	O
from	O
the	O
authors	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
routers	O
they	O
distributed	O
contained	O
software	O
licensed	O
under	O
GPL	B-License
Version	O
2	O
,	O
but	O
Free/Iliad	O
did	O
n't	O
provide	O
the	O
source	O
code	O
or	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
text	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Free/Illiad	O
'	O
s	O
argued	O
that	O
the	O
routers	O
are	O
their	O
property	O
(	O
not	O
sold	O
to	O
customers	O
)	O
and	O
still	O
on	O
their	O
network	O
,	O
so	O
their	O
actions	O
did	O
not	O
amount	O
to	O
"	O
distribution	O
"	O
under	O
the	O
terms	O
of	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
Free	O
has	O
since	O
released	O
the	O
source	O
code	O
and	O
informed	O
users	O
of	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
software	O
used	O
in	O
their	O
routers	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
YouZi	O
argued	O
that	O
since	O
Hbuilder	O
is	O
based	O
on	O
a	O
GNU	O
open-source	O
module	O
known	O
as	O
"	O
Aptana	O
"	O
,	O
licensed	O
under	O
General	B-License
Public	I-License
Licence	I-License
Version	O
3	O
,	O
HBuilder	O
is	O
also	O
open	O
source	O
software	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
BIPC	O
decided	O
it	O
was	O
only	O
necessary	O
to	O
identify	O
whether	O
the	O
three	O
specific	O
plug-ins	O
used	O
by	O
YouZi	O
are	O
subject	O
to	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Aptana-GPL	O
Exception	O
License	O
stipulates	O
that	O
identifiable	O
sections	O
of	O
the	O
modified	O
version	O
can	O
be	O
seen	O
as	O
independent	O
works	O
and	O
would	O
not	O
fall	O
under	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
Without	O
further	O
examination	O
of	O
the	O
open	O
source	O
licences	O
,	O
the	O
court	O
ruled	O
that	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
did	O
not	O
apply	O
to	O
the	O
three	O
plug-ins	O
and	O
therefore	O
Hbuilder	O
could	O
not	O
be	O
considered	O
a	O
derivative	O
work	O
licensed	O
under	O
the	O
GPL	B-License
.	O
</s>
