diff --git a/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md b/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md index 52489e5..013ea1f 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md +++ b/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md @@ -3,6 +3,10 @@ These instructions apply throughout `paralegal-research/`. Read them before doing legal research for this repository. +Read `TAXONOMY.md` before assigning metadata or describing the weight of an +authority. For systematic research, use `templates/SEARCH-LOG.md` and preserve +negative searches and unresolved leads. + ## 1. Route the question before researching Normalize the request into five fields: @@ -16,7 +20,9 @@ Normalize the request into five fields: specific performance, evidence, or procedure; - **time/version** — relevant license version, product release, and date. -Then read `INDEX.md` and search before creating anything. Start with: +Then read `ANSWERING-GUIDE.md`, route through `PROPOSITION-MAP.md`, and +check `INDEX.md` plus `authorities/INDEX.md` before creating anything. Read +`COVERAGE.md` when the question touches a known gap. Start with: ```console rg -n -i "|||" paralegal-research LICENSE LEGAL-REVIEW.md README.md @@ -102,7 +108,8 @@ Every completed research pass must: 1. update the canonical matter rather than only a chat or issue; 2. add or update authority cards where warranted; -3. update `INDEX.md` in the same change; +3. update `INDEX.md` for matters and `authorities/INDEX.md` for reusable + authorities in the same change; 4. link related and superseded matters in both directions; 5. state facts, assumptions, contrary authority, uncertainty, and open questions; @@ -110,6 +117,11 @@ Every completed research pass must: 7. distinguish a descriptive conclusion from a recommendation; 8. leave the license text unchanged unless drafting was expressly requested. +For a concurrent research swarm, the coordinator may reserve non-overlapping +ID ranges. Each research agent writes only its assigned matter drafts and +authority cards. The coordinator alone updates shared indexes, deduplicates +authorities, and performs the final cross-link pass. + ## 5. GitHub and external actions Repository memos are canonical. If the user asks for an issue, create one with @@ -127,6 +139,8 @@ Before declaring a matter answered, verify: - requested relief is not described as awarded relief; - current cases and statutes were checked recently; - holdings are separated from settlements and commentary; +- every new `PR-####` and `AUTH-####` identifier appears in its canonical + index and is not duplicated; - the memo explains what would change the answer; - local links resolve and `git diff --check` passes; - legal review is not implied unless `legal_review: approved` is supported by diff --git a/paralegal-research/ANSWERING-GUIDE.md b/paralegal-research/ANSWERING-GUIDE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c91b82a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/ANSWERING-GUIDE.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +# Paralegal AI answering guide + +This is the retrieval and answer contract for an agent using this research +library. It does not authorize legal advice, external communications, +enforcement, or license drafting. + +## Load the smallest sufficient context + +1. Normalize the question using `AGENTS.md` and `TAXONOMY.md`. +2. Read `INDEX.md` and the proposition map referenced there. +3. Read the most specific matter memo before individual authorities. +4. Open only the authority cards needed to verify the answer and its limits. +5. Recheck pending cases, current statutes, official license status, and stale + verification dates before relying on them. + +Do not load the entire corpus by default. Broad context can hide a controlling +jurisdiction or procedural-posture difference. + +## Separate the layers of an answer + +Every substantive answer should distinguish: + +1. **Question and assumed facts** — actor, conduct, jurisdiction, exact license + and version, relevant dates, and requested remedy. +2. **License text** — what the instrument says, without calling it enforceable + merely because it is written. +3. **General legal rule** — statute or binding authority in the relevant forum. +4. **Analogous authority** — persuasive decisions involving another license, + jurisdiction, or procedural posture. +5. **Application** — a conditional analysis of the supplied facts. +6. **Uncertainty** — missing facts, splits, negative searches, pending cases, + translations, and issues requiring counsel. +7. **Status** — research status and legal-review status are separate. + +Use “holding,” “requested relief,” “awarded relief,” “settlement term,” and +“inference” precisely as defined in `TAXONOMY.md`. + +## High-risk answer patterns + +### “Can a judge make them release the source?” + +Separate: + +- an injunction stopping unlicensed copyright conduct; +- specific performance or a mandatory injunction requiring source delivery; +- confidential source production in discovery; +- a negotiated source-publication settlement; and +- enforcement of an existing judgment or consent decree. + +Do not turn one category into another. + +### “Can they be forced to buy a commercial license?” + +Separate voluntary licensing and settlement from damages valuation. A +commercial-license price may be evidence under an applicable damages theory; +that does not itself create assent or empower a court to impose the contract. + +### “Does this license cover the whole product?” + +Do not answer from license-family labels such as “strong copyleft” or +“file-level.” Retrieve the exact license/version and analyze the actual work, +files, linking, copying, distribution/deployment, source definition, exceptions, +and governing jurisdiction. + +### “Did this case prove the license is enforceable?” + +Identify the exact clause, claim, posture, holding, remedy, jurisdiction, and +later history. A claim surviving dismissal, a default judgment, or a settlement +does not establish the same proposition as a final contested appellate ruling. + +## Application to a project-specific license + +Answer the general doctrine first. Then compare the project's exact clause to +the authority and identify every textual or factual difference that could +change the result. A custom license should not inherit GPL, AGPL, MPL, or +source-available case outcomes merely by analogy. + +For the FastLED draft specifically, preserve the attorney gate in +`../LEGAL-REVIEW.md`; do not describe the release candidate as adopted, +attorney-approved, OSI-approved, or judicially tested. + +## Output format + +Prefer this compact structure: + +```text +Question and assumptions +Short answer +Controlling rule and authority +Analogous authority and its posture +Application +What could change the answer +Counsel-review questions +Research/legal-review status +``` + +Link to the canonical matter memo and direct primary authority. Avoid long +quotations and do not present an agent's prediction as a legal determination. diff --git a/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md b/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md index 7994ea0..f963b06 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md +++ b/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md @@ -1,22 +1,40 @@ # Future research scenarios -These are candidate matters, not active assignments and not conclusions. Before -starting one, search `INDEX.md`, define the relevant facts and jurisdiction, -then assign the next matter ID. +These are candidate matters, not active assignments or conclusions. The +general research layer in PR-0001--PR-0020 should be reused before opening a +new matter. Promote a scenario only when concrete facts, a target forum, or a +new authority would materially change the answer. -| Priority | Scenario | Why it could change a decision | Expected output | +## High-priority follow-ups + +| Scenario | Existing starting point | Missing input or research | Expected output | +|---|---|---|---| +| Exact-license, exact-forum enforcement analysis | PR-0002, PR-0003, PR-0004, PR-0006, PR-0012 | Operative version, conduct, claimant, requested relief, forum, and governing state or national law | Claim-and-remedy matrix tied to controlling authority | +| AGPL section 13 network-only noncompliance | PR-0001, PR-0003, PR-0010, PR-0012 | Final merits authority, assent and copyright-nexus theory, actual service architecture, and selected forum | Docket-level update and forum-specific remedy analysis | +| State-law source delivery or specific performance | PR-0005, PR-0007, PR-0008, PR-0012 | Selected state's formation, beneficiary, preemption, and equitable-remedy law | State-specific elements, defenses, and proposed relief limits | +| Ownership, standing, and registration for a real codebase | PR-0008, PR-0014 | Per-file authorship, contributor/assignment records, registrations, release and infringement dates | Chain-of-title map and registration/remedy calendar | +| Authenticated docket and later-history audit | PR-0003, PR-0004, COVERAGE.md | PACER or local-court access, unsealed dispositions, current appeal/finality records | Updated authority cards with confirmed disposition and actual relief | +| Qualified foreign-source review | PR-0004, PR-0020 | Official full texts, certified or qualified translations, and local counsel in the selected country | Country-specific case table and translation provenance | + +## Fact-intensive follow-ups + +| Scenario | Existing starting point | Missing input or research | Expected output | |---|---|---|---| -| High | FastLED §11.3 source-publication breach: remedies in the likely defendant forums | The current draft has a commercial-transfer trigger rather than AGPL network interaction, so the cause of action and equitable remedy may differ. | Jurisdiction-specific remedy matrix and pleading assumptions | -| High | Standing and chain of title | A steward, contributor, copyright owner, customer, and association may have different claims and available remedies. | Claimant-by-claimant standing map and evidence checklist | -| High | Copyright registration strategy | 17 U.S.C. §412 timing can determine access to statutory damages and attorney's fees. | Release-registration calendar and ownership prerequisites | -| High | Cure, reinstatement, and past liability | Restoring future permission may not erase damages or exposure for earlier unlicensed acts. | Timeline scenarios for first and repeat violations | -| Medium | Commercial-license value as damages evidence | A list price, negotiated fee, and reasonable royalty are not automatically interchangeable. | Evidentiary and valuation memo with contrary authority | -| Medium | Source disclosure as specific performance | Availability may depend on claimant, contract theory, state law, adequacy of damages, and feasibility of supervision. | Jurisdiction comparison and requested-relief drafting notes | -| Medium | Resellers, contract manufacturers, and exhaustion | Actor and transfer timing can determine who breached and what conduct can be enjoined. | Supply-chain fact patterns and responsibility matrix | -| Medium | Covered code boundaries | Templates, headers, generated files, firmware, and linked components may produce different source obligations. | Artifact-by-artifact scope analysis | -| Medium | Cross-border enforcement | Territorial limits, choice of law, service, and judgment enforcement may dominate the practical remedy. | Country-specific issue spotter for actual target markets | -| Medium | Evidence preservation and pre-suit investigation | Public repository history, shipped binaries, offers, notices, and communications may be necessary to prove timing and scope. | Lawful evidence checklist and preservation protocol for counsel review | - -Do not research the entire backlog at once. Promote only the scenario needed for -a concrete decision, and record any assumptions that substitute for missing -facts. +| Covered-work and Corresponding Source boundary | PR-0009, PR-0010 | Source tree, build graph, copied code, linking, containers, generated artifacts, delivery and network facts | Artifact-by-artifact obligation analysis | +| Supply-chain responsibility | PR-0018 | Who copied, compiled, flashed, imported, distributed, controlled, knew, or induced; transaction timeline | Actor-by-conduct claim and evidence matrix | +| Cure, reinstatement, and past exposure | PR-0011, PR-0015 | Exact cure clause, notice/knowledge dates, first or repeat breach, later conduct | Event timeline with forward permission and past-liability analysis | +| Commercial-license value as damages evidence | PR-0013, PR-0014 | Registrations, comparable negotiated transactions, apportionment, causation, profits, and expert method | Damages model that does not mistake valuation for compelled assent | +| Evidence preservation and source availability | PR-0016, PR-0017 | Lawful acquisition, versions, hashes, notices, repository history, product samples, custodians, and litigation posture | Counsel-reviewed preservation and authentication protocol | +| Settlement or post-judgment compliance design | PR-0012, PR-0019 | Parties' authority, desired business outcome, monitorability, confidentiality, enforcement jurisdiction | Negotiated term sheet or order checklist clearly labeled by posture | +| FastLED draft section 11.3 application | PR-0002 plus the relevant doctrine/remedy memos | Current draft text, adoption status, product transaction, target forum, ownership and registration facts | Separate project-specific analysis; no change to `LICENSE` without express authorization | + +## Refresh triggers + +Open a maintenance matter when a tracked docket reaches a material disposition, +an official license or steward/OSI status changes, a statute or rule changes, a +better primary source or translation becomes available, or counsel identifies a +proposition requiring correction. + +Do not research the entire backlog at once. Record assumptions that substitute +for missing facts, preserve negative searches, and keep every result pending +legal review until an identified attorney approves it. diff --git a/paralegal-research/COVERAGE.md b/paralegal-research/COVERAGE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2be9bbc --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/COVERAGE.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +# Issue #17 coverage audit + +> Audit date: 2026-08-25. Preliminary paralegal research for attorney review, +> not legal advice, a license recommendation, an enforcement decision, or a +> change to `LICENSE`. + +This is an information-architecture and completeness audit against +[issue #17](https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17). It records the +working-tree corpus visible on the audit date. Matter memos and authority cards +remain the canonical research records; this report does not add merits research. + +## Executive assessment + +The corpus now has PR-0001 through PR-0020, five reproducible research logs, +and 102 indexed authority cards: 60 cases, 32 license-related texts, and 10 +statutes, rules, guidance, or settlement records. It substantially covers the +issue's routing and doctrine architecture. Its legal coverage is intentionally +uneven: many doctrine matters are `partial`, all remain attorney-review +pending, on-point AGPL network-only remedies are unresolved, and comparative +material has important primary-source and translation limits. + +Retrieval integration is complete: [INDEX.md](INDEX.md) enumerates every +matter, [the authority index](authorities/INDEX.md) enumerates every reusable +card, and [PROPOSITION-MAP.md](PROPOSITION-MAP.md) routes common questions and +synonyms to the smallest useful research set. + +## Matter coverage + +| Area | Matter IDs | Recorded coverage / confidence | Material limit | +|---|---|---|---| +| Baseline remedies | [PR-0001](matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) | Answered; U.S./California AGPL-style remedies baseline | Not a final AGPL §13 network-only remedy record; source performance and paid license are not automatic remedies | +| License text and status | [PR-0002](matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) | Partial; official-text comparison of the issue's minimum family set | Exact version, exception, technical boundary, and jurisdiction remain controlling | +| U.S. and international censuses | [PR-0003](matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md), [PR-0004](matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | Partial; posture-aware census with search logs | Not exhaustive; several docket, finality, official-copy, and translation gaps | +| Formation, copyright route, and claimant | [PR-0005](matters/doctrine/public-license-formation-and-assent.md)--[PR-0008](matters/doctrine/ownership-standing-and-third-party-beneficiaries.md) | Partial, generally medium confidence | State law, assent evidence, copyright nexus, ownership, assignment, and beneficiary status are fact/forum-specific | +| Scope and triggers | [PR-0009](matters/scope/covered-work-derivative-linking-and-source-scope.md), [PR-0010](matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md) | Partial; PR-0009 low and PR-0010 medium confidence | No universal linking result; no located final U.S. AGPL §13 network-only merits remedy | +| Termination and remedies | [PR-0011](matters/remedies/termination-notice-cure-reinstatement-and-past-liability.md)--[PR-0015](matters/defenses/open-source-enforcement-defenses-and-remedial-limits.md) | Partial; PR-0014 high for its statutory timing question, others medium | State equitable/contract law, actual proof, cure timing, and comparability remain decisive | +| Evidence, procedure, supply chain, settlement | [PR-0016](matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md)--[PR-0019](matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md) | Answered as U.S.-focused issue-spotting frameworks; medium confidence | They do not decide a particular artifact, forum, actor, order, or confidential-source disclosure | +| Cross-border framework | [PR-0020](matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md) | Answered framework, low confidence | Country-specific merits, procedure, recognition, and translation are not interchangeable | + +## Acceptance-criteria audit + +| Issue #17 criterion | Assessment | Evidence and residual gap | +|---|---|---| +| Preserve/reuse PR-0001 and AUTH-0001--0008 | Covered | PR-0001 remains canonical and the censuses reuse the original cards. Their scope is still narrow and attorney review is pending. | +| Search logs with scope, negative results, and leads | Covered | [U.S. log](search-logs/us-case-census-2026-08-25.md), [international log](search-logs/international-case-census-2026-08-25.md), and [license log](search-logs/license-landscape-2026-08-25.md). No duplicate fresh search was performed for this audit. | +| Minimum license set, official cards, normalized comparison | Covered for text/status | [PR-0002](matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md), its official-text cards, and the license-gap search log cover the specified minimum set plus additional historical, deployment, source-available, and open-hardware comparators. | +| Case cards separate posture, relief, limits, history, source, and date | Substantially covered; incomplete source access | Census cards and authority cards distinguish the categories, but several foreign originals and U.S. dockets/finality records remain unavailable or unchecked. The separate case-gap audit lane is pending integration. | +| Never conflate complaint, interlocutory ruling, default, settlement, and holding | Covered in architecture | PR-0003, PR-0004, PR-0012, and PR-0019 expressly route these separately. Application still requires opening the specific card. | +| Sixteen doctrine topics have scoped memos, assumptions, limits, and counsel questions | Covered | PR-0005--PR-0020 supply the requested topic set. Fourteen of the twenty total matters are `partial`; scoped coverage is not a final merits answer. | +| Distinguish U.S. copyright law from state contract/equity law | Covered as a routing requirement; incomplete for any particular state | PR-0005--PR-0008 and PR-0011--PR-0015 identify the distinction. State-specific research is necessarily forum-dependent. | +| Comparative primary sources and translation provenance | Partial | Strongest accessible records include CJEU, French cassation/remand, and Dutch material. German, Chinese, Korean, and some French material has source or translation limits below. | +| No automatic source-publication or commercial-license remedy claim | Covered | PR-0001, PR-0003, PR-0010, PR-0012, and PR-0019 preserve the limit. **AGPL §13 network-only relief is unresolved.** | +| Separate open-source and source-available classifications | Covered | PR-0002 classifies instruments separately; source access/use restrictions do not become copyleft by analogy. | +| Unique, indexed, cross-linked, machine-searchable IDs | Covered | [INDEX.md](INDEX.md) lists PR-0001--PR-0020 and [the authority index](authorities/INDEX.md) lists every reusable authority card by stable identifier. All cards expose normalized posture, weight, license/topic, source-quality, source-URL, language, and translation metadata. | +| Local links resolve and whitespace checks pass | Covered | Repository-wide validation found no broken local Markdown links, trailing whitespace, extra blank lines at EOF, duplicate identifiers, or unindexed matter/authority records. `git diff --check` passes. | +| Attorney-review gate and no `LICENSE` change | Covered | All matter frontmatter remains pending review; this audit changes no license text. | +| Final coverage report | Covered | This document, read with [PROPOSITION-MAP.md](PROPOSITION-MAP.md). | + +## Inaccessible sources, translations, and jurisdiction limits + +- **Germany:** Sitecom, D-Link, Skype, and Fantec have uneven public primary + copies; some records depend on reproductions, portals, or summaries. Exact + relief and scope need court-certified text/docket confirmation. +- **France:** the 2019 first-instance Entr'Ouvert record has secondary/index + access limits; the 2024 Paris remand appeal's finality and dispositive + details require current French-original checking. +- **China and South Korea:** available official summaries/reports or original + decisions do not remove the need for full judgments and qualified/certified + translation when wording is material. Party/docket anonymity also limits + attribution in the Chinese materials. +- **Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom:** the recorded searches did not + retrieve an authenticated, accessible reciprocal-license merits decision for + a card. This is a bounded negative result, not proof of no law or case. +- **United States:** XimpleWare and Fisher final dispositions, selected BusyBox + settlement terms, and Neo4j/Graph Foundation terms need docket/unsealed-record + verification if material. U.S. federal rules do not supply every state's + contract, equity, limitations, or beneficiary law. +- **Every foreign route:** a foreign decision, treaty, or translation does not + itself answer forum, choice of law, service, provisional relief, recognition, + or enforcement in another country. + +## Questions reserved for counsel + +1. Select the target forum(s), governing law, license version, claimant, and + requested remedy before relying on an analogy. +2. Confirm per-component ownership, assignments, contributor authority, + registration, and the evidence needed to attribute a relevant product and + version. +3. Decide whether a contract/beneficiary theory exists and whether state-law + specific performance or other affirmative relief is available. +4. Obtain qualified translations and local-law review where a non-English + source could materially change advice or a filing. +5. Decide whether the unresolved AGPL §13 network-only question requires a + docket-level PACER/CourtListener audit in a selected forum rather than + distribution-case analogy. +6. Define the refresh cadence and the facts that require a new scoped matter + before deploying the corpus as an AI retrieval source. + +## Stale-source triggers + +Recheck a matter when its exact license text, OSI/steward status, docket, +appeal/finality, statute/rule, governing state law, foreign translation, or +technical/deployment facts change. All visible current matter and authority +records report `last_verified: 2026-08-25`; that date is not attorney approval +and does not eliminate a targeted current-law check. + +## Integrated gap-audit result + +The completed license-gap audit added historical, network/deployment, +source-available, project-specific, and open-hardware comparators. The +completed case-gap audit added four usable decisions and preserved excluded or +inaccessible leads in its search log. These additions narrow the known gaps; +they do not make the census exhaustive or remove the attorney-review gate. diff --git a/paralegal-research/INDEX.md b/paralegal-research/INDEX.md index 5a0bf01..9c5522b 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/INDEX.md +++ b/paralegal-research/INDEX.md @@ -1,26 +1,44 @@ # Research index -Search this registry before opening a new matter. The matter memo is the -canonical answer; authority cards are reusable source analyses. +Search this registry before opening a new matter. A matter memo is the canonical +answer to a normalized question; an authority card records what a reusable +source does and does not establish. -## Matters - -| ID | Question | Jurisdiction | Research | Legal review | Verified | Canonical memo | -|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| -| PR-0001 | What can a court order for AGPL-style source noncompliance, and can the result be source disclosure or a commercial license? | U.S. federal; California contract issues | answered | pending | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) | +For issue-based retrieval, begin with the [proposition map](PROPOSITION-MAP.md). +For known gaps and source limits, read the [coverage audit](COVERAGE.md). The +complete source-card registry is the [authority index](authorities/INDEX.md). -## Reusable authorities +## Matters -| ID | Authority | Type | Key use | Verified | Card | +| ID | Question | Research | Legal review | Verified | Canonical memo | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| AUTH-0001 | *Jacobsen v. Katzer* | case | Open-source conditions and copyright enforcement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) | -| AUTH-0002 | *MDY Industries v. Blizzard* | case | Ninth Circuit condition-versus-covenant framework | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | -| AUTH-0003 | *Artifex Software v. Hancom* | case | GPL dual-license pleading and commercial-license damages theory | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) | -| AUTH-0004 | BusyBox / Westinghouse | case | Default-judgment injunction for GPL noncompliance | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | -| AUTH-0005 | *Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio* | case | Third-party-beneficiary specific-performance theory | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | -| AUTH-0006 | 17 U.S.C. §§ 502–505, 412 | statutes | Injunction, impoundment, monetary relief, fees, registration timing | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | -| AUTH-0007 | GNU AGPL version 3 | license | Network source offer, termination, cure, and reinstatement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md) | -| AUTH-0008 | BusyBox / Monsoon settlement | settlement | Negotiated publication, notice, controls, payment, and reinstatement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) | +| PR-0001 | Judicial remedies for AGPL-style source noncompliance | `answered` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) | +| PR-0002 | Copyleft and source-availability license landscape | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) | +| PR-0003 | United States reciprocal and public-license enforcement census | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | +| PR-0004 | International open-source-license enforcement census | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | +| PR-0005 | Public-license formation, assent, and parties | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/doctrine/public-license-formation-and-assent.md) | +| PR-0006 | Copyright conditions versus contract covenants | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/doctrine/copyright-condition-versus-contract-covenant.md) | +| PR-0007 | Copyright preemption and copyright nexus | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/doctrine/copyright-preemption-and-nexus.md) | +| PR-0008 | Ownership, standing, assignments, contributors, and beneficiaries | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/doctrine/ownership-standing-and-third-party-beneficiaries.md) | +| PR-0009 | Covered work, derivative work, linking, aggregation, and source scope | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/scope/covered-work-derivative-linking-and-source-scope.md) | +| PR-0010 | Distribution, network use, and deployment triggers | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md) | +| PR-0011 | Termination, notice, cure, reinstatement, and past liability | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/termination-notice-cure-reinstatement-and-past-liability.md) | +| PR-0012 | Injunction, specific performance, impoundment, and contempt | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md) | +| PR-0013 | Damages, profits, fees, and commercial-license valuation | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/damages-profits-fees-and-commercial-license-valuation.md) | +| PR-0014 | Copyright registration, limitations, and accrual | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/registration/copyright-registration-limitations-and-accrual.md) | +| PR-0015 | Open-source enforcement defenses and remedial limits | `partial` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/defenses/open-source-enforcement-defenses-and-remedial-limits.md) | +| PR-0016 | Evidence preservation, version attribution, and public-source availability | `answered` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md) | +| PR-0017 | Pleading, jurisdiction, venue, choice of law, and discovery | `answered` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md) | +| PR-0018 | Downstream recipients, manufacturers, resellers, and secondary liability | `answered` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/supply-chain/downstream-recipients-manufacturers-resellers-and-secondary-liability.md) | +| PR-0019 | Settlement, compliance, and post-judgment structures | `answered` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md) | +| PR-0020 | Comparative and cross-border enforcement | `answered` | `pending` | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md) | + +## Authority registry + +The [authority index](authorities/INDEX.md) lists all reusable cards by stable +`AUTH-####` identifier, title, type, and verification date. Do not infer a +card's proposition or weight from its title; open the card and read its posture, +source quality, actual holding or text, and limits. ## Status key diff --git a/paralegal-research/PROPOSITION-MAP.md b/paralegal-research/PROPOSITION-MAP.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e315dfb --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/PROPOSITION-MAP.md @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +# Proposition map + +> Preliminary research-navigation aid for attorney review; not legal advice, +> a license recommendation, or an enforcement decision. Matter memos remain +> the canonical research records. FastLED is a comparison target only. + +## Route before reading authorities + +Capture the actor, conduct/trigger, jurisdiction (including state law where +material), exact license and version, relevant dates, requested remedy, and +technical facts. Then read the linked matter memo, its assumptions, status, +open questions, and verification date before using individual cards. A license +text describes an obligation; it does not by itself establish assent, standing, +infringement, or a remedy. + +**Status key.** `partial` means an analogous or incomplete record, not a +default answer. All current matters remain `legal_review: pending`. Every +route also requires the stale-source check in the last column. + +| Common question and useful synonyms | Start with canonical matter(s) | Authority categories to load next | Facts that cannot be assumed | Recheck before relying | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| Which license family is this? Is it open source, source available, or file-level copyleft? `classification`, `OSI`, `license comparison`, `compatibility` | [PR-0002](matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) | Exact official license card; OSI registry or steward status; exact-version judicial treatment | Exact instrument/version, exceptions, dual-license election, release date | Official text, OSI/steward status, compatibility lists, new exact-version decision | +| What cases exist? Was a case a holding, complaint, order, default, or settlement? `case census`, `enforceability`, `docket` | [PR-0003](matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) (U.S.); [PR-0004](matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) (non-U.S.) | Official opinion/order/docket; authority-card posture and later history; settlement record | Forum, clause, license version, procedural posture, actual disposition | Docket/finality, appeal, unsealed settlement, later decision, official copy | +| Did a public license form a contract, and who accepted it? `assent`, `formation`, `clickwrap`, `parties` | [PR-0005](matters/doctrine/public-license-formation-and-assent.md) | State contract law; formation/assent cases; exact notice and acceptance mechanism | Recipient/actor, notice, manifestation of assent, selected law, text/version | Current controlling state law, forum/law clause, changed interface/notice record | +| Is a breached term a copyright condition or only a contract covenant? `license scope`, `copyright nexus`, `condition versus covenant` | [PR-0006](matters/doctrine/copyright-condition-versus-contract-covenant.md); [PR-0007](matters/doctrine/copyright-preemption-and-nexus.md) | Copyright statutes; binding circuit condition/covenant and preemption cases; exact license card | Exclusive-right act, clause wording, nexus, assent, state claim's extra element | Selected circuit/state law, subsequent controlling authority, exact clause/version | +| Who owns the work and may sue or demand performance? `standing`, `assignment`, `contributor`, `steward`, `beneficiary` | [PR-0008](matters/doctrine/ownership-standing-and-third-party-beneficiaries.md) | Ownership/assignment statutes and cases; contributor agreements; beneficiary-law authority | Per-component chain of title, exclusive-right transfer, claimant role, governing law | Current ownership/registration records, assignments, state beneficiary law | +| Does code/linking/containerization make a covered or derivative work, and what source is required? `linking`, `aggregation`, `Corresponding Source`, `scope` | [PR-0009](matters/scope/covered-work-derivative-linking-and-source-scope.md) | Exact license definitions; derivative-work authority; technical evidence | Files/code copied, architecture, build/relink path, symbols, delivery form, exceptions | Exact dependency/build/source tree; controlling jurisdiction; new linking authority | +| Did distribution, conveyance, SaaS, network use, or deployment trigger an obligation? `hosted`, `remote access`, `AGPL`, `SSPL`, `RPL`, `External Deployment` | [PR-0010](matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md) | Exact license trigger card; on-point disposition; condition/covenant authority | Modified versus unmodified program, copies/conveyance, users/audience, service architecture, entity/affiliate facts | Official license text and any newly final on-point case; product/version and deployment facts | +| **AGPL §13 network-only use: can a court enforce it or order source?** `remote interaction`, `AGPL source offer`, `network-only` | [PR-0010](matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md), then [PR-0001](matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) and [PR-0003](matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | GNU AGPL-3.0 text; binding forum-specific nexus/remedy authority; final AGPL §13 merits disposition if located | Modified AGPL program, actual remote interaction, users, whether copies were conveyed, claimant/standing, requested theory and remedy | **Unresolved:** no located final U.S. merits ruling supplies an AGPL §13 network-only remedy. Recheck full dockets, final decisions, governing state law, and current AGPL text; do not borrow GPL distribution cases as the answer. | +| Did termination, cure, reinstatement, notice, or later compliance restore rights or erase earlier exposure? `cure`, `reinstatement`, `past liability` | [PR-0011](matters/remedies/termination-notice-cure-reinstatement-and-past-liability.md) | Exact termination/cure text; timing evidence; governing remedy/defense law | Version, breach/knowledge/notice dates, first/repeat violation, later conduct | Current license text, notice and cure timeline, controlling state/federal law | +| Can a court stop conduct, impound copies, require source, enforce a judgment, or hold someone in contempt? `injunction`, `specific performance`, `source disclosure`, `discovery`, `contempt` | [PR-0012](matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md) | Copyright remedies statutes; equitable-remedy and procedure authority; state specific-performance law | Claim and standing, infringement versus contract theory, requested relief, feasibility/supervision, existing order | Current statute/rules, selected state equitable law, docket/order text, later compliance | +| Can the owner recover a commercial-license price, damages, profits, fees, or statutory damages? `reasonable royalty`, `dual license`, `commercial license`, `fees` | [PR-0013](matters/remedies/damages-profits-fees-and-commercial-license-valuation.md); [PR-0014](matters/registration/copyright-registration-limitations-and-accrual.md) | Copyright remedies/registration statutes; damages and fee cases; comparable transaction evidence | Registration dates, work nationality, infringement dates, comparable licenses, causation/apportionment, contract claim | Current statutes/cases, registration record, limitations/accrual dates, actual comparable transactions | +| Is the claim blocked or limited by authorization, waiver, estoppel, misuse, unclean hands, impossibility, mootness, or disclaimers? `defenses`, `voluntary cessation` | [PR-0015](matters/defenses/open-source-enforcement-defenses-and-remedial-limits.md) | Exact grant/termination text; defense elements in governing forum; remedy authority | Scope of permission, notices/representations, reliance, later conduct, requested claim/remedy | Governing state law, later conduct, release/settlement, current equitable precedent | +| How can public code, binaries, version history, notices, and source availability be preserved or attributed? `evidence`, `hash`, `chain of custody`, `binary comparison` | [PR-0016](matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md) | Evidence/procedure rules; official preservation guidance; authenticated artifact records | Lawful acquisition, capture time/method, version identity, hashes, handlers, provenance | Current rules/local practice, source availability, relevant repository/product version | +| Where may a claim be brought and can source be obtained in discovery? `jurisdiction`, `venue`, `choice of law`, `protective order` | [PR-0017](matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md) | Jurisdiction/venue statutes; local rules; discovery/protective-order authority | Parties' contacts, territorial acts, claims, clauses, registration, discovery target | Current local rules/case law, forum clause, docket posture, confidentiality facts | +| Which supply-chain actor is responsible: manufacturer, OEM, reseller, customer, or service provider? `secondary liability`, `downstream`, `reseller` | [PR-0018](matters/supply-chain/downstream-recipients-manufacturers-resellers-and-secondary-liability.md) | Exclusive-right statutes; direct/secondary-liability cases; exact license/contract | Who copied, compiled, flashed, imported, distributed, controlled, knew, or induced; transaction timeline | Current circuit doctrine, contracts/agency facts, technical provenance and transfer evidence | +| Is a source release, payment, audit, or commercial license a settlement term or a judicial remedy? `consent decree`, `compliance`, `post-judgment` | [PR-0019](matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md); [PR-0012](matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md) | Settlement/consent-decree text; final order; procedural enforcement rules | Whether there is a negotiated agreement, entered order, bound person, and clear obligation | Unsealed terms, finality, enforcement jurisdiction, order modification/history | +| What changes outside the United States? `foreign judgment`, `France`, `Germany`, `EU`, `translation`, `cross-border` | [PR-0020](matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md), then [PR-0004](matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | Country-specific primary law/court material; conflicts/recognition law; qualified translation | Territorial acts, selected forum/law, assets, service, local procedure, original-language text | Official/full judgment, finality, certified or qualified translation, local counsel, current treaty/national law | + +## Mandatory distinctions + +- **Open-source is not source-available.** Use the exact classification in + [PR-0002](matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). + Do not infer a reciprocal disclosure duty from source access or a use + restriction. +- **Requested relief, awarded relief, default relief, and settlement terms are + different propositions.** Route to [PR-0003](matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md), + [PR-0004](matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md), + [PR-0012](matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md), + and [PR-0019](matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md) + as appropriate. +- **FastLED is not a default answer.** Its release candidate is a comparison + card in [PR-0002](matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). + It is not adopted, attorney-approved, OSI-approved, or judicially tested. + +## Integration status + +This map routes the complete PR-0001--PR-0020 working corpus. Use the canonical +[matter index](INDEX.md) and [authority index](authorities/INDEX.md) for stable +identifiers. The completed license-gap and case-gap audits are incorporated in +PR-0002 through PR-0004 and their linked search logs. diff --git a/paralegal-research/README.md b/paralegal-research/README.md index c86128f..402e051 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/README.md +++ b/paralegal-research/README.md @@ -1,8 +1,10 @@ # Paralegal research library -This directory is the durable home for preliminary legal research supporting -the FastLED licensing project. It is designed so that a future human or agent -can answer three questions quickly: +This directory is the durable home for preliminary legal research about +reciprocal open-source and source-availability licensing. FastLED is one +comparison target and potential consumer of the research, not the organizing +principle. The library is designed so that a future human or agent can answer +three questions quickly: 1. Has this question already been researched? 2. What proposition does the existing authority actually support? @@ -15,12 +17,24 @@ confidential unless counsel has directed that treatment. ## Directory map -- `INDEX.md` — canonical registry of matters and reusable authorities. +- `INDEX.md` — canonical registry of matter memos and route to the authority + registry. +- `PROPOSITION-MAP.md` — question-and-synonym routing to the smallest useful + set of matter memos. +- `COVERAGE.md` — issue #17 completeness audit, known source limits, and + counsel-only gaps. +- `TAXONOMY.md` — controlled vocabulary for actors, conduct, posture, weight, + propositions, source quality, translation, and confidence. +- `ANSWERING-GUIDE.md` — retrieval and answer contract for a future paralegal + skill or agent. - `BACKLOG.md` — scoped future scenarios; an entry is not authorization to begin research. - `matters/` — one canonical memo per concrete legal question. -- `authorities/` — reusable source cards for cases, statutes, and licenses. +- `authorities/` — reusable source cards plus their canonical + `authorities/INDEX.md` registry. - `templates/` — required structure for new matter memos and authority cards. +- `search-logs/` — reproducible search coverage, exclusions, negative searches, + and unresolved leads. - `AGENTS.md` — mandatory research and filing workflow for agents. ## Mental model diff --git a/paralegal-research/TAXONOMY.md b/paralegal-research/TAXONOMY.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3254252 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/TAXONOMY.md @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +# Research taxonomy + +Use this controlled vocabulary when indexing legal research. The purpose is to +let an agent retrieve by legal proposition and procedural weight instead of +matching only the words in a question. + +## Research unit + +- **Matter memo** — answers one normalized legal question. +- **Authority card** — records what one source supports and does not support. +- **License card** — authority card for one identified license and version. +- **Case census** — routes to case cards; it is not a substitute for them. +- **Search log** — makes the research boundary and negative searches auditable. + +## Required routing dimensions + +Every matter should identify: + +- `actors`: copyright owner, contributor, steward, exclusive licensee, + distributor, modifier, service operator, recipient, customer, association, + manufacturer, reseller, or other material role; +- `conduct`: reproduce, modify, prepare derivative work, distribute, convey, + transfer, deploy, provide network access, omit notice, withhold source, + remove source, cure, or continue after termination; +- `jurisdictions`: country, court system, circuit/state when material, and + governing contract law; +- `licenses`: exact name and version, never merely “GPL-like”; +- `doctrines`: formation, condition-covenant, copyright-nexus, preemption, + ownership, standing, scope, termination, registration, limitations, + defenses, evidence, procedure, or conflicts; +- `remedies`: prohibitory-injunction, mandatory-injunction, + specific-performance, source-disclosure, impoundment, destruction, actual- + damages, profits, statutory-damages, fees, declaratory-relief, contempt, or + settlement-only terms; +- `time`: license version date, conduct dates, decision date, and verification + date. + +## Authority types + +Use one of: + +- `case` +- `statute` +- `regulation` +- `license` +- `license-condition` +- `license-draft` +- `settlement` +- `administrative-material` +- `official-guidance` +- `secondary-source` + +Use `license-condition` when the text is an add-on to another license rather +than a complete standalone grant. Use `license-draft` for an unadopted draft; +that label is a status warning, not a prediction about enforceability. An +announcement about a settlement remains `settlement`, even when published by +a party or respected organization. + +## Case posture + +Use the most specific applicable value: + +- `complaint` +- `temporary-restraining-order` +- `preliminary-injunction` +- `motion-to-dismiss` +- `judgment-on-pleadings` +- `summary-judgment` +- `trial-judgment` +- `default-judgment` +- `appellate-merits` +- `appellate-procedural` +- `settled` +- `dismissed-without-merits` +- `not-applicable` — non-case authorities only + +If one card covers several decisions, record the posture of each decision in a +procedural-history table rather than assigning the strongest label to the +entire litigation. + +## Precedential weight + +- `binding` — binding in the stated forum on the stated proposition. +- `persuasive-published` — published but not binding in the target forum. +- `persuasive-trial` — reasoned trial-level ruling. +- `nonprecedential` — designated unpublished or nonprecedential. +- `default-only` — relief entered without contested merits adjudication. +- `none-settlement` — party agreement, not judicial authority. +- `none-allegation` — party position only. +- `not-applicable` — statutes, licenses, guidance, and other non-case + authorities. + +Never infer weight without naming the target jurisdiction. + +## Proposition treatment + +Label important propositions as: + +- `holding` +- `dicta` +- `party-allegation` +- `requested-relief` +- `awarded-relief` +- `settlement-term` +- `official-license-text` +- `inference` +- `unresolved` + +The same case may carry several labels. For example, a complaint may request +source publication, an interlocutory order may let the claim proceed, and a +later settlement may require delivery. None of those facts alone is an +`awarded-relief` holding. + +## Source and translation quality + +Record: + +- `source_quality`: `primary`, `official-reproduction`, `official-summary`, or + `secondary`; +- `source_url`: a direct URL rather than a search-results page; +- `original_language`; +- `translation_status`: `not-needed`, `official`, `court-provided`, + `researcher-translation`, or `secondary-translation`. + +When only a secondary translation is available, cite the original decision as +well and avoid conclusions that depend on a disputed word without counsel or a +qualified translation. + +## Confidence + +- `high` — directly supported by current primary authority and no material + contrary authority was found within the recorded search scope. +- `medium` — supported, but posture, jurisdiction, or factual analogy limits + transfer. +- `low` — based on sparse authority, unresolved litigation, translation, or a + reasoned inference. + +Confidence describes the research record, not the likelihood of winning a +particular case. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/INDEX.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/INDEX.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a70c680 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/INDEX.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +# Authority index + +This is the canonical registry of reusable authority cards. Search this file by +identifier, authority name, or type, then open the card before relying on a +proposition. The matter memos and [proposition map](../PROPOSITION-MAP.md) +explain how an authority may be used. A card records preliminary research for +attorney review; inclusion is not a statement that the authority controls a +particular dispute. + +Identifier gaps are deliberate reservations from parallel research. Do not +renumber existing cards. + +| ID | Authority | Type | Verified | Card | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| AUTH-0001 | Jacobsen v. Katzer | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) | +| AUTH-0002 | MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | +| AUTH-0003 | Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) | +| AUTH-0004 | BusyBox enforcement against Westinghouse | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | +| AUTH-0005 | Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | +| AUTH-0006 | U.S. Copyright Act remedies and registration timing | `statute` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | +| AUTH-0007 | GNU Affero General Public License version 3 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md) | +| AUTH-0008 | BusyBox enforcement settlement with Monsoon Multimedia | `settlement` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) | +| AUTH-0009 | GNU General Public License version 2 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0010 | GNU General Public License version 3 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md) | +| AUTH-0011 | GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2-1.md) | +| AUTH-0012 | GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/gnu-lgpl-v3.md) | +| AUTH-0013 | Mozilla Public License 2.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/mozilla-public-license-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0014 | Eclipse Public License 2.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/eclipse-public-license-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0015 | Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/common-development-distribution-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0016 | European Union Public Licence 1.2 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/european-union-public-licence-v1-2.md) | +| AUTH-0017 | Open Software License 3.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/open-software-license-v3.md) | +| AUTH-0018 | Reciprocal Public License 1.5 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/reciprocal-public-license-v1-5.md) | +| AUTH-0019 | Server Side Public License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/server-side-public-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0020 | Business Source License 1.1 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/business-source-license-v1-1.md) | +| AUTH-0021 | Elastic License 2.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/elastic-license-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0022 | Commons Clause License Condition v1.0 | `license-condition` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/commons-clause-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0023 | PolyForm Shield License 1.0.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/polyform-shield-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0024 | Functional Source License 1.1 (MIT future license) | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/functional-source-license-v1-1-mit.md) | +| AUTH-0025 | FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0-rc1 | `license-draft` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/fastled-reciprocal-license-v1-rc1.md) | +| AUTH-0030 | Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/planetary-motion-v-techsplosion.md) | +| AUTH-0031 | Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/wallace-v-free-software-foundation.md) | +| AUTH-0032 | Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/wallace-v-ibm.md) | +| AUTH-0033 | XimpleWare Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. - TRO order | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md) | +| AUTH-0034 | XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. - customer dismissal | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/ximpleware-v-versata-customer-dismissal.md) | +| AUTH-0035 | XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. - later dismissal order | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/ximpleware-v-versata-later-dismissal.md) | +| AUTH-0036 | Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC - liability and injunction ruling | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/neo4j-v-purethink-liability-ruling.md) | +| AUTH-0037 | Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC - partial summary judgment | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/neo4j-v-purethink-summary-judgment.md) | +| AUTH-0038 | Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/neo4j-v-purethink-ninth-circuit.md) | +| AUTH-0039 | Neo4j, Inc. v. Graph Foundation, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/neo4j-v-graph-foundation.md) | +| AUTH-0040 | Knowledge Based Solutions, Inc. v. Dijk | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/knowledge-based-solutions-v-dijk.md) | +| AUTH-0041 | Trent P. Fisher Enterprises, LLC v. SAS Automation, LLC - pleading ruling | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-pleading-ruling.md) | +| AUTH-0042 | Trent P. Fisher Enterprises, LLC v. SAS Automation, LLC - summary judgment | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) | +| AUTH-0043 | Free Software Foundation, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/fsf-v-cisco.md) | +| AUTH-0044 | Andersen and Landley v. Xterasys Corp. