This case differs from ordinary computer software copyright infringement cases in that it involves the defense of open source software agreements ("GNU General Public License Agreement", GPL V3). With open source protocols in computer softwareDevelopmentThe important influence in the process continues to be highlighted. The distribution of burden of proof, fact determination, and legal analysis in the trial process of the court has a high reference value for the trial practice of similar cases, and at the same time, how domestic developers can legally use open source resources. How to properly safeguard the rights of self-developed software also has important guiding significance.
The original told that the two defendants passed their officialwebsiteThe software called APICloud was published to plagiarize the source code of the three plug-ins (code input function plug-in, real-running plug-in, and side-by-side plug-in plug-in) of the HBuilder development tool software that the plaintiff enjoyed. The actions of the two defendants infringed on the plaintiff's right to copy, modify and disseminate information on the HBuilder software.
The two defendants argued that the plaintiff's HBuilder software is an open source software branch under the GPL agreement, and the defendant has the right to use its code and build derivative software products under the GPL agreement license. The two defendants' behavior does not infringe the plaintiff's copyright without the permission of the plaintiff.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court heard that:
1. The three plug-ins of the plaintiff are independent computer software works, and the plaintiff has the copyright to it.
The code input method function plug-in, the real-machine operation function plug-in, and the edge plug-in function plug-in are included in the three plug-ins, although they are included in the HBuilder software involved, but itsCan all run independentlyThe plaintiff has registered copyrights for each of the above three plug-ins. Therefore, the plaintiff is an independent computer software product. The plaintiff enjoys copyright and has the right to prohibit others from using the software in the manner prescribed in Article 10 of the Copyright Law.
2. The acts of the two defendants constituted the reproduction and modification of the plaintiff’s software and infringed the plaintiff’s right to disseminate information on the Internet.
After being accused of infringing software and plaintiff softwareSource identity identificationThe court found that: 1. Only a small part of the source code of the plaintiff's software is the same as that of a third party or open source software; 2. The infringed software copies most of the plaintiff's software, and only a small part of it is modified. The behavior falls into the protection scope of the plaintiff's right to copy and modify. And the two defendants provided the accused infringing website for users to download on their website, and this behavior falls into the protection scope of the information network communication right.
Third, the plaintiff's software does not belong to the open source derivative products or revisions in the GPL agreement, and the defendant’s defenses are not valid
First, the plaintiff's three plug-insAre in separate folders, in this folderThere is no GPL open source agreement file. Second, the HBuilder softwareThere is no GPL open source protocol file in the root directory. Therefore, the three plug-ins are not subject to the GPL agreement, and do not belong to the derivative products or revisions that are referred to in the agreement, and the two defendants do not believe that the plaintiff software is a relevant defense of open source software.
The HBuilder provided by the plaintiff to the user is not an .exe installation file, but a .zip package that aggregates several user-developed common software. The files involved in this package and their framework are shown in the figure below. among them:
Eclipse is a Java-based extensible development platform. It is itself a framework and a set of services for building the development environment through plug-in components. Each plug-in developed for the Eclipse platform is an independent piece of software that runs on that platform.
The plaintiff developed a number of feature plug-ins for Eclipse. The most important ones are: code input method, real machine running, and three independent plug-ins.
Aptana is also a collection of plug-ins developed by third-party Appcelerator for Eclipse, and individual plug-ins are subject to the Open Source Agreement GPL V3.
The defendant claimed that the GPL V3 protocol included in Aptana's individual plug-ins was strictly "infectious." The plaintiff must be open sourced when it was infected by the plaintiff when it incorporated the HBuilder package into its own package. Can this logic be established in the end?
Returning to the GPL open source agreement itself, as the origin of the free software movement, emphasizing that developers voluntarily share R&D results through licensing agreements, ensuring that open source code is not used by closed sources, rather than usurping others. R & D results tools. The terms of its agreement fully respected the developer's copyright, and it also clearly explained the potentially controversial situation in order to ensure the equality, rationality and effectiveness of the agreement. From the perspective of the GPL agreement, its open source restrictions for subsequent developers to publish programs are primarily directed at a work based on the Program or modifications. Combining the description of “aggregate” software in the last part of Article 5 (below), the plaintiff believes that the nature of the open source agreement is that the developer will perform the subsequent modification and release of the original program (that is, the downstream software derived from the original program). The agreement does not restrict open source software or third-party software that has no derivative relationship, nor does it have the facts and legal basis for limiting the latter two.
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution Medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to Apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
When a protected program is aggregated with other independent programs on the same storage or distribution medium, it may be called an "aggregate."As long as these separate programs are not derived from protected programs in nature, the form of aggregation does not generate a larger program., and the overall copyright in the form of a polymer does not limit the access and legal rights of the polymeric user to individual program licenses.The inclusion of a protected program in an aggregate does not make this license applicable to other programs in the aggregate.
In this case, the HBuilder package includes C code, jre, Eclipse platform framework, Aptana plug-in, plaintiff's self-developed plug-in, and other third-party plug-ins (easily accessible from the Eclipse software market). According to the Defendant's "comprehensive infection" logic, as long as the open source software under the GPL agreement is aggregated in the same software package, not only the plaintiff three plugins, but also the Eclipse platform framework and third party plugins all need to be open source - then as long as known Commercial software is packaged and released with any GPL open source code. There is no open source software available in the world.
In fact, unlike a traditional software that corresponds to a license, more software in the current market environment—especially software that uses open source code—is mostly distributed as a software aggregate, which is not a single package. A complete program, but rather an "aggregate" such as the plaintiff's software package, involving a large number of individual softwares, and all individual softwares in the "aggregate" have separate authorizations. Safeguarding these independent softwares from being "not forcibly contaminated" is not only a matter of respect for the party's independent intentions, but also that open source software can, to a certain extent, eliminate developers' concerns about forced open source and is widely adopted, promoted, and extended to the public. A foundation.
The judicial determination and the amount of compensation for this case are undoubtedly an important reassurance to the innovative developers including the plaintiff: they must be fully understood beforehand in the development process in the current stage of decompiling and plagiarism. Studying different open source agreement terms, choosing open source agreements that are in line with the development expectations, and honestly observing them, can completely maintain confidence in the effective maintenance of their own rights and interests, and rush to rush on the road of independent research and development.
Attached to the judgment can be viewedoriginal.