发现 GPL 违规怎么办？多种法律救济可用
GPL

> 
> 提要：最近一系列的法律案件为解决 GPL 违规问题提供了一些启示。 
> 
> 
> 


![](/data/attachment/album/201803/29/133055dr0c9yzy77s319cs.png)


2017 年 4 月份，位于加州的一家美国联邦法院在 [Artifex Software, Inc. 诉 Hancom, Inc. 案](/article-8522-1.html)（2017 WL 1477373）中做出了一项[裁决](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1)，为针对 GPL 违规的救济方式提供了新的视角。令人遗憾的是，这起案件由于对法院裁定 GPL 是合同的一些错误解释而重新引发了已持续数十年之久的 GPL 究竟是许可还是合同的[辩论](/article-8971-1.html)。在研究救济措施的新进展之前，值得我们去重新审视为什么这种争辩依然存在。


当您考虑针对 GPL 违规的救济措施时，您可能会想到针对版权侵权主张权利，这种法律原则似乎适用于强制执行 GPL，因为版权侵权最有力的救济措施之一就是<ruby> 禁令救济 <rp>  （ </rp> <rt>  injunctive relief </rt> <rp>  ） </rp></ruby>。对于 GPL 违规，这通常意味着防止侵权者分发违规软件。版权法还规定了实际和法定损害赔偿。相反，合同违约的救济措施相当有限，尽管也存在其他形式的救济，但通常只用于使一方完全避免造成损失。正如 Hancom 公司在其简易判决动议（虽然[被法院驳回](/article-8971-1.html)）中所指出的，对于 GPL 软件来说，可能很难进行损失计算。


关于为什么 GPL 应该被视为许可而不是合同，已经有很多想法提出。例如，自由软件基金会（FSF）[一直认为](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html) [GPL 不是合同](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html)。合同和开源许可证之间的这种区别可以在协议的性质中找到：合同是契约或承诺的交换，而开源许可证则给出了使用许可证的条件。在 Jacobsen 诉 Katzer 案（535 F.3d 1373）中，法院支持这种看法，认为<ruby> 艺术许可协议 <rp>  （ </rp> <rt>  Artistic License </rt> <rp>  ） </rp></ruby>列举了条件而非契约。有鉴于此，违反许可证将导致强有力救济措施的观点让许可/合同争辩陷入平息。


我们再来看 Artifex，该公司针对许可违规（根据上述分析）以及合同违约均提出了权利主张。有很多文章讨论了法院对 GPL 构成合同的分析，其中也包括 FSF [发表的文章](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/motion-to-dismiss-denied-in-recent-gnu-gpl-case)，所以本文不会详细讨论这个看法。总结其分析结果，法院认为创建合同的要素（要约、接受和对价）得到了充分的陈述，其中大部分聚焦在对 GPL 的接受上（如果 GPL 被视为合同）。法院试图寻找 GPL 之外的接受证据，在 Hancom 制作的 Ghostscript 在线描述资料以及该产品的双重许可性质中已经找到。因此，法院认定可能存在合同。


在这里，我们关注的是法院合同分析之外的两个问题。首先，注意上面使用的“可能”这个词的重要性。Artifex 的判令来自于一个驳回动议，只评估 Artifex 主张的合理性而非优劣。法院对此事没有进一步的法律分析。所以如果这一点已经被提起诉讼，它可能会或可能没有找到合法的合同。既然这一点在第二个动议中已经得到了承认，并且[各方私下达成了和解](https://www.artifex.com/news/artifex-and-hancom-reach-settlement-over-ghostscript-open-source-dispute/)，所以我们不知道这个争议会如何结束。


其次，尽管可能的合同权利主要很重要，但还有更有趣的第二个问题。在 Artifex 案之前，版权和合同的讨论也被搁置，其中一部分原因是由于<ruby> 优先适用 <rp>  （ </rp> <rt>  preemption </rt> <rp>  ） </rp></ruby>问题。当美国国会颁布<ruby> 版权法 <rp>  （ </rp> <rt>  Copyright Act </rt> <rp>  ） </rp></ruby>时，它取代了任何与其不一致的州法的权利主张，例如有的州法对等同权提供版权保护。如果州法的权利主张（例如违约）涉及与“（联邦）版权法本质上不同的权利”（引自 Artifex），则可以避免优先适用的问题。在确定是否存在优先适用问题时，法院会询问州法的权利主张是否有超出联邦版权法的“额外要素”。


在争论一个“额外要素”来证实其合同违约的权利主张时，Artifex 引用了 [Versata Software, Inc. 诉 Ameriprise Fin., Inc. 案](https://opensource.com/law/14/12/gplv2-court-decisions-versata)（2014 WL 950065）中版权法自身没有强加任何开源义务的主张。因此，任何“额外要素”（例如开源责任）都不在联邦版权法的范围之内，从而使得违反了州法中的合同权利主张变得可能。因此，Artifex 提出了这一概念以及与域外侵权有关的另一个概念（不在本文讨论范围），法院认定合同违约权利主张可以继续进行，同时允许进行合同法和版权法意义下的可能的救济，且不能对其中任意一个权利主张构成减损。