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/busybox-xterasys.md) | +| AUTH-0045 | Andersen and Landley v. High-Gain Antennas, LLC | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/busybox-high-gain.md) | +| AUTH-0046 | Andersen and Landley v. Verizon Communications, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/busybox-verizon.md) | +| AUTH-0047 | Great Minds v. FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/great-minds-v-fedex.md) | +| AUTH-0048 | Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/drauglis-v-kappa-map.md) | +| AUTH-0049 | Philpot v. WOS, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/philpot-v-wos.md) | +| AUTH-0050 | IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md) | +| AUTH-0051 | Entr'Ouvert v Orange - Paris first instance | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/entrouvert-v-orange-tgi-2019.md) | +| AUTH-0052 | Entr'Ouvert v Orange - Court of Cassation | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/entrouvert-v-orange-cassation-2022.md) | +| AUTH-0053 | Entr'Ouvert v Orange - Paris remand appeal | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md) | +| AUTH-0054 | Sitecom Deutschland GmbH v Harald Welte | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/sitecom-v-welte.md) | +| AUTH-0055 | Harald Welte v D-Link Germany GmbH | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/welte-v-d-link.md) | +| AUTH-0056 | Harald Welte v Skype Technologies S.A. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/welte-v-skype.md) | +| AUTH-0057 | AVM Computersysteme Vertriebs GmbH v Cybits AG | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/avm-v-cybits.md) | +| AUTH-0058 | Harald Welte v FANTEC GmbH | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/welte-v-fantec.md) | +| AUTH-0059 | Christoph Hellwig v VMware Global, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md) | +| AUTH-0060 | Jelurida IP B.V. v Apollo Fintech Ltd | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) | +| AUTH-0061 | OfficeTen/OpenWRT software copyright case | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md) | +| AUTH-0062 | Virtual App GPLv3 software copyright case | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/china-virtual-app-gplv3.md) | +| AUTH-0063 | Korean Supreme Court GPL derivative-program trade-secret case | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/korea-gpl-trade-secret-2009.md) | +| AUTH-0070 | 17 U.S.C. sec. sec. 101, 106, and 301 | `statute` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md) | +| AUTH-0071 | 17 U.S.C. sec. sec. 201, 204, and 501 | `statute` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-copyright-ownership-transfers-standing.md) | +| AUTH-0072 | Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md) | +| AUTH-0073 | Graham v. James | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/graham-v-james.md) | +| AUTH-0074 | Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md) | +| AUTH-0076 | DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/drk-photo-v-mcgraw-hill.md) | +| AUTH-0077 | Micro Star v. FormGen | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/micro-star-v-formgen.md) | +| AUTH-0090 | 17 U.S.C. sec. sec. 411(a) and 507(b) | `statute` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-copyright-registration-and-limitations.md) | +| AUTH-0091 | eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/ebay-v-mercexchange.md) | +| AUTH-0092 | Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/winter-v-nrdc.md) | +| AUTH-0093 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(d) and 70 | `administrative-material` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/federal-rules-discovery-injunction-performance.md) | +| AUTH-0094 | On Davis v. The Gap, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/on-davis-v-gap.md) | +| AUTH-0095 | Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/fourth-estate-v-wall-street.md) | +| AUTH-0096 | Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick.md) | +| AUTH-0097 | Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/petrella-v-mgm.md) | +| AUTH-0098 | Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/warner-chappell-v-nealy.md) | +| AUTH-0099 | Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-fees.md) | +| AUTH-0100 | Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md) | +| AUTH-0101 | Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/practice-management-v-ama.md) | +| AUTH-0102 | Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/friends-of-the-earth-v-laidlaw.md) | +| AUTH-0110 | U.S. copyright jurisdiction, venue, transfer, and supplemental claims | `statute` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md) | +| AUTH-0111 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on discovery, ESI, protective orders, and sanctions | `administrative-material` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md) | +| AUTH-0112 | Federal Rules of Evidence for authentication and digital records | `administrative-material` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/us-federal-rules-of-evidence-digital-authentication.md) | +| AUTH-0113 | NISTIR 8387 digital-evidence preservation considerations | `official-guidance` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](statutes/nist-digital-evidence-preservation.md) | +| AUTH-0114 | Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/mgm-v-grokster-secondary-liability.md) | +| AUTH-0130 | Artistic License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/artistic-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0131 | Artistic License 2.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/artistic-license-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0132 | Affero General Public License version 1 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/affero-general-public-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0133 | Cryptographic Autonomy License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/cryptographic-autonomy-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0134 | Parity Public License 7.0.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/parity-public-license-v7.md) | +| AUTH-0135 | Prosperity Public License 3.0.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/prosperity-public-license-v3.md) | +| AUTH-0136 | CeCILL Free Software License Agreement 2.1 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/cecill-v2-1.md) | +| AUTH-0137 | Jelurida Public License 1.1 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/jelurida-public-license-v1-1.md) | +| AUTH-0138 | Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/sybase-open-watcom-public-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0139 | CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 -- Strongly Reciprocal | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/cern-ohl-s-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0140 | Sustainable Use License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/sustainable-use-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0141 | Redis Source Available License 2.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/redis-source-available-license-v2.md) | +| AUTH-0142 | Confluent Community License 1.0 | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/confluent-community-license-v1.md) | +| AUTH-0143 | CockroachDB Community License Agreement | `license` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](licenses/cockroachdb-community-license.md) | +| AUTH-0150 | Versata Software, Inc. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/versata-v-ameriprise-gpl-preemption.md) | +| AUTH-0151 | Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/progress-software-v-mysql.md) | +| AUTH-0152 | Jacobsen v. Katzer - post-remand summary judgment and dismissal | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/jacobsen-v-katzer-post-remand.md) | +| AUTH-0153 | Gestionale Open litigation - Milan Court of Appeal 2025 | `case` | 2026-08-25 | [Card](cases/gestionale-open-milan-2025.md) | + +## Use requirements + +- Read the card's procedural posture, precedential weight, source quality, + actual holding or text, and stated limits. +- Do not treat requested relief, allegations, defaults, settlements, or + commentary as a contested merits holding. +- Recheck time-sensitive dockets, statutes, official license text, steward or + OSI status, translations, and later history before giving a current answer. +- Route unresolved research through [the agent workflow](../AGENTS.md) and log + systematic searches using [the search-log template](../templates/SEARCH-LOG.md). diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md index 112c2f6..27b8fb7 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ authority_type: case jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California date: 2017-04-25 authority_status: settled +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: motion-to-dismiss +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [dual-licensing, contract, copyright-infringement, damages] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06982/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06982-2.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/avm-v-cybits.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/avm-v-cybits.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bc7f40e --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/avm-v-cybits.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0057 +title: AVM Computersysteme Vertriebs GmbH v Cybits AG +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Germany, Landgericht Berlin +date: 2011-11-08 +authority_status: current-lower-court +court: Landgericht Berlin +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [firmware, modification, scope, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://www.ifross.org/sites/default/files/LG%20Berlin%20AVM%20v%20Cybits_0.pdf +original_language: German +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0057: *AVM v Cybits* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: LG Berlin, 8 November 2011, 16 O 255/10. +- Direct primary source: [German judgment PDF](https://www.ifross.org/sites/default/files/LG%20Berlin%20AVM%20v%20Cybits_0.pdf) (court judgment reproduction); [FSFE account](https://fsfe.org/news/2011/news-20111201-02.de.html). +- Later history: the judgment itself records an earlier interim appeal, KG 6 September 2010, 24 U 71/10; later merits appeal was not located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +German regional-court merits judgment. The displayed German judgment bears the +court's rubric and docket but is hosted by ifrOSS rather than an official court +portal. No official English translation; English statements are limited +researcher paraphrase. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL v2 components in AVM Fritz!Box firmware. +- Claims: AVM sought copyright, trademark, and competition-law injunctions against Cybits' Surf-Sitter DSL firmware modifier. +- Requested versus awarded relief: copyright-based main injunctions were rejected; a narrow competition-law injunction concerning misleading interface indications was granted. Costs were allocated 80% to AVM and 20% to Cybits. +- Holding: GPL components could be copied/modified under the GPL; AVM's asserted copyright theory did not prohibit the challenged modification on the record. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every firmware is one GPL-covered whole, or that Cybits could disregard non-GPL rights. +- A GPL owner enforcement judgment or source-disclosure remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Surf-Sitter altered Fritz!Box firmware containing Linux/GPL components. The +court discussed GPL copyleft while independently granting narrow relief for +misleading user-interface behavior. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: official-host source or appellate merits disposition. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-high-gain.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-high-gain.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..05f7ec7 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-high-gain.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0045 +title: Andersen and Landley v. High-Gain Antennas, LLC +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York +date: 2007-11-20 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York +procedural_posture: complaint +precedential_weight: none-allegation +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, infringement] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0045: *Andersen and Landley v. High-Gain Antennas, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 07-CV-10456 (S.D.N.Y.); [SFLC 2007 archive](https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/). +- Later history/current status: Unresolved: obtain SDNY docket, complaint, and termination document before using this case substantively. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPLv2 / BusyBox. Complaint alleged distribution of BusyBox in networking equipment without GPL-compliant source availability. +- Requested versus actual relief: Reported requested relief was copyright/GPL-compliance relief. Actual relief: no authenticated final order or complete settlement term located in this pass. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Complaint/docket lead only; no precedential merits holding located. + +## Holding +No conclusion about liability, source disclosure, settlement, or damages is supported by the located record. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Filed with the Xterasys matter in the BusyBox enforcement program. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md index 7a82186..7ca60e4 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ authority_type: settlement jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York date: 2007-10-30 authority_status: settled +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York +procedural_posture: settled +precedential_weight: none-settlement +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, settlement, cure] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/oct/30/busybox-monsoon-settlement/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-verizon.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-verizon.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f3b0d21 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-verizon.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0046 +title: Andersen and Landley v. Verizon Communications, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York +date: 2007-12-07 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York +procedural_posture: settled +precedential_weight: none-settlement +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, settlement] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0046: *Andersen and Landley v. Verizon Communications, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- [SFLC 2007 archive](https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/) (announcing BusyBox/Verizon filing); docket number not verified in this pass. +- Later history/current status: Unresolved: PACER docket and settlement/dismissal. This card is a lead/status record, not authority for a remedy. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPLv2 / BusyBox. Developers alleged Verizon FiOS router distribution without corresponding source. +- Requested versus actual relief: Reported complaint requested injunction and monetary copyright relief. Actual relief: later public news reported settlement; authenticated terms/order not located here. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Reported settlement, not a merits decision; no precedential weight. + +## Holding +No verified court holding or remedy. A press-reported settlement cannot prove enforceability or availability of compelled source publication. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Claim concerned alleged BusyBox use in Actiontec router firmware. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md index 4796da6..5473e47 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ authority_type: case jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York date: 2010-07-27 authority_status: default-judgment +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York +procedural_posture: default-judgment +precedential_weight: default-only +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, injunction, damages, default-judgment] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2010/aug/03/busybox-gpl/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-xterasys.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-xterasys.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..907eef0 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-xterasys.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0044 +title: Andersen and Landley v. Xterasys Corp. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York +date: 2007-11-20 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York +procedural_posture: settled +precedential_weight: none-settlement +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, settlement, cure] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0044: *Andersen and Landley v. Xterasys Corp.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 07-CV-10455 (S.D.N.Y.); [SFLC 2007 archive](https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/). +- Later history/current status: Primary court complaint/final order not located in this pass; SFLC announcement is settlement reporting only. Recheck PACER. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPLv2 / BusyBox. Developers alleged distribution of BusyBox-containing networking products without complete corresponding source. +- Requested versus actual relief: Complaint reportedly sought copyright remedies and GPL compliance. Actual relief: public settlement report says Xterasys would cease binary distribution pending verification, publish source, notify recipients, appoint compliance officer, and provide undisclosed consideration. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Settled action; no precedential merits ruling; full agreement/docket order not reviewed. + +## Holding +Settlement terms show negotiated compliance, not what a court necessarily could or did order. + +## Key facts and reasoning +SFLC represented BusyBox developers in a 2007 enforcement sweep. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eadc0ec --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0061 +title: OfficeTen/OpenWRT software copyright case +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: China, Supreme People's Court IP Tribunal +date: 2023-10-12 +authority_status: current +court: Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Tribunal +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: persuasive-published +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [scope, derivative-work, infringement, defenses] +source_quality: official-summary +source_url: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3773.html +original_language: Simplified Chinese +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0061: OfficeTen/OpenWRT software copyright case + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: Supreme People's Court, (2021) 最高法知民终51号, 12 October 2023. +- Direct primary source: [SPC IP Tribunal official Chinese case summary](https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3773.html). +- Later history: official summary describes the judgment as effective; no full public judgment text was retrieved. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +An official Supreme People's Court IP Tribunal case-summary record of a final +appeal, not the full judgment. Original language Simplified Chinese. No official +English translation located; English is a researcher paraphrase. Parties are +anonymised in the official source. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GPLv2/OpenWRT in underlying software; OfficeTen gateway system. +- Claims: OfficeTen developer alleged unauthorized copying/modification/distribution; defendants argued the developer's alleged GPLv2 noncompliance meant no infringement. +- Requested versus awarded relief: first instance ordered cessation, CNY500,000 economic loss/reasonable expenses, and a website notice for at least 15 days; appeal dismissed and judgment affirmed. +- Holding: where upstream OpenWRT right holders were absent, alleged GPLv2 breach and the developer's own copyright in original contributions were distinct; GPL defence did not defeat the developer's infringement claim on this record. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether the developer complied with GPLv2, whether its software was covered as a whole, or an upstream owner's GPL remedy. +- A general Chinese rule that proprietary additions never fall within GPL scope. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court emphasized contractual privity, technical separation/scope questions, +and lack of proof that the plaintiff relinquished copyright. It expressly left +potential GPL breach claims for an appropriate action. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: complete judgment, name disclosure, or later SPC guidance. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/china-virtual-app-gplv3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/china-virtual-app-gplv3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5658dfe --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/china-virtual-app-gplv3.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0062 +title: Virtual App GPLv3 software copyright case +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: China, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court / Guangdong High People's Court report +date: 2023-08-29 +authority_status: source-summary-limited +court: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v3] +topics: [termination, source-disclosure, injunction, damages] +source_quality: official-summary +source_url: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3095.html +original_language: Simplified Chinese +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0062: Virtual App GPLv3 software copyright case + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: case number and decision date not supplied in the accessible official report; Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court decision described by Guangdong High People's Court. The frontmatter date is the date embedded in the available Guangzhou court report URL, not a verified judgment date. +- Direct primary source: [official Chinese court report](https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3095.html); [Guangzhou IP Court case PDF/report](https://www.gipc.gov.cn/gipc-web-upload/1/20230829/17294770662418.pdf). +- Later history: not located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Official court report/representative-case description, not a complete published +judgment. Original language Simplified Chinese. No official English translation; +English is limited researcher paraphrase. This card is deliberately lower +weight pending a docket number and judgment. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GPLv3, Virtual App source code; report also describes an added commercial-use statement. +- Claims: claimant alleged four applications copied substantially similar sandbox functionality, did not release source, and charged users; requested cessation and CNY15m plus CNY150k expenses. +- Awarded relief: reported order stopped download, installation, and operation of the infringing sandbox-source functionality and awarded CNY500,000 total economic loss/reasonable expenses. +- Holding reported: GPLv3 was a standard-form copyright licence; non-opening of source caused the conditional authorization to terminate, leaving use without legal/contractual permission. + +## What it does not establish + +- The validity of the extra commercial-use restriction, exact GPLv3 scope, an order to publish source, or a general binding Supreme Court rule. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The accessible report describes a GPLv3-derived Android application and treats +the consequence of noncompliance as loss of authorization, followed by a +prohibitory/cash remedy rather than an affirmative source-release decree. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: official full decision/docket, appeal history, and certified translation. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/drauglis-v-kappa-map.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/drauglis-v-kappa-map.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dcd13cd --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/drauglis-v-kappa-map.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0048 +title: Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-District-of-Columbia +date: 2015-08-18 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia +procedural_posture: summary-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0] +topics: [attribution, public-license-conditions, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2014cv01043/166825 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0048: *Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 1:14-cv-01043, Doc. 39 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2015). [Docket identity](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2014cv01043/166825). +- Later history/current status: Verify official PDF/citation before relying; comparable CC construction only. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0. Photographer alleged atlas cover credit failed license attribution requirements. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff sought copyright remedies. Actual relief: summary judgment for defendant on the license/attribution record; no damages, injunction, or source remedy. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court memorandum opinion; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Court construed the credit as reasonable to the medium and sufficient on its facts. It does not decide GPL source obligations or all CC attribution disputes. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Atlas used a licensed photograph on its cover with credit on back cover; court compared the credit to credits for similar map elements. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/drk-photo-v-mcgraw-hill.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/drk-photo-v-mcgraw-hill.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eb4e56d --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/drk-photo-v-mcgraw-hill.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0076 +title: DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +date: 2017-09-12 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [ownership, standing, assignments] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/09/12/15-15106.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0008] +--- + +# AUTH-0076: *DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings* + +## Citation and source + +- 870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2017), [official Ninth Circuit PDF](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/09/12/15-15106.pdf). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Ninth Circuit merits appeal. Binding in the Ninth Circuit on the +standing principle stated, subject to the particular assignment documents. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court affirmed summary judgment for the publisher because a photography +licensing agent that obtained bare assignments of accrued infringement claims, +without exclusive rights under § 106, was not the legal or beneficial owner +entitled to sue under § 501(b). No infringement relief was awarded. + +## What it supports + +- A purported assignee or steward needs proof it owns an exclusive right (or + another recognized beneficial interest) at the relevant time; a claim-only + transfer is insufficient in this circuit. + +## What it does not establish + +- A universal answer for every contributor agreement, collective-work owner, + or jurisdiction outside the Ninth Circuit. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0008. +- Recheck trigger: different transfer wording, forum, or chain of title. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ebay-v-mercexchange.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ebay-v-mercexchange.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c173075 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ebay-v-mercexchange.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0091 +title: eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2006-05-15 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [prohibitory-injunction, mandatory-injunction, equitable-relief] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/547bv.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0012] +--- + +# AUTH-0091: *eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.* + +## Citation and source + +- 547 U.S. 388 (2006). [Official U.S. Reports volume](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/547bv.pdf). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision, binding federal equitable-remedy precedent. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Patent owner sought a permanent injunction after infringement. The case did not involve copyright, public licenses, source code, or specific performance. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court rejected categorical rules for or against injunctions and required application of the traditional four-factor test: irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedies, balance of hardships, and public interest. It vacated and remanded; it did not itself order an injunction. + +## What it supports + +- A permanent injunction for infringement is not automatic. +- A request to stop unlicensed conduct must be analyzed separately from a request for affirmative performance. + +## What it does not establish + +- Entitlement to a copyright injunction on a GPL/AGPL/MPL record. +- A right to public source disclosure, a commercial license, or Rule 70 enforcement. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court applied ordinary equitable principles to patent injunctions and refused both categorical denial and categorical grant rules. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0012. +- Recheck trigger: Supreme Court change to the equitable-injunction framework. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18ba063 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0100 +title: Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +date: 1990-09-11 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [authorization, implied-license, defenses] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/908/908.F2d.555.88-6455.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0015] +--- + +# AUTH-0100: *Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen* + +## Citation and source + +- 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990). [Opinion reproduction](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/908/908.F2d.555.88-6455.html). +- Later history/current status: no overruling authority located in this verification pass. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Ninth Circuit merits decision; binding in that circuit and persuasive elsewhere. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Creator of film special-effects footage sued for copyright infringement; defendant asserted an implied nonexclusive license. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court affirmed summary judgment based on an implied nonexclusive license arising from the parties' objective conduct and delivery for the intended film use. + +## What it supports + +- Authorization can be express or, on appropriate facts, implied; scope remains critical. + +## What it does not establish + +- That public licenses are implied, that a license survives breach, or that every delayed enforcement waives rights. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court considered the request to create the work, delivery, and intended use; it also distinguished nonexclusive permission from transfers requiring writing. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0015. +- Recheck trigger: another circuit or an asserted written public-license text. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-cassation-2022.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-cassation-2022.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dba28b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-cassation-2022.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0052 +title: Entr'Ouvert v Orange — Court of Cassation +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: France, Cour de cassation, first civil chamber +date: 2022-10-05 +authority_status: current +court: Cour de cassation, première chambre civile +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [copyright-infringement, admissibility, contract, source-disclosure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/633d28bda3bbc43e2e4d4b6a +original_language: French +translation_status: official +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0052: *Entr'Ouvert v Orange* — Court of Cassation + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: Cass. 1re civ., 5 October 2022, No. 21-15.386, Arrêt No. 705 FS-B. +- Direct primary source: [official French judgment](https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/633d28bda3bbc43e2e4d4b6a); [Court's English translation/page](https://www.courdecassation.fr/toutes-les-actualites/2022/10/05/clarification-admissibility-software-copyright-infringement-action). +- Later history: remanded to differently composed Paris Court of Appeal, which decided RG 22/18071 on 14 February 2024. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +French supreme-court partial quashing and remand. The French judgment controls; +the Court's own English page is the translation source used for its dispositive +language. It decides admissibility, not final GPL liability or a remedy amount. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL v2, Lasso. +- Claim/trigger: author alleged noncompliant use/distribution in Orange's IDMP platform. +- Requested versus awarded relief: no copyright damages/injunction awarded by this cassation ruling; it quashed only the appeal's inadmissibility finding, remanded, awarded costs, and ordered EUR5,000 under CPC Article 700. +- Holding: the copyright action could not be rejected on the stated non-cumulation ground where the alleged GPL breach was invoked to show unauthorized use; the relevant part of the 2021 appeal was quashed. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every GPL breach is infringement, that the GPL terms were breached here, or that source disclosure is a remedy. +- A final award of commercial-licence value. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court described Lasso as available under a free licence or a paid commercial +licence. It separated the asserted copyright action from a blanket procedural +bar based merely on the licence contract. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: later cassation or enforcement record for the 2024 remand appeal. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..474be55 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0053 +title: Entr'Ouvert v Orange — Paris remand appeal +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: France, Cour d'appel de Paris +date: 2024-02-14 +authority_status: current-pending-later-history-check +court: Cour d'appel de Paris +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: persuasive-published +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [copyright-infringement, distribution, source-disclosure, damages, profits] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/65cdbcdf2425a70008258563 +original_language: French +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0053: *Entr'Ouvert v Orange* — Paris remand appeal + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: CA Paris, 14 February 2024, RG 22/18071, on remand from Cass. 1re civ., No. 21-15.386. +- Direct primary source: [official French decision](https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/65cdbcdf2425a70008258563) and [exported text](https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/export/65cdbcdf2425a70008258563/0). +- Later history: no later appellate disposition was located in this verification pass; recheck before relying on finality. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +French appellate merits decision after cassation/remand. Original language +French. No official English translation was located; statements here are a +limited researcher translation/paraphrase, not a certified translation. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL v2, Lasso library. +- Claims: copyright infringement and associated harm from Orange/Orange Business Services' IDMP distribution to the State; GPL Articles 2, 3, 4, and 10 and moral-right allegations were pleaded. +- Requested relief: claimant sought, among other items, EUR3m economic loss, EUR500k moral harm, EUR500k profits, and publication measures. +- Awarded relief: EUR500,000 economic harm, EUR150,000 moral harm, EUR150,000 infringer profits, and EUR60,000 CPC Article 700 costs, plus first-instance/appellate costs including judicial-expertise costs; it rejected the requested publication measure. No affirmative source-publication order was awarded. +- Holding: on expert evidence, Lasso was modified and distributed within IDMP without the GPLv2-required terms/source offer; that unauthorized distribution was copyright infringement. + +## What it does not establish + +- An automatic rule that all combined/proprietary software must be released. +- That a judge compelled Orange to buy a commercial licence or publicly release source. +- Finality beyond the verified appellate record. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court found Lasso original, accepted Entr'Ouvert's ownership, and relied on +expert examination of modifications/distribution. Commercial proposals supplied +context for economic loss; they were not an imposed commercial contract. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: final appeal status and certified translation. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-tgi-2019.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-tgi-2019.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..06c3d93 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-tgi-2019.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0051 +title: Entr'Ouvert v Orange — Paris first instance +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: France, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris +date: 2019-06-21 +authority_status: superseded-in-part +court: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, troisième chambre, troisième section +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [copyright-infringement, contract, admissibility] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://www.entrouvert.com/actualites/2019/entrouvert-versus-orange/ +original_language: French +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0051: *Entr'Ouvert v Orange* — Paris first instance + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: TGI Paris, 3e ch., 3e sect., 21 June 2019 (public database entry; docket not independently confirmed). +- Direct primary source: no official court-hosted full text located. The [rights-holder's French account](https://www.entrouvert.com/actualites/2019/entrouvert-versus-orange/) quotes and describes the judgment; [commercial database index](https://www.doctrine.fr/d/TGI/Paris/2019/KFV8D8364E64F34EA27A70E) is a lead only. +- Later history: Paris appeal 19 March 2021 was partially quashed by Cass. 1re civ., 5 October 2022, No. 21-15.386; remand appeal decided 14 February 2024. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +First-instance French judgment. It is included to prevent later history from +being mistaken for the initial outcome. Original language French; no certified +or official English translation located. English characterization is a limited +researcher paraphrase of the identified French sources. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL v2, Lasso identity-management library. +- Claims: Entr'Ouvert alleged Orange's IDMP distribution for the French government breached GPL terms, copyright, and parasitism. +- Requested versus awarded relief: claimant sought an infringement prohibition and damages; publicly accessible sources describe the copyright claim as inadmissible under contractual characterization. Exact operative relief was not independently verified. +- Holding: the reported rationale treated GPL use as contractual, triggering the non-cumulation issue under then-applied French reasoning. + +## What it does not establish + +- A current French rule barring copyright claims following GPL breach: its material rationale was displaced by later appellate/cassation history. +- Any source-publication order or commercial-licence award. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Lasso was offered under GPLv2 or commercial terms. The first-instance decision +was a procedural turning point rather than a reliable final statement of +French GPL remedies. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: official judgment retrieval; any final cassation after the 2024 remand appeal. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-pleading-ruling.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-pleading-ruling.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b240589 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-pleading-ruling.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0041 +title: Trent P. Fisher Enterprises, LLC v. SAS Automation, LLC — pleading ruling +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-Ohio +date: 2021-03-31 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio +procedural_posture: motion-to-dismiss +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v3] +topics: [scope, conveyance, termination, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216-0.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0041: *Trent P. Fisher Enterprises, LLC v. SAS Automation, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 3:20-cv-00216-TMR, Doc. 22 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2021). [GovInfo PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216-0.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Later summary-judgment order is AUTH-0042; final docket must be checked before asserting ultimate result. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GPL issues arose from OpenCart-based software; claims included copyright, trade secret, contract, and DMCA claims relating to mySAS/CAD software. +- Requested versus actual relief: Parties sought dismissal/pleading relief; actual relief was the order stated on motion, not an adjudication awarding GPL compliance, source disclosure, or damages. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court early-stage order; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Does not finally determine GPL coverage, conveyance, license termination, or infringement. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Fisher sold SAS; transactions included IP assignment and a license-back arrangement for software. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bc8c18b --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0042 +title: Trent P. Fisher Enterprises, LLC v. SAS Automation, LLC — summary judgment +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-Ohio +date: 2023-08-03 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio +procedural_posture: summary-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v3] +topics: [scope, conveyance, termination, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216-4.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0042: *Trent P. Fisher Enterprises, LLC v. SAS Automation, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 3:20-cv-00216-TMR, Doc. 129 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2023). [GovInfo PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216-4.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Trial was then set for Jan. 8, 2024; no later final order located in this pass. Recheck docket. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPLv3 defense concerning OpenCart, alleged covered works (MySAS and CAD Download Software), conveyance, and claimed cure. Underlying claims included copyright, trade secret, contract, and DMCA. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on liability and defendants sought summary judgment. Actual relief: plaintiffs’ motion denied on specified license/termination claims; factual disputes remained; no source order or final damages award. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court summary-judgment order; persuasive only. + +## Holding +A jury could find GPL-covered works were conveyed, giving SAS automatic GPL permission, and could find curative action began within 30 days. Court did not decide those facts or enter final GPL merits judgment. + +## Key facts and reasoning +The business sale/license-back left source code on SAS servers; GPLv3 §§10 and termination/cure language were central. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..10d6aa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0072 +title: Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Second-Circuit-applying-New-York-law +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit +date: 2012-06-26 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [formation, assent, preemption] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://openjurist.org/683/f3d/424/forest-park-pictures-v-universal-television-network-inc +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0005, PR-0007] +--- + +# AUTH-0072: *Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network* + +## Citation and source + +- 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012), [published opinion reproduction](https://openjurist.org/683/f3d/424/forest-park-pictures-v-universal-television-network-inc). +- The reproduction is the text of a federal appellate opinion, not a license + steward statement; verify against an official docket copy before filing. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published appeal from Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Binding within the Second +Circuit on its federal preemption analysis and its New York-law pleading +holding, but it does not decide public-license assent. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court vacated dismissal. It held that allegations of an implied promise to +pay for use of a submitted idea adequately pleaded an enforceable New York +contract and supplied an extra element, so the claim was not § 301-preempted. +It did not find a contract after proof or award payment. + +## What it supports + +- Conduct and surrounding communications can plausibly form an implied-in-fact + agreement under the selected state law. +- A promise to pay for use can be qualitatively different from exclusive + copyright rights. + +## What it does not establish + +- That notice of a public license alone proves assent in New York or elsewhere. +- That every contract claim avoids § 301; the court reserved different facts, + including a promise duplicating copyright control. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: PR-0005 and PR-0007. +- Distinguish: the issue here was a New York idea-submission contract, not GPL. +- Recheck trigger: controlling state-law change or use outside its forum. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fourth-estate-v-wall-street.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fourth-estate-v-wall-street.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c295daa --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fourth-estate-v-wall-street.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0095 +title: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2019-03-04 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [registration, procedure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586bv.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0014] +--- + +# AUTH-0095: *Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC* + +## Citation and source + +- 586 U.S. 296 (2019). [Official U.S. Reports volume](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586bv.pdf). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision construing section 411(a); binding nationwide. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Copyright owner sued for infringement after filing applications but before the Copyright Office acted. The case did not involve an open-source license. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that registration occurs, for section 411(a), when the Copyright Office registers a copyright after examination or refuses registration; filing an application alone does not suffice under the ordinary rule. + +## What it supports + +- Keep application, registration/refusal, and filing dates separate. + +## What it does not establish + +- Work nationality, a section 411 exception, section 412 eligibility, or license breach. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court read the statute's registration language and statutory scheme as adopting the registration approach. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0014. +- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment or a claimed exception. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/friends-of-the-earth-v-laidlaw.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/friends-of-the-earth-v-laidlaw.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..54998fb --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/friends-of-the-earth-v-laidlaw.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0102 +title: Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2000-01-12 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [mootness, voluntary-cessation, injunctive-relief] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-528/USREPORTS-528-167 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0015] +--- + +# AUTH-0102: *Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.* + +## Citation and source + +- 528 U.S. 167 (2000). [Official U.S. Reports record](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-528/USREPORTS-528-167). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision, binding general Article III/mootness precedent. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Environmental organizations sought declaratory/injunctive relief and civil penalties for permit violations; the defendant later complied and asserted mootness. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. It also addressed standing and civil penalties in its statutory setting. + +## What it supports + +- Later compliance alone ordinarily does not end a live dispute over prospective or completed conduct. + +## What it does not establish + +- A copyright remedy, license breach, or automatic availability of an injunction after cure. +- That all damages claims survive any settlement, release, or lack of standing. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court distinguished post-filing mootness from initial standing and applied the voluntary-cessation exception in an environmental enforcement case. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0015. +- Recheck trigger: actual cessation facts, settlement/release, or copyright-specific justiciability issue. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fsf-v-cisco.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fsf-v-cisco.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fcde6af --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/fsf-v-cisco.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0043 +title: Free Software Foundation, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York +date: 2008-12-11 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York +procedural_posture: settled +precedential_weight: none-settlement +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, settlement, compliance] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf/view +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0043: *Free Software Foundation, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 1:08-cv-10764 (S.D.N.Y.). [Complaint PDF](https://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf/view); [docket identity](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2008cv10764/337188). +- Later history/current status: [Settlement announcement](https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/may/20/fsf-cisco-settlement/) is a party/representative report, not a court ruling. Obtain docket if terms matter. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GPLv2 and other FSF-copyrighted programs in Linksys products. FSF alleged copyright infringement from distribution without required source/license materials. +- Requested versus actual relief: Complaint sought infringement remedies, including damages and injunctive relief. Actual relief: publicly announced settlement; reported compliance director/process and undisclosed financial contribution; no merits judgment. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Settled federal action; complaint is allegation and settlement is nonprecedential. + +## Holding +No court holding establishes breach, source disclosure, or a general GPL remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning +FSF alleged Linksys product distributions included FSF code but did not satisfy GPL obligations. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/gestionale-open-milan-2025.