On 11/2/2021 2:12 PM, Dirk RIEHLE wrote:
Hello everyone,
you may have seen this
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/gpl-open-source-litigation-could-open-door-to-other-suits
or similar in which the SFC sues Vizio over GPLv2 violation from the
position of consumer protection, not from the position of an original
rights holder. According to the article, this is a novel approach, and
if it works out, would (indeed) greatly increase who has standing to sue.
When I talk to German lawyers, they tell me anyone who receives a
product that violates open source license terms can claim they
received a defective product and therefore have standing to sue. Is
that not true in the US or did I not understand the laywers I talked
to about this right? Or is there disagreement on this?
What you're suggesting is somewhat different from the Conservancy case.
The Conservancy case is a contract theory, that is, there is a breach of
contract, namely the failure to provide source code. Conservancy, as a
"third-party beneficiary" of the contract, has the right to enforce
those parts of the contract that are designed to benefit the third
party. A more familiar type of third party contract is an insurance
contract. In an insurance contract the third party, the named
beneficiary, is entitled to the insurance payout and can enforce the
contract to the extent they aren't paid as they should have been.
There probably are also consumer protection laws in the US that could be
used with the same defective product theory you mention for Germany.
These are state laws and I'm not familiar with them enough to know if
they would apply in this situation. However, I suspect that the remedy
is going to be very limited, perhaps only getting refund of the amount
paid for the defective product and maybe some small penalty.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
[email protected]
+1 919-800-8033
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
[email protected]
+1 919-800-8033
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