这一案件的最终效应仍有待观察，但结果是为针对 GPL 违规行为通过版权侵权和合同违约来实施多种救济措施铺平了道路。




---


作者简介：Chris Gillespie 就职于红帽公司（Redhat）。


译者简介：薛亮，集慧智佳知识产权咨询公司高级咨询师，擅长专利检索、专利分析、竞争对手跟踪、FTO 分析、开源软件知识产权风险分析，致力于为互联网企业、高科技公司提供知识产权咨询服务。


![](/data/attachment/album/201803/29/133023h9jszpat8palyppm.png)


OK
Last April, a federal court in California [handed down a decision](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1) in *Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.,* 2017 WL 1477373 (N.D. Cal. 2017), adding a new perspective to the forms of remedies available for breach of the General Public License (GPL). Sadly, this case reignited the decades-old license/contract debate due to some misinterpretations under which the court ruled the GPL to be a contract. Before looking at the remedy developments, it’s worth reviewing why the license debate even exists.

When you think about remedies for a GPL breach, you probably imagine a claim for copyright infringement. This doctrine of law seems fit to enforce the GPL, as one of the most powerful remedies available for copyright infringement is injunctive relief. For GPL violations, this usually means preventing the infringer from distributing noncompliant software. Copyright law also provides for actual and statutory damages. In contrast, remedies for breach of contract are rather limited, typically only used to make a party whole from resulting losses, although other forms of recovery may be possible. For GPL software, loss calculations may be difficult, as Hancom pointed out in their motion for summary judgment (though this was rejected by the court).

There have been a number of ideas advanced as to why the GPL should be viewed as a license as opposed to a contract. For example, the Free Software Foundation [has long held that](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html) the [GPL is not a contract](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html). This distinction between a contract and an open source license can be found in the nature of the agreement: a contract is an exchange of *promises* or *covenants*, whereas an open source license gives *conditions* upon which the license may be used. Courts have supported this idea, with *Jacobsen v. Katzer*, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008), holding that the Artistic License enumerated conditions and not covenants. In light of this, the license/contract debate has quieted with the idea that a breach of license is a viable cause of action with powerful remedies.

This leads us to *Artifex*, where a claim was brought for *both* breach of license (to be expected based on the above), *as well as* breach of contract. There have been a number of articles discussing the court’s contract analysis, including by the [FSF](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/motion-to-dismiss-denied-in-recent-gnu-gpl-case), so this article will not discuss this idea at length. To summarize the analysis, the court found that the elements creating a contract (offer, acceptance, and consideration) were sufficiently pleaded, with most of its focus on acceptance of the GPL if viewed as a contract. The court looked for indications of acceptance outside the GPL, finding it in online representations Hancom made about Ghostscript and the dual-licensing nature of the product. Accordingly, the court found that a contract *might* exist.

Here, we are focused on two issues beyond the court’s contract analysis. First, it’s important to note the significance of the word “might” as used above. *Artifex’s* order came from a motion to dismiss, assessing only the *plausibility* of Artifex’s claim, not the *merits* of it. The court conducted no further legal analysis on the matter, so if the point had actually been litigated, it may or may not have found a legal contract. Since the point was conceded in the second motion and [the parties settled privately](https://www.artifex.com/news/artifex-and-hancom-reach-settlement-over-ghostscript-open-source-dispute/), we won’t know how the argument would have played out.

Next, though a possible contract claim is important, there is a more interesting second issue. Pre-*Artifex*, the copyright versus contract discussion was also put in abeyance in part due to preemption. When Congress enacted the Copyright Act, it superseded any inconsistent state law claims, such as state-law copyright protections for equivalent rights. Preemption could be avoided if the state law claim (e.g., breach of contract) involved rights "qualitatively different from the [federal] copyright rights" (quoting Artifex). In determining whether preemption exists, a court will ask whether the state law claim has an “extra element” that reaches outside the scope of federal copyright law.

In arguing for an “extra element” to substantiate their breach of contract claim, Artifex relied on *Versata Software, Inc. v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.*[, 2014 WL 950065 ](https://opensource.com/law/14/12/gplv2-court-decisions-versata)[(W.D. Tex. 2014](https://opensource.com/law/14/12/gplv2-court-decisions-versata)), which concluded that the copyright laws themselves do not impose any open source obligations. Thus any “extra elements” (such as an open source obligation) would be outside the scope of federal copyright law, thereby making a state-law breach of contract claim viable. Accordingly, *Artifex* advanced this concept along with another concept relating to extraterritorial infringement (which is outside the scope of this article), with the court finding that the breach of contract claim could proceed, allowing possible recovery under *both* contract and copyright law, without detracting from either claim.

The ultimate effect of this case remains to be seen, but the result paints a path of multiple remedies via copyright infringement and breach of contract for violations of the GPL.

## Comments are closed.