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/gestionale-open-milan-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..25b5c74 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/gestionale-open-milan-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0153 +title: Gestionale Open litigation — Milan Court of Appeal 2025 +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Italy, Corte d'Appello di Milano +court: Corte d'Appello di Milano, Sezione specializzata in materia di impresa +date: 2025-05-06 +authority_status: current-lower-court +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: persuasive-published +licenses: [BSD-license, GNU-GPL] +topics: [public-license-conditions, notice, attribution, source-disclosure, scope] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://www.doctrine.it/decisions/itcanzeudfyi14peo +original_language: Italian +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0153: *Gestionale Open* litigation — Milan Court of Appeal 2025 + +## Citation and source + +- Corte d'Appello di Milano, Sezione specializzata in materia di impresa, + judgment no. 1293/2025, filed 6 May 2025, appeal RG 3330/2023, affirming + Tribunale di Milano, partial judgment no. 7112/2023 in RG 33516/2018. + [Public full-text reproduction](https://www.doctrine.it/decisions/itcanzeudfyi14peo). +- The accessible document carries the court rubric, judgment number, filing + date, panel, and dispositive text, but it is hosted by a legal database rather + than an Italian court/government portal. No later *ricorso per cassazione* was + located in this audit. +- Original language: Italian. No official English translation was located; all + English statements in this card are limited researcher translations/paraphrases. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Milan appellate merits judgment affirming a partial first-instance +judgment. It has persuasive comparative value only. The GPL material arises in +a defence/scope argument; the principal public licence adjudicated was a BSD +licence, not GNU GPL enforcement by a GPL copyright owner. + +## Claims and requested relief + +The appellees alleged unauthorized redistribution of open-source Gestionale +Open version 10.00 and commercial use of later, non-open update-source versions +to make and distribute competing software. They sought injunctions and related +copyright/trademark relief. Appellants argued, among other things, that the +software's use of MySQL subject to GPL made the versions open source and that +this defeated the claim. The accessible judgment records the requests and the +appeal; it does not identify the anonymised parties reliably enough to expand +their names beyond the published case label. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +- The court rejected the appeal and confirmed the appealed partial judgment. + It held that redistributing source or binary version 10.00 without the BSD + copyright notice, licence conditions, and disclaimer violated the cumulative + BSD conditions and made that use unlawful under the cited Italian copyright + provisions. +- It confirmed that the later 10.01/10.02 source versions were not freely + reusable merely because the base version was open source; the specific PAGO + contract limited their use and transfer. +- It treated the asserted GPL/MySQL issue as belonging to the relationship with + the MySQL right holder and held that an upstream GPL breach would not, by + itself, turn the later versions into open source or defeat the proven violation. + The court awarded appeal costs as stated in its dispositive text. It did not + order GPL source publication or resolve a GPL-owner infringement claim. + +## What it supports + +- A public-license user's permission can depend on satisfying the particular + notice/licence/disclaimer conditions stated in the licence. +- A party cannot establish a broad downstream open-source entitlement merely by + alleging an upstream GPL issue outside the litigated right-holder relationship. + +## What it does not establish + +- The validity, scope, derivative-work boundary, or remedy of GNU GPL. +- That BSD and GPL have interchangeable conditions or consequences. +- A source-disclosure order, a worldwide remedy, or a binding Italian Supreme + Court rule. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court treated the BSD redistribution conditions as cumulative and found the +record deficient on multiple requirements, not only a copyright notice. It +rejected an asserted presumption that later derivative versions remained open +source, relying on the contractual and factual record. The GPL discussion is +narrow: it prevents a non-right-holder defence from deciding separate MySQL/GPL +rights in this case. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Distinguishing authority: [*Entr'Ouvert v. Orange*](entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md) concerns GPLv2 and French law. +- Recheck trigger: an official Italian judicial copy, a Cassation disposition, + a certified translation, or proposed use for a GPL rather than BSD proposition. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/graham-v-james.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/graham-v-james.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e321434 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/graham-v-james.md @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0073 +title: Graham v. James +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Second-Circuit +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit +date: 1998-05-18 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [condition-covenant, copyright-nexus, license] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://openjurist.org/144/f3d/229/graham-v-d-james +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0006] +--- + +# AUTH-0073: *Graham v. James* + +## Citation and source + +- 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998), [published opinion reproduction](https://openjurist.org/144/f3d/229/graham-v-d-james). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Second Circuit merits appeal. Binding in that circuit; it supplies a +general licensing distinction, not construction of a reciprocal public license. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court held that a failure to pay royalties was ordinarily a covenant rather +than a condition precedent to a nonexclusive software license, so nonpayment +did not itself make licensed use infringement. It remanded for whether the +license was rescinded; it did not hold payment can never be a condition. + +## What it supports + +- The effect of breach follows the text and applicable contract law; a breached + promise may leave permission intact unless it is a condition or the license + is effectively terminated. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every source or notice provision is a covenant, or that a license's + express condition/termination wording is ineffective. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0006. +- Contrasting authority: AUTH-0001 and AUTH-0002. +- Recheck trigger: a forum-specific construction of the selected license. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/great-minds-v-fedex.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/great-minds-v-fedex.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ccf732 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/great-minds-v-fedex.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0047 +title: Great Minds v. FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Second-Circuit +date: 2018-03-21 +authority_status: current +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0] +topics: [noncommercial-use, third-party-use, public-license-conditions] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-808/17-808-2018-03-21.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0047: *Great Minds v. FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- 886 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2018). [Published opinion](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-808/17-808-2018-03-21.html). +- Later history/current status: Comparable public-license decision, not GPL/AGPL authority. Recheck if different CC version or independent commercial use. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0. Copyright claim alleged commercial copy-shop reproduction exceeded school districts’ noncommercial license. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff sought infringement remedies. Actual relief: dismissal affirmed; no damages, injunction, or attribution/source remedy. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Published Second Circuit decision; binding in circuit on construction of this license and agency point. + +## Holding +Absent clear contrary language, noncommercial licensees could use commercial reproduction agents to exercise their permitted rights; FedEx was an agent of school districts. + +## Key facts and reasoning +School districts ordered copies for noncommercial educational use; FedEx reproduced materials commercially for them. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1794b4a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0059 +title: Christoph Hellwig v VMware Global, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Germany, Hamburg courts +date: 2019-02-28 +authority_status: final-reported +court: Landgericht Hamburg +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [scope, derivative-work, copyright-infringement, source-disclosure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bsharprod.psml?doc.id=KORE218712016&showdoccase=1&st=ent +original_language: German +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0059: *Hellwig v VMware* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: LG Hamburg, 8 July 2016, 310 O 89/15; affirmed/rejected on appeal by Hanseatisches OLG Hamburg in February 2019 (docket/full text not publicly retrieved). +- Direct primary source: [Hamburg state-law portal record](https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bsharprod.psml?doc.id=KORE218712016&showdoccase=1&st=ent) for LG judgment; [ifrOSS report identifying court/date/docket](https://www.ifross.org/?q=en/artikel/hellwig-vmware-landgericht-hamburg-h-lt-urheberrechte-f-r-nicht-belegt). +- Later history: reporting identifies the OLG dismissal and that no further remedy was pursued; official appellate text not located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Final reported German dismissal. German original controls; no official English +translation. The state portal's JavaScript presentation prevented full-text +capture, so English summary is limited and secondary-confirmed. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GPLv2 Linux contributions; ESXi 5.5.0 vmklinux/vmkernel. +- Claims: Hellwig sought relief based on alleged incorporation/combination without GPL-compliant source disclosure. +- Requested versus awarded relief: claimant sought GPL/copyright enforcement; court awarded no source or other substantive GPL remedy and dismissed the claim. +- Holding: the claimant did not sufficiently establish protectable authorship and/or relevant code adoption on the pleaded proof; courts did not reach a merits holding on derivative work or dynamic linking. + +## What it does not establish + +- That VMware's architecture complied with GPLv2, or that dynamic linking never creates a covered work. +- A general standing rule for every Linux contributor. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The dispute concerned alleged use of Hellwig's kernel work in VMware's ESXi. +Proof and pleading were dispositive before the technical GPL boundary was +adjudicated. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: official OLG judgment/full text or later German high-court review. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..23207f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0050 +title: IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Court of Justice of the European Union +date: 2019-12-18 +authority_status: current +court: Court of Justice of the European Union +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [paid software license] +topics: [copyright-infringement, license-condition, remedies, EU-software-directive] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/CASE/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0666 +original_language: French +translation_status: official +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0050: *IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: Case C-666/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1099, judgment of 18 December 2019. +- Direct primary source: [EUR-Lex, French case-language text](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/CASE/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0666); [official English text](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0666). +- Later history/current status: preliminary ruling on a Paris Court of Appeal reference; national remand disposition was not verified in this pass. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Binding CJEU preliminary ruling on interpretation of Directives 2004/48 and +2009/24. The CJEU did not decide infringement, damages, or an injunction between +the parties. The French language is the language of the case; the EUR-Lex English +version is an official EU translation, not a researcher translation. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: a paid software licence; no public/open-source licence at issue. +- Claim/trigger: alleged unauthorized source-code modification contrary to licence. +- Requested versus awarded relief: underlying claim sought copyright damages; the CJEU awarded no party-specific relief. +- Holding: a licensee's breach of a software-licence clause concerning an act reserved by Article 4(1) may be treated as infringement where it concerns a limitation within Article 4(2); Article 2 of Directive 2004/48 does not exclude that route. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every contractual GPL/AGPL term is an Article 4(2) limitation. +- That source disclosure, a commercial licence, damages, or an injunction follows automatically. +- The outcome under French law on remand or in a non-EU forum. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +IT Development licensed software to Free Mobile and alleged modification beyond +the licence. The Court distinguished the national-law classification question +from the EU rule that the author can invoke Directive 2004/48 remedies when the +licensee infringes a limitation connected with an Article 4 reserved act. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: national remand decision, Directive amendment, or later CJEU interpretation. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer-post-remand.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer-post-remand.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..143333d --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer-post-remand.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0152 +title: Jacobsen v. Katzer — post-remand summary judgment and dismissal +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +date: 2010-02-22 +authority_status: dismissed-without-merits +procedural_posture: dismissed-without-merits +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [Artistic-License] +topics: [copyright-infringement, attribution, damages, dismissal, later-history] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905-39.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- + +# AUTH-0152: *Jacobsen v. Katzer* — post-remand history + +## Citation and source + +- No. C 06-01905 JSW, Doc. 395 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2009), [official GovInfo PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905-39.pdf). +- The docket's Doc. 404 is an [order of dismissal, signed February 22, 2010](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2006cv01905/179727/404). The accessible docket reproduction confirms dismissal but does not supply a settlement agreement or merits judgment on all remaining issues. +- Original language: English; no translation is needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +This card supplements, rather than replaces, the Federal Circuit remand card +AUTH-0001. The December 2009 order decided cross-motions for summary judgment; +the February 2010 order then dismissed the case. The district-court rulings are +persuasive only and the dismissal is not a final contested merits award. + +| Date | Posture | Actual result | +|---|---|---| +| 2009-12-10 | Summary judgment | Plaintiff's motion granted in part and denied in part; defendants' partial-summary-judgment motion denied. | +| 2010-02-22 | Dismissal | Order of dismissal; no public settlement terms or damages/injunction judgment located. | + +## Claims and requested relief + +Following the Federal Circuit remand, the cross-motions addressed copyright +infringement, DMCA copyright-management information, cybersquatting, and +counterclaims. The cited 2009 order did not itself award the preliminary +injunction or public source disclosure sometimes associated with broad accounts +of the litigation. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +- The court ruled that the selection and arrangement of the decoder-definition + files could satisfy the minimal originality threshold; it denied defendants' + summary-judgment attack on copyrightability. +- It granted Jacobsen summary judgment on copyright infringement of the defined + files and on cybersquatting, while recognizing remaining DMCA knowledge/intent + issues. It did not set damages in the cited order. +- The later dismissal ends the docket without an accessible public final order + granting damages, a permanent injunction, public source disclosure, or a + settlement term. Do not convert the 2009 liability rulings into such relief. + +## What it supports + +- The leading 2008 appellate condition analysis was followed by fact- and + work-specific district-court rulings; it did not itself produce a published + source-performance remedy. +- A condition/licence case can also require independent proof of ownership, + protected expression, copying, damages, and equitable relief. + +## What it does not establish + +- Any GPL/AGPL construction or a general source-disclosure entitlement. +- The complete terms or consideration of a settlement. +- A final damages award following the 2009 summary-judgment ruling. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The post-remand order addressed JMRI decoder-definition files and attribution +information, not an obligation to publish a derivative work's source. Its +copyright discussion focuses on the selection/arrangement and files proved in +the record. The docket dismissal therefore materially limits any assertion that +the Federal Circuit remand culminated in a final open-source remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0003](../../matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Related authority: [Federal Circuit condition ruling](jacobsen-v-katzer.md). +- Recheck trigger: PACER-certified dismissal/settlement record, post-dismissal + appeal, or a need to state the precise scope of the 2009 liability ruling. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md index e9313c0..ef01f1a 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ authority_type: case jurisdiction: US-Federal-Circuit-applying-Ninth-Circuit-law date: 2008-08-13 authority_status: current +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [Artistic License 1.0] +topics: [license-condition, attribution, copyright-infringement, preliminary-injunction] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Jacobsen_v_Katzer_-_Westlaw.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0a874fb --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0060 +title: Jelurida IP B.V. v Apollo Fintech Ltd +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Netherlands, Gerechtshof Amsterdam +date: 2022-09-06 +authority_status: current +court: Gerechtshof Amsterdam +procedural_posture: preliminary-injunction +precedential_weight: persuasive-published +licenses: [Jelurida Public License] +topics: [mandatory-injunction, license-compliance, penalty, jurisdiction] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:2582 +original_language: Dutch +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0060: *Jelurida IP B.V. v Apollo Fintech Ltd* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 6 September 2022, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:2582; first instance ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:4717. +- Direct primary source: [Dutch judgment text](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:2582); accessible mirror with full disposition: [Lexboost](https://www.lexboost.com/rechtspraak/ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:2582). +- Later history: no later disposition located in this pass. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Dutch Court of Appeal interim-relief judgment. Original language Dutch. No +official English translation located; all English wording is a limited +researcher translation/paraphrase. It has persuasive comparative value, not +binding effect outside its system. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: Jelurida Public License (JPL), after earlier Nxt GPL history. +- Claims: Jelurida alleged Apollo Currency used Nxt/Apollo software without JPL compliance. +- Requested versus awarded relief: the appellate court narrowed but affirmed the compliance order; it ordered Apollo, within the EU, fully and unconditionally to comply with JPL Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3 with 3.2, and 5. The Dutch penalty mechanism remained, reported as EUR25,000 per breach capped at EUR2.5m; costs were awarded. +- Holding: Apollo's attacks on JPL obligation (including alleged GPL/history defenses) failed on the interim record; order was limited to specified clauses. + +## What it does not establish + +- GPL enforcement, a final damages adjudication, or a worldwide order. +- Compliance with clauses beyond those expressly ordered. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Apollo was a Hong Kong entity; the JPL selected Amsterdam. The court accepted +jurisdiction and restricted the performance command to defined JPL obligations, +an important distinction from an unlimited "obey the licence" injunction. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: merits case, Supreme Court review, or official translation. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-fees.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-fees.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..199c41f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-fees.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0099 +title: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2016-06-16 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [fees, costs, remedies] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/579bv.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0013] +--- + +# AUTH-0099: *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* + +## Citation and source + +- 579 U.S. 197 (2016). [Official U.S. Reports volume](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/579bv.pdf). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision construing section 505; binding nationwide. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Prevailing defendant sought attorney fees after a copyright suit. No open-source license was involved. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that a court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's position while retaining discretion to consider all relevant circumstances; it vacated and remanded the fee ruling. + +## What it supports + +- Section 505 fees are discretionary and context-sensitive, not automatic for a prevailing party. + +## What it does not establish + +- Fee eligibility under section 412, a particular amount, or contractual fee shifting. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court emphasized evenhanded treatment of prevailing plaintiffs and defendants while preserving district-court discretion. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0013. +- Recheck trigger: section 505 issue, section 412 timing issue, or selected state contract law. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/knowledge-based-solutions-v-dijk.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/knowledge-based-solutions-v-dijk.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..709b988 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/knowledge-based-solutions-v-dijk.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0040 +title: Knowledge Based Solutions, Inc. v. Dijk +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Eastern-District-of-Michigan +date: 2016-11-09 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan +procedural_posture: motion-to-dismiss +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [] +topics: [personal-jurisdiction, trade-secret, proprietary-software] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2%3A2016cv13041/313520/22/0.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0040: *Knowledge Based Solutions, Inc. v. Dijk* + +## Citation and source +- No. 2:16-cv-13041, Doc. 22 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2016). [Court PDF](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2%3A2016cv13041/313520/22/0.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Included as required negative/relevance check; later docket/final disposition not verified. Do not cite for GPL doctrine. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: No GPL/LGPL/AGPL or other public license identified; proprietary software, NDA/noncompete allegations, copyright, trade-secret, and contract claims. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff sought infringement and related relief. Actual relief: motion to dismiss granted in part; no public-license remedy. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court pleading ruling; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Personal-jurisdiction/forum analysis on alleged confidential proprietary software conduct; it is not open-source authority. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Former graduate student allegedly used confidential information to create competing software. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/korea-gpl-trade-secret-2009.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/korea-gpl-trade-secret-2009.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f69285f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/korea-gpl-trade-secret-2009.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0063 +title: Korean Supreme Court GPL derivative-program trade-secret case +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: South Korea, Supreme Court +date: 2009-02-12 +authority_status: current +court: Supreme Court of Korea +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: persuasive-published +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [derivative-work, trade-secret, scope, source-disclosure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoR.do?precSeq=129612&vSct=%2A +original_language: Korean +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0063: Korean Supreme Court GPL derivative-program trade-secret case + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: Supreme Court of Korea, 12 February 2009, 2006도8369 (unfair-competition/trade-secret criminal case). +- Direct primary source: [Korean official case database](https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoR.do?precSeq=129612&vSct=%2A). +- Later history: final Supreme Court judgment. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Supreme Court criminal/trade-secret disposition, not a GPL enforcement action. +Original language Korean. No official English translation located; English is a +limited researcher paraphrase. The database anonymises program/party names. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL (version not stated in the official text), VPN application derivative. +- Claim/trigger: defendants challenged a trade-secret conviction; record included refusal to publish derivative source allegedly contrary to GPL condition. +- Requested versus awarded relief: no GPL source-disclosure relief was requested or awarded; Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and left conviction outcome intact. +- Holding: an independently creative derivative's source may remain a trade secret even if the developer's refusal to disclose it breached GPL; liability to the original-program copyright owner for that breach was expressly left as a separate matter. + +## What it does not establish + +- That GPL breach is permissible, that the source need not be released in an enforcement action, or that the derivative author has rights against the original author. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court separated copyright in an independently creative derivative and the +trade-secret definition from a potential GPL-based claim by the original +author. That separation is the card's narrow use. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: certified English/Korean legal translation or later Korean GPL enforcement decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md index 57d9ff9..89d20c0 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ authority_type: case jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit date: 2010-12-14 authority_status: current +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [World of Warcraft End User License Agreement and Terms of Use] +topics: [license-condition, contract-covenant, copyright-nexus, infringement] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/17/09-15932.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mgm-v-grokster-secondary-liability.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mgm-v-grokster-secondary-liability.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..32d12db --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mgm-v-grokster-secondary-liability.md @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0114 +title: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2005-06-27 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [secondary-liability, inducement, direct-infringement, distribution] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-480P.ZO +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0018] +--- + +# AUTH-0114: *Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.* + +## Citation and source + +- 545 U.S. 913 (2005). +- [Opinion reproduction](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-480P.ZO); [opinion text](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-480). +- Later history/current status: Supreme Court merits decision; checked 2026-08-25. +- Original language and translation provenance: English; not needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Supreme Court merits decision. Its inducement rule binds U.S. courts on that +federal copyright proposition, while application depends on proof and does not +erase other secondary-liability limits. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Copyright holders sought damages and an injunction against distributors of +peer-to-peer software for users' alleged direct infringement. This was not a +public-license, reseller, or manufacturer case. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting +its use to infringe copyright, shown by clear expression or affirmative steps +to foster infringement, is liable for resulting third-party infringement. The +decision addressed the liability standard and remanded; it is not an order that +a distributor must publish source code or accept a license. + +## What it supports + +- Secondary liability is analytically distinct from direct infringement by the + actor that reproduced, distributed, or otherwise exercised an exclusive right. +- Distribution or resale alone is not the complete inducement test; direct + infringement and the required intent/conduct must be proved. + +## What it does not establish + +- Liability for a contract manufacturer, reseller, customer, or marketplace on + a bare allegation that it handled a product containing code. +- A license-specific cure, source-availability, or affirmative-performance remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court preserved the line between distributing technology with lawful uses +and purposeful promotion of infringement. Supply-chain facts—who made which +copy, directed which distribution, knew what, and took what affirmative +steps—therefore matter before assigning a secondary theory. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0018](../../matters/supply-chain/downstream-recipients-manufacturers-resellers-and-secondary-liability.md). +- Conflicting or distinguishing authorities: *Sony* and circuit-specific contributory/vicarious-liability precedent require separate analysis. +- Recheck trigger: selected circuit, asserted theory, or evidence concerning intent and direct infringement. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/micro-star-v-formgen.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/micro-star-v-formgen.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..737d993 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/micro-star-v-formgen.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0077 +title: Micro Star v. FormGen +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +date: 1998-09-11 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [derivative-work, scope, distribution] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://app.midpage.ai/document/micro-star-v-formgen-inc-757702 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0009] +--- + +# AUTH-0077: *Micro Star v. FormGen* + +## Citation and source + +- 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998), [published opinion reproduction](https://app.midpage.ai/document/micro-star-v-formgen-inc-757702). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Ninth Circuit preliminary-injunction appeal. Binding in that circuit +on its derivative-work analysis, but it is not a linking or public-license case. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court upheld preliminary injunctive relief against sale of a compilation of +game level files. The files were derivative works because they incorporated +protected story elements through the original game's audiovisual display; an +authorized level editor and user-sharing encouragement did not establish an +unrestricted right to commercially distribute the compilation. + +## What it supports + +- A digital file can be a derivative work even when it does not contain every + original asset; the inquiry is factual and expression-specific. + +## What it does not establish + +- That static or dynamic linking, APIs, aggregation, or all plug-ins create a + derivative or covered work. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0009. +- Recheck trigger: technical architecture or governing circuit differs. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cbab10b --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0074 +title: Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit-applying-California-law +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +date: 2011-05-04 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [preemption, formation, contract] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/06/03/08-56954.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0005, PR-0007] +--- + +# AUTH-0074: *Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television* + +## Citation and source + +- 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), [official Ninth Circuit PDF](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/06/03/08-56954.pdf). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published en banc appeal. Binding in the Ninth Circuit on its California +implied-contract preemption holding. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +Reversing dismissal, the court held that an alleged implied promise to pay for +use of submitted ideas is an extra element and is not preempted by § 301. It +did not establish the asserted agreement after evidence or award damages. + +## What it supports + +- California contract claims require attention to the promise actually alleged, + not merely the copyrighted subject matter. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every source-disclosure promise has an extra element, particularly when + the requested performance is indistinguishable from an exclusive right. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: PR-0005 and PR-0007. +- Recheck trigger: California-law change or materially different promise. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-graph-foundation.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-graph-foundation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5bb63fe --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-graph-foundation.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0039 +title: Neo4j, Inc. v. Graph Foundation, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +date: 2019-10-01 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: settled +precedential_weight: none-settlement +licenses: [Neo4j Sweden Software License, GNU AGPL] +topics: [settlement, trademark, false-advertising, source-disclosure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/03/14/21-16029.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0039: *Neo4j, Inc. v. Graph Foundation, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 3:19-cv-06226-EJD (N.D. Cal.). [Ninth Circuit order identifying settlement](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/03/14/21-16029.pdf) at 1 n.1. +- Later history/current status: Unsealed terms and final docket order not located; recheck if settlement details matter. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Neo4j Sweden Software License; AGPL text was alleged in ONgDB. Complaint-level theories tracked related dispute. +- Requested versus actual relief: Requested relief is not treated as awarded. Actual relief: settlement reported; terms unknown. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Settled action; no precedential merits holding. + +## Holding +Only verified proposition: substantially similar action settled. Does not establish liability, AGPL enforceability, or remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Related ONgDB dispute; no settlement inference drawn. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-liability-ruling.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-liability-ruling.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6cf5940 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-liability-ruling.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0036 +title: Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC — liability and injunction ruling +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +date: 2020-08-24 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: judgment-on-pleadings +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [Neo4j Sweden Software License, GNU GPL, GNU AGPL] +topics: [trademark, false-advertising, license-conditions, open-source-claims] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2018cv07182/335295/70/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0036: *Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 5:18-cv-07182-EJD, Doc. 70 (N.D. Cal. 2020). [Docket-document reproduction](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2018cv07182/335295/70/). +- Later history/current status: Later orders AUTH-0037–0038. Recheck before relying outside Sweden License facts. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Neo4j Sweden Software License, not GPL/AGPL; alleged ONgDB replacement used AGPL language. Claims included copyright, DMCA, contract, and Lanham Act. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiffs sought injunctions and money. Actual relief at this stage included fact-specific liability/injunctive determinations; Ninth Circuit identifies an affirmed false-advertising injunction. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court merits/interlocutory ruling; persuasive only. + +## Holding +License-text and record specific; does not decide AGPL compliance or establish source-disclosure remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Allegations concerned copying Neo4j EE, license/CMI removal, and ONgDB marketing. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-ninth-circuit.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-ninth-circuit.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4d25c4a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-ninth-circuit.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0038 +title: Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit +date: 2022-03-14 +authority_status: current +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: nonprecedential +licenses: [Neo4j Sweden Software License] +topics: [trademark, false-advertising, open-source-claims] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/03/14/21-16029.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0038: *Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 21-16029, memorandum disposition as amended (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2022). [Official court PDF](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/03/14/21-16029.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Amended order says Graph Foundation action settled; see AUTH-0039. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Neo4j Sweden Software License, not GPL/AGPL. Claims included copyright, DMCA, contract, and Lanham Act. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiffs sought damages/injunctions. Actual relief: affirmed relevant judgment/injunction against calling ONgDB a free/open-source drop-in replacement and related false representations. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum; nonprecedential, persuasive only under applicable rules. + +## Holding +Representation was literally false on this license and record. Does not construe GPL or award source disclosure. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Section 7 permitted removing further restrictions only in stated upstream/downstream conditions, which court found absent. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-summary-judgment.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-summary-judgment.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd47516 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-summary-judgment.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0037 +title: Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC — partial summary judgment +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +date: 2023-10-25 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: summary-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [Neo4j Sweden Software License] +topics: [copyright-infringement, DMCA, false-advertising, source-code-metadata] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2018cv07182/335295/216/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0037: *Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC* + +## Citation and source +- No. 5:18-cv-07182-EJD, Doc. 216 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2023). [Docket-document reproduction](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2018cv07182/335295/216/). +- Later history/current status: Verify final judgment/appeal before describing ultimate damages. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Neo4j Sweden Software License; alleged source-file CMI/license removal and deceptive ONgDB marketing. Claims included copyright/DMCA/Lanham Act. +- Requested versus actual relief: Requested relief included damages/injunctions. Actual relief: partial summary judgment and Daubert relief as specified; not an AGPL source-publication order. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court partial-summary-judgment order; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Resolves identified claims on its record, not a general proposition about replacing proprietary terms with AGPL text. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Court identifies CMI headers, terminated partnership, and ONgDB code composition. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/on-davis-v-gap.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/on-davis-v-gap.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fbfd23b --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/on-davis-v-gap.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0094 +title: On Davis v. The Gap, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Second-Circuit +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit +date: 2001-04-03 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [actual-damages, reasonable-royalty, commercial-license-valuation] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/246/246.F3d.152.99-9081.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0013] +--- + +# AUTH-0094: *On Davis v. The Gap, Inc.* + +## Citation and source + +- 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001). [Opinion reproduction](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/246/246.F3d.152.99-9081.html); [published-opinion mirror](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/246/152/469017/). +- Later history/current status: no overruling authority located in this verification pass. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Second Circuit merits decision; binding in that circuit and persuasive elsewhere. + +## Claims and requested relief + +A jewelry designer alleged unauthorized use of eyeglass designs in advertising and sought copyright actual damages, including the fair market value of a license. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court held that actual damages may include the reasonable value of the use of a copyrighted work, including a hypothetical license fee, when supported by non-speculative proof; it reversed the relevant summary judgment disposition. + +## What it supports + +- Commercial-license evidence can support a valuation theory when comparable and proved. +- A hypothetical fee is compensatory evidence, not compelled assent to a future license. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a list price, settlement demand, or dual-license price is automatically recoverable. +- Profits, fees, statutory damages, or a GPL/AGPL remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court distinguished legally cognizable fair-market value from speculation and required a factual basis for the proposed fee. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0013. +- Recheck trigger: use outside the Second Circuit or an inadequate comparator record. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/petrella-v-mgm.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/petrella-v-mgm.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c468556 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/petrella-v-mgm.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0097 +title: Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2014-05-19 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [limitations, accrual, laches, damages, injunction] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/572bv.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0014, PR-0015] +--- + +# AUTH-0097: *Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.* + +## Citation and source + +- 572 U.S. 663 (2014). [Official U.S. Reports volume](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/572bv.pdf). +- Later history/current status: later monetary-lookback issue addressed in AUTH-0098; current precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision, binding nationwide. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Copyright owner alleged continuing exploitation of *Raging Bull* and sought damages and injunction. Defendant invoked laches. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that laches cannot bar a claim for damages brought within the three-year limitations period in section 507(b). It described the ordinary separate-accrual rule for successive infringements and remanded; equitable delay may affect equitable relief in appropriate circumstances. + +## What it supports + +- Repeated acts ordinarily require separate dates and can create separately accruing claims. +- Delay is not a categorical bar to timely legal relief under section 507(b). + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether the discovery rule governs copyright accrual. +- That every continuing source/noncompliance allegation is a new infringement act. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court applied the statute's limitations period and distinguished legal damages from equitable relief. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: PR-0014, PR-0015. +- Recheck trigger: claimed discovery-rule accrual or a different claim type. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/philpot-v-wos.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/philpot-v-wos.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..404e8db --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/philpot-v-wos.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0049 +title: Philpot v. WOS, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Western-District-of-Texas +date: 2019-04-22 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas +procedural_posture: summary-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [Creative Commons attribution license (version not established)] +topics: [attribution, fair-use, copyright-infringement, CMI] +source_quality: official-summary +source_url: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/philpot-wosinc-wdtexas2019.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0049: *Philpot v. WOS, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 1:18-cv-00339-RP (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2019). [U.S. Copyright Office case summary/PDF](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/philpot-wosinc-wdtexas2019.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Comparable public-license case only. Confirm license version and final docket before using as a precise attribution holding. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: Creative Commons attribution license (version not confirmed from primary order in this pass). Photographer alleged uncredited web use exceeded license and included related CMI claims. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff sought statutory and actual copyright relief. Actual relief: cross-summary-judgment ruling left fair-use/license issues for trial on the identified facts and resolved some defenses; no source/publication remedy. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court summary-judgment ruling; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Attribution and license compliance presented factual/contractual issues on this record; the fair-use analysis did not decide a GPL-style source condition. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Photos were available through Wikimedia Commons subject to attribution; defendant later changed attribution after notice. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/planetary-motion-v-techsplosion.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/planetary-motion-v-techsplosion.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e8ca846 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/planetary-motion-v-techsplosion.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0030 +title: Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Eleventh-Circuit +date: 2001-08-16 +authority_status: current +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [trademark, software-distribution, license-notice] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/261/1188/570628/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0030: *Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001). [Published opinion](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/261/1188/570628/). +- Later history/current status: None located in reviewed published record. Direct source is reporter reproduction; authenticate if wording becomes material. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPL (version not stated) governed Coolmail distribution, but no GPL claim was pleaded. Trademark/dilution and unfair-competition claims were litigated. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff requested trademark injunction, profits, damages, fees, and costs. District court entered trademark injunction and fees/costs; damages were denied for lack of specificity. The appellate court affirmed in material part and modified the injunction. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Published Eleventh Circuit trademark appeal; binding only for its trademark holdings. + +## Holding +Internet distribution of GPL software could support trademark use/priority. It does not decide GPL enforceability, copyright infringement, source disclosure, or GPL remedies. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Darrah released Coolmail free under GPL with modification notices; Planetary later acquired IP and sued over the mark. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/practice-management-v-ama.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/practice-management-v-ama.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d4154a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/practice-management-v-ama.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0101 +title: Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit +date: 1997-08-06 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [copyright-misuse, defenses] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/121/121.F3d.516.94-56774.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0015] +--- + +# AUTH-0101: *Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n* + +## Citation and source + +- 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997). [Opinion reproduction](https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/121/121.F3d.516.94-56774.html). +- Later history/current status: no overruling authority located in this verification pass. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Published Ninth Circuit merits decision; binding in that circuit and persuasive elsewhere. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Publisher challenged enforcement of the AMA's copyright in medical procedure codes and asserted copyright misuse based on the AMA's agreement with a federal agency. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The court held the AMA misused its copyright by conditioning a royalty-free government license on excluding competing coding systems, rendering the copyright unenforceable while the misuse continued. It remanded for further proceedings. + +## What it supports + +- Copyright misuse is a fact-specific defense when a holder leverages copyright beyond its lawful scope. + +## What it does not establish + +- That reciprocal licensing, source obligations, dual licensing, or ordinary compliance demands are misuse. +- A general state-law unclean-hands rule. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The exclusivity condition in a government licensing arrangement, rather than ordinary exercise of copyright, drove the holding. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0015. +- Recheck trigger: different circuit, different restrictive term, or claimed anticompetitive conduct. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/progress-software-v-mysql.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/progress-software-v-mysql.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b70e8df --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/progress-software-v-mysql.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0151 +title: Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-District-of-Massachusetts +court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts +date: 2002-02-28 +authority_status: settled +procedural_posture: preliminary-injunction +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU-GPL-v2] +topics: [derivative-work, cure, preliminary-injunction, source-disclosure] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/195/328/2485211/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- + +# AUTH-0151: *Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB* + +## Citation and source + +- 195 F. Supp. 2d 328, No. 01-11031-PBS (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2002), [reported order reproduction](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/195/328/2485211/). +- The source reproduces the reported order. An official court-hosted PDF and an authenticated final dismissal/settlement instrument were not located in this audit. Public reporting describes a later settlement, but its terms are not treated as a holding here. +- Original language: English; no translation is needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Short preliminary-injunction order after a hearing. It is a trial-court, +interlocutory ruling, persuasive only; the GPL portion denies interim relief and +does not decide the claims after trial. + +## Claims and requested relief + +MySQL, a counterclaim plaintiff, sought to enjoin Progress Software and its +NuSphere subsidiary from sublicensing or distributing MySQL and using the +MySQL mark. The GPL dispute concerned whether NuSphere's Gemini program was a +derivative or an independent/separate work under GPL paragraph 2 and whether +distribution required source. The record also involved an interim commercial +agreement and trademark claims. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +- The court granted limited preliminary trademark relief: it enjoined specified + uses of the MySQL mark, subject to a bond. +- It denied MySQL's request for preliminary GPL-related distribution relief. + On the interim record, expert evidence created a factual dispute on Gemini's + GPL paragraph 2 status; the court also was not persuaded that July 2001 source + release did not cure the asserted breach. +- Even assuming likelihood of success, the court found no demonstrated + irreparable GPL harm on that record, including in light of sworn source + disclosure and Progress's stipulation to withdraw a commercial-user EULA. + No GPL source-publication injunction, damages, or final infringement finding + was awarded. + +## What it supports + +- GPL covered-work/derivative-work and cure questions can defeat preliminary + relief where the record leaves material factual disputes. +- Later source availability and the equitable record may matter to interim-harm + analysis; this is not a construction of a general cure rule. + +## What it does not establish + +- A holding that linked code is, or is not, a GPL derivative work. +- GPL enforceability, a universal right to cure, or a final remedy for a GPL + breach. +- That trademark relief in the same order was GPL compliance relief. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The court applied ordinary preliminary-injunction factors. It separated the +trademark dispute, where it found a likelihood of success and irreparable harm, +from the GPL question. The narrower GPL ruling turns on the evidentiary record +and the balance of harms, not a determination that Progress had complied. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0003](../../matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Contrasting authority: [Fisher summary judgment](fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) likewise leaves GPL coverage/conveyance issues fact dependent. +- Recheck trigger: authenticated final docket documents, settlement instrument, + or use of the reported order for a proposition beyond interim relief. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..31e0197 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0096 +title: Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2010-03-02 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [registration, subject-matter-jurisdiction, procedure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/559bv.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0014] +--- + +# AUTH-0096: *Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick* + +## Citation and source + +- 559 U.S. 154 (2010). [Official U.S. Reports volume](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/559bv.pdf). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision, binding nationwide. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Freelance authors objected to a copyright class-action settlement involving registered and unregistered works. The case did not concern reciprocal-license enforcement. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim, not a restriction on subject-matter jurisdiction. It remanded for further proceedings. + +## What it supports + +- Avoid calling section 411(a) jurisdictional. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a claimant can ignore section 411(a), or that section 412 or limitations is satisfied. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court distinguished a mandatory claim-processing-type precondition from Congress's grant of federal jurisdiction. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0014. +- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment or different procedural setting. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md index f3447be..16029ce 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ authority_type: case jurisdiction: California-state-court date: 2021-10-19 authority_status: pending +court: Superior Court of California, County of Orange +procedural_posture: complaint +precedential_weight: none-allegation +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [third-party-beneficiary, specific-performance, source-disclosure, contract] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sitecom-v-welte.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sitecom-v-welte.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..86d0fb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sitecom-v-welte.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0054 +title: Sitecom Deutschland GmbH v Harald Welte +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Germany, Landgericht München I +date: 2004-05-19 +authority_status: current-lower-court +court: Landgericht München I +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL (GPLv2-era)] +topics: [termination, license-validity, distribution, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://dejure.org/2004,1300 +original_language: German +translation_status: secondary-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0054: *Sitecom Deutschland GmbH v Harald Welte* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: LG München I, 19 May 2004, 21 O 6123/04, reported at MMR 2004, 693; GRUR-RR 2004, 350. +- Direct primary source: official court-hosted copy was not located. [Case metadata and excerpts](https://dejure.org/2004,1300) identify contemporary full-text publications; [ifrOSS archive page](https://ifross.org/?q=publikation%2Flg-muenchen-i-az-21-o-612304-0) identifies an English translation archive. +- Later history: no appellate disposition located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +German regional-court decision, persuasive only. German original judgment is +not retrieved from an official host in this pass; the cited public reproductions +must be checked against a court-certified copy. English translation provenance: +an historical JBB translation is identified by ifrOSS; it was not treated as an +official translation. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL, reported as GPLv2-era enforcement. +- Claims/trigger: Sitecom sought to challenge consequences of GPL terms in a router/software distribution dispute involving Welte. +- Requested versus awarded relief: exact prayers and operative order require primary-copy retrieval; reported holding rejects GPL invalidity and recognizes licence loss on noncompliant distribution. +- Holding: the GPL's automatic loss/reversion mechanism was not an unreasonable disadvantage under German law, in the reported decision. + +## What it does not establish + +- A binding German supreme-court rule, a source-disclosure remedy, or exact scope of a combined work. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +This is an early German GPL-validity authority repeatedly cited in later trial +decisions. Its reuse should remain limited because the official full text is not +available in the verified public record. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: court-certified German original or later appellate history. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/versata-v-ameriprise-gpl-preemption.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/versata-v-ameriprise-gpl-preemption.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1275959 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/versata-v-ameriprise-gpl-preemption.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0150 +title: Versata Software, Inc. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Western-District-of-Texas +court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas +date: 2014-03-11 +authority_status: remanded +procedural_posture: summary-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU-GPL-v2] +topics: [preemption, third-party-beneficiary, source-disclosure, contract] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_14-cv-00012/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_14-cv-00012-0.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- + +# AUTH-0150: *Versata Software, Inc. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.* + +## Citation and source + +- No. 1:14-cv-00012-SS, Doc. 28 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2014), [official GovInfo PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_14-cv-00012/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_14-cv-00012-0.pdf). +- The order remanded the action to the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County. A later state-court merits disposition was not located in this audit. +- Original language: English; no translation is needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Cross-motions for summary judgment on Copyright Act preemption in a removed +state-contract action. This is a reasoned federal trial-court ruling, persuasive +only, and its GPL discussion does not decide an underlying GPL breach. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Versata sued Ameriprise under a master licence for post-termination use/return +of Versata's DCM software. Ameriprise counterclaimed that Versata's alleged use +of XimpleWare VTD-XML under the GNU GPL required DCM derivative-work source +to be made available to users. The order identifies a GPL contract theory and +the parties' preemption motions; it does not supply a complete prayer for the +counterclaim or a final request for source delivery. Ameriprise was not alleged +to own XimpleWare's copyright. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +- The court granted Ameriprise summary judgment that Versata's own + post-termination return/use claim was preempted. +- It denied Versata's summary-judgment motion: on the pleaded theory, + Ameriprise's GPL-source counterclaim was **not** preempted. The asserted + failure to disclose derivative-work source was an additional contractual + element, not merely reproduction or distribution. +- The court expressly did **not** decide whether Ameriprise had third-party- + beneficiary standing to enforce the GPL, whether the GPL was breached, what + DCM code was covered, or whether source had to be delivered. It remanded for + lack of a remaining federal jurisdictional basis; it awarded no source, + damages, or injunction relief on the GPL counterclaim. + +## What it supports + +- A carefully pleaded state-law claim seeking performance of a GPL-related + source obligation may survive Copyright Act preemption under this court's + extra-element analysis. +- Preemption and entitlement are distinct: survival of the state claim leaves + standing, formation, scope, breach, and remedy for later adjudication. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every GPL source term is a covenant or is never preempted. +- A downstream customer's third-party-beneficiary standing, a derivative-work + finding, or a court-ordered source release. +- A binding Fifth Circuit rule or the final result of the remanded dispute. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The order described the counterclaim as arising after Ameriprise alleged that +Versata had incorporated GPL-covered VTD-XML in DCM. Applying the Fifth +Circuit's two-part preemption analysis, the court treated the alleged affirmative +source-disclosure promise as qualitatively different from the Copyright Act's +exclusive rights. That characterization was for the pleaded claim and did not +resolve the parties' disputed factual premise. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0003](../../matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Related litigation: [XimpleWare TRO](ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md) and the + [later customer dismissal](ximpleware-v-versata-later-dismissal.md). +- Recheck trigger: authenticated Travis County disposition, appellate review, + or use of the order outside its pleaded-contract/preemption question. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/wallace-v-free-software-foundation.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/wallace-v-free-software-foundation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..95e64d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/wallace-v-free-software-foundation.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0031 +title: Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-Indiana +date: 2006-03-20 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana +procedural_posture: motion-to-dismiss +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [antitrust, license-validity, standing] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_05-cv-00678/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_05-cv-00678-1.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0031: *Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 1:05-cv-00678-RLY-VSS, Doc. 59 (S.D. Ind. May 16, 2006). [GovInfo order](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_05-cv-00678/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_05-cv-00678-1.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Related IBM/Red Hat/Novell appeal is AUTH-0032. Recheck if used beyond antitrust pleading. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPL (version not specified). Plaintiff alleged Sherman Act price fixing/restraint; no copyright or GPL-compliance claim. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff sought antitrust relief. Actual relief: dismissal; no source-code, damages, or GPL-compliance remedy. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Rule 12(b)(6) district-court dismissal; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Rejected pleaded antitrust theory. Does not adjudicate infringement, GPL compliance, or contract formation. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Wallace characterized GPL copyleft/free-price terms as an anticompetitive conspiracy. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/wallace-v-ibm.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/wallace-v-ibm.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5615306 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/wallace-v-ibm.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0032 +title: Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Seventh-Circuit +date: 2006-11-09 +authority_status: current +court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [antitrust, license-validity] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/06-2454/06-2454-2006-11-09-opinion-2011-02-25.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0032: *Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.* + +## Citation and source +- 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006), No. 06-2454. [Published opinion PDF](https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/06-2454/06-2454-2006-11-09-opinion-2011-02-25.pdf). +- Later history/current status: A rehearing-related order is noted Nov. 13, 2006; no contrary later merits history located. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPL (version not specified). Plaintiff alleged antitrust injury from GPL-distributed Linux; not infringement. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff sought antitrust remedies. Actual relief: dismissal affirmed; no GPL compliance order, damages, or source disclosure. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Published Seventh Circuit affirmance; binding in circuit on antitrust holding. + +## Holding +No antitrust injury and no plausible price/output antitrust harm. Its GPL description is not a decision about every GPL condition or remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning +The court reasoned free/open distribution increased output and did not establish alleged consumer injury. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/warner-chappell-v-nealy.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/warner-chappell-v-nealy.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..188babf --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/warner-chappell-v-nealy.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0098 +title: Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2024-05-09 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [limitations, accrual, damages] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1078_4gci.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0014] +--- + +# AUTH-0098: *Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy* + +## Citation and source + +- 601 U.S. 366 (2024). [Official opinion PDF](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1078_4gci.pdf). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits decision, binding nationwide. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Copyright owner asserted that the discovery rule made its claim timely and sought damages for older infringements. The parties accepted the discovery-rule premise for the question presented. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that the Copyright Act supplies no separate three-year damages cap for a claim timely under the discovery rule. It expressly assumed, without deciding, that the discovery rule governs accrual. + +## What it supports + +- Do not impose an extra three-year monetary lookback if the claim is otherwise timely under an applicable discovery rule. + +## What it does not establish + +- That the discovery rule applies in every circuit or on every copyright claim. +- Timeliness of any license dispute or state-law claim. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court read section 507(b) as a filing-period provision after accrual, not a separate damages limitation. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0014. +- Recheck trigger: resolution of the discovery-rule predicate or statutory amendment. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-d-link.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-d-link.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9d3f858 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-d-link.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0055 +title: Harald Welte v D-Link Germany GmbH +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Germany, Landgericht Frankfurt am Main +date: 2006-09-06 +authority_status: current-lower-court +court: Landgericht Frankfurt am Main +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL (reported GPLv2 context)] +topics: [termination, distribution, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://dejure.org/2006,4377 +original_language: German +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0055: *Harald Welte v D-Link Germany GmbH* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: LG Frankfurt am Main, 6 September 2006, 2-06 O 224/06 (also rendered 6 O 224/06), CR 2006, 729. +- Direct primary source: [Justiz Hessen listing via case index](https://dejure.org/2006,4377) (public full-text links listed there; no durable official PDF retrieved in this pass). +- Later history: no appeal located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +German regional-court merits decision, not binding outside the matter. Original +language German. No official English translation located; historical unofficial +translation links are leads only. English summary is a researcher paraphrase of +the German excerpts and source metadata. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL (Linux-kernel/router distribution; reported GPLv2 context). +- Claims/trigger: copyright owner alleged distribution without GPL compliance. +- Requested versus awarded relief: exact request/operative relief need verification from the official full text; public case entries identify the decision as holding GPL applicable/effective. +- Holding: a distributor that loses the GPL use right through noncompliant distribution is not authorized merely because downstream recipients might obtain permission directly from the author. + +## What it does not establish + +- A court-ordered public source release, an automatic remedy, or a binding nationwide appellate rule. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The decision is a frequently cited member of the German GPL licence-loss line, +including in later German decisions. Its exact factual findings should not be +expanded beyond the authenticated text. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: official PDF, complete dispositive text, or appellate record. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-fantec.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-fantec.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..86af8b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-fantec.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0058 +title: Harald Welte v FANTEC GmbH +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Germany, Landgericht Hamburg +date: 2013-06-14 +authority_status: current-lower-court +court: Landgericht Hamburg +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [source-disclosure, distribution, supply-chain, contractual-penalty] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://gpl-violations.org/news/20130626-fantec_judgement/ +original_language: German +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0058: *Harald Welte v FANTEC GmbH* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: LG Hamburg, 14 June 2013 (case number not verified from a public primary text). +- Direct primary source: a court PDF was historically linked from ifrOSS but was not retrievable in this pass. [Plaintiff's contemporaneous report](https://gpl-violations.org/news/20130626-fantec_judgement/) and [FSFE German report](https://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130626-01.de.html) are secondary/provenance leads, not substitutes for the judgment. +- Later history: no appeal located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Reported German regional-court decision. It is included as an identified +decision but marked source-limited: the original German judgment must be +obtained before relying on its wording or exact remedy. No translation was used. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL v2, netfilter/iptables in FANTEC 3DFHDL firmware. +- Claims/trigger: omitted/incomplete corresponding source; an earlier settlement/undertaking was also reported. +- Requested versus awarded relief: reports say the court ordered a contractual penalty, distribution-chain information, and costs. Exact requested relief and dispositive wording remain unverified. +- Holding reported by sources: FANTEC could not shift GPL-compliance responsibility to its Chinese supplier; it was responsible for the firmware it distributed. + +## What it does not establish + +- The unverified complete-source scope, a source-publication decree, or a binding rule beyond its facts. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The reported evidence identified iptables 1.3.7 in firmware while the supplied +source lacked it. This is a supplier-control case, but its authority weight is +limited until the primary judgment is secured. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: authenticated judgment, docket number, or appellate record. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-skype.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-skype.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c4efac6 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/welte-v-skype.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0056 +title: Harald Welte v Skype Technologies S.A. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: Germany, Landgericht München I +date: 2007-07-12 +authority_status: current-lower-court +court: Landgericht München I +procedural_posture: trial-judgment +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL (reported GPLv2 context)] +topics: [distribution, license-validity, supply-chain] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://dejure.org/2007,19069 +original_language: German +translation_status: researcher-translation +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0056: *Harald Welte v Skype Technologies S.A.* + +## Citation and source + +- Full citation: LG München I, 12 July 2007, 7 O 5245/07, reported at CR 2008, 57. +- Direct primary source: official court PDF not located; [case metadata, excerpts, and archive link](https://dejure.org/2007,19069); [ifrOSS notice](https://ifross.org/?q=en/artikel/judgment-against-skype-final) identifies the decision as final. +- Later history: ifrOSS reports finality; no appellate judgment text located. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +German regional-court decision in a GPL enforcement dispute. Original language +German; no official English translation located. The English summary is a +researcher paraphrase only, and the incomplete public copy limits confidence. + +## Claims, relief, and holding + +- Licence/version: GNU GPL, reported GPLv2 device/telephone firmware distribution. +- Claims/trigger: alleged GPL-noncompliant distribution through a Skype-branded device/channel. +- Requested versus awarded relief: the public material confirms a judgment against Skype and identified distribution-liability issues; exact prayers and operative relief require the judgment text. +- Holding: GPL was treated as a simple licence enabling distribution only on its terms; the court rejected the asserted GPL-invalidity/right-abuse theory. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every brand owner is the distributor, a source-publication award, or a generally binding German result. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The excerpts distinguish conduct by the actual distributor and state that a +party may distribute only under the GPL permission. The fact-specific +attribution issue is important to supply-chain claims. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: official full text and exact finality record. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/winter-v-nrdc.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/winter-v-nrdc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6580f2c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/winter-v-nrdc.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0092 +title: Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Supreme-Court +court: Supreme Court of the United States +date: 2008-11-12 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [preliminary-injunction, equitable-relief] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/555bv.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0012] +--- + +# AUTH-0092: *Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.* + +## Citation and source + +- 555 U.S. 7 (2008). [Official U.S. Reports volume](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/555bv.pdf). +- Later history/current status: current Supreme Court precedent checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Merits review of a preliminary injunction; binding federal equitable precedent. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Environmental plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief against Navy sonar-training operations. No copyright or license claim was at issue. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +The Court held that plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish likely irreparable harm, not merely a possibility, and applied the ordinary preliminary-relief factors. It reversed the injunction entered below. + +## What it supports + +- Interim source, publication, or stop-use relief requires the preliminary-injunction showing. +- Emergency requested relief is not proof that a court should award it. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a source-code obligation is enforceable or that any license breach causes irreparable harm. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Court balanced environmental concerns and military interests under the traditional equitable framework. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0012. +- Recheck trigger: controlling change to federal preliminary-injunction standard. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-customer-dismissal.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-customer-dismissal.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1e7795c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-customer-dismissal.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0034 +title: XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. — customer dismissal +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +date: 2014-05-16 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: motion-to-dismiss +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, copyright-infringement, customer-liability] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161-1.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0034: *XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 5:13-cv-05161-PSG, Doc. 85 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2014). [GovInfo PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161-1.pdf). +- Later history/current status: Later Doc. 142 is AUTH-0035; final merits disposition not located. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPLv2. Plaintiff alleged copyright and related claims against Versata and customers for VTD-XML distribution/use without GPL compliance. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff requested infringement remedies and declaratory relief. Actual relief: dismissal motions granted in part; no injunction, damages, or source disclosure awarded. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Pleading-stage district-court order; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Alleged source-code distribution could breach GPL sufficiently to make use unlicensed, but distribution by one customer did not establish distribution by every customer. No infringement finding. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Order describes GPLv2 notices, derived-code licensing, and source obligations before separating allegations by customer. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-later-dismissal.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-later-dismissal.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a4b80eb --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-later-dismissal.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0035 +title: XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. — later dismissal order +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +date: 2014-11-25 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: motion-to-dismiss +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL v2] +topics: [distribution, source-disclosure, copyright-infringement, pleading] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161-3.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0035: *XimpleWare, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. 5:13-cv-05161-PSG, Doc. 142 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014). [GovInfo PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161-3.pdf). +- Later history/current status: No final merits judgment located; do not cite as a final GPL result. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GNU GPLv2; plaintiff alleged VTD-XML inclusion in Versata DCM/distribution to customers, alongside patent and related claims. +- Requested versus actual relief: Requested relief derives from operative complaint; actual relief was partial grant of dismissal motions, not damages, injunction, or compelled release. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +District-court motion-to-dismiss order; persuasive only. + +## Holding +Addresses pleaded claims/parties; not a final infringement finding or a GPL source-publication remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Ameriprise identified alleged code while defending supplier Versata's Texas litigation. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4213f55 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0033 +title: XimpleWare Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. — TRO order +authority_type: case +jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California +date: 2013-12-06 +authority_status: current +court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California +procedural_posture: temporary-restraining-order +precedential_weight: persuasive-trial +licenses: [GNU GPL (version not established)] +topics: [temporary-restraining-order, preliminary-injunction, source-disclosure, copyright-infringement] +source_quality: secondary +source_url: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2013cv05160/271647/45/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003] +--- +# AUTH-0033: *XimpleWare Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc.* + +## Citation and source +- No. C 13-05160 SI, Doc. 45 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013). [Docket-document reproduction](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2013cv05160/271647/45/). +- Later history/current status: Parallel/customer case produced AUTH-0034–0035; final merits disposition not located. + +## License, claims, requested and actual relief +- License/version and claims: GPL (version not specified in order) for VTD-XML. Claims included copyright, Lanham Act, contract, and tort theories tied to alleged incorporation/distribution without compliance or commercial permission. +- Requested versus actual relief: Plaintiff requested TRO, preliminary-injunction show cause, and expedited discovery. Actual relief: all denied; no source disclosure or merits relief. + +## Procedural posture and precedential weight +Interlocutory district-court order; no precedential weight. + +## Holding +Denied emergency relief on then record; did not finally decide GPL breach, infringement, or publication relief. + +## Key facts and reasoning +Versata said it was patching references; incorporation facts remained disputed. + +## Limitations and treatment in this repository +- Related matter: PR-0003. +- This card does not convert allegations, requested relief, settlement, or interim reasoning into a general license rule. +- Direct source and verification date are above; recheck trigger: a later final order, appeal, or use beyond the stated holding. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/affero-general-public-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/affero-general-public-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..99882a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/affero-general-public-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0132 +title: Affero General Public License version 1 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Affero, Inc. (historical license publisher) +date: 2002-03-01 +authority_status: historical-reciprocal-not-current-osi-listing +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Affero General Public License version 1] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, network-use, source-disclosure, termination] +source_quality: primary +source_url: http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0132: Affero General Public License version 1 + +## Citation and source + +- [Original Affero AGPL v1 text](http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html); [SPDX identifier record](https://spdx.org/licenses/AGPL-1.0-or-later.html). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Historical licensor text: Affero's 2002 modification of GPL-2.0. It is distinct from GNU AGPL-3.0 and is not an entry in the current OSI approved-license registry. + +## What it supports + +- GPLv2-style distribution/source and automatic-termination rules apply, with added section 2(d): a modified program normally used over a network must offer complete machine-readable source to each user through the network. +- The network rule is tied to a modified version and ordinary interactive network use; it is not GNU AGPL-3.0 section 13 and has no GPLv3-style reinstatement rule. +- No separate patent grant, fixed general cure, or forum/law selection appears in the historical text. + +## What it does not establish + +- The meaning of the historical network interaction in a current deployment, its compatibility with AGPL-3.0, or any remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: recovered first-party archival text or version-specific judicial authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1beafb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0130 +title: Artistic License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Open Source Initiative (official approved-license host) +date: 2000-08-15 +authority_status: historical-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Artistic License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, modification, distribution] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://opensource.org/license/Artistic-1.0 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0130: Artistic License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [OSI Artistic-1.0 record and text](https://opensource.org/license/Artistic-1.0); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary historical license text. OSI's current registry lists Artistic-1.0 as approved and superseded. + +## What it supports + +- It permits copying, modification, distribution, and fees, but conditions modified distribution on stated alternatives, including making standard-version patches freely available or otherwise arranging access. +- The text uses Package/Standard Version/Modified Version concepts and allows aggregation; it does not create a network-use trigger, fixed source-offer term, patent grant, cure period, or forum/law clause. +- *Jacobsen* is material condition-of-license authority concerning an Artistic License, but its card is the source for the holding; this text card does not establish the decision construed every Artistic-1.0 formulation. + +## What it does not establish + +- A work-boundary answer, a public-source remedy, or the exact version used in a particular Artistic-labelled project. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md); related case: [*Jacobsen*](../cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md). +- Recheck trigger: authenticated historical source correction or version-specific judicial authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ed7523 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0131 +title: Artistic License 2.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: The Perl and Raku Foundation (agreement steward) +date: 2006-10-12 +authority_status: osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Artistic License 2.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, modification, distribution, patent-grant, termination] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://opensource.org/license/Artistic-2.0 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0131: Artistic License 2.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [OSI Artistic-2.0 text and approval record](https://opensource.org/license/Artistic-2.0); [OSI registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary steward/OSI text. OSI identifies the Perl and Raku Foundation as steward and records approval in 2007. + +## What it supports + +- Private use and modification are unrestricted; modified-source distribution must document differences and satisfy one of the section 4 alternatives, while compiled distribution has its own source-instructions rule. +- Compiled Standard Versions may be distributed without source if valid source instructions are included; invalid instructions require replacement or cessation, with a 30-day awareness window that avoids forfeiture. +- It has an express contributor patent grant and patent-litigation termination, permits distributor fees, and has no network trigger or forum/law selection. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a package exposes a direct interface under section 8, compatibility in a concrete combination, or a judicial remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: OSI/steward revision or on-point decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/business-source-license-v1-1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/business-source-license-v1-1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a665ba3 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/business-source-license-v1-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0020 +title: Business Source License 1.1 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: MariaDB plc (license steward) +date: 2020-10-21 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Business Source License 1.1] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, conversion, commercial-license] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0020: Business Source License 1.1 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official MariaDB BUSL-1.1 text](https://mariadb.com/bsl11/). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary steward text. It expressly says it is not an Open Source license; it is not in OSI’s approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- Source may be public, but production use is limited by the per-release Additional Use Grant; all copies/derivatives remain subject to the license before conversion. +- On the Change Date or fourth anniversary, whichever comes first, the stated Change License applies; noncompliant use requires a commercial license or refraining. +- No patent grant, cure, compatibility rule, or forum/law selection is stated in the standard form. + +## What it does not establish + +- A fixed production restriction, Change Date, or Change License without the release-specific parameters. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The standard text is a template whose key commercial and timing terms are supplied per Licensed Work; it is not a copyleft source-disclosure regime. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: parameters for a chosen release or text revision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cecill-v2-1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cecill-v2-1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..86d4467 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cecill-v2-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0136 +title: CeCILL Free Software License Agreement 2.1 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: France +court: CEA, CNRS, and Inria (license stewards) +date: 2013-06-21 +authority_status: osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [CeCILL Free Software License Agreement 2.1] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, compatibility, patent-grant, termination, forum-selection] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2.1-en.html +original_language: French +translation_status: official +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0136: CeCILL 2.1 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official CeCILL 2.1 English text](https://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2.1-en.html); [CeCILL site](https://www.cecill.info/index.en.html); [OSI registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary steward text. The French and English 2.1 texts are both authentic according to the steward; OSI lists CeCILL-2.1 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution of modified software requires source availability under CeCILL; internal and external modules receive different treatment and specified outbound compatibility includes GPL-family/EUPL choices. +- It grants patent rights subject to termination, permits commercial use and fee-bearing services, and contains French-law and Paris-court provisions. +- The text's contractual and intellectual-property framing is French-law specific; it is not a network/deployment source trigger. + +## What it does not establish + +- A complete linking/module classification, a universal compatibility result, or a remedy outside the selected law/forum. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official-text correction, French case authority, or a translation issue. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cern-ohl-s-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cern-ohl-s-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2f6166 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cern-ohl-s-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0139 +title: CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 -- Strongly Reciprocal +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable-open-hardware +court: European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) (license steward) +date: 2020-03-01 +authority_status: osi-approved-open-hardware +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal] +topics: [license-text, open-hardware, copyleft, source-disclosure, distribution] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://cern-ohl.web.cern.ch/home +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0139: CERN-OHL-S-2.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [CERN OHL home and definitive-text links](https://cern-ohl.web.cern.ch/home); [OSI CERN-OHL-S-2.0 text/approval](https://opensource.org/license/CERN-OHL-S-2.0). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary CERN/OSI text. OSI approves this strongly reciprocal instrument, but it is an open-hardware/design-source license rather than a software-license comparator. + +## What it supports + +- Modified Covered Source and Products require Complete Source or source-location notice to recipients; the location must be reasonably accessible for at least three years. +- "Source" includes design material/digital code needed to make or test a Product, and strong reciprocity reaches a larger work incorporating Covered Source, excluding Available Components as defined. +- It has no commercial-use restriction, selected forum/law, or general cure/reinstatement provision in the standard text. + +## What it does not establish + +- Software source obligations, a product-safety result, or a remedy for hardware conveyance. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: CERN version/variant change or hardware-specific judicial authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cockroachdb-community-license.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cockroachdb-community-license.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..72ffb49 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cockroachdb-community-license.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0143 +title: CockroachDB Community License Agreement +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: United States-New-York +court: Cockroach Labs, Inc. (licensor) +date: 2025-01-01 +authority_status: product-license-agreement-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [CockroachDB Community License Agreement] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-license, patent-grant, termination, forum-selection] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0143: CockroachDB Community License Agreement + +## Citation and source + +- [Official CockroachDB Community License Agreement](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/); [CockroachDB licensing documentation](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/stable/licensing). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary current Cockroach Labs agreement. It is a product-level agreement, not an OSI-approved public license; the current agreement expressly says the Core version's applicable license is found in the release's license file and that most agreement terms do not apply to Core. + +## What it supports + +- For CockroachDB Self-hosted, it grants limited business-purpose copyright/patent rights, while paid-enterprise terms/license-key status govern designated Enterprise features; the agreement also supplies a time-limited internal evaluation license. +- Redistribution of a Work/Derivative Work carries license, modification, and notice requirements, but the agreement itself does not impose reciprocal public-source disclosure. +- It has patent-litigation termination, New York/U.S. governing law, and a prevailing-party fees provision; the release-specific Core text, not this agreement, controls a Core open/source-available classification. + +## What it does not establish + +- The license of a particular CockroachDB Core release, a historical BUSL/CCL status, enterprise-feature entitlement, or enforcement outcome. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: release-specific license file, product-name/feature change, or judicial authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/common-development-distribution-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/common-development-distribution-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3718f89 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/common-development-distribution-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0015 +title: Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Sun Microsystems, Inc. (original licensor); Oracle Corporation (official publisher) +date: 2004-01-23 +authority_status: current-version-1.0 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Common Development and Distribution License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, file-boundary, patent-grant, cure, forum-selection] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://docs.oracle.com/en/servers/x86/x9-2/license-manual/common-development-and-distribution-license-cddl.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0015: Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Oracle CDDL-1.0 text](https://docs.oracle.com/en/servers/x86/x9-2/license-manual/common-development-and-distribution-license-cddl.html); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text as published by Oracle; OSI lists CDDL-1.0 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution of Executable requires access to Covered Software source (ss. 3.1--3.2); covered boundary is original/modification files, while a Larger Work may include other code. +- Section 6 terminates on breach if not cured within 30 days after notice; s. 2.1 grants copyright and patent rights with stated limits and s. 6.2 terminates patent rights for patent action. +- Section 9.3 selects California law and Santa Clara County venue; the text allows different licenses for executable larger works subject to CDDL compliance. + +## What it does not establish + +- Compatibility with GPL or an outcome for a particular file boundary. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The source obligation attaches on distribution, not private deployment. “Commercial Use” is expressly permitted. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official correction or on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/commons-clause-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/commons-clause-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..46064bd --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/commons-clause-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0022 +title: Commons Clause License Condition v1.0 +authority_type: license-condition +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Commons Clause (publisher) +date: 2018-08-21 +authority_status: source-available-condition-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Commons Clause License Condition v1.0] +topics: [license-text, license-condition, source-available, commercial-restriction] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://commonsclause.com/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0022: Commons Clause License Condition v1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Commons Clause text and FAQ](https://commonsclause.com/). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary condition text. It is an add-on condition to an identified underlying license, not a complete standalone license, and its publisher says the combined terms are not open source. + +## What it supports + +- It removes the right to “Sell” the Software, defined by a product/service whose value derives entirely or substantially from software functionality, while otherwise preserving the underlying license’s permissions. +- It has no independent source-disclosure, cure, patent, compatibility, forum/law, or duration rule; those depend on the underlying license and implementation. + +## What it does not establish + +- A complete permission grant, fixed commercial alternative, or a universal answer to whether an offering is “Sell.” + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The required notice identifies the software, underlying license, and licensor. Analysis must read the combined instrument, including any patent/termination/forum terms below it. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: underlying-license selection or judicial construction. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/confluent-community-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/confluent-community-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..69c603a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/confluent-community-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0142 +title: Confluent Community License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: United States-California +court: Confluent, Inc. (licensor) +date: 2019-01-01 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Confluent Community License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, termination, forum-selection, arbitration] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0142: Confluent Community License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Confluent Community License 1.0 text](https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license); [Confluent FAQ](https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq/). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary licensor agreement. Confluent's FAQ distinguishes source access from open-source status; this instrument is not listed in OSI's approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- It grants use, modification, distribution, and copying, but excludes operating a SaaS/PaaS/IaaS or similar online service that competes with Confluent services providing the software. +- Distribution requires modification and proprietary notices; recipients get their own license only on agreement to the same terms, and no sublicensing is granted. +- Breach causes automatic permanent termination. The text has no reciprocal source duty, patent grant, or cure; it chooses California law, Santa Clara courts for U.S. licensees, and Palo Alto JAMS arbitration for others. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a given online service competes, whether a project component is licensed under this rather than Apache 2.0, or an enforcement outcome. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: Confluent product license selection or court/arbitration record. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cryptographic-autonomy-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cryptographic-autonomy-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..61ff3dd --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/cryptographic-autonomy-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0133 +title: Cryptographic Autonomy License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Process Mechanics, LLC (license steward) +date: 2019-02-14 +authority_status: osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Cryptographic Autonomy License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, network-use, source-disclosure, data-portability, specific-performance, patent-grant, termination] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://opensource.org/license/CAL-1.0 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0133: Cryptographic Autonomy License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [OSI CAL-1.0 text and approval record](https://opensource.org/license/CAL-1.0); [OSI registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text. OSI records CAL-1.0 as approved; the steward link is Process Mechanics. + +## What it supports + +- Private use/modification is broadly permitted; providing any part, aspect, or element to a non-affiliated third party triggers autonomy-preserving source, data, and capability obligations. +- The terms expressly characterize rules as contractual obligations and license conditions and identify the licensor and a Recipient as intended third-party beneficiaries who may seek specific performance. +- It includes patent terms and termination mechanics, but no selected forum/law in the standard text. + +## What it does not establish + +- That any recipient has standing or will obtain specific performance in a particular jurisdiction, or that a deployment fact meets the third-party trigger. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: steward revision or judicial treatment of the recipient-enforcement clause. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/eclipse-public-license-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/eclipse-public-license-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c0959ab --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/eclipse-public-license-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0014 +title: Eclipse Public License 2.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Eclipse Foundation (initial Agreement Steward) +date: 2017-08-24 +authority_status: current-version-2.0 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Eclipse Public License 2.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, file-boundary, compatibility, patent-grant, cure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0014: Eclipse Public License 2.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Eclipse EPL-2.0 text](https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary agreement text. Eclipse Foundation is initial Agreement Steward; OSI lists EPL-2.0 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution triggers Program source availability and notice (s. 3); Modified Works exclude source files containing only declarations/interfaces/types/classes solely to link, bind, or subclass. +- Material noncompliance terminates rights after a reasonable cure period following awareness; contributor copyright/patent grants are in s. 2. +- No forum/law selection; s. 3.3 permits a GPL secondary license if the initial contributor so designates. + +## What it does not establish + +- A universal linking answer, a fixed cure duration, or judicial remedies. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Source must be available in customary exchange media with reasonable access information. Commercial alternatives are not restricted by the text. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: steward update or on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/elastic-license-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/elastic-license-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a59087a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/elastic-license-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0021 +title: Elastic License 2.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Elasticsearch B.V. (licensor) +date: 2021-02-03 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Elastic License 2.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, termination] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license/faq +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0021: Elastic License 2.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Elastic ELv2 text and FAQ](https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license/faq); [official Elastic repository license text](https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/main/licenses/ELASTIC-LICENSE-2.0.txt). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary licensor materials. ELv2 is source-available and not listed in OSI’s approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- It permits use, copying, distribution, and preparation of derivative works, subject to three restrictions: no providing the software to third parties as a hosted/managed service, no circumventing license-key functionality, and no removal/obscuring notices. +- It contains no reciprocal public-source disclosure duty, patent grant, compatibility rule, cure/reinstatement mechanism, or forum/law selection in the standard text. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a particular SaaS integration provides “the software” as a managed service, or that project-level multi-licensing changes ELv2’s status. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Commercial permission can be obtained separately; Elastic’s FAQ must not replace the operative text for an ambiguous deployment. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official text/FAQ update or relevant decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/european-union-public-licence-v1-2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/european-union-public-licence-v1-2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff43a57 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/european-union-public-licence-v1-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0016 +title: European Union Public Licence 1.2 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: European Union +court: European Commission (licensor and official publisher) +date: 2017-05-18 +authority_status: current-version-1.2 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [European Union Public Licence 1.2] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, compatibility, patent-grant, cure, forum-selection] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12 +original_language: multilingual-European-Union-official-languages +translation_status: official +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0016: European Union Public Licence 1.2 + +## Citation and source + +- [European Commission/Joinup EUPL-1.2 text](https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Official European Commission license text; OSI lists EUPL-1.2 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution or communication of derivatives triggers same-license obligations (arts. 5(c), 5(e)); source is defined as the preferred human-readable form. +- Article 12 terminates automatically on breach and provides cure after notice within 30 days; art. 2 includes contributor patent rights, art. 13 ends them for patent litigation. +- Article 15 selects EU member-state law and competent court based on licensor residence/seat; art. 5 permits listed compatible licenses for derivative distribution. + +## What it does not establish + +- The applicable copyright law’s derivative-work conclusion, exact compatibility in a fact pattern, or a remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The license is reciprocal and distribution/communication focused. Its named compatibility list is textual, not a blanket interoperability opinion. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: Commission revision or material court authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/fastled-reciprocal-license-v1-rc1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/fastled-reciprocal-license-v1-rc1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..60525a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/fastled-reciprocal-license-v1-rc1.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0025 +title: FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0-rc1 +authority_type: license-draft +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: FastLED project (draft publisher) +date: 2026-08-25 +authority_status: release-candidate-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0-rc1] +topics: [license-draft, copyleft, source-disclosure, commercial-transfer, cure, patent-grant, compatibility, forum-selection] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://github.com/FastLED/license/blob/main/LICENSE +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0025: FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0-rc1 + +## Citation and source + +- [Repository operative draft](../../../LICENSE); [repository public copy](https://github.com/FastLED/license/blob/main/LICENSE). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Repository release-candidate license draft, expressly not reviewed or endorsed by Mozilla. It is not an OSI-approved license and requires attorney review under this repository’s [legal-review gate](../../../LEGAL-REVIEW.md). + +## What it supports + +- It adapts MPL-style file-level Covered Software/Larger Work terms, with source/executable distribution requirements (ss. 3.1--3.3) and contributor patent grant (s. 2.1(b)). +- Section 11.3 additionally requires public availability of complete Modified FastLED source on/before the first commercial Triggering Transfer, then for three years after last transfer or distribution duration; network-only use is excluded. +- Section 5 has MPL-style 30/60-day reinstatement, but s. 11.3(f) says post-transfer publication is prospective only. Section 8 selects defendant-principal-place forum/law; s. 11.6 makes it incompatible with named GPL-family Secondary Licenses. + +## What it does not establish + +- Enforceability, OSI status, compatibility beyond its express terms, adoption, or judicial treatment. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +It permits a separate written license excusing s. 11.3 (s. 11.3(g)). It should be compared as a draft comparison target, never as settled legal policy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: attorney-approved revision, adoption, or court authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/functional-source-license-v1-1-mit.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/functional-source-license-v1-1-mit.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c6d682a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/functional-source-license-v1-1-mit.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0024 +title: Functional Source License 1.1 (MIT future license) +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Fair Source Foundation (license publisher) +date: 2024-07-01 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved-before-conversion +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Functional Source License 1.1-MIT] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, conversion] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://fsl.software/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0024: Functional Source License 1.1 (MIT future license) + +## Citation and source + +- [Official FSL site and FSL-1.1-MIT raw text](https://fsl.software/); [Fair Source definition](https://fair.io/about/). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary publisher materials. Before conversion, FSL is Fair Source/source-available, not an OSI-approved license; the designated future MIT license is separately OSI-approved. + +## What it supports + +- FSL provides source access and permits specified use while prohibiting “Competing Use”; each release converts after the stated two-year period to MIT in the FSL-1.1-MIT variant. +- It is not reciprocal source disclosure; cure/reinstatement, patents, forum/law, and commercial-alternative details must be verified against the exact raw version/release notice. + +## What it does not establish + +- That all Fair Source licenses have a two-year conversion or identical competitive-use boundary. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The official site characterizes FSL as conversion to MIT or Apache-2.0 after two years. Deployment and product facts determine whether the competition limitation applies. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: raw-text/release parameters or steward revision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md index 9f35771..d38c055 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md @@ -3,11 +3,21 @@ id: AUTH-0007 title: GNU Affero General Public License version 3 authority_type: license jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Free Software Foundation, Inc. (license publisher) date: 2007-11-19 authority_status: current-version-3 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [GNU Affero General Public License version 3] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, network-use, source-disclosure, termination, cure, patent-grant] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 + - PR-0002 --- # AUTH-0007: GNU Affero General Public License version 3 @@ -24,6 +34,8 @@ of those terms. ## What it supports +- AGPL-3.0 is an OSI-approved open-source license; the OSI record and the FSF + text should be consulted separately for status and operative terms. - Section 13 requires a modified program used for remote network interaction to offer users an opportunity to receive corresponding source through a stated network mechanism. @@ -49,6 +61,7 @@ reinstatement and any claim concerning past conduct. ## Treatment in this repository -- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) +- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md), + [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) - Recheck trigger: a new AGPL version, official erratum, or controlling judicial interpretation. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bafa9b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0009 +title: GNU General Public License version 2 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Free Software Foundation, Inc. (license publisher) +date: 1991-06-01 +authority_status: current-version-2 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [GNU General Public License version 2] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, termination, distribution] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0009: GNU General Public License version 2 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official FSF GPL-2.0 text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text, not legislation or an interpretation. OSI lists GPL-2.0 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution of modified work or executable/object code triggers whole-work GPL source obligations (ss. 2--3); private use is outside those distribution clauses. +- Written offer option lasts at least three years (s. 3(b)); breach automatically terminates permission (s. 4); no express cure/reinstatement mechanism. +- It permits charging fees and separate commercial licensing, has no express patent grant, and supplies no forum/law clause. + +## What it does not establish + +- The copyright boundary of a particular combined work, a remedy, or a universal compatibility conclusion. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The textual boundary is a work “based on the Program” / whole work containing portions of the Program. The FSF text is the operative source; [existing U.S. cards](../cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) address limited litigation doctrine, not GPL-2.0 as a whole. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official revision, stewardship notice, or directly on-point appellate authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad8634f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0010 +title: GNU General Public License version 3 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Free Software Foundation, Inc. (license publisher) +date: 2007-06-29 +authority_status: current-version-3 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [GNU General Public License version 3] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, termination, cure, patent-grant, distribution] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0010: GNU General Public License version 3 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official FSF GPL-3.0 text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text. OSI lists GPL-3.0 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Conveying a covered work/object code triggers corresponding-source obligations (ss. 4--6); a source offer under s. 6(b) must remain valid three years. +- Section 8 supplies automatic termination plus provisional and specified permanent reinstatement; ss. 11 and 10 provide patent provisions and anti-further-restrictions terms. +- The license has no selected forum/law and permits separate permissions/commercial alternatives outside its grant. + +## What it does not establish + +- A network-use trigger (unlike AGPL s. 13), outcome for a particular aggregate, or court remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The covered boundary is the Program and works “based on” it; s. 5 permits aggregation on storage/distribution media where copyright does not extend to the aggregate. Compatibility needs version- and combination-specific analysis. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official revision or directly on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2-1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2-1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..145f107 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0011 +title: GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Free Software Foundation, Inc. (license publisher) +date: 1999-02-01 +authority_status: current-version-2.1 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1] +topics: [license-text, weak-copyleft, source-disclosure, linking, termination, distribution] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0011: GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official FSF LGPL-2.1 text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text; OSI lists LGPL-2.1 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Modifying/distributing the Library triggers LGPL source terms (ss. 2--4); works using the Library may be distributed under chosen terms only if s. 6 conditions, including relinking/modification access, are met. +- Object-code offer variants include a three-year written-offer route (s. 6(a)); s. 8 terminates on breach without express cure. +- LGPL-2.1 incorporates GPL-2.0 where stated and has no express patent grant or forum/law clause. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a technical linkage satisfies a section 6 condition or what the governing copyright law calls a derivative work. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The Library / work-that-uses-the-Library distinction is textual and fact dependent. It allows fee charging and separate licensing of independently written material. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official revision or on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d2822b --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v3.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0012 +title: GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Free Software Foundation, Inc. (license publisher) +date: 2007-06-29 +authority_status: current-version-3 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [GNU Lesser General Public License version 3] +topics: [license-text, weak-copyleft, source-disclosure, linking, termination, cure, patent-grant] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0012: GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official FSF LGPL-3.0 text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text; OSI lists LGPL-3.0 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- LGPL-3.0 adds permissions to GPL-3.0: a combined work may be conveyed under chosen terms if ss. 4--5 conditions preserve the LGPL-covered library and users’ modification/reverse-engineering/relinking rights. +- GPL-3.0 s. 8 termination/reinstatement and s. 11 patent provisions apply through the incorporated GPL terms. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a particular combined work is compliant or whether a court will adopt an asserted linkage theory. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The license’s defined “Application,” “Combined Work,” and “Minimal Corresponding Source” boundaries matter. It has no independent forum/law choice and permits commercial distribution. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: official revision or on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/jelurida-public-license-v1-1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/jelurida-public-license-v1-1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1cb1440 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/jelurida-public-license-v1-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0137 +title: Jelurida Public License 1.1 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: Netherlands +court: Jelurida Swiss SA (licensor) +date: 2023-03-28 +authority_status: project-specific-public-reciprocal +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Jelurida Public License 1.1] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, commercial-license, termination, distribution] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.jelurida.com/sites/default/files/JPLv1.1-NRS.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002, PR-0004] +--- + +# AUTH-0137: Jelurida Public License 1.1 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Jelurida JPL v1.1 text (PDF)](https://www.jelurida.com/sites/default/files/JPLv1.1-NRS.pdf). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary licensor text for a distributed-ledger software license. It is project-specific and not listed in OSI's approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- Conveying a Covered Work requires notices; modified/distributed covered works must be licensed as a whole at no charge under JPL, subject to separate-work and aggregation language. +- Object-code conveyance requires Corresponding Source by one of stated methods, including a three-year written offer; breach automatically terminates rights, without a general cure rule. +- JPL adds DLT-specific anti-fork/airdrop requirements in Special Conditions and identifies a separate commercial-license/permission route for certain DLT uses; the exact Special Conditions control that route. + +## What it does not establish + +- The application of any airdrop percentage or Special Condition to a particular chain, or a remedy outside the existing case's interim scope. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- [*Jelurida v Apollo*](../cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) records a Dutch appellate interim compliance order under JPL; it is the judicial authority, not this text card. +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md), [PR-0004](../../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +- Recheck trigger: version/Special-Conditions change or later Dutch merits/enforcement history. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/mozilla-public-license-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/mozilla-public-license-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0d4c372 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/mozilla-public-license-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0013 +title: Mozilla Public License 2.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Mozilla Foundation (license steward) +date: 2012-01-03 +authority_status: current-version-2.0 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Mozilla Public License 2.0] +topics: [license-text, weak-copyleft, source-disclosure, file-boundary, compatibility, patent-grant, cure, forum-selection] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0013: Mozilla Public License 2.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Mozilla MPL-2.0 text](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary license text; Mozilla is steward and OSI lists MPL-2.0 as approved. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution of Covered Software source/executable form triggers ss. 3.1--3.2 source availability; “Modifications” are file-level, while a Larger Work may include separate non-covered files (s. 1.7, 1.10, 3.3). +- Section 5 has 30/60-day cure/reinstatement rules; s. 2 grants contributor patents and s. 5.2 has patent-litigation termination. +- Section 8 selects defendant-principal-place forum/law; ss. 3.3 and 10.3 address larger works and selected GPL-family secondary licensing. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a particular file, combination, or modified FastLED text has MPL’s terms or compatibility. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Source availability is to executable recipients by reasonable means in a timely manner. Commercial licensing is not prohibited; separate grants remain possible. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: Mozilla revision or controlling construction. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/open-software-license-v3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/open-software-license-v3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..62d383e --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/open-software-license-v3.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0017 +title: Open Software License 3.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Lawrence E. Rosen (licensor); Open Source Initiative (official approved-license host) +date: 2005-03-01 +authority_status: current-version-3.0 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Open Software License 3.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, network-use, source-disclosure, termination, patent-grant] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://opensource.org/license/OSL-3.0 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0017: Open Software License 3.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official OSI OSL-3.0 text](https://opensource.org/license/OSL-3.0); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +OSI’s official text and approved-license record. + +## What it supports + +- Distribution/communication and “External Deployment” trigger reciprocal treatment (ss. 1(c), 5); s. 3 requires source with each distributed copy or repository access while distribution continues. +- Section 9 conditions rights and terminates immediately on failure of s. 1(c); no general cure is stated. Sections 2 and 10 give patent grant and patent-action termination. +- The text has no forum/law clause and permits licensor dual licensing; it requires reasonable efforts to obtain recipient express assent on distribution/communication. + +## What it does not establish + +- Effectiveness of assent in a jurisdiction, a specific external-deployment fact pattern, or judicial relief. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +“External Deployment” reaches network availability to anyone other than the licensee, making it broader than a mere distribution trigger. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: OSI record or on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/parity-public-license-v7.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/parity-public-license-v7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f80e6b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/parity-public-license-v7.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0134 +title: Parity Public License 7.0.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Artless Devices, Inc. (publisher) +date: 2020-11-20 +authority_status: non-osi-public-reciprocal +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Parity Public License 7.0.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, network-use, patent-grant, cure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0134: Parity Public License 7.0.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Parity 7.0.0 text](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html); [version index](https://paritylicense.com/versions). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary publisher text (Artless Devices). It is a non-OSI-listed public reciprocal license, not an OSI-approved instrument. + +## What it supports + +- Its broad copyleft rule reaches software developed, operated, or analyzed with the licensed software, subject to the defined prototype exception. +- Covered software must be published in preferred source form through a freely accessible, widely used distribution system within 30 days; parts must be under Parity or a license allowing everything Parity allows. +- It has 30-day knowledge-based excuses for Copyleft/Notices, copyright and patent grants with patent-claim defense, but no forum/law selection. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether its broad "with this software" rule reaches a given service, the validity of its condition/contract characterization, or a remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: publisher revision, OSI action, or judicial authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/polyform-shield-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/polyform-shield-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..affffbf --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/polyform-shield-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0023 +title: PolyForm Shield License 1.0.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: PolyForm Project (publisher) +date: 2020-08-18 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [PolyForm Shield License 1.0.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, patent-grant, cure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0023: PolyForm Shield License 1.0.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official PolyForm Shield 1.0.0 text](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0); [PolyForm license family](https://polyformproject.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary publisher text. PolyForm describes Shield as barring competition with the provider; it is not in OSI’s approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- It permits use, modification, and distribution subject to a noncompete purpose limitation; the boundary is the Software and changes/new works, not a reciprocal source-disclosure rule. +- It grants a patent license, ends it on patent claims, and offers a one-time 32-day post-written-notice cure; no forum/law or compatibility clause is selected. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether two products compete, a commercial-price term, or any public-source duration. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The license’s “Competition” definition deliberately reaches substitute functionality across interfaces/platforms. It permits distribution but does not impose a public-source duty. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: PolyForm update or judicial construction. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/prosperity-public-license-v3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/prosperity-public-license-v3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6f1c44 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/prosperity-public-license-v3.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0135 +title: Prosperity Public License 3.0.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: License Zero, Inc. (publisher) +date: 2020-11-20 +authority_status: source-available-commercial-use-restricted +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Prosperity Public License 3.0.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, patent-grant, cure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://github.com/licensezero/prosperitylicense.com/blob/main/3.0.0.md +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0135: Prosperity Public License 3.0.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Publisher-maintained 3.0.0 text](https://github.com/licensezero/prosperitylicense.com/blob/main/3.0.0.md); [publisher repository](https://github.com/licensezero/prosperity-public-license). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Authenticated publisher repository text. It is a source-available commercial-use restriction, not in the OSI approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- Noncommercial use and sharing are free, while commercial use is limited to one 30-day trial per company rather than a recurring per-person trial. +- It requires notices on copies, exempts enumerated personal/noncommercial organization uses, and treats qualifying contributed-back work as noncommercial for the stated purpose. +- It supplies copyright and patent grants with a patent-claim defense and a 30-day notices excuse; it does not impose reciprocal source disclosure, delayed conversion, or select forum/law. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a particular activity is commercial, the availability or price of a commercial license, or a judicial remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: publisher release or a relevant court decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/reciprocal-public-license-v1-5.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/reciprocal-public-license-v1-5.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d8126a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/reciprocal-public-license-v1-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0018 +title: Reciprocal Public License 1.5 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: Open Source Initiative (official approved-license host) +date: 2007-07-24 +authority_status: current-version-1.5 +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Reciprocal Public License 1.5] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, deployment, termination, cure, patent-grant, forum-selection] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://opensource.org/license/RPL-1.5 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0018: Reciprocal Public License 1.5 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official OSI RPL-1.5 text](https://opensource.org/license/RPL-1.5); [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +OSI official text and approved-license record. + +## What it supports + +- “Deploy” includes internal or external use/distribution; deployment triggers public availability of source for the licensed software and extensions (ss. 1.12, 3.2, 6.1). +- Section 8 gives a 30-day cure after notice for a first violation and immediate termination otherwise; ss. 3 and 10 contain patent terms/retaliation. +- Section 13 selects California law and San Francisco courts; separate commercial licensing is not forbidden. + +## What it does not establish + +- Every component that is a Required Component, a court’s treatment of internal deployment, or compatibility. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The text’s deployment and Required Components definitions create a broad reciprocal boundary; the source audience is the open-source community at large. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: OSI update or on-point authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/redis-source-available-license-v2.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/redis-source-available-license-v2.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b086839 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/redis-source-available-license-v2.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0141 +title: Redis Source Available License 2.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: United States-California-Israel-England-and-Wales +court: Redis Ltd. (licensor) +date: 2023-12-30 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Redis Source Available License 2.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, patent-grant, cure, forum-selection] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://redis.io/legal/rsalv2-agreement/ +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0141: Redis Source Available License 2.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official Redis RSALv2 agreement](https://redis.io/legal/rsalv2-agreement/); [Redis licensing overview](https://redis.io/legal/licenses/). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary licensor agreement. Redis calls RSALv2 source-available/non-copyleft; it is not in OSI's approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- It grants use/copy/distribution/availability/derivative rights but prohibits providing the software's functionality to third parties as a service or distributing it so its functionality is available to third parties. +- It requires license and modification notices, includes a patent grant with patent-claim termination, and provides a first 30-day notice-and-cease retroactive reinstatement; a later breach is permanent termination. +- It specifies jurisdiction-dependent California/Santa Clara, Israel/Central District, or England and Wales/London law and courts. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a given hosted offering provides the software's functionality, the result under an alternative Redis license, or a remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: Redis license election/text change or directly on-point decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/server-side-public-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/server-side-public-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..96a1249 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/server-side-public-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0019 +title: Server Side Public License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: MongoDB, Inc. (licensor) +date: 2018-10-16 +authority_status: source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Server Side Public License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, network-use, source-disclosure, termination, cure, patent-grant, commercial-license] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0019: Server Side Public License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [Official MongoDB SSPL-1.0 text](https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license); [MongoDB licensing page](https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/community-edition). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary licensor text. It is source-available; it is not listed in the OSI approved registry. + +## What it supports + +- GPLv3-style conveyance/source terms apply, while s. 13 requires a provider making program functionality available to third parties as a service to offer Service Source Code to all network users without charge. +- Section 8 supplies GPLv3-style termination/reinstatement; s. 11 provides patent terms. No forum/law clause is selected. +- MongoDB states commercial licenses are available for its Community Server offerings. + +## What it does not establish + +- That every hosted application triggers s. 13, that SSPL is OSI-approved, or a court remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +“Service Source Code” is defined in s. 13 and can reach management software used to provide the service; exact application needs technical facts. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: MongoDB text/release change or litigation. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/sustainable-use-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/sustainable-use-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f82a6e --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/sustainable-use-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0140 +title: Sustainable Use License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: not-applicable +court: n8n GmbH (licensor) +date: 2022-01-01 +authority_status: fair-code-source-available-not-osi-approved +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [n8n Sustainable Use License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, source-available, commercial-restriction, commercial-license] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://docs.n8n.io/privacy-and-security/sustainable-use-license +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0140: Sustainable Use License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [n8n's official Sustainable Use License page and text](https://docs.n8n.io/privacy-and-security/sustainable-use-license); [n8n documentation source](https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n-docs/blob/main/docs/privacy-and-security/sustainable-use-license.md). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary project text for n8n's fair-code instrument. It is source-available, not OSI-approved open source; "Sustainable Use License" is a name used by more than one project, so this card is limited to the authenticated n8n v1 text. + +## What it supports + +- Use/modification is free for internal business, noncommercial, or personal use; distribution/provision to others is permitted only free of charge for noncommercial purposes. +- It requires retaining notices and leaves out a reciprocal source-publication duty, delayed conversion, stated patent grant, general cure, and selected forum/law. +- n8n identifies a separate enterprise/commercial agreement for uses outside the grant. + +## What it does not establish + +- The terms of another project's similarly titled license, whether an integration is internal business use, or commercial-license availability/price. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: n8n text/release change or judicial treatment. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/sybase-open-watcom-public-license-v1.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/sybase-open-watcom-public-license-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..10ea35f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/sybase-open-watcom-public-license-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0138 +title: Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 +authority_type: license +jurisdiction: United States-California +court: Sybase, Inc. (original licensor); Open Source Initiative (official approved-license host) +date: 2003-01-01 +authority_status: osi-approved-historical +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0] +topics: [license-text, copyleft, source-disclosure, deployment, patent-grant, cure, forum-selection] +source_quality: official-reproduction +source_url: https://opensource.org/license/Watcom-1.0 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002] +--- + +# AUTH-0138: Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 + +## Citation and source + +- [OSI Watcom-1.0 text and approval record](https://opensource.org/license/Watcom-1.0); [OSI registry](https://opensource.org/licenses). + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Primary OSI-hosted historical text. OSI lists Watcom-1.0 as an approved non-reusable license. + +## What it supports + +- "Deploy" includes non-R&D/internal organizational use as well as external use/distribution; deployed modifications trigger public source availability for deployment duration or 12 months from first deployment, whichever is longer. +- It uses covered-code/modification/larger-work concepts, grants copyright and patent rights, requires 30-day cure after awareness, and permits object-code distribution under a protective separate agreement. +- It selects California/U.S. law and Northern District of California dispute resolution. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a particular internal use is deployment, the applicable source scope, or a court remedy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0002](../../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Recheck trigger: historical text correction or a version-specific decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/federal-rules-discovery-injunction-performance.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/federal-rules-discovery-injunction-performance.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0b8d2d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/federal-rules-discovery-injunction-performance.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0093 +title: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(d) and 70 +authority_type: administrative-material +jurisdiction: United States federal +court: Supreme Court of the United States / federal courts +date: 2025-12-01 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [injunction, contempt, specific-performance] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.uscourts.gov/file/78323/download +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0012] +--- + +# AUTH-0093: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(d) and 70 + +## Citation and source + +- [Current Federal Rules PDF, Rules 65 and 70](https://www.uscourts.gov/file/78323/download) (U.S. Courts). +- Later history/current status: current PDF checked 2026-08-25; rule effective dates and local rules must be checked for the forum. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Federal procedural rules apply in the federal court system as adopted and amended; local rules and case-specific orders can add requirements. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Rule 65(d) requires specificity and identifies persons bound by injunctions. Rule 70 supplies mechanisms after a judgment requires a party to perform a specific act. AUTH-0111 separately covers Rule 26(c) discovery protection. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +Not a judicial decision. These rules do not establish an underlying copyright, contract, or source-disclosure entitlement. + +## What it supports + +- An injunction must say what it requires; contempt concerns a valid order and bound persons. +- Specific-act enforcement follows a judgment, rather than replacing merits proof. + +## What it does not establish + +- That source is discoverable in every case, that an order should issue, or that a third party is bound. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The rules distinguish merits-injunction specificity from postjudgment performance enforcement. Rule 26(c) discovery protection is intentionally left to AUTH-0111 to avoid duplicating that authority. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0012. +- Recheck trigger: amendment, selected local rule, or actual order. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/nist-digital-evidence-preservation.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/nist-digital-evidence-preservation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..303e78b --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/nist-digital-evidence-preservation.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0113 +title: NISTIR 8387 digital-evidence preservation considerations +authority_type: official-guidance +jurisdiction: United States +court: National Institute of Standards and Technology +date: 2022-09-08 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: nonprecedential +licenses: [] +topics: [evidence, preservation, hashing, chain-of-custody, digital-forensics] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8387 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0016] +--- + +# AUTH-0113: NISTIR 8387 digital-evidence preservation considerations + +## Citation and source + +- Barbara Guttman, Douglas R. White & Shannan Williams, *Digital Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Evidence Handlers*, NISTIR 8387 (Sept. 2022). +- [NIST publication record](https://www.nist.gov/publications/digital-evidence-preservation-considerations-evidence-handlers); [DOI-resolved full text](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8387). +- Later history/current status: publication record checked 2026-08-25. +- Original language and translation provenance: English; not needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Official technical guidance, not a rule of evidence, statute, or judicial +holding. It can support an operational preservation checklist but cannot decide +admissibility or create a duty in a particular private dispute. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Not applicable. The report discusses integrity, storage, documentation, +hashing, digital signatures, and chain of custody in a digital-evidence +context. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +None. + +## What it supports + +- Document original source, acquisition method, handlers, dates/times, hashes, + storage, and transfer history for lawfully obtained digital artifacts. +- Preserve a source artifact separately from analytical derivatives where + practical, and use current approved cryptographic methods appropriate to the + retention purpose. + +## What it does not establish + +- A private legal preservation duty, admissibility, authenticity, authorship, + version identity, or authority to collect data from a third party. +- That a cryptographic hash proves provenance or source-code completeness. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The report emphasizes that digital files are readily altered and treats +documentation and integrity controls as complementary. That supports a +repeatable factual record, not an inference that a license condition was +triggered or breached. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0016](../../matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md). +- Conflicting or distinguishing authorities: applicable evidence rules and preservation law control. +- Recheck trigger: forensic method, retention environment, or NIST revision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..36e0536 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0110 +title: U.S. copyright jurisdiction, venue, transfer, and supplemental claims +authority_type: statute +jurisdiction: US-federal +court: United States Congress +date: 2026-08-25 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [jurisdiction, venue, transfer, copyright, procedure] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-part4 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0017, PR-0020] +--- + +# AUTH-0110: U.S. copyright jurisdiction, venue, transfer, and supplemental claims + +## Citation and source + +- 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a)–(b), 1367, 1391, 1400(a), 1404(a), 1406(a), and 1631. +- [Official preliminary U.S. Code, Title 28, Part IV](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-part4); [§ 1391](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=%28title%3A28+section%3A1391+edition%3Aprelim%29); [§ 1400](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=%28title%3A28+section%3A1400+edition%3Aprelim%29). +- Later history/current status: statutory text checked 2026-08-25; forum-specific precedent and local rules remain necessary. +- Original language and translation provenance: English; not needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Operative federal statutes. They bind federal courts according to their terms, +as interpreted by controlling precedent. They do not resolve personal +jurisdiction, state-law claim elements, contractual forum selection, or a +foreign court's jurisdiction. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Not a pleading or relief source. Section 1338(a) gives federal district courts +original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal copyright law +and makes that jurisdiction exclusive for copyright claims. Section 1338(b) +addresses related unfair-competition claims; § 1367 supplies the general +supplemental-jurisdiction framework. Sections 1391 and 1400(a) govern venue; +§§ 1404(a), 1406(a), and 1631 address transfer or cure in specified settings. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +No case holding or remedy is supplied by this card. + +## What it supports + +- A copyright complaint must separately analyze subject-matter jurisdiction, + personal jurisdiction, venue, and any supplemental state-law claim. +- General venue and copyright-specific venue text must be checked together, + along with controlling circuit authority and contract clauses. +- Transfer provisions can matter without deciding merits or validating a + chosen forum. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a particular defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, that venue + is proper on a given fact record, or that a forum-selection clause controls. +- Governing law for a license or contract, discovery availability, or the + recognition of a foreign judgment. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Venue and jurisdiction are threshold procedural questions; the place of a +software repository, a web-accessible service, a downstream product sale, and +the parties' headquarters can each be relevant but are not substitutes for the +statutory and precedential tests. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0017](../../matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md) and [PR-0020](../../matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md). +- Conflicting or distinguishing authorities: contract-specific and forum-specific precedent is not collected here. +- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment, selected forum, or a material forum-selection clause. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-ownership-transfers-standing.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-ownership-transfers-standing.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1ffb09c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-ownership-transfers-standing.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0071 +title: 17 U.S.C. §§ 201, 204, and 501 +authority_type: statute +jurisdiction: United States federal +court: Congress +date: 2026-08-25 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [ownership, assignments, standing] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section204&num=0&edition=prelim +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0008] +--- + +# AUTH-0071: 17 U.S.C. §§ 201, 204, and 501 + +## Citation and source + +- Copyright Act ownership, transfer-writing, and infringement-standing + provisions; [official House Code Collection, § 204](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section204&num=0&edition=prelim), with §§ 201 and 501 in the same title. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Federal statute. It supplies the baseline for U.S. copyright ownership and +plaintiff status; state contract law still governs many assignment and +beneficiary issues. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +Not applicable. Section 201 identifies initial ownership and divisible +exclusive rights; § 204(a) generally requires a signed writing for a transfer +of copyright ownership other than by operation of law; § 501(b) permits a +legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to sue for infringement of that +right while owner. + +## What it supports + +- Component-by-component ownership and transfer proof are required before + treating a contributor, steward, or assignee as an infringement plaintiff. +- A nonexclusive license is not itself a transfer of copyright ownership. + +## What it does not establish + +- That a contributor owns an entire collective work, an assignee obtained an + exclusive right, or a recipient is a third-party beneficiary. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: PR-0008. +- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment or controlling Supreme Court decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-registration-and-limitations.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-registration-and-limitations.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c702477 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-registration-and-limitations.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0090 +title: 17 U.S.C. §§ 411(a) and 507(b) +authority_type: statute +jurisdiction: United States federal +court: United States Congress +date: 2026-08-25 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [registration, limitations, accrual] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title17-section411 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0011, PR-0013, PR-0014] +--- + +# AUTH-0090: 17 U.S.C. §§ 411(a) and 507(b) + +## Citation and source + +- Current official text: [§411(a)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title17-section411); [§507(b)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A17+section%3A507+edition%3Aprelim%29). +- Later history/current status: official preliminary text checked 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Federal statutory text, binding subject to controlling construction and applicable exceptions. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Section 411(a) generally restricts institution of an infringement action for a United States work until preregistration or registration, with the stated refusal route. Section 507(b) says a civil action must be commenced within three years after the claim accrued. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +Not a judicial decision. The provisions do not themselves decide registration validity, work nationality, accrual doctrine, claim ownership, or any remedy award. + +## What it supports + +- Registration and limitations are separate threshold/timing questions for an infringement action. +- The statutory limitations text uses accrual, not a license-specific cure rule. + +## What it does not establish + +- Section 412 enhanced-remedy eligibility (covered separately by AUTH-0006). +- A state-law contract limitations period, discovery rule, or specific performance remedy. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Apply the text work by work and claim by claim, then use controlling case law for what registration and accrual mean. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: PR-0011, PR-0013, PR-0014. +- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment or controlling Supreme Court construction. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md index b22311e..1e2fd46 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md @@ -3,8 +3,17 @@ id: AUTH-0006 title: U.S. Copyright Act remedies and registration timing authority_type: statute jurisdiction: US-federal +court: United States Congress date: 1976-10-19 authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: not-applicable +licenses: [] +topics: [copyright-remedies, injunction, impoundment, damages, profits, fees, registration] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscode/2024/title17 +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: 2026-08-25 related_matter_ids: - PR-0001 @@ -14,6 +23,7 @@ related_matter_ids: ## Citation and source +- [Official 2024 edition of Title 17, United States Code](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscode/2024/title17) - [17 U.S.C. §502 — injunctions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502) - [17 U.S.C. §503 — impoundment and disposition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/503) - [17 U.S.C. §504 — damages and profits](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504) diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3de6869 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0070 +title: 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, and 301 +authority_type: statute +jurisdiction: United States federal +court: Congress +date: 2026-08-25 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [copyright-nexus, preemption, scope] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section301&num=0&edition=prelim +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0006, PR-0007, PR-0009] +--- + +# AUTH-0070: 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, and 301 + +## Citation and source + +- Copyright Act definitions, exclusive rights, and express-preemption rule; + [official House Code Collection, § 301](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section301&num=0&edition=prelim), with §§ 101 and 106 in the same title. +- Current statutory text, verified 2026-08-25. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Federal statute. Its application depends on controlling circuit and state law; +it does not itself classify a license term as a condition or contract promise. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +Not applicable. Section 106 enumerates exclusive copyright rights. Section +301(a) preempts specified state-law legal or equitable rights that are +equivalent to those exclusive rights in works within copyright subject matter; +§ 301(b) preserves enumerated categories including contractual rights. + +## What it supports + +- A copyright infringement theory needs conduct within an exclusive right, not + merely a breached promise. +- The statutory preemption inquiry has subject-matter and equivalency + components; contract labeling alone is not a complete answer. + +## What it does not establish + +- Whether a particular source, notice, network, or deployment term carries the + necessary copyright nexus. +- Whether a particular state-law claim includes a qualitatively different + contractual element. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: PR-0006, PR-0007, PR-0009. +- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment or controlling Supreme Court decision. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18c9884 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0111 +title: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on discovery, ESI, protective orders, and sanctions +authority_type: administrative-material +jurisdiction: US-federal +court: United States Supreme Court / federal judiciary +date: 2025-12-01 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [discovery, protective-orders, ESI, procedure, sanctions] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0017, PR-0016] +--- + +# AUTH-0111: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on discovery, ESI, protective orders, and sanctions + +## Citation and source + +- Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, 26, 34, 37, and 45. +- [Official Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (current PDF)](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf); [Federal Judiciary rules page](https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure). +- Later history/current status: the Federal Judiciary reports amendments through 2025; check the version in force when a matter is filed. +- Original language and translation provenance: English; not needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Operative federal procedural rules in U.S. district courts, subject to statutes, +local rules, court orders, and controlling interpretation. The taxonomy's +`administrative-material` category is used because it has no separate `rule` +type; these are not merely guidance. + +## Claims and requested relief + +Rules 8 and 12 regulate pleadings and motions; Rule 26 sets scope, timing, +proportionality, ESI, privilege, and protective-order mechanisms; Rules 34 and +45 govern requests to parties and subpoenas to nonparties; Rule 37 addresses +discovery sanctions. They regulate process after a case begins; they do not +authorize private pre-suit acquisition of another person's data. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +No particular order, discovery award, or sanction is established. + +## What it supports + +- Publicly obtainable materials and court-compelled production are distinct + evidence channels. +- A protective order can govern discovery material, including source code, but + is not a mechanism for public source release. +- ESI preservation, collection, production format, proportionality, privilege, + and sanctions require case-specific analysis and court/local-rule practice. + +## What it does not establish + +- Entitlement to expedited discovery, a source-code inspection, an AEO tier, + sanctions, or disclosure of confidential materials in a particular case. +- A duty to publish code publicly or a merits finding of infringement. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +Rule 26 distinguishes discovery's relevance/proportionality framework from the +separate merits and remedial questions. Rule 26(c) permits protective orders on +good cause; Rule 37(e) has a distinct ESI-loss framework. A party should +preserve authentic records without treating a contemplated discovery request as +permission to access systems or data it cannot lawfully access. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matters: [PR-0016](../../matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md) and [PR-0017](../../matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md). +- Conflicting or distinguishing authorities: local rules, individual judge procedures, and Rule 26/37 cases. +- Recheck trigger: selected district, ESI scope, trade-secret assertion, or rule amendment. diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-federal-rules-of-evidence-digital-authentication.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-federal-rules-of-evidence-digital-authentication.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fa1c03c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-federal-rules-of-evidence-digital-authentication.md @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +--- +id: AUTH-0112 +title: Federal Rules of Evidence for authentication and digital records +authority_type: administrative-material +jurisdiction: US-federal +court: United States Supreme Court / federal judiciary +date: 2025-12-01 +authority_status: current +procedural_posture: not-applicable +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [evidence, authentication, digital-evidence, public-records, ESI] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0016] +--- + +# AUTH-0112: Federal Rules of Evidence for authentication and digital records + +## Citation and source + +- Fed. R. Evid. 901, 902(13)–(14), and 1001–1008. +- [Official Federal Rules of Evidence (current PDF)](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf); [Federal Judiciary rules page](https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence). +- Later history/current status: current text checked 2026-08-25; source page identifies amendments through December 1, 2025. +- Original language and translation provenance: English; not needed. + +## Procedural posture and weight + +Operative evidence rules for most federal proceedings. State courts and foreign +courts may use different rules. The taxonomy's `administrative-material` label +does not reduce their legal force. + +## Claims and requested relief + +These rules address admissibility foundations, not infringement, source-code +ownership, or discovery. Rules 902(13) and (14) can allow specified certified +electronic-process and copied-data evidence to be self-authenticating with the +required certification and notice; Rule 901 still supplies the general +authentication rule. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +No merits or evidentiary ruling is supplied by the rule text. + +## What it supports + +- Hashes, capture logs, preservation records, repository metadata, and witness + evidence can be relevant to an authentication foundation, but each needs a + documented process and applicable rule analysis. +- A public web page or code archive should be captured with its URL, time, + method, and context; a hash alone proves neither authorship nor legal effect. + +## What it does not establish + +- That any particular screenshot, hash, repository tag, binary comparison, or + automated capture is admissible or conclusive. +- Chain of title, license assent, source completeness, or infringement. + +## Key facts and reasoning + +The rules distinguish authenticity from weight and from merits. Preserve the +original available artifact and the repeatable acquisition record where lawful; +avoid altering timestamps, metadata, or file contents in the working copy. + +## Treatment in this repository + +- Related matter: [PR-0016](../../matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md). +- Conflicting or distinguishing authorities: state evidence law, local ESI protocols, and case-specific authentication precedent. +- Recheck trigger: selected forum, proposed exhibit type, or rule amendment. diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md b/paralegal-research/matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a8a3924 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +--- +id: PR-0004 +title: International open-source-license enforcement census +question: "What publicly accessible non-U.S. court decisions address enforcement, scope, or consequences of reciprocal/open-source licence terms?" +short_answer: "This bounded 2026-08-25 census finds reported decisions in the CJEU, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, China, and South Korea. They show that outcomes turn on the forum, exact licence text, ownership, proof, and posture: several courts treated noncompliant distribution as unlicensed/infringing or ordered compliance, while other decisions rejected claims or reserved the GPL question. No item establishes an automatic worldwide right to public source release." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: + - European-Union + - France + - Germany + - Italy + - Netherlands + - China + - South-Korea +licenses: + - GNU GPL versions 2 and 3 + - Jelurida Public License 1.1 + - BSD-style public licenses +actors: + - copyright-owner + - contributor + - licensor + - licensee + - distributor + - recipient +conduct: + - modify + - distribute + - omit-notice + - withhold-source + - continue-after-termination +topics: + - comparative-enforcement + - GPL + - open-source-licenses + - source-disclosure + - remedies +confidence: low +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: + - https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17 +related_matter_ids: + - PR-0001 +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0004: International open-source-license enforcement census + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a licence, +> enforcement, or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: a copyright owner, contributor, licensee, or downstream distributor. +Trigger: distribution, modification, proprietary relicensing, or a GPL-based +defence. Jurisdictions searched were the EU/CJEU, France, Germany, Italy, +Spain, Netherlands, United Kingdom, China, and South Korea. The review covers +publicly accessible primary decisions or official court case summaries as of +2026-08-25, not every docket, private settlement, or administrative dispute. +It records GPLv2/v3 and the Jelurida Public License (JPL); it does not decide +the effect of any repository licence, including the FastLED draft. + +Original-language materials control. Each linked card identifies its language, +official translation if one exists, and whether its English account is the +researcher's limited paraphrase. Proper certified translation and local-counsel +review are required before relying on a non-English text in advice or filing. + +## Short answer + +The strongest cross-border authorities are the CJEU's binding interpretation in +[*IT Development*](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md), +the French remand appellate decision in +[*Entr'Ouvert v Orange*](../../authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md), +and the Dutch appellate compliance order in +[*Jelurida v Apollo*](../../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md). They do +not create a universal source-publication remedy. The CJEU left national +classification and remedies to the national court; the French appeal awarded +damages for a particular GPLv2 distribution; and the Dutch interlocutory case +ordered performance of named JPL clauses within the EU, backed by a penalty. + +German trial decisions are useful but mostly non-binding and their public +copies are uneven. They support the proposition that GPL terms can be effective +and that a distributor cannot simply invoke a supplier, while *Hellwig* shows a +GPL claim can fail on proof/standing without a ruling on derivative-work scope. +Official Chinese decisions show both a GPLv3 termination/infringement result +and a refusal to decide an absent upstream owner's GPLv2 dispute. The Korean +Supreme Court decision is a trade-secret decision: it expressly leaves a +possible GPL breach claim to the original owner and does **not** compel source +release. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Located authority | Actual result | Principal limit | +|---|---|---|---| +| Licencee modifies software contrary to a licence limitation | [*IT Development*](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md) | CJEU says national law may permit copyright action where a Directive 2009/24 Article 4(2) limitation is infringed | Preliminary ruling; no damages/injunction awarded by CJEU | +| GPLv2 component distributed in proprietary government platform | [*Entr'Ouvert* Paris 2024](../../authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md) | Infringement and damages on record-specific proof | French law and facts; no affirmative source-publication award identified | +| Distributor omits GPL source | [Fantec](../../authorities/cases/welte-v-fantec.md) | Contractual penalty, information, and costs reported | Regional-court judgment; public official copy not located | +| Licensee distributes JPL-covered software without compliance | [*Jelurida*](../../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) | Named JPL obligations ordered within EU, with Dutch penalty mechanism | Interlocutory relief and a non-GPL licence | +| Defendant invokes GPL against developer's later proprietary claim | [OfficeTen](../../authorities/cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md) | Defence rejected; prior developer's GPL breach reserved | Not GPL enforcement by OpenWRT owner | +| GPL developer seeks source for alleged combined work | [*Hellwig*](../../authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md) | Claim dismissed for insufficient proof | No merits holding on linking/derivative work | +| Open-source BSD redistribution and asserted upstream GPL consequence | [*Gestionale Open* Milan 2025](../../authorities/cases/gestionale-open-milan-2025.md) | Appellate court confirmed BSD-condition infringement and treated GPL/MySQL issue as separate | Full text is a legal-database reproduction; GPL was not the owner-enforced claim | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [*IT Development v Free Mobile*](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md) | EU software-licence limitation can support copyright action under national law | Binding CJEU interpretation; remand result not supplied by the CJEU judgment | +| [*Entr'Ouvert v Orange*, TGI 2019](../../authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-tgi-2019.md) | First-instance contractual-characterization dispute | Superseded in material part by Cassation/remand history | +| [*Entr'Ouvert v Orange*, Cassation 2022](../../authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-cassation-2022.md) | Copyright action's admissibility after GPL breach | Partial quashing/remand, not final infringement merits | +| [*Entr'Ouvert v Orange*, Paris 2024](../../authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-paris-2024.md) | GPLv2 noncompliance found to infringe; damages | French appellate decision; no later official Cassation disposition located in the 2026-08-25 audit | +| [*Sitecom*](../../authorities/cases/sitecom-v-welte.md), [*D-Link*](../../authorities/cases/welte-v-d-link.md), [*Skype*](../../authorities/cases/welte-v-skype.md) | German GPL validity/licence-loss line | Trial-court decisions; public copies are non-official reproductions or archives | +| [*AVM v Cybits*](../../authorities/cases/avm-v-cybits.md) | GPL components limited AVM's copyright claim against firmware modification | Original judgment PDF; not a GPL owner enforcing against a distributor | +| [*Welte v Fantec*](../../authorities/cases/welte-v-fantec.md) | Distributor responsibility for GPLv2 source compliance | Public primary copy not independently retrieved | +| [*Hellwig v VMware*](../../authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md) | Ownership/proof can dispose of GPL action before scope | Final reported appellate disposition; no derivative-work holding | +| [*Jelurida v Apollo*](../../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) | Compliance order under a public source licence | Dutch interim proceedings; JPL, not GPL | +| [China OfficeTen](../../authorities/cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md), [China Virtual App](../../authorities/cases/china-virtual-app-gplv3.md) | GPL appears respectively as a limited defence and as termination condition | Official case summaries; anonymisation limits party/detail verification | +| [Korean Supreme Court 2006Do8369](../../authorities/cases/korea-gpl-trade-secret-2009.md) | GPL breach does not by itself eliminate copyright in an independently creative derivative | Criminal/trade-secret posture, not GPL enforcement remedy | +| [*Gestionale Open* Milan 2025](../../authorities/cases/gestionale-open-milan-2025.md) | BSD condition enforcement; upstream GPL argument did not itself establish downstream free-use rights | Italian appellate merits judgment; full text is not court-hosted and the GPL issue is limited | + +## Search coverage and negative results + +The accompanying [search log](../../search-logs/international-case-census-2026-08-25.md) and the [gap-audit log](../../search-logs/case-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md) record repositories, terms, and exclusions. The gap audit located a public full-text legal-database reproduction of a 2025 Milan appellate decision and added it with a source-host and GPL-scope limitation. Searches of Spain and UK official/free repositories did not yield a sufficiently accessible, authenticated reciprocal-licence merits decision for an authority card. This is a negative-search record, not a claim that those jurisdictions have no relevant law. + +## What would change the answer + +- A final appeal, cassation, settlement, or enforcement order in a listed matter. +- An official full text replacing a non-official German reproduction or court summary. +- Certified translation differing from the limited English paraphrase. +- A decision applying the precise licence version, conduct, and remedy at issue. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which target jurisdictions and language translations merit a docket-level audit? +- Does the intended claim sound in copyright, contract, consumer/competition law, + or a mixed theory under the selected forum's conflicts rules? +- What ownership and contribution evidence supports standing for each component? +- Is an affirmative compliance order available under the selected forum's + procedural/equitable rules, as distinct from a prohibition or damages award? + +## Repository implications + +This comparative census does not recommend a licence, enforcement action, or +change to `LICENSE`. Any drafting or enforcement decision remains subject to +the attorney-review gate in `LEGAL-REVIEW.md`. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial bounded international case census for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | +| 2026-08-25 | Gap audit: added Milan 2025 public-license appellate decision; rechecked *Entr'Ouvert* official history | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md b/paralegal-research/matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d17a54c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +--- +id: PR-0003 +title: United States reciprocal and public-license enforcement census +question: "What U.S. judicial decisions, docket rulings, and disclosed settlements materially address enforcement or defenses under GPL-family and comparable public licenses?" +short_answer: "The reported U.S. record is narrow. Jacobsen, XimpleWare, Neo4j, and Fisher contain useful rulings on particular public-license questions; many BusyBox and FSF matters ended in settlement or default, and thus do not establish a general remedy rule. No located U.S. final merits judgment establishes automatic source publication or compelled purchase of a commercial license." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: + - US-federal +licenses: + - GNU GPL versions 2 and 3 + - GNU AGPL version 3 + - Artistic License + - Sweden Software License + - Creative Commons BY-SA and BY-NC-SA +actors: + - copyright-owner + - licensor + - distributor + - modifier + - recipient + - customer + - association +conduct: + - modify + - distribute + - omit-notice + - withhold-source + - continue-after-termination +topics: + - GPL + - LGPL + - AGPL + - public-license + - enforcement-census +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: + - https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17 +related_matter_ids: + - PR-0001 +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0003: United States reciprocal and public-license enforcement census + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: a copyright owner, alleged downstream distributor, licensee, or public-license user. Trigger: alleged distribution, modification, licensing, removal of notices, or attempted use of a public-license defense. Jurisdiction: U.S. federal courts; state-law contract questions are noted but not synthesized. Remedy: claims and disposition, not a recommendation. The census covers GPL, GPLv2, GPLv3, AGPL-related factual settings, and comparable Creative Commons public licenses found in the documented search. It excludes non-U.S. authorities and nonjudicial compliance demands unless a disclosed settlement makes them useful context. + +## Short answer + +The U.S. decisions do not supply one universal "open-source enforcement" rule. *Jacobsen* is the leading appellate condition-of-license authority but arose under the Artistic License; on remand, a 2009 summary-judgment order and a 2010 dismissal did not produce a public source-performance award. *XimpleWare* accepted, at pleading stage, that alleged GPLv2 source-code distribution could make use unlicensed, while limiting claims against customers. A related *Versata v. Ameriprise* order held only that a pleaded GPL-source contract theory was not preempted, then remanded without deciding third-party-beneficiary standing or source relief. *Neo4j* produced a fact-specific permanent injunction and a nonprecedential Ninth Circuit affirmance concerning a proprietary Sweden Software License and false advertising, not a GPL/AGPL ruling. *Fisher* denied summary judgment because GPLv3 coverage, conveyance, and cure created triable factual questions. *Wallace* rejected an antitrust attack on GPL licensing, not an infringement claim. + +BusyBox, FSF/Cisco, and similar matters show requested and negotiated compliance structures. They are settlements or, for Westinghouse, a default judgment; they do not prove that a contested court will order public source disclosure. The disclosed record searched did not locate a final U.S. merits judgment awarding an AGPL §13 network-source remedy or compelling either party to enter a paid commercial license. + +## Census and status + +| Group | Authority | License/version | Disposition and usable proposition | +|---|---|---|---| +| Public-license conditions | [Planetary Motion](../../authorities/cases/planetary-motion-v-techsplosion.md); [Jacobsen](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) | GPL mentioned; Artistic License | *Planetary Motion* is trademark priority, not GPL enforcement. *Jacobsen* holds only its stated license terms can be copyright conditions. | +| Antitrust challenge | [Wallace/FSF](../../authorities/cases/wallace-v-free-software-foundation.md); [Wallace/IBM](../../authorities/cases/wallace-v-ibm.md) | GPL | Rule 12 dismissals/affirmance; not infringement or remedy rulings. | +| GPLv2 source/distribution | [XimpleWare TRO](../../authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md); [customer MTD](../../authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-customer-dismissal.md); [later MTD](../../authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-later-dismissal.md) | GPLv2 | Interim or pleading-stage rulings; no final source-publication award identified. | +| GPL source-performance/preemption theory | [*Versata v. Ameriprise*](../../authorities/cases/versata-v-ameriprise-gpl-preemption.md) | GPLv2 as pleaded | State contract theory survived this trial court's preemption analysis; standing, breach, scope, and relief were not decided. | +| GPL covered-work/cure at interim stage | [*Progress v. MySQL*](../../authorities/cases/progress-software-v-mysql.md) | GNU GPL (paragraph 2 in order) | GPL preliminary injunction denied amid factual derivative-work/cure and irreparable-harm disputes; separate trademark injunction does not establish GPL relief. | +| Jacobsen later history | [post-remand order and dismissal](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer-post-remand.md) | Artistic License | The appellate condition decision did not culminate in a public final source-performance or damages award. | +| Neo4j license dispute | [district liability ruling](../../authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-liability-ruling.md); [summary judgment](../../authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-summary-judgment.md); [Ninth Circuit](../../authorities/cases/neo4j-v-purethink-ninth-circuit.md); [Graph Foundation](../../authorities/cases/neo4j-v-graph-foundation.md) | Sweden Software License; AGPL used in alleged replacement | Injunction/affirmance are fact- and license-specific; Graph Foundation action settled. | +| GPLv3 defense | [Fisher pleadings ruling](../../authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-pleading-ruling.md); [summary judgment](../../authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) | GPLv3 | Court left coverage, conveyance, and cure issues for factfinder. | +| Contract/standing background | [KBS/Dijk](../../authorities/cases/knowledge-based-solutions-v-dijk.md) | no public license shown | Not an open-source case; excluded from substantive GPL propositions. | +| Settlements/defaults | [FSF/Cisco](../../authorities/cases/fsf-v-cisco.md); [BusyBox/Monsoon](../../authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md); [BusyBox/Xterasys](../../authorities/cases/busybox-xterasys.md); [High-Gain](../../authorities/cases/busybox-high-gain.md); [Verizon](../../authorities/cases/busybox-verizon.md); [Westinghouse](../../authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | GPLv2 and GPL components | Requested or negotiated outcomes, and one default, are not contested precedential holdings. | +| Comparable public licenses | [Great Minds](../../authorities/cases/great-minds-v-fedex.md); [Drauglis](../../authorities/cases/drauglis-v-kappa-map.md) | CC BY-NC-SA 3.0; CC BY-SA 2.0 | Published construction of specific CC terms; useful only by analogy. | + +## Analysis + +### Claims and actual relief must stay distinct + +Complaints in the BusyBox and Cisco matters sought infringement remedies and compliance-related relief. The publicly reported resolutions included source availability, notices, compliance personnel, payments, or dismissal. Those are negotiated terms (or, for Westinghouse, default relief) rather than holdings after a contested merits trial. The cards record the source and the distinction. + +### The most useful adjudicated GPL-specific points are limited + +The two *XimpleWare* rulings recognized that the pleaded form of GPLv2 distribution could amount to breach sufficient to render use unlicensed, but rejected the premise that distribution by one customer necessarily made every customer liable. *Versata v. Ameriprise* separately treats the alleged affirmative source promise as an extra element for preemption purposes, not as a decision that an interested customer may enforce the GPL or obtain the source. *Progress v. MySQL* denied interim GPL relief while derivative-work and cure facts were disputed. *Fisher* did not decide that GPLv3 authorized defendants; it denied summary judgment because a jury could find the software was a covered work, it was conveyed, and curative action began in time. These are district-court rulings, persuasive only. + +### License and conduct differences matter + +*Neo4j* concerned a Sweden Software License and representations about ONgDB; it should not be cited as an AGPL source-disclosure decision merely because the alleged replacement used AGPL text. *Planetary Motion* distributed code under GPL, but its published holding was about trademark priority. *KBS v. Dijk* concerns proprietary software and personal jurisdiction; it is logged as a negative relevance check, not evidence about open-source licensing. + +## Authorities + +Every authority used is linked in the table above. The underlying docket documents, official court PDF where located, and searches are recorded in the [search log](../../search-logs/us-case-census-2026-08-25.md). Existing cards AUTH-0001 through AUTH-0008 are reused rather than duplicated. + +## What would change the answer + +- A final merits judgment in the cited pending/settled dockets, or a later appellate ruling. +- An authenticated docket entry or unsealed settlement that alters the stated disposition. +- A decision applying the exact license version, source obligation, and distribution/network conduct in issue. + +### Later-history check: *SFC v. Vizio* + +The official court minute order available through SFC's docket collection denied +Vizio's first summary-judgment/adjudication motion on 2023-12-29. SFC's current +docket page, last updated 2026-02-27, describes the state action as ongoing and +lists later 2025 summary-adjudication materials; a final merits or source-delivery +order was not located in this pass. The current case page is a party-hosted docket +collection, so it confirms the stated litigation status but does not turn party +descriptions of later rulings into a general holding. See [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) and the [search log](../../search-logs/case-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md). + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which forums and license versions matter for a future project-specific matter? +- Whether any historical private settlement should be collected through PACER or counsel rather than relied on from public announcements. +- Whether the unreported end-of-case status in *Fisher*, *XimpleWare*, High-Gain, or Verizon needs a PACER docket audit. + +## Repository implications + +This census does not support a change to `LICENSE` or an enforcement decision. It identifies source material for later, forum- and clause-specific attorney review. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial U.S. census and authority map | Agent; attorney review pending | +| 2026-08-25 | Gap audit: added *Versata/Ameriprise*, *Progress/MySQL*, and *Jacobsen* post-remand routing; rechecked *SFC/Vizio* status | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/defenses/open-source-enforcement-defenses-and-remedial-limits.md b/paralegal-research/matters/defenses/open-source-enforcement-defenses-and-remedial-limits.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1da7b4d --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/defenses/open-source-enforcement-defenses-and-remedial-limits.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +--- +id: PR-0015 +title: Open-source enforcement defenses and remedial limits +question: "What defenses and remedial limits may affect enforcement of GPL-, AGPL-, LGPL-, MPL-, or analogous source-availability terms?" +short_answer: "Authorization is foundational: a valid public license can defeat infringement within its scope, while the claimant must prove termination or an exceeded condition. Waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and impossibility are fact- and forum-dependent equitable or contract doctrines, not automatic consequences of public licensing or delayed enforcement. Copyright misuse is a narrow, fact-specific defense against leveraging copyright beyond its lawful scope. Later compliance does not automatically moot a damages claim, and voluntary cessation ordinarily bears a heavy burden to moot prospective relief. License warranty/liability disclaimers allocate private warranty and damages risk only to the extent enforceable; they do not themselves erase statutory infringement remedies, registration limits, or court authority." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, state-contract-law-forum-dependent] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, analogous-source-availability] +actors: [copyright-owner, licensor, contributor, distributor, modifier, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [reproduce, distribute, convey, provide-network-access, cure, continue-after-termination] +topics: [authorization, waiver, estoppel, misuse, unclean-hands, impossibility, mootness, voluntary-cessation, disclaimers] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0011, PR-0012, PR-0014] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0015: Open-source enforcement defenses and remedial limits + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This is a license-agnostic U.S. federal baseline with explicit state-law limits. It identifies possible defenses and limits; it does not conclude that any defense applies to a repository, contributor, product, or license. Ownership, scope, condition/covenant classification, registration, and the remedy sought must be separately established. + +## Short answer + +The first defense is often authorization: a defendant that acted within a valid nonexclusive public license may not have infringed. The claimant then must prove a condition limiting permission, a breach, termination, and the relevant unlicensed act. *Jacobsen* and *MDY* guide that inquiry in their stated jurisdictions; *Effects Associates* illustrates that nonexclusive permission may be express or implied from conduct, but its fact pattern is not an open-source rule. + +Waiver and estoppel require a forum-specific record (conduct, knowledge, reliance, and prejudice as applicable); delay alone is not a universal release. Copyright misuse is not a generalized objection to reciprocal terms: *Practice Management* addresses a particular copyright holder's leveraging arrangement. Unclean hands and impossibility are equitable/contract defenses whose elements and consequences follow the chosen law. Cure may bear on future permission and prospective relief, but voluntary cessation ordinarily does not itself moot a live dispute, especially a damages claim. Warranty/liability disclaimers in license text are not a judicial remedy bar and may be limited by applicable law. + +## Analysis + +### Authorization and scope come before a remedial debate + +Public license text is affirmative permission within its scope. A claimant cannot treat every technical or notice defect as infringement without identifying the right exercised, the condition/covenant theory, the alleged breach, and a termination timeline. The exact version matters: GPLv3/AGPLv3/LGPLv3 reinstatement language is not GPLv2/LGPLv2.1 text, and MPL 2.0 is separately structured. An implied license analysis is not a substitute for reading the published license, but conduct can matter where a party alleges authorization outside or alongside it. + +### Waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and impossibility are not categorical open-source defenses + +These doctrines vary materially by state law. Evidence can include communications, repeated acceptance of performance, notice, reliance, prejudice, claimant misconduct related to the relief, and whether a promised act is objectively or legally possible. They may limit a contract remedy or equitable relief without transferring copyright, excusing unrelated infringement, or creating a future commercial license. A short source-posting delay or public availability of code does not alone prove any of them. + +### Misuse is narrow and fact-specific + +*Practice Management* held that the asserted copyright was unenforceable during misuse on its record because the copyright holder conditioned a government license to exclude competing coding systems. The case does not hold that reciprocal licensing, dual licensing, commercial alternatives, or a demand for compliance is misuse. Whether a license condition unlawfully extends copyright power requires its own factual and legal analysis. + +### Mootness, voluntary cessation, and remedy type + +*Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw* states the ordinary voluntary-cessation principle: a defendant's stopping challenged conduct does not ordinarily moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the conduct cannot reasonably recur. Its environmental facts are not copyright-specific. Even where prospective relief no longer has a live function, claims for completed conduct and money remedies need separate analysis. The doctrine does not turn a cure into an admission, a release, or a contempt order. + +### Disclaimers + +GPL-family and MPL texts contain warranty and liability disclaimers. Their effect is a construction/enforceability issue under governing law and applicable consumer, tort, statutory, and public-policy limits. They do not answer ownership, authorization, registration, statutory damages/fees eligibility, or whether a court can issue an injunction. A disclaimer cannot be treated as a prewritten waiver of an unknown litigant's statutory remedy absent a legally valid basis. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Defense/limit | Potential role | What it does not establish | +|---|---|---| +| Authorization / implied license | Conduct was within permission | That every later use was authorized | +| Waiver / estoppel | May limit a claim/remedy on state-law facts | Automatic loss of copyright from delay | +| Copyright misuse | May bar enforcement while misuse continues | That ordinary copyleft reciprocity is misuse | +| Unclean hands / impossibility | May affect equitable or contract relief | A universal excuse for infringement | +| Cure / voluntary cessation | May affect future permission or prospective relief | Mootness of all historical monetary claims | +| Warranty/liability disclaimer | May allocate contractual warranty/liability risk | Elimination of statutory copyright remedies | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [*Jacobsen*](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md), [*MDY*](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | Permission scope and condition/covenant analysis | Forum/text specific | +| [*Effects Associates*](../../authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md) | Nonexclusive authorization may be implied from conduct | Ninth Circuit, non-open-source facts | +| [*Practice Management*](../../authorities/cases/practice-management-v-ama.md) | Fact-specific copyright misuse defense | Ninth Circuit, unique government-exclusivity facts | +| [*Friends of the Earth*](../../authorities/cases/friends-of-the-earth-v-laidlaw.md) | Voluntary cessation does not ordinarily moot a case | Environmental case; apply by analogy | +| [GPL-family and MPL cards](../license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) | Version-specific termination and disclaimer language | Operative text, not enforceability holding | +| [*Fisher*](../../authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) | Cure/termination can present factual questions | No final merits/remedy result | + +## What would change the answer + +- Governing law, forum, communications, notice, and reliance evidence. +- Exact license/version, claimed breach, cure history, and past/current acts. +- The remedy requested and whether a live monetary or prospective controversy remains. +- A controlling state-law decision on a pleaded waiver, estoppel, impossibility, or disclaimer issue. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which party holds which rights, and what authorization did it actually grant? +- What conduct supports each equitable defense and how does the selected state define its elements? +- Are third-party components, confidentiality, export controls, or lost-source facts relevant to impossibility? +- Do consumer/procurement rules alter any warranty/liability disclaimer? + +## Repository implications + +This research does not support adding a self-executing waiver of statutory rights, treating a disclaimer as immunity from enforcement, or assuming cure moots past claims. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial defenses/remedial-limits research | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/copyright-condition-versus-contract-covenant.md b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/copyright-condition-versus-contract-covenant.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a914fa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/copyright-condition-versus-contract-covenant.md @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ +--- +id: PR-0006 +title: Copyright conditions versus contract covenants +question: "When does breach of a public-license term exceed copyright permission rather than create only a contract claim?" +short_answer: "There is no universal label-driven answer. In the Ninth Circuit, a restriction must limit the scope of permission and bear the required nexus to an exclusive copyright right to support infringement; an independent covenant ordinarily supports contract relief. Other circuits use their own contract and license-construction rules. GPL-family source/conveyance terms have a closer textual connection to reproduction/distribution than network-only or operational promises, but that is an inference requiring clause-, act-, and forum-specific analysis." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-Ninth-Circuit, US-Second-Circuit, European-Union] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, source-available] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, convey, provide-network-access, omit-notice, withhold-source] +topics: [condition-covenant, copyright-nexus] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0005, PR-0007, PR-0009, PR-0010] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0006: Copyright conditions versus contract covenants + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: an owner asserting infringement or a contracting party asserting breach. +Trigger: a claimed failure to comply while reproducing, modifying, conveying, +distributing, or providing network access. The central U.S. framework is the +Ninth Circuit's; EU material is limited to the CJEU software-license rule. This +memo does not decide a remedy, termination, or the construction of a particular +release. + +## Short answer + +*Jacobsen* held that the Artistic License terms before it could be conditions +of copyright permission. *MDY* holds in the Ninth Circuit that a licensee +infringes only by violating a condition that limits the grant's scope and has a +copyright nexus; independent covenants are contractual. *Graham* is contrary +in application only, not a conflicting rule: the Second Circuit treated unpaid +royalties as a covenant on that text, while leaving possible rescission for +remand. The CJEU permits a copyright route for breach of a software-license +limitation concerning a reserved act, leaving classification/remedy to national +law ([AUTH-0050](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md)). + +**Inference, not holding:** conveyance/distribution source and notice duties +are more readily tied to acts the owner licenses than a free-standing service, +reporting, or operational duty. AGPL §13, OSL external deployment, RPL +deployment, and SSPL §13 need especially careful nexus analysis where there is +no distribution. Explicitly calling MPL §§3.1-3.4 "conditions" is significant +textual evidence, not a universal litigation result. + +## Analysis + +### The controlling rule is forum and clause specific + +The Ninth Circuit requires both a limiting condition and a nexus to the +copyright owner's exclusive rights; [AUTH-0002](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md). +*Jacobsen* treats the attribution/modification terms in the Artistic License as +conditions in its text and posture, not every open-source promise. Under +*Graham*, a licensee's nonpayment did not automatically terminate a +nonexclusive software license because the payment term was a covenant. + +This means a complaint must identify (1) the exact grant, (2) conditional +language/termination machinery, (3) the defendant's act under §106, and (4) +the relation between the breached term and that act. A breach that leaves the +permission in force is ordinarily not infringement merely because it is called +material or because damages are desired. + +### License texts identify different candidates; they do not decide the rule + +| Family | Textual feature material to classification | Limit | +|---|---|---| +| GPL-2 | Distribution/modification terms; automatic termination §4 | No express cure and no appellate construction of each term | +| GPL-3/AGPL-3/LGPL-3 | "convey" and Corresponding Source obligations; automatic termination/reinstatement §8; AGPL §13 remote interaction | Network-only nexus unresolved in the reviewed U.S. record | +| LGPL-2.1 | Library/work-using-library conditions and distribution mechanics | Linking and technical compliance are factual | +| MPL-2 | §§3.1-3.4 expressly conditions of §2.1 grants | File boundary and state/federal claim still matter | +| EPL/CDDL/EUPL | Distribution/communication obligations plus termination/cure clauses | No exact-text controlling U.S. merits construction located | +| OSL/RPL | Conditions plus external/internal deployment vocabulary | Broad text does not create a known copyright-nexus holding | +| SSPL/source-available | Service restrictions or use restrictions may be part of permission | Exact scope, enforceability, and nexus are unresolved | + +### Contrary authority and limits + +Do not import *MDY* as nationwide law. *Graham* warns against converting every +license promise into infringement. *Artifex* permitted GPL contract and +copyright theories to proceed but settled before a merits decision. *Fisher* +left GPLv3 coverage, conveyance, and cure for a factfinder rather than deciding +the legal effect in the abstract. In the EU, *IT Development* concerns paid +software and Directives, not an AGPL source remedy. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Likely theory | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| GPLv3 object-code conveyance without Corresponding Source | Copyright condition plausible | Ownership, covered work, cure, forum | +| AGPL program modified and used only over network | Textual §13 breach; contract/copyright theory depends | §106 nexus and remedy | +| MPL executable distribution without source access | Express condition supports copyright-scope argument | Covered file and jurisdiction | +| ELv2 hosted-service restriction | Contract/license scope argument | Meaning of managed service and nexus | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0001](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) | Some public-license terms can condition permission | Federal Circuit applying Ninth Circuit law; PI appeal | +| [AUTH-0002](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | Ninth Circuit condition/nexus test | Binding only there; not open source | +| [AUTH-0073](../../authorities/cases/graham-v-james.md) | Covenant versus condition distinction | Binding Second Circuit; particular license | +| [AUTH-0050](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md) | EU reserved-act limitation route | CJEU interpretation, not public license | +| [AUTH-0070](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md) | §106 baseline | Statute does not classify terms | + +## What would change the answer + +- Exact clause, grant/termination/cure text, act of copying/conveyance, and + controlling law. +- A final GPL/AGPL/LGPL/MPL/EPL/CDDL/EUPL/OSL/RPL/SSPL merits decision. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Is the intended claim infringement, contract, or both, and what forum's + construction rule controls? +- Does the claimed breach occur with a presently exclusive act after any cure? + +## Repository implications + +This memo supplies no conclusion about this repository's license or an +enforcement decision. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial doctrine synthesis for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/copyright-preemption-and-nexus.md b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/copyright-preemption-and-nexus.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8116739 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/copyright-preemption-and-nexus.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +--- +id: PR-0007 +title: Copyright preemption and copyright nexus +question: "When are state-law public-license claims preempted under 17 U.S.C. § 301, and when does a claimed breach have a sufficient copyright nexus?" +short_answer: "Section 301 preempts state rights in copyright subject matter only when they are equivalent to §106 rights. A state claim with a genuinely extra contractual element may survive, but circuit doctrine differs and a promise that merely restates copyright control may still be preempted. Separately, a copyright claim must connect the breach to a licensed exclusive act. Neither label answers the other question." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-Ninth-Circuit, US-Second-Circuit, California, New-York] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, source-available] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, convey, deploy, provide-network-access, withhold-source] +topics: [preemption, copyright-nexus, contract] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0005, PR-0006, PR-0008, PR-0010] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0007: Copyright preemption and copyright nexus + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: a party asserting a state contract/beneficiary claim or federal +infringement claim over licensed software. Trigger: an asserted source, notice, +payment, non-use, network, or deployment promise. This is a U.S. §301 synthesis +only; it does not resolve foreign preemption, choice of law, or remedies. + +## Short answer + +Section 301(a) asks whether the work falls within copyright subject matter and +whether the asserted state right is equivalent to §106 rights +([AUTH-0070](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md)). +In the Second Circuit, *Forest Park* held a pleaded implied promise to pay is +an extra element and avoided preemption; in the Ninth Circuit, en banc *Montz* +reached that result for California's implied payment-for-use theory. Those are +not holdings that every contract or beneficiary claim survives. Nor does a +non-preempted contract claim automatically establish infringement: under *MDY*, +a copyright claim independently needs a breach of permission connected to an +exclusive right. + +## Analysis + +### Keep the two inquiries separate + +| Inquiry | Question | Source/limit | +|---|---|---| +| §301 subject matter | Is the asserted work within §§102/103 subject matter, including uncopyrightable material fixed in a work? | *Forest Park* says uncopyrightable ideas fixed in a treatment can satisfy this prong; Second Circuit only | +| §301 equivalency | Does state law require an extra qualitative element? | *Forest Park* and *Montz* identify an implied promise to pay; exact promises matter | +| Copyright nexus | Did a condition limit a §106 act? | *MDY* binds Ninth Circuit; different circuits may formulate the issue differently | +| Remedy | Does a surviving theory support the requested source delivery or injunction? | Separate state equitable law and standing; not decided here | + +The same source promise may support different theories: an owner may allege +infringement after unlicensed conveyance; a recipient may allege a contract +right to source; and either claim may fail for different reasons. The pending +Vizio litigation is an allegation/procedural example, not a rule. + +### Application to license patterns + +GPL/LGPL/MPL/EPL/CDDL/EUPL source terms tied to distribution or conveyance are +often framed as permission conditions. If a recipient seeks source as a +contract beneficiary, §301 equivalency and state beneficiary law must be +separately tested. AGPL, OSL, RPL, and SSPL extend text duties to remote use or +deployment; that breadth can strengthen a distinct performance promise but can +also make a §106 nexus less obvious when no copy is distributed. Source- +available use/service restrictions (BUSL, ELv2, Commons Clause, FSL, PolyForm) +are even more text- and state-law dependent; the corpus found no exact-version +merits authority deciding their §301 treatment. + +These are inferences from text, not holdings. A court could find an additional +promise, preemption, no contract, no condition, or a different nexus based on +the exact wording and facts. + +### Contrary authority and limits + +*Forest Park* expressly did not decide whether every promise to pay escapes +preemption, particularly an adhesion-like agreement that creates a de facto +copyright monopoly. The *Montz* dissent would have found the asserted +non-use/non-disclosure theory equivalent, demonstrating the importance of the +promise's content. *Graham* also shows that a valid state contract claim for +nonpayment does not necessarily end copyright permission. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | §301 risk | Nexus risk | +|---|---|---| +| Owner alleges GPL conveyance without source | Contract claim may duplicate §106 if only control asserted | Map source term to conveyance and condition | +| Recipient seeks promised source under state law | Extra performance/beneficiary element may survive | Recipient lacks owner status for infringement | +| AGPL network user requests §13 source | State contract claim needs formation/extra element | No-copy §106 connection unsettled | +| ELv2 hosted-service dispute | Contract restriction may be distinct | Must identify exercised exclusive right | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0070](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-subject-matter-and-preemption.md) | Statutory two-prong baseline | Text requires circuit application | +| [AUTH-0072](../../authorities/cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md) | New York implied promise to pay | Rule 12 stage; not public license | +| [AUTH-0074](../../authorities/cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md) | California implied payment promise | Ninth Circuit, state-law specific | +| [AUTH-0002](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | Separate copyright-nexus requirement | Ninth Circuit only | +| [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Recipient source-performance theory alleged | Pending, no merits decision | + +## What would change the answer + +- Governing state law, the exact promise and remedy, factual manifestation of + assent, and whether copying/conveyance actually occurred. +- Controlling §301 or AGPL/network-source authority. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Does the contemplated pleading seek a right beyond §106, and can it be proved + without recasting an infringement claim? +- Who has standing for each theory and what state remedy is being sought? + +## Repository implications + +No contract language or license choice follows from this doctrine synthesis. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial doctrine synthesis for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/ownership-standing-and-third-party-beneficiaries.md b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/ownership-standing-and-third-party-beneficiaries.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2868c63 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/ownership-standing-and-third-party-beneficiaries.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +--- +id: PR-0008 +title: Ownership, standing, assignments, contributors, and beneficiaries +question: "Who can enforce public-license rights: copyright owners, assignees, contributors, stewards, and downstream recipients?" +short_answer: "For U.S. infringement, the plaintiff generally must be the legal or beneficial owner of the particular exclusive right allegedly infringed when suit is filed; ownership, work-for-hire, assignment, and exclusive-license proof are component and time specific. A nonexclusive license or bare accrued-claim assignment ordinarily does not suffice in the Ninth Circuit. A downstream recipient may attempt a state-law third-party-beneficiary theory, but the pending Vizio litigation supplies no final rule and does not turn a recipient into a copyright owner." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-Ninth-Circuit, California, European-Union] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, source-available] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, steward, exclusive-licensee, distributor, recipient, association] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, convey, withhold-source] +topics: [ownership, assignments, standing, third-party-beneficiary] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0005, PR-0007, PR-0009] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0008: Ownership, standing, assignments, contributors, and beneficiaries + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: author/contributor, employer, assignee, exclusive or nonexclusive +licensee, project steward, association, distributor, or downstream recipient. +Trigger: seeking infringement, contract, source-performance, or declaratory +relief. This is a U.S. baseline with limited comparative caution; it does not +audit contribution agreements, registrations, work-for-hire status, corporate +authority, or foreign collective-rights rules. + +## Short answer + +Sections 201, 204, and 501 provide the U.S. baseline +([AUTH-0071](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-ownership-transfers-standing.md)). +*DRK Photo* holds in the Ninth Circuit that a party holding only a bare +assignment of accrued infringement claims, without an exclusive §106 right, +lacks §501(b) standing. *Effects Associates* distinguishes a nonexclusive +license from a transfer of ownership. Thus a project steward, compliance +organization, or contributor must prove its own authority for the particular +component and claim; public-license text cannot cure a missing chain of title. + +A downstream recipient's requested source can be a state-law beneficiary claim +rather than infringement. *SFC v. Vizio* is pending and should be described +only as a pleaded/ongoing theory. It is not authority that every GPL recipient +is an intended beneficiary, can compel performance, or may sue for copyright +damages. + +## Analysis + +### Copyright plaintiff and right must match + +Map each component to author, employer/work-for-hire evidence, assignment, +exclusive license, and effective date. Under §501(b), a legal or beneficial +owner may sue only for infringement of the right it owns. Under §204(a), a +transfer of ownership normally requires a signed writing; *Effects Associates* +confirms a nonexclusive permission can arise without that writing but is not +ownership. Under *DRK Photo*, re-labeling a claim assignment does not supply +the required exclusive right in the Ninth Circuit. + +For multi-contributor code, authorship of a contribution does not automatically +establish ownership of every version, a collective work, later modification, +or patent right. Contributor grants in MPL/EPL/CDDL/EUPL operate as textually +defined licenses, not proof that an unrelated steward owns all contributions. +GPL-family and OSL/RPL text generally license rights each contributor can +grant; due diligence must test whether they could grant them. + +### Claim type controls party analysis + +| Claim | Plausible claimant | Missing fact that commonly defeats it | +|---|---|---| +| Copyright infringement | Owner/beneficial owner of infringed exclusive right | Chain of title, work/act/right match | +| Contract breach | Contracting party/assignee under chosen law | Formation, assignment, governing law | +| Beneficiary performance | Intended, not merely incidental, beneficiary under state law | Contract intent and state doctrine | +| License defense | User within permission's scope | Notice, version, compliance, authorization | + +This distinction matters for AGPL network source, RPL deployment, and OSL +external deployment: a remote user might be the stated audience for an offer +but not necessarily the owner, contracting party, or intended beneficiary who +can sue. The source-available families can similarly identify an affected +customer without creating direct enforcement standing. + +### Comparative limits + +EUPL's contributor and forum/law provisions are textually material; Member +State law governs. The French and German cases in PR-0004 underscore that proof +of authorship/standing can be dispositive, especially +[*Hellwig v. VMware*](../../authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md), but they do +not establish a single cross-border contributor rule. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Likely result | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| Individual contributor sues over own copied files | Potential §501 claim | Authorship, registration, scope | +| Foundation without assignment sues for all project code | May lack rights | Contributor agreements and exclusive rights | +| Recipient seeks GPL source | Contract-beneficiary theory possible | Intent, formation, preemption, remedy | +| Agent takes assignments only after infringement | Ninth Circuit standing risk | Nature/timing of exclusive-right transfer | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0071](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-ownership-transfers-standing.md) | Statutory ownership/transfer/standing rules | Does not resolve facts or state contract law | +| [AUTH-0076](../../authorities/cases/drk-photo-v-mcgraw-hill.md) | Bare claim assignment insufficient in Ninth Circuit | Forum/document specific | +| [AUTH-0075](../../authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md) | Nonexclusive license is not ownership transfer | Ninth Circuit facts | +| [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Beneficiary theory sought | Pending; allegations only | +| [AUTH-0059](../../authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md) | Proof/standing may dispose of GPL claim | German record and source limitations | + +## What would change the answer + +- Contributor agreements, employment facts, signed assignments, exclusive + licenses, registrations, entity authority, timing, and forum law. +- A final Vizio ruling or controlling authority on public-license beneficiaries. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which claimant owns which exclusive right for every component and relevant + version? +- Is a recipient intended to have a direct performance right under governing + contract law, and what remedy is available? + +## Repository implications + +No ownership assertion or enforcement authorization is made here; preserve the +attorney-review gate. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial doctrine synthesis for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/public-license-formation-and-assent.md b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/public-license-formation-and-assent.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ca81a91 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/doctrine/public-license-formation-and-assent.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +--- +id: PR-0005 +title: Public-license formation, assent, and parties +question: "When, and between which parties, can use or distribution under a public or source-available software license form an enforceable license or contract?" +short_answer: "A public license can grant copyright permission without a negotiated bilateral contract, but a contract or beneficiary claim requires the governing jurisdiction's formation rules and evidence of offer, notice, assent, consideration where required, and party identity. Official texts vary: most GNU and file-level licenses make permissions available on stated terms; OSL expressly asks distributors to seek recipient assent; source-available terms may restrict use but do not themselves prove assent. The reported U.S. public-license cases do not establish one universal click-free formation rule." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-state-contract, European-Union] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, source-available] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, steward, distributor, recipient, service-operator] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, convey, deploy, provide-network-access] +topics: [formation, assent, parties] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002, PR-0007, PR-0008, PR-0010] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0005: Public-license formation, assent, and parties + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: an owner/contributor offering code, an intermediary distributing it, or +a recipient/service operator relying on the offer. Trigger: copying, +modification, conveyance, deployment, or a claim for performance. This memo +addresses U.S. copyright and selected state-contract formation doctrines, with +the EUPL's selected-law structure noted; it does not select a forum, decide +consumer-law validity, or audit any repository's notices, click path, chain of +title, or release version. + +## Short answer + +**Holding-level baseline:** copyright permission and contract formation are +different questions. A nonexclusive license can be implied from conduct in the +Ninth Circuit ([AUTH-0075](../../authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md)); +an implied promise can be sufficiently pleaded under New York or California law +on particular facts ([AUTH-0072](../../authorities/cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md), +[AUTH-0074](../../authorities/cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md)). Those decisions +do not decide GPL/AGPL/MPL assent. + +**Inference:** distributing code with an identified public-license notice is +strong evidence of an offer of conditional copyright permission. Whether it +also creates an enforceable bilateral contract with each recipient depends on +the selected law and proof that the relevant party knew of and manifested +assent to the material terms. A recipient may have permission yet lack a +contract claim; conversely, a recipient's contract/beneficiary theory may be +available without owning an exclusive copyright right. The pending +[*SFC v. Vizio*](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) illustrates, but does +not resolve, the latter theory. + +## Analysis + +### Formation must identify the instrument, manifestation, and parties + +Start with the exact release, incorporated notices, version option, and +contributor/owner making the grant. Then map the defendant's act and what +notice preceded it. Under *Effects Associates*, conduct may support an implied +nonexclusive license, but that conclusion followed commissioning and delivery +for a known film use; it is not a rule that software access always equals +assent. Under *Forest Park* and *Montz*, particular allegations supported an +implied promise to pay, but those are state-law, pleading-stage contexts. + +For a copyright claim, the relevant parties are normally the owner (or legal +or beneficial owner of the infringed exclusive right) and the alleged user. +For contract, assignment, contribution, or beneficiary claims, the contracting +promisor/promisee and governing-law rules matter separately. A license steward +is not automatically an owner or contracting party; see PR-0008. + +### Textual patterns are materially different + +| Pattern | Textual formation/party signal | Limit | +|---|---|---| +| GPL-2/3, LGPL-2.1/3, AGPL-3 | Permissions are offered to those exercising stated rights; GPL-3/AGPL-3 use automatic permission on receipt and GPL-2 uses copying/distribution terms | Text alone does not select contract law or establish recipient assent to a separate promise | +| MPL-2, EPL-2, CDDL-1, EUPL-1.2 | Contributor grants and defined recipient/contributor structure identify the scope of licenses; MPL states its §§3 terms are conditions | They do not make every downstream recipient a named enforcement plaintiff | +| OSL-3, RPL-1.5 | OSL §9 asks a distributor to use reasonable efforts for express recipient assent; RPL defines broad deployer obligations | An express-assent solicitation is not proof it occurred or was effective | +| SSPL-1 | GPLv3-style grant plus service condition | No reported formation holding located for the exact text | +| BUSL/ELv2/Commons Clause/FSL/PolyForm | Permission is release-specific or restricted; Commons Clause depends on the underlying license | Source availability/restriction does not itself prove an accepted commercial agreement | + +The operative-text cards in [PR-0002](../license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) are the source for those descriptions; they are license text, not judicial holdings. + +### Assent evidence and jurisdiction limits + +Evidence should distinguish an owner placing a notice in source, a distributor +passing it onward, a recipient actually receiving it, and a service operator +continuing after notice. Screens, package metadata, README, manifest, download +record, click-through records, invoices, and correspondence can change the +formation analysis. California and New York decisions above cannot determine +European, other U.S. state, or foreign law. EUPL Article 15 makes applicable +Member-State law and court depend on the licensor's seat/residence; its text +does not replace local formation law. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Likely claim | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| Owner sues distributor for copying outside GPL condition | Copyright license/scope | Notice, ownership, and condition/nexus | +| Recipient seeks GPL source from manufacturer | Beneficiary contract/specific performance | Formation, beneficiary intent, preemption, state law | +| OSL distributor displays acceptance prompt | Contract may be stronger if assent proved | Assent mechanics, authority, and applicable law | +| Employee deploys RPL-covered code internally | Textual deployment duty may be triggered | Whether entity/employee is the licensee; enforceability and proof | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0075](../../authorities/cases/effects-associates-v-cohen.md) | Implied nonexclusive license / ownership distinction | Binding Ninth Circuit; non-software facts | +| [AUTH-0072](../../authorities/cases/forest-park-pictures-v-universal.md), [AUTH-0074](../../authorities/cases/montz-v-pilgrim-films.md) | Implied-contract pleading | State-law specific; no public license | +| [AUTH-0003](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) | GPL contract/copyright theories pleaded | Trial-level, settled | +| [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Recipient beneficiary theory alleged | Pending; no merits holding | +| [official license cards](../../authorities/licenses/) | Exact offer/condition wording | Text only | + +## What would change the answer + +- The actual license notice, version, incorporation path, click/wrap record, + communications, contributor agreement, or selected law. +- A final merits ruling in *SFC v. Vizio* or an exact-license formation case. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Does a planned deployment need an affirmative acceptance record and which + state's or Member State's law controls it? +- Which legal person owns each relevant contribution and made the offer? + +## Repository implications + +This research does not establish formation for this repository or support an +edit to `LICENSE`; attorney review remains required. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial doctrine synthesis for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md b/paralegal-research/matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4754b9f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/evidence/evidence-preservation-version-attribution-and-source-availability.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +--- +id: PR-0016 +title: Evidence preservation, version attribution, and public-source availability +question: "What license-agnostic, lawful evidence record can distinguish public investigation from compelled discovery and support later analysis of a software version, its attribution, and public-source availability?" +short_answer: "A defensible preliminary record preserves what was publicly and lawfully available, identifies the version and capture method, retains the original artifact and working derivatives separately, and documents hashes, provenance, and custody. It can support later factual analysis but does not itself establish authorship, a license trigger, source completeness, or infringement. Public source release is a factual distribution/publication question; protective-order production is confidential litigation discovery and is not public release." +research_status: answered +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal] +licenses: [] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, service-operator, recipient, investigator] +conduct: [preserve, reproduce, distribute, provide-network-access, withhold-source] +topics: [evidence, preservation, version-attribution, provenance, public-source-availability] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0017, PR-0018, PR-0019] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0016: Evidence preservation, version attribution, and public-source availability + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This U.S.-federal operational research memo concerns lawfully obtained public +artifacts: shipped media or binaries, publicly accessible repositories, +download pages, notices, package metadata, and communications already received +by the actor. It assumes no account bypass, scraping contrary to applicable +law/terms, device access, interception, or acquisition from a nonpublic system. +It does not decide ownership, copying, derivative-work status, a particular +license's source obligation, or an obligation to preserve triggered by a +specific dispute. The license/version must be separately identified; no term is +assumed from a family label. + +## Short answer + +Preservation should create a repeatable factual record: retain the original +available artifact, record source URL/location, date/time and timezone, +acquisition method, relevant access context, file size, cryptographic hash, +handler/transfer history, and a description of any later analysis. NISTIR 8387 +supports this integrity-oriented practice; Federal Rules of Evidence 901, +902(13)–(14), and 1001–1008 govern a possible federal authentication/best- +evidence foundation, not the substantive proposition. + +Public investigation ends at materials lawfully accessible without compelled +process. Discovery begins only in an authorized proceeding and is governed by +rules, court orders, privilege, proportionality, and protective orders. A +production marked confidential or attorneys'-eyes-only can enable litigation +analysis while restricting dissemination; it is not public source availability. +Conversely, a public repository or source archive may be evidence of a release, +but cannot alone prove that it is the complete or correct source for a given +binary, that the releaser was authorized, or that the release met a particular +license term. + +## Analysis + +### Preserve provenance and integrity, not a conclusion + +NIST guidance advises documentation of an artifact's source and acquisition, +secure storage, hashes, and chain of custody. It supports the *method* of +preserving a digital artifact, not the legal conclusion that a hash identifies +an author or proves a matching source tree. Federal Rules 901 and 902 may be +relevant later, but admission depends on the offered item, witness/certificate, +notice, and forum-specific precedent. [AUTH-0112](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-rules-of-evidence-digital-authentication.md) and [AUTH-0113](../../authorities/statutes/nist-digital-evidence-preservation.md). + +A binary/source comparison should therefore preserve: the acquired binary and +source snapshot; tools and versions; build instructions and environment; +commands; outputs; dates; known nondeterminism; and the analyst's distinction +between observed matches and interpretive conclusions. A mismatch can arise +from compiler, toolchain, build flags, dependencies, timestamps, packing, or +missing material; it is not automatically evidence of a missing source +obligation. + +### Version attribution requires converging facts + +Useful facts can include embedded notices, version strings, package manifests, +SBOMs, signatures, release tags/commit identifiers, distributor labels, +shipping records, and reproducible-build results. Each has limits: a tag can +move, a notice can be stale, a signature can authenticate a key rather than a +license grant, and an SBOM can be incomplete. Preserve any page/archive context +and identify the person or system making each attribution. Ownership and chain +of title remain separate evidence questions. + +### Public release and protected discovery are different channels + +Public-source availability asks what a recipient or public user could obtain, +when, from whom, under what access conditions, and whether the available +material corresponds to the relevant version. Discovery production asks what a +party/nonparty must provide in a case under Rules 26, 34, or 45. A Rule 26(c) +protective order can limit use or disclosure; it does not convert confidential +production into a public release or resolve a source-availability condition. +[AUTH-0111](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md). + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Factual record to preserve | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| Public download or repository | Original response/archive, URL, timestamp, hash, release/ref, notices | Whether it was complete/correct source for a product | +| Device or product lawfully acquired | Photographs, labels, receipt, firmware image method, hash, custody log | Whether supplied software matches a public release | +| Recipient reports no source link | Original package/UI/communication and ordinary access path | Exact license obligation and recipient entitlement | +| Confidential litigation production | Producing party, order/designation, native format, production metadata | Scope of permitted use; it is not public availability | +| Binary/source comparison | Inputs, tools, commands, outputs, environment, analyst notes | Reproducibility and legal significance of differences | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0112](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-rules-of-evidence-digital-authentication.md) | Authentication/self-authentication and best-evidence framework | Federal rules; no automatic admission or merits proof | +| [AUTH-0113](../../authorities/statutes/nist-digital-evidence-preservation.md) | Technical integrity and custody documentation | Official guidance, not legal rule | +| [AUTH-0111](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md) | Discovery/protective-order distinction | Federal procedure; local practice controls details | +| [NISTIR 8387](https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8387) | Separate originals, records, hashes, and custody | Technical source only | + +## Research checklist for counsel review + +- Identify the actual actor, license text/version, release date, product version, + and asserted trigger before characterizing an obligation. +- Preserve lawful originals and a read-only/controlled working copy; log hashes, + source, time/timezone, acquisition method, and every transfer. +- Record access conditions and whether the artifact was public, recipient-only, + or obtained under court process. +- Preserve binary/source-comparison methods and uncertainty; retain raw output. +- Assess forum-specific preservation duties, privacy, contract, anti-circumvention, + trade-secret, and evidence rules before expanding collection. + +## What would change the answer + +- A selected forum, litigation hold, specific license obligation, contested + authenticity, nonpublic data source, or a proposed forensic method. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Whether and when a concrete dispute creates a preservation duty, and its scope. +- Whether the proposed acquisition and automated collection are lawful in all + relevant jurisdictions. +- What foundation, expert evidence, or protective-order terms a chosen court requires. + +## Repository implications + +No change to `LICENSE` follows. A project-specific preservation policy or +technical-release procedure would require separate engineering and legal review. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial research for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md b/paralegal-research/matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c1e768 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +--- +id: PR-0002 +title: Copyleft and source-availability license landscape +question: "How do the specified reciprocal, open-source, and source-available instruments differ in trigger, scope, disclosure, termination, commercial alternatives, patents, compatibility, forum/law, and known judicial treatment?" +short_answer: "The OSI-approved instruments are public licenses with materially different reciprocal triggers and boundaries: GPL-family licenses center on conveying covered works, file-level licenses center on changed covered files, and OSL/RPL, CAL, and Watcom add network, third-party, or deployment concepts. SSPL, BUSL, ELv2, Commons Clause, PolyForm Shield, FSL before conversion, RSALv2, Confluent Community, Prosperity, Sustainable Use, and the FastLED release candidate are source-available or restricted instruments, not OSI-approved open source. Historical Artistic/AGPLv1 instruments, project-specific JPL, and CERN-OHL-S's non-software hardware scope require separate treatment. Text comparison identifies obligations but does not determine a work boundary, enforceability, claimant, compatibility, or remedy in a concrete jurisdiction." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: + - not-applicable-license-text-comparison +licenses: + - GNU GPL versions 2 and 3 + - GNU LGPL versions 2.1 and 3 + - GNU AGPL version 3 + - Artistic Licenses 1.0 and 2.0 + - Affero General Public License version 1 + - Mozilla Public License 2.0 + - Eclipse Public License 2.0 + - Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 + - European Union Public Licence 1.2 + - CeCILL 2.1 + - Open Software License 3.0 + - Reciprocal Public License 1.5 + - Cryptographic Autonomy License 1.0 + - Parity Public License 7.0.0 + - Prosperity Public License 3.0.0 + - Jelurida Public License 1.1 + - Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 + - CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 Strongly Reciprocal + - Server Side Public License 1.0 + - Business Source License 1.1 + - Elastic License 2.0 + - Commons Clause License Condition 1.0 + - PolyForm Shield License 1.0.0 + - Functional Source License 1.1 MIT + - Sustainable Use License 1.0 + - Redis Source Available License 2.0 + - Confluent Community License 1.0 + - CockroachDB Community License Agreement + - FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0-rc1 +actors: + - licensor + - steward + - distributor + - modifier + - service-operator + - recipient +conduct: + - modify + - distribute + - convey + - deploy + - provide-network-access + - withhold-source +topics: + - license-comparison + - copyleft + - source-availability +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: + - https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17 +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0002: Copyleft and source-availability license landscape + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: a licensor, distributor, modifier, service operator, or recipient. Conduct: +copying, modification, conveyance/distribution, deployment, or product/service +use under the exact listed version. Jurisdiction: no particular country; this is +operative-text/status research, not an enforcement opinion. Time/version: the +versions named in the matrix, verified 2026-08-25. “Commercial alternative” +means whether the text/steward materials identify a separate paid or negotiated +path; it does not imply an entitlement to one. The comparison excludes a +project-specific adoption decision, claimant standing, remedies, and the full +case census assigned elsewhere in issue #17. + +This expansion adds historical software texts, deployment/third-party triggers, +commercial-use and fair-code restrictions, and one project-specific DLT text. +It separately identifies CERN-OHL-S-2.0 as open-hardware/design-source scope, +not a software-license precedent. The current CockroachDB Community Agreement +is product-level: its own text directs reviewers to each Core release's license +file, so the agreement does not classify every CockroachDB release. + +## Short answer + +The current [OSI approved-license registry](https://opensource.org/licenses) +supports classifying GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, +EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, Artistic-1.0/2.0, CAL-1.0, +CeCILL-2.1, and Watcom-1.0 as OSI-approved. CERN-OHL-S-2.0 is also OSI-approved +but is an open-hardware instrument. The rest in this assignment are not listed +there and their stewards describe them as source-available/restricted, +fair-code, project-specific, or, for the FastLED item, a release-candidate +draft. +“Source available” does not itself identify a disclosure duty: BUSL and FSL use +time/competitive-use restrictions; ELv2 and Commons Clause restrict selected +commercial/service conduct; PolyForm Shield restricts competing purpose; SSPL +has an expansive service-source condition. Every classification is for the +named instrument, not an entire project or later multi-license election. + +## Analysis + +### Status is distinct from source publication + +OSI approval is an official status, not shorthand for whether a repository is +public. The OSI registry identifies the approved instruments above. MariaDB’s +[BUSL text](https://mariadb.com/bsl11/) expressly says it is not Open Source; +the [Commons Clause publisher](https://commonsclause.com/) says its combined +instrument is not open source; and [Fair Source](https://fair.io/about/) draws +the same distinction before delayed OSI-license conversion. The FastLED draft +identifies itself as a renamed MPL-derived release candidate and says Mozilla +has not reviewed it; it must remain behind the repository attorney-review gate. + +### Textual obligations are not judicial outcomes + +The matrix summarizes the license text, not a holding. Existing U.S. cards +record limited GPL/AGPL-related decisions and procedural outcomes, including +[*Jacobsen*](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md), +[*MDY*](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md), +[*Artifex*](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md), and +[BusyBox/Westinghouse](../../authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md). +They do not establish a complete interpretation of a version or a universal +source-publication remedy. In targeted searches of official steward/OSI sources +and the existing corpus on 2026-08-25, no reported decision was located that +construed the precise listed version for LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, +CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, BUSL-1.1, ELv2, Commons Clause, +PolyForm Shield, FSL-1.1-MIT, or the FastLED rc1. This is a bounded negative +finding, not proof that no case, docket, settlement, arbitral result, or +unreported decision exists. The issue’s case-census lane must test it against +court/docket databases. + +The expansion found one material exception: the existing Dutch appellate card +for [*Jelurida v Apollo*](../../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) records +an interim JPL compliance order, not a universal JPL merits/remedy rule. For +the newly added Artistic-1.0, Artistic-2.0, Affero GPL v1, CAL-1.0, Parity-7.0, +Prosperity-3.0, CeCILL-2.1, Watcom-1.0, CERN-OHL-S-2.0, Sustainable Use (n8n), +RSALv2, Confluent Community, and CockroachDB agreement texts, no additional +reported exact-instrument decision was located in the recorded official/steward +and corpus search. This bounded result does not negate *Jacobsen*'s Artistic +License holding or unlocated litigation. + +## Normalized comparison matrix + +Abbreviations: “recipient” means recipients of the conveyed/distributed work; +“public” means an audience wider than particular recipients; “N/S” means not +stated by the named standard text; “sep.” means a separate-license path can +exist but its commercial terms are not fixed by the public license. + +| Instrument / status | Trigger and covered boundary | Disclosure audience, timing, duration | Cure / reinstatement | Commercial alternative | Patents; compatibility; forum/law | Judicial-treatment record | +|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| +| [GPL-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md) — OSI | Distribution of Program/whole work based on it; private modification outside distribution clauses | Recipient source with object code or written offer; offer ≥3 years | Automatic termination; no express cure | Fees/sep. licensing permitted | No express patent grant; compatibility fact/version specific; N/S | Existing GPL-related cards; no version-wide holding located | +| [GPL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md) — OSI | Conveying covered work / work based on Program; aggregate carve-out | Corresponding Source to recipients; s.6(b) offer ≥3 years | s.8 automatic, provisional/permanent reinstatement | Fees/sep. permissions | Express contributor patent terms; anti-further restrictions; N/S | Existing GPL-related cards; no version-wide holding located | +| [LGPL-2.1](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2-1.md) — OSI | Library modifications; combined work conditions distinguish work using Library | Library source and s.6 relinking/modification material to recipients; offer route ≥3 years | Automatic termination; no express cure | Permits commercial distribution / sep. licensing of independent work | No express standalone patent grant; incorporates GPL-2 where stated; N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [LGPL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v3.md) — OSI | Library / Application / Combined Work conditions | Minimal Corresponding Source and relinking material to recipients on conveyance | GPL-3 s.8 | Commercial distribution / sep. permissions | GPL-3 patent terms; compatibility depends on combination; N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [AGPL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md) — OSI | GPL covered-work conveyance plus modified-program remote interaction | Corresponding Source to network users on s.13 interaction; conveyance rules also apply | GPL-3 s.8 | Fees/sep. permissions | GPL-3 patent terms; compatibility fact/version specific; N/S | [PR-0001](../remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md); limited existing authority, no routine source-publication judgment | +| [MPL-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/mozilla-public-license-v2.md) — OSI | Distribution of file-level Covered Software / Modifications; separate-file Larger Work carve-out | Source to executable recipients by reasonable means in timely manner | s.5 30/60-day rules | Sep. licenses possible; commercial distribution allowed | Contributor patent grant/retaliation; selected GPL-family secondary licenses; defendant-principal-place forum/law | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [EPL-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/eclipse-public-license-v2.md) — OSI | Distribution of Program/Modified Works; linking/interface exclusion | Program source and access statement to recipients on distribution | Reasonable cure after awareness | Commercial/other executable licenses subject to terms | Contributor patent grant; optional GPL secondary designation; N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [CDDL-1.0](../../authorities/licenses/common-development-distribution-license-v1.md) — OSI | Distribution of Covered Software files; Larger Work carve-out | Covered source available with executable distribution | 30 days after notice | “Commercial Use” allowed / sep. executable terms | Contributor patent grant/retaliation; compatibility not granted; California/Santa Clara | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [EUPL-1.2](../../authorities/licenses/european-union-public-licence-v1-2.md) — OSI | Distribution/communication of work and derivatives | Same-license source/derivative distribution to recipients/public communication audience | 30 days after notice | No fixed paid alternative; commercial use not barred | Contributor patents/retaliation; art.5 compatibility list; licensor-seat EU law/court | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [OSL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/open-software-license-v3.md) — OSI | Distribution/communication plus External Deployment of original/derivative | Source with distributed copy or accessible repository while distribution continues; external deployment treated as distribution | Immediate on relevant breach; no general cure | Licensor may dual license | Patent grant/retaliation; no compatibility clause; N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [RPL-1.5](../../authorities/licenses/reciprocal-public-license-v1-5.md) — OSI | “Deploy” (internal/external) and Required Components | Public source to open-source community at deployment | First breach: 30 days after notice; otherwise immediate | Sep. commercial path not prohibited | Patent terms/retaliation; compatibility N/S; California/San Francisco | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [SSPL-1.0](../../authorities/licenses/server-side-public-license-v1.md) — source-available, not OSI | GPL-style conveyance plus providing Program functionality as third-party service | Corresponding Source to recipients; s.13 Service Source Code via no-charge network download to all service users | GPL-3 s.8 | MongoDB states commercial licenses available | GPL-3 patent terms; no OSI compatibility status; N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [BUSL-1.1](../../authorities/licenses/business-source-license-v1-1.md) — source-available, not OSI | Any use/copy/derivative subject to release-specific Additional Use Grant | No reciprocal disclosure duty; source availability/Change Date are release parameters | Automatic termination; no stated cure | Text directs purchase commercial license or refrain | No patent / compatibility / forum-law rule in standard text | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [ELv2](../../authorities/licenses/elastic-license-v2.md) — source-available, not OSI | Any exercise of grant; prohibition on hosted/managed service, key circumvention, notice removal | No reciprocal source disclosure duty or duration | No stated cure/reinstatement | Separate commercial/service offerings possible | No patent / compatibility / forum-law rule stated | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [Commons Clause](../../authorities/licenses/commons-clause-v1.md) — source-available condition, not OSI | Underlying license, except no right to “Sell” as defined | Underlying license controls disclosure/audience/timing/duration | Underlying license controls | Negotiation may be required to Sell | Underlying license controls all four fields | No condition-specific reported decision located in bounded search | +| [PolyForm Shield](../../authorities/licenses/polyform-shield-v1.md) — source-available, not OSI | Use/change/distribution except competing purpose | No reciprocal source disclosure duty | First written notice: 32 days + corrective steps | No fixed price; licensor may grant other licenses | Patent grant/defense; no compatibility/forum-law selection | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [FSL-1.1-MIT](../../authorities/licenses/functional-source-license-v1-1-mit.md) — source-available before conversion | Release-specific competitive-use restriction | No reciprocal source duty; conversion to MIT after stated two years | Verify exact raw text/release | Conversion plus separate commercial path may exist | Exact raw text governs patent/compatibility/forum; future MIT is separately OSI | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [FastLED rc1](../../authorities/licenses/fastled-reciprocal-license-v1-rc1.md) — draft, not OSI | MPL-like file boundary plus Modified FastLED commercial Triggering Transfer; network-only use excluded | Recipient source on executable distribution; public complete source on/before trigger, then ≥3 years/while distributing | MPL-style plus prospective-only result for late s.11.3 publication | Separate written license can excuse s.11.3 | Contributor patent grant; expressly GPL-family incompatible; defendant-principal-place forum/law | No judicial treatment; draft only | +| [Artistic-1.0](../../authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v1.md) — historical OSI | Modified Package distribution under stated alternatives | Modified-package route; compiled standard version needs source instructions; duration N/S | N/S | Distributor fees / outside arrangements | Patent N/S; aggregation; forum/law N/S | *Jacobsen* is Artistic-License condition authority; exact-version fit requires care | +| [Artistic-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/artistic-license-v2.md) — OSI | Modified Package/source/compiled distribution; separate-work/interface boundaries | Modified-source alternative; compiled standard version source instructions, corrected or distribution ceases after awareness | 30 days for invalid compiled-source instructions | Distributor fees / outside arrangements | Patent grant/retaliation; selected relicensing route; forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [Affero GPL v1](../../authorities/licenses/affero-general-public-license-v1.md) — historical, not current OSI listing | GPLv2 distribution plus modified program normally used over network | Complete source offer to network users under added s.2(d); GPLv2 routes otherwise | GPLv2 automatic termination; no express cure | Separate permissions possible | Patent/forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [CAL-1.0](../../authorities/licenses/cryptographic-autonomy-license-v1.md) — OSI | Non-affiliated third party receives Work element | Permissions/materials needed for independent use/modification and no capability/data loss | Text-specific; no fixed general cure summarized | N/S | Patent terms; recipient third-party-beneficiary/specific-performance language; forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [Parity-7.0.0](../../authorities/licenses/parity-public-license-v7.md) — non-OSI public reciprocal | Develop, operate, or analyze with software, beyond prototype exception | Public preferred source within 30 days | 30-day knowledge-based excuse | No fixed paid path | Patent grant/defense; forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [Prosperity-3.0.0](../../authorities/licenses/prosperity-public-license-v3.md) — source-available | Commercial use beyond a 30-day company trial | Notice only; no reciprocal source duty | 30-day notice excuse | Commercial path implicit/outside grant | Patent grant/defense; forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [CeCILL-2.1](../../authorities/licenses/cecill-v2-1.md) — OSI | Modified-software distribution; internal/external module boundary | Source availability under CeCILL on distribution | Textual termination/cure terms | Commercial use/services allowed | Patent terms; named compatibility; French law/Paris courts | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [JPL-1.1](../../authorities/licenses/jelurida-public-license-v1-1.md) — project-specific public reciprocal | Covered/DLT work conveyance, modification, DLT fork/configuration rules | Corresponding Source with object code; three-year offer route | Automatic termination; no general cure | Special Conditions may require permission/commercial license | GPL-style scope plus DLT airdrop; exact Special Conditions control | [Dutch interim compliance order](../../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md), not universal rule | +| [Watcom-1.0](../../authorities/licenses/sybase-open-watcom-public-license-v1.md) — historical OSI | Deploy, including non-R&D internal organizational use | Public source for deployment duration or 12 months, whichever longer | 30 days after awareness | Additional terms/fees allowed | Patent grant; California/ND Cal. | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [CERN-OHL-S-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/cern-ohl-s-v2.md) — OSI open hardware | Make/convey design source or Products | Complete Source or source-location notice; location >=3 years | No stated general cure | Commercial use allowed | Hardware/design source; compatible-source rule; forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [Sustainable Use 1.0 (n8n)](../../authorities/licenses/sustainable-use-license-v1.md) — fair-code/source-available | Use outside internal, noncommercial, or personal purposes; paid/commercial provision | Notice only; no reciprocal source duty | N/S | n8n enterprise agreement | Patent/forum/law N/S | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [RSALv2](../../authorities/licenses/redis-source-available-license-v2.md) — source-available | Third-party service/functionality offering | Notices/modification notice; no reciprocal source duty | First notice/cease within 30 days reinstates; later breach permanent | Separate Redis licenses/product paths | Patent grant/retaliation; regional CA/Israel/England law/courts | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [Confluent Community 1.0](../../authorities/licenses/confluent-community-license-v1.md) — source-available | Competing online-service "Excluded Purpose" | Notices only; no reciprocal source duty | Automatic permanent termination; no cure | N/S | Patent N/S; CA/Santa Clara or JAMS/Palo Alto | No exact-version reported decision located in bounded search | +| [CockroachDB Community Agreement](../../authorities/licenses/cockroachdb-community-license.md) — product agreement, not OSI | Self-hosted/enterprise and release-specific product terms | Redistribution notices; no reciprocal source duty | Text/license-key/payment specific | Paid enterprise and trial paths | Patent terms; New York/U.S. law; Core text controls Core status | No exact-instrument reported decision located in bounded search | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0007](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md), [AUTH-0009–0025](../../authorities/licenses/), and [AUTH-0130–0143](../../authorities/licenses/) | Official-text facts and normalized fields | License text/status, not enforcement holding | +| [OSI registry](https://opensource.org/licenses) | OSI approved status for the listed public licenses | Current registry; does not decide compatibility or enforceability | +| [Search log](../../search-logs/license-landscape-2026-08-25.md) | Search method, source URLs, negative-search scope | Reproducible but not exhaustive case census | + +## What would change the answer + +- A release-specific parameter, dual-license election, exception, or notice. +- The governing jurisdiction’s copyright/contract law or a technical fact about + linkage, distribution, service role, or source availability. +- A controlling decision, official steward correction, or OSI registry change. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which deployment and distribution facts should define a project-specific + boundary analysis? +- Which jurisdiction and potential claimant/standing theory controls a future + enforcement question? +- Is a certified translation or local-law analysis required for any EUPL matter? + +## Repository implications + +This comparison does not recommend any license or justify editing `LICENSE`. +The FastLED entry is solely a comparison target and remains subject to +`LEGAL-REVIEW.md`. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial license-text/status landscape and bounded judicial-treatment search | Agent; attorney review pending | +| 2026-08-25 | Gap audit: added historical, deployment, fair-code, source-available, JPL, and open-hardware comparators | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md b/paralegal-research/matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d64d98f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/procedure/comparative-and-cross-border-enforcement.md @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +--- +id: PR-0020 +title: Comparative and cross-border enforcement +question: "What license-agnostic framework separates country-specific primary law from general inference when software-license enforcement, evidence, relief, or judgment enforcement crosses borders?" +short_answer: "Cross-border software disputes cannot be answered by exporting a U.S. license or remedy conclusion. Identify the territorial acts, defendants, works, exact license/contract, forum, applicable law, service, proof, interim relief, and enforcement destination. Berne/TRIPS provide international baseline commitments, while forum, merits, remedies, procedure, translation, and recognition depend on country- or regional-specific primary law. PR-0004 supplies a bounded census, not a worldwide or uniformly translatable rule." +research_status: answered +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [international, European-Union, France, Germany, Netherlands, China, South-Korea, US-federal] +licenses: [] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, manufacturer, reseller, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, import, provide-network-access, withhold-source] +topics: [comparative-law, cross-border, jurisdiction, choice-of-law, recognition, enforcement, translation] +confidence: low +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0004, PR-0016, PR-0017, PR-0018, PR-0019] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0020: Comparative and cross-border enforcement + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This comparative routing memo synthesizes the bounded public-decision census in +[PR-0004](../case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md). +It does not supply a country-by-country merits opinion, certified translation, +or worldwide case census. It assumes facts may connect more than one country: +author/contributor, code creation, repository/service operation, manufacture, +first sale, import, recipient, defendant domicile/assets, and alleged injury. +It separately identifies international baseline instruments, EU regional rules, +and country-specific primary-law sources. Original language controls whenever a +translation differs or a result would depend on wording. + +## Short answer + +The Berne Convention's national-treatment and independence-of-protection +framework and TRIPS enforcement obligations do not choose a court, determine +license assent, create a uniform source-release remedy, or guarantee cross- +border collection. The EU Brussels I Recast supplies regional civil-jurisdiction +rules for relevant defendants; the Enforcement Directive sets minimum EU +enforcement measures, subject to Member State implementation and substantive +law. France, Germany, the Netherlands, China, and South Korea each require +their own procedural/substantive-law, language, and current-status analysis. + +The publicly accessible cases gathered in PR-0004 demonstrate that open-source +and reciprocal-license disputes have been litigated in multiple jurisdictions. +They do not establish a universal approach to covered-work scope, source +availability, standing, relief, or foreign judgment recognition. Use a primary +text in its source language and obtain qualified translation/local counsel +where it materially affects a conclusion. + +## Analysis + +### International instruments set floors, not a single litigation route + +Article 5 of the [Berne Convention](https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283693) +addresses national treatment and independent protection for qualifying works. +TRIPS Articles 41 and 44 address enforcement procedures and injunctions in +member-state law. [WIPO's TRIPS text/status](https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/details/231) +is a primary treaty resource. These instruments do not decide a private +contract's formation, which country's law applies, personal jurisdiction, +interim measures, evidence access, or judgment recognition in a concrete case. + +### EU regional rules require member-state implementation and facts + +For defendants domiciled in an EU Member State, [Brussels I Recast, Regulation +(EU) No 1215/2012](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R1215) +contains the general domicile rule and special contract/tort jurisdiction rules. +It is not a global forum statute and does not determine substantive copyright or +contract merits. [Directive 2004/48/EC](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32004L0048) +requires Member States to provide fair, equitable, effective, and proportionate +IP-enforcement measures; national implementation and domestic procedure decide +the available route. Neither text establishes that a specific license condition +is enforceable or that public source disclosure is mandatory. + +### Country-specific primary law must not be generalized + +| Jurisdiction | Primary material in this record | Permitted use / limit | +|---|---|---| +| France | [Intellectual Property Code](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006069414/), *Entr'Ouvert* cards AUTH-0051–0053 | French sources/judgments; original French controls; remand/finality requires checking | +| Germany | [UrhG original](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html), [official translation notice/text](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/index.html), AUTH-0054–0059 | German original controls; official translation warns it may lag; older case texts have stated source gaps | +| Netherlands | AUTH-0060, official ECLI identified on card | Read Dutch judgment and current Dutch procedure; English summaries are not controlling | +| China | AUTH-0061–0062 | Official summaries/reports are narrower than a full judgment; obtain full Chinese text/qualified translation | +| South Korea | AUTH-0063 | Korean Supreme Court record; qualified translation/local analysis needed for dispositive wording | +| United States | AUTH-0001–0006, AUTH-0030–0049, AUTH-0110–0114 | Federal/state split and selected forum remain material | + +This table reports research access, not an assertion that the cited country has +the same rule or the only relevant law. A country-specific decision can be a +persuasive factual comparator but is not binding U.S. law; an untranslated +extract should not carry a dispositive proposition. + +### Recognition and enforcement are a separate later stage + +Within U.S. federal districts, 28 U.S.C. § 1963 can permit registration of +specified federal judgments; that does not govern a foreign judgment. The [2019 +HCCH Judgments Convention](https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=137+) +is a recognition/enforcement framework between Contracting States subject to its +scope, eligibility, exclusions, and status. Its [status table](https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137.) +shows the United States as a signatory without an entry-into-force date as of +the published table; do not assume it supplies a U.S. route. Outside an +applicable treaty, national law commonly controls recognition/enforcement and +can require a new proceeding. Interim injunctive relief, asset location, +service, appeal, public policy, and due process can all change practical value. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | First routing questions | Do not infer | +|---|---|---| +| EU seller distributes in several Member States | Defendant domicile, forum rule, territorial acts, applicable law | One Member State's case determines all others | +| U.S. owner targets foreign manufacturer | Defendant/assets, local IP law, service, judgment destination | U.S. order automatically operates abroad | +| French/German case is cited | Original text, translation, posture, later history, exact license | English summary supplies a universal holding | +| Chinese/Korean public report exists | Full judgment availability, parties, appeal, qualified translation | Summary proves every pleaded fact/remedy | +| Foreign money/order judgment sought in U.S. | Origin jurisdiction, finality, applicable recognition regime/state law | § 1963 or HCCH automatically applies | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [PR-0004](../case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | Bounded comparative enforcement census and documented source/translation gaps | Not a universal merits synthesis | +| [AUTH-0050](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md) | CJEU software-license contractual-breach/copyright classification context | EU-law holding in its question; not all license conditions | +| [AUTH-0052](../../authorities/cases/entrouvert-v-orange-cassation-2022.md) | French cassation-stage record | French original/procedure controls | +| [AUTH-0060](../../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) | Netherlands appellate record | Dutch law and translation limits | +| [AUTH-0061](../../authorities/cases/china-officeten-gplv2.md) | Chinese public official-case material | Summary/source limits stated on card | +| [AUTH-0110](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md) | U.S. federal jurisdiction/venue framework | Not foreign recognition law | + +## Research checklist for counsel review + +- Map every territorial act, party domicile/nationality, asset, product/service, + work, contract/license version, and proposed enforcement destination. +- Identify the precise forum rule, substantive law, conflicts rule, service + route, limitations/registration rule, evidence access, interim-relief rule, + and recognition regime in original/current primary sources. +- Preserve original-language court materials; record source, docket/ECLI, + procedural posture, finality, and translation provenance. Use qualified + translation/local counsel when wording is material. +- Treat treaty/recast/directive language as its own level of authority; then + identify national implementing and procedural law. +- Examine judgment enforcement separately from merits, including assets, + finality, appeal, notice/due process, public policy, and treaty status. + +## What would change the answer + +- Selected countries/forums, exact terms, defendant domicile/assets, actual + territorial conduct, a certified translation, final judgment, or changed + treaty status. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which markets and forums are material enough for country-specific advice? +- Whether any contract selects law/forum and whether it reaches each party/claim. +- Whether certified/qualified translation is needed for a dispositive authority. +- Whether a target state recognizes a proposed foreign judgment and on what terms. + +## Repository implications + +This memo makes no country-specific license recommendation and proposes no +enforcement action or `LICENSE` revision. It preserves the attorney/local- +counsel review gate for material cross-border questions. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial research for issue #17; synthesizes PR-0004 with translation limits preserved | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md b/paralegal-research/matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..413a349 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/procedure/pleading-jurisdiction-venue-choice-of-law-and-discovery.md @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +--- +id: PR-0017 +title: Pleading, jurisdiction, venue, choice of law, and discovery +question: "How should a license-agnostic software dispute be routed through U.S. pleading, jurisdiction, venue, choice-of-law, discovery, and protective-order questions without conflating them with the merits?" +short_answer: "A viable merits theory does not by itself establish a proper U.S. court, venue, governing law, discovery entitlement, or public disclosure. Route federal copyright claims, state contract claims, personal jurisdiction, venue, transfer, contractual forum/law clauses, and requested discovery independently. Public investigation precedes and differs from discovery; source-code discovery may be limited or protected, and protected production is not public release." +research_status: answered +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-state] +licenses: [] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, service-operator, recipient, customer] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, provide-network-access, withhold-source] +topics: [pleading, jurisdiction, venue, choice-of-law, discovery, protective-orders] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0016, PR-0018, PR-0020] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0017: Pleading, jurisdiction, venue, choice of law, and discovery + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This is an issue-spotting memo for a U.S. dispute involving software and an +identified license or contract. It assumes a potential claimant is considering +federal copyright and/or state-law claims but does not assume ownership, +registration, assent, breach, direct infringement, or a valid forum clause. +It does not provide a complaint, motion, subpoena, discovery request, or legal +strategy. State conflicts law, personal jurisdiction, local rules, and the +chosen license's clauses can change every result. + +## Short answer + +Federal district courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over civil +claims arising under federal copyright law, while related state claims may +require an independent basis or supplemental jurisdiction. That says nothing +about personal jurisdiction over a defendant or venue. Venue statutes, +transfer statutes, controlling circuit law, and any forum-selection clause need +separate analysis. Choice of law is not decided solely by the place where a +repository is hosted, a download occurs, or a product is sold. + +Federal pleading rules require a legally sufficient claim, but they do not +authorize pre-suit evidence collection. After a case begins, discovery is +subject to scope, proportionality, privilege, timing, and court control. A +protective order can govern confidential source code or business records; it +does not establish a merits remedy or public availability of the production. + +## Analysis + +### Route claims and jurisdiction before remedies + +Identify each claimant, each copyrighted work or contract, the alleged conduct, +the date and place of each act, and the relief category. Copyright claims must +also account for the registration prerequisite for U.S. works in 17 U.S.C. +§ 411(a); [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) +addresses related registration timing and remedies. Contract claims may involve +different parties, governing law, remedies, and preemption questions. A +recipient's request for source, for example, may rest on a distinct contract or +third-party-beneficiary theory rather than the copyright owner's infringement +claim; the pending posture of [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) +does not decide that question. + +Section 1338(a)'s subject-matter grant is only one gate. Personal jurisdiction +requires its own constitutional/statutory analysis; venue requires §§ 1391 and +1400(a), as applicable; §§ 1404(a), 1406(a), and 1631 concern transfer/cure in +specified circumstances. [AUTH-0110](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md). + +### Treat contractual clauses and conflicts separately + +First establish whether the relevant text is a contract, who assented, what +version governed, and whether a clause actually reaches the claim and parties. +Then apply the selected forum's law to enforceability and conflicts questions. +Federal copyright law can govern an infringement claim even where state law +governs formation or a contract claim. A clause's existence does not itself +give a court personal jurisdiction or make venue proper; both interaction and +controlling precedent are forum-specific. + +### Discovery is not an investigative license or public release + +Rules 26, 34, and 45 govern party/nonparty discovery after procedural +authorization. They do not authorize entry into systems, bypass of controls, +or compelled collection before a case. Source repositories, build systems, +customer records, and communications may raise proportionality, trade-secret, +privacy, privilege, and ESI questions. A Rule 26(c) order can restrict +disclosure and use. [AUTH-0111](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md). + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Threshold sequence | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| Owner alleges unlicensed distribution | Ownership/registration, copyright claim, personal jurisdiction, venue | Condition/covenant and chain-of-title facts | +| Recipient seeks source | Standing/contract theory, state law, clause, remedy | Whether recipient has enforceable rights | +| Out-of-state manufacturer | Contacts, relevant acts, venue, party relationship | Who made/distributed the copy and where | +| Source code sought in litigation | Rules 26/34/45, proportionality, confidentiality | Need, burden, trade-secret protections | +| Public repository review | Lawful access and preservation | Whether it represents the relevant product/version | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0110](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-jurisdiction-and-venue.md) | Federal subject matter/venue/transfer statutory framework | Does not decide a particular forum | +| [AUTH-0111](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md) | Pleading/discovery/protection mechanisms | Local rules and orders matter | +| [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | Registration timing and remedy statutes | Not a jurisdiction or venue rule | +| [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Illustrates a distinct recipient/contract theory | Pending/procedural; no final right to source | + +## Research checklist for counsel review + +- Map each cause of action to claimant, defendant, work/contract, conduct, date, + and requested relief; identify direct versus secondary theory. +- Verify ownership/registration facts and the exact license or contract version. +- Analyze subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, venue, transfer, + removal/remand if relevant, and every forum/law clause independently. +- Obtain current local rules and judge practices before any discovery assessment. +- Distinguish public factual preservation from discovery and from protected + production; identify privilege, privacy, and trade-secret issues. + +## What would change the answer + +- Selected court/state, parties' domicile and contacts, pleaded claims, actual + clause language, registration facts, or requested discovery. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Applicable state conflicts and forum-selection standards. +- Whether a recipient has standing and whether a state claim survives preemption. +- Scope and format of any ESI/source-code discovery and appropriate protection. + +## Repository implications + +No pleading or enforcement communication is drafted and no `LICENSE` change is +suggested. Project-specific clauses require attorney review in the target forum. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial research for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/registration/copyright-registration-limitations-and-accrual.md b/paralegal-research/matters/registration/copyright-registration-limitations-and-accrual.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0bc4a79 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/registration/copyright-registration-limitations-and-accrual.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +--- +id: PR-0014 +title: Copyright registration, limitations, and accrual +question: "How do U.S. copyright registration, remedy eligibility, limitations, accrual, and continuing conduct constrain enforcement of reciprocal/source-availability obligations?" +short_answer: "For a United States work, 17 U.S.C. section 411(a) generally requires preregistration or registration (or a refusal after proper delivery) before instituting an infringement action; Fourth Estate adopts the registration, not merely application, approach. Section 411 is a claim-processing precondition, not a jurisdictional bar. Section 412 separately restricts statutory damages and fees for specified timing patterns, while sections 504-505 remain the remedy provisions. Section 507(b) supplies a three-year period after accrual. Petrella recognizes separate accrual for successive infringing acts; Warner Chappell holds that, if a claim is timely under a discovery rule, the Act has no separate three-year damages cap, while expressly not deciding whether the discovery rule governs. These copyright rules do not automatically govern a contract claim, which depends on state law and any choice-of-law clause." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, state-contract-law-forum-dependent] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, analogous-source-availability] +actors: [copyright-owner, licensor, contributor, distributor, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [reproduce, distribute, convey, provide-network-access, post-termination-conduct] +topics: [registration, statutory-damages, fees, limitations, accrual, continuing-conduct] +confidence: high +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0011, PR-0013] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0014: Copyright registration, limitations, and accrual + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This memo covers a U.S. federal infringement claim involving a U.S. work and expressly does not decide foreign-work exceptions, preregistration categories, registration validity, ownership, or any state-law contract limitations period. It treats each version/release and each asserted act separately. + +## Short answer + +Registration prerequisites and remedy eligibility are different questions. Section 411(a) generally controls when an infringement action concerning a U.S. work may be instituted; *Fourth Estate* says registration occurs when the Copyright Office registers or refuses it, not when an application is filed. *Reed Elsevier* holds that section 411(a) is nonjurisdictional. Section 412, summarized in AUTH-0006, separately can foreclose statutory damages and attorney fees even when the action may proceed. Neither provision decides whether an open-license term was breached or whether a source-performance contract claim exists. + +Section 507(b)'s three years runs from claim accrual. Under *Petrella*, successive infringing acts ordinarily create separately accruing claims; ongoing distribution is not one indefinitely rolling historical claim. *Warner Chappell* rejects a separate three-year damages lookback for a claim timely under the discovery rule, but it assumed rather than decided the discovery rule's availability. A later cure or license reinstatement does not itself determine accrual for earlier conduct. State contract claims can have different accrual, tolling, notice, and limitations rules. + +## Analysis + +### Sequence the gates correctly + +1. Identify each work, claimant, United States-work status, and registration/refusal/preregistration record. +2. Identify each allegedly infringing act and filing date; apply section 507(b) accrual doctrine. +3. Separately test section 412's timing conditions for statutory damages and fees. +4. Only then evaluate actual damages/profits, injunction, or state-law remedies. + +Calling registration a prerequisite to all relief is too broad. It generally gates institution of a U.S.-work infringement action under section 411(a); section 412 concerns particular enhanced monetary remedies. Contract performance or damages do not automatically share the federal registration prerequisite, although preemption, jurisdiction, and state law may matter. + +### Continuing conduct needs dates, not labels + +Each new unlicensed reproduction or distribution may be a new act under the separate-accrual rule. A recipient's continued possession, a network service, a source repository, and a continuing failure to publish may raise different claim and accrual questions; none should be treated automatically as a fresh copyright infringement without mapping the relevant exclusive right and license text. The current Supreme Court record leaves the discovery-rule predicate unresolved in *Warner Chappell*. + +### Registration does not cure a proof problem + +Registration does not establish that code was copied, that an entire product is covered, that the claimant owns the rights at issue, or that license permission ended. Conversely, lack of timely registration may leave some remedies unavailable without deciding the merits of an alleged license breach. GPL/AGPL/LGPL/MPL terms do not override these statutory requirements for an infringement claim. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Procedural/remedy consequence | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| U.S. work application pending when suit is filed | Section 411(a) ordinarily prevents institution until registration/refusal | Exceptions and exact registration record | +| Registration obtained after infringement began | Suit may proceed when §411 is satisfied | Section 412 may still bar statutory damages/fees | +| Repeated post-termination distributions | Analyze each act and its accrual date | Date/proof of each distribution and discovery rule | +| Later cure/reinstatement | May bear on future permission | Does not alone decide prior accrual or remedies | +| Recipient contract action for source | State limitations/formation law may govern | Preemption, beneficiary standing, governing law | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [17 U.S.C. §§411(a), 507(b)](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-registration-and-limitations.md) | Registration prerequisite and civil limitations text | Does not resolve every exception/accrual rule | +| [Copyright remedies statute](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | Section 412 eligibility distinction and sections 502-505 remedies | No registration validity determination | +| [*Fourth Estate*](../../authorities/cases/fourth-estate-v-wall-street.md) | Registration approach under §411(a) | U.S.-work infringement action | +| [*Reed Elsevier*](../../authorities/cases/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick.md) | Section 411(a) is nonjurisdictional | Does not eliminate the prerequisite | +| [*Petrella*](../../authorities/cases/petrella-v-mgm.md) | Separate accrual and laches limits in copyright | Discovery-rule question not resolved there | +| [*Warner Chappell v. Nealy*](../../authorities/cases/warner-chappell-v-nealy.md) | No separate damages lookback for a timely discovery-rule claim | Assumes, does not decide, discovery-rule availability | + +## What would change the answer + +- Work nationality, registration applications/certificates/refusals, and statutory exceptions. +- Exact infringement, discovery, cure, and filing dates. +- Chosen state law and whether a contract claim supplies an extra element. +- A Supreme Court decision on the discovery-rule predicate or statutory amendment. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- What registrations cover the exact release and what effective/publication dates apply? +- Is a state contract claim independently viable, timely, and not preempted? +- Which discrete acts are provable within the relevant period? + +## Repository implications + +This research does not support language promising statutory damages or fees regardless of registration timing, or describing cure as a limitations reset. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial registration/limitations research | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md index 31e26b2..4690bca 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md @@ -8,15 +8,30 @@ legal_review: pending jurisdictions: - US-federal - California +licenses: + - GNU Affero General Public License version 3 +actors: + - copyright-owner + - exclusive-licensee + - service-operator + - distributor + - recipient +conduct: + - distribute + - provide-network-access + - withhold-source + - continue-after-termination topics: - AGPL - remedies - injunction - source-disclosure - commercial-license +confidence: medium last_verified: 2026-08-25 github_issues: - https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/15 + - https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17 related_matter_ids: [] supersedes: [] --- diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/damages-profits-fees-and-commercial-license-valuation.md b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/damages-profits-fees-and-commercial-license-valuation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f9bf17 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/damages-profits-fees-and-commercial-license-valuation.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +--- +id: PR-0013 +title: Damages, profits, fees, and commercial-license valuation +question: "What monetary relief may be available for reciprocal/source-availability noncompliance, and what can a commercial-license price prove without compelling assent?" +short_answer: "For infringement, the Copyright Act permits actual damages plus attributable profits or statutory damages, and permits discretionary fees/costs; proof, apportionment, non-duplication, registration timing, and equitable discretion matter. A commercially offered license can be evidence of a hypothetical fair-market license fee or actual loss if it is sufficiently comparable, but it is not an automatically recoverable list price and does not make an alleged infringer a party to a new license. The GPL dual-license allegations in Artifex illustrate the distinction but produced no final damages award. Contract damages and fee shifting are separately governed by the claim and applicable state law." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, state-contract-law-forum-dependent] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, analogous-source-availability] +actors: [copyright-owner, licensor, distributor, service-operator, customer] +conduct: [reproduce, distribute, convey, provide-network-access, post-termination-conduct] +topics: [actual-damages, profits, statutory-damages, fees, apportionment, commercial-license-valuation] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0011, PR-0014] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0013: Damages, profits, fees, and commercial-license valuation + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This memo is a U.S. federal copyright baseline. It assumes liability, standing, and a timely claim only where expressly stated, and separately flags a state-law contract claim. It does not calculate a recovery, decide registration timing, or assume that a public license has a commercial alternative. + +## Short answer + +Under 17 U.S.C. sections 504-505, a prevailing copyright claimant may elect actual damages plus qualifying profits or statutory damages within the statute, and the court may award full costs and reasonable attorney fees in its discretion. A claimant must link damages to the infringement and, for profits, initially show gross revenue before the infringer proves deductible expenses and apportionment. Statutory damages and fees are unavailable for certain preregistration/prepublication timing patterns under section 412; see PR-0014. + +A price for a separately offered commercial license may inform a value-of-use or hypothetical-license theory when the product, scope, territory, time, use, parties, and market evidence make it comparable. *On Davis* recognizes that a reasonable license fee can be actual-damages evidence, not a presumed windfall. *Artifex* permitted GPL/commercial-license theories to proceed but settled; it neither awarded the list price nor compelled Hancom to buy a license. The same boundary applies to GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, and source-available instruments: valuation is not compelled contractual assent. + +## Analysis + +### The statutory choices are separate from a negotiated commercial deal + +Section 504 provides alternative copyright monetary measures, and section 505 leaves fees discretionary. The statutory election, proof burden, registration limits, and limitation period are independent of whether the owner usually sells commercial licenses. A defendant can settle for a commercial agreement, but a damages judgment compensates an established wrong; it does not rewrite the parties' future licensing arrangement. + +### Commercial price evidence needs a real comparison + +*On Davis* permits a jury-facing actual-damages theory based on the fair market value of the use, while warning against speculation. Relevant record facts can include past arms-length licenses, scope of rights, duration, exclusivity, quantity, support/indemnity features, customer class, geography, version, and whether the accused use could lawfully have received that license. A public-license recipient's noncompliance does not, by itself, establish that a proprietary license's list price is the appropriate reasonable royalty. + +### Artifex is pleading-stage support, not a valuation judgment + +*Artifex v. Hancom* involved a GPL or commercial-license model for Ghostscript. The court allowed the pleaded claims to proceed; the later settlement means there is no final merits award setting price, profits, source performance, or forced assent. It remains useful for careful pleading, not for an automatic commercial-license damage multiplier. + +### Fees, profits, and past/current conduct + +*Kirtsaeng* confirms section 505's discretionary, evenhanded framework; prevailing status does not itself fix an award. Each alleged infringement has timing consequences, and the Supreme Court's current limitations decisions control which timely claims can support money relief. See [PR-0014](../registration/copyright-registration-limitations-and-accrual.md). A cured current license status may affect future restraint, but it does not set the monetary result for earlier acts. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Potential measure | Principal proof/limit | +|---|---|---| +| Proven unlicensed binary distribution | Actual loss plus attributable profits, or eligible statutory damages | Causation, revenue/apportionment, registration timing | +| Dual-license product with arms-length sales | Hypothetical reasonable license fee may be evidence | Comparable scope and non-speculative market proof | +| Open license with no paid option | Conventional loss/profits proof, if any | Cannot invent a commercial price | +| Contract-only recipient claim | Contract damages/fees under chosen law | Formation, remedy clause, state law, preemption | +| Successful suit with fee request | Section 505 discretionary fees | Objective reasonableness and all relevant circumstances | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [Copyright remedies statute](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | Sections 504-505 damages, profits, statutory damages, costs, fees | Statutory baseline; proof and eligibility remain | +| [*Artifex v. Hancom*](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) | Dual-license commercial-value theory may be pleaded | Trial-level pretrial ruling; settled, no final damages | +| [*On Davis v. Gap*](../../authorities/cases/on-davis-v-gap.md) | Fair-market license fee can be actual-damages evidence | Second Circuit; fact-specific proof, not automatic price | +| [*Kirtsaeng*](../../authorities/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-fees.md) | Section 505 fee discretion | Copyright fees case; does not award fees in this scenario | +| [BusyBox/Westinghouse](../../authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | Monetary/ancillary relief after default | Default-only; not valuation precedent | + +## What would change the answer + +- Registration, publication, application/refusal, infringement, and filing dates. +- Actual license agreements, pricing history, expert method, and apportionment evidence. +- Whether the asserted claim is copyright, contract, or both, and the selected state law. +- A final merits decision in *Artifex* (none located) or an exact-license damages judgment. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- What noninfringing alternatives and comparable transactions are available? +- Is the claimed fee a lost sale, reasonable royalty, lost profit, or settlement position? +- Would an asserted contract remedy duplicate statutory copyright recovery? + +## Repository implications + +This research does not support a license term characterizing a commercial list price as automatic damages or authorizing compelled commercial assent. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial remedies-doctrine research | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a3f03f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/injunction-specific-performance-impoundment-and-contempt.md @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +--- +id: PR-0012 +title: Injunction, specific performance, impoundment, and contempt +question: "What relief can a U.S. court consider for reciprocal or source-availability noncompliance, and how do prohibitory injunctions, source performance, discovery, impoundment, and contempt differ?" +short_answer: "For proven copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. sections 502-503 permit tailored injunctions and impoundment/disposition, subject to ordinary equitable rules. An order stopping future unlicensed copying or distribution is different from affirmative delivery or public release of source. The latter ordinarily requires a valid affirmative claim, standing, governing state law, feasibility, and equitable proof; the reviewed U.S. GPL/AGPL record does not establish a routine final public-source order. Discovery of source under confidentiality protections is evidence-gathering, not merits performance. Contempt enforces an existing clear order against bound persons; it does not supply a new source-disclosure remedy." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, state-contract-law-forum-dependent] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, analogous-source-availability] +actors: [copyright-owner, beneficiary, distributor, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [reproduce, distribute, convey, provide-network-access, withhold-source] +topics: [prohibitory-injunction, mandatory-injunction, specific-performance, source-disclosure, impoundment, discovery, contempt] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0011, PR-0013] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0012: Injunction, specific performance, impoundment, and contempt + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This memo assumes U.S. federal copyright jurisdiction and flags an independent state contract/specific-performance theory. It covers GPL/AGPL/LGPL/MPL and analogous source-availability disputes only at the license-agnostic level. It does not determine coverage, ownership, registration, or the enforceability of a specific project term. + +## Short answer + +Copyright relief can prohibit future unlicensed acts within the owner's exclusive rights. Under *eBay*, a permanent injunction is not automatic; the traditional equitable factors apply. A preliminary injunction also requires the *Winter* showing. Section 503 permits impoundment and disposition of infringing articles, not a generalized takeover of a defendant's development environment. + +An order to disclose, publish, or deliver source is affirmative performance. It is not interchangeable with an order to stop distributing an unlicensed binary. It may be sought on a contract/beneficiary/specific-performance theory, but *SFC v. Vizio* is procedural and does not establish a final source-production award. Source review in discovery can be protected under Rule 26(c), and should not be described as a public source-release judgment. Rule 65(d) identifies who may be bound by an injunction; Rule 70 supplies mechanisms after a judgment requires a specific act. Contempt is post-order enforcement, not an initial remedy. + +## Analysis + +### Prohibitory injunction: stop conduct, do not create a license + +The baseline order prohibits proven future infringement such as copying, modification, or distribution without permission. A defendant's practical option to comply with an available public license, stop, or negotiate separate permission does not mean the court compelled either side to enter a new commercial contract. *Jacobsen* supports that license conditions can delimit permission; it does not award source publication. *eBay* rejects categorical injunction rules, so infringement and a source-availability license alone do not dispense with equitable proof. + +### Affirmative source performance is a distinct remedy + +Specific performance depends on the plaintiff's claim and standing, the precise promise, adequacy of damages, feasibility/supervision, defenses, and selected state law. A public release can have effects beyond litigants and may expose unrelated confidential material; a narrow delivery to a defined beneficiary is not the same order. In *SFC v. Vizio*, a beneficiary asserted source-related performance, but the cited procedural record contains no final merits or actual source-disclosure award. Settlements and requests in BusyBox matters likewise cannot be relabeled awarded relief. + +### Confidential discovery is not compliance performance + +Source code relevant to coverage, copying, provenance, or damages may be discoverable. Rule 26(c) permits good-cause protections for trade secrets and confidential commercial information. Such production is ordinarily to parties/experts on specified terms and does not establish that public recipients are entitled to the material or that the defendant has complied with a license. Court-specific local rules and sealing standards remain material. See [AUTH-0111](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md). + +### Impoundment, order specificity, and contempt + +Section 503 and [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) govern impoundment/disposition in copyright cases. Rule 65(d) requires an order to state its terms specifically and identifies persons bound; Rule 70 governs enforcement of a judgment for a specific act. A contempt motion thus asks whether an existing, clear, valid order was violated by a bound person. It cannot remedy ambiguity by retrospectively adding publication, commercial licensing, or nonparty obligations. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Relief potentially considered | What it is not | +|---|---|---| +| Proven unlicensed GPL distribution | Tailored prohibitory injunction; statutory relief where eligible | An order forcing a commercial license | +| Claim for source to identified recipients | State-law specific performance or mandatory injunction if elements are met | An automatic consequence of every copyleft breach | +| Code needed to test covered-work claim | Confidential discovery/protective order | Public disclosure or final compliance finding | +| Infringing devices/media | Section 503 impoundment/disposition on the statutory record | A blanket order for all source repositories | +| Violation after injunction/consent decree | Contempt/enforcement of the actual order | A new merits remedy against nonparties | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [Copyright remedies statute](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | Sections 502-503 injunction/impoundment baseline | Does not create contract performance | +| [*eBay v. MercExchange*](../../authorities/cases/ebay-v-mercexchange.md) | Traditional factors for permanent injunction | Patent case; general equitable rule, not source-license-specific | +| [*Winter*](../../authorities/cases/winter-v-nrdc.md) | Preliminary-injunction standard | Environmental case; not a source-license merits holding | +| [Federal Rules 26/37](../../authorities/statutes/us-federal-discovery-and-protective-orders.md) | Protected source discovery is distinct from publication | Procedure; does not establish underlying entitlement | +| [Federal Rules 65(d)/70](../../authorities/statutes/federal-rules-discovery-injunction-performance.md) | Order specificity and specific-act enforcement | Procedure; does not establish underlying entitlement | +| [*SFC v. Vizio*](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Beneficiary/source-performance theory is being litigated | Pending/procedural; no final award | +| [BusyBox/Westinghouse](../../authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | GPL default judgment included permanent injunctive/ancillary relief | Default-only, distribution facts, not general precedent | +| [*XimpleWare* TRO](../../authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md) | Requested emergency source-related relief can be denied | Interlocutory; no merits decision | + +## What would change the answer + +- The governing state law, contract formation and beneficiary facts. +- A finalized source-performance judgment in *SFC v. Vizio* or comparable case. +- Evidence concerning irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest, feasibility, and precise code scope. +- The text of any already-entered injunction, consent decree, or protective order. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Should requested source relief be framed as delivery, publication, or discovery, and to whom? +- Can the requested order be drafted with Rule 65 specificity and without requiring ongoing judicial supervision? +- What confidential components, third-party rights, and export/security constraints affect feasibility? + +## Repository implications + +This memo does not support drafting a provision that promises automatic public source production, compulsory commercial assent, or contempt before an order exists. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial remedies-doctrine research | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..633cd2c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/settlement-compliance-and-post-judgment-structures.md @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +--- +id: PR-0019 +title: Settlement, compliance, and post-judgment structures +question: "How should negotiated compliance structures, consent decrees, and post-judgment enforcement be distinguished from contested judicial remedies in license-agnostic software disputes?" +short_answer: "A negotiated source release, notice, audit, payment, commercial license, or compliance undertaking is a settlement term unless a court actually orders it after contested adjudication. A consent decree or stipulated injunction may be enforceable as a court order against persons bound by it, but it is still not precedent that the same relief is generally available. Post-judgment enforcement depends on the judgment's text, jurisdiction, parties bound, due process, and applicable enforcement rules; it cannot enlarge an unresolved merits remedy." +research_status: answered +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-state] +licenses: [] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, service-operator, recipient, defendant] +conduct: [cure, reproduce, distribute, provide-network-access, withhold-source] +topics: [settlement, consent-decree, compliance, injunction, contempt, post-judgment] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0017, PR-0018] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0019: Settlement, compliance, and post-judgment structures + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This memo distinguishes categories of outcome in a U.S.-focused software +dispute: voluntary settlement, court-entered consent decree/stipulated +injunction, contested merits remedy, and post-judgment enforcement. It does +not draft settlement language, a consent decree, demand, notice, or enforcement +communication. It assumes the exact license/version, claim, parties, and forum +will be identified before any remedy conclusion. Foreign recognition is treated +only in PR-0020. + +## Short answer + +Settlement can address matters parties choose to resolve—such as source +delivery/publication, notices, correction, audit/cooperation, payment, release, +or a separately negotiated commercial license. It establishes an agreement, not +a generally available judicial remedy. The public BusyBox/Monsoon material is +an example of reported negotiated terms and is expressly classified as a +settlement, not a holding. [AUTH-0008](../../authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md). + +An injunction after a contested copyright case is governed by the applicable +statutory and equitable standards. Specific performance/source disclosure may +require a separate valid claim and equitable analysis; PR-0001 found no routine +final U.S. AGPL judgment compelling public source publication. A consent decree +or stipulated injunction can be enforceable through the entering court, but +only according to its valid terms and persons bound. It cannot show that the +same term would have been awarded after trial. + +## Analysis + +### Classify outcome before drawing a proposition + +Use four labels in the matter record: + +| Outcome | What it can support | What it cannot support | +|---|---|---| +| Private settlement | Parties agreed to specified obligations, if authentic/public | A judicial holding or remedy for strangers | +| Consent decree/stipulated injunction | An order's actual terms and enforcement against bound persons | A contested merits precedent or obligation beyond its terms | +| Contested judgment | The court's actual holding/remedy in its forum | Unproven requested relief or a broader license-family rule | +| Post-judgment order | Enforcement/modification of the existing judgment | A new merits theory or a larger injunction than entered | + +The desired words—"source disclosure," "audit," "commercial license," or +"compliance"—do not identify a legal category. Record whether they appear in a +request, agreement, judgment, or later compliance report, and preserve the +operative document rather than relying on a press summary. + +### Agreement and contested remedy are distinct + +The Copyright Act's ordinary federal remedies include injunctions, impoundment/ +disposition, damages/profits or statutory damages, costs, and discretionary +fees, subject to statutory and equitable limits. [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md). +The statute does not itself make a commercial license, public source release, +audit, or negotiated cure an automatic judgment term. *Artifex* supports a +pleaded commercial-license-value damages theory; it does not create a compelled +commercial agreement. [AUTH-0003](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md). + +If a license has termination/reinstatement language, determine whether the +party's future permission was restored and separately assess any past conduct, +release, waiver, and remedy. For AGPLv3, see the exact reinstatement text in +[AUTH-0007](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md); no inference should be +exported to another license version. + +### Post-judgment administration must follow the actual order + +Federal Rule 69 generally uses state execution procedure for money judgments; +Rule 70 addresses enforcement of a judgment for a specific act; 28 U.S.C. +§ 1963 allows registration of qualifying federal judgments in other districts. +[Rule 69](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf), [Rule 70](https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf), and [28 U.S.C. § 1963](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title28-section1963) should be read with forum-specific law. Contempt and compliance proceedings require attention to clarity of order, notice, the person bound, and due process; they are not an occasion to recast a settlement wish as a remedy. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Classification | Research consequence | +|---|---|---| +| Public announcement says source was released | Settlement/compliance report unless operative order says otherwise | Locate agreement/order; do not call it awarded relief | +| Court enters stipulated injunction | Consent decree/order | Analyze text, jurisdiction, parties bound, enforcement reservation | +| Court enjoins unlicensed distribution after merits finding | Contested remedy | Record exact conduct, conditions, duration, and appeal status | +| Party cures under license | Factual/license-text event | Assess terms and past claims separately | +| Money/property judgment in another federal district | Post-judgment registration/execution | Check § 1963, Rule 69, and judgment finality | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0008](../../authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) | Publicly described negotiated compliance terms | Settlement only, nonprecedential | +| [AUTH-0004](../../authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | Default-judgment injunction record | Default only; not contested merits | +| [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | Statutory copyright remedy categories | Does not grant automatic affirmative performance | +| [AUTH-0003](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) | Commercial-license value theory at pleading stage | Not a compelled-license rule | +| [PR-0001](agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) | Existing narrow U.S. remedy synthesis | AGPL-style scenario; not a cross-license rule | + +## Research checklist for counsel review + +- Obtain the operative settlement, decree, judgment, docket entry, and later + order; identify redactions and whether terms are public/authenticated. +- Label every material point as requested relief, settlement term, awarded + relief, consent-order term, or enforcement action. +- Identify persons/entities bound, order clarity, effective dates, appeal/ + modification status, jurisdiction retained, and any governing-law terms. +- Separate license-text cure/reinstatement from release of past claims and from + a court's contempt/enforcement authority. +- For a contemplated post-judgment step, verify the selected forum's rules and + state execution law; do not reuse this checklist as enforcement communication. + +## What would change the answer + +- Actual agreement/order text, court, state law, appeal status, license cure + language, party relationships, or proposed enforcement location. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Whether a particular settlement is enforceable as contract only or as a court order. +- Whether a requested affirmative obligation meets the applicable equitable standard. +- What person is bound and what compliance mechanism the exact order permits. + +## Repository implications + +No settlement, consent-decree, compliance program, or `LICENSE` text is +proposed. Any such instrument requires independent legal and business approval. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial research for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/termination-notice-cure-reinstatement-and-past-liability.md b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/termination-notice-cure-reinstatement-and-past-liability.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bc354a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/termination-notice-cure-reinstatement-and-past-liability.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +--- +id: PR-0011 +title: Termination, notice, cure, reinstatement, and past liability +question: "When an alleged GPL-, AGPL-, LGPL-, or MPL-style license breach occurs, what do termination, notice, cure, and reinstatement provisions do to current and past liability?" +short_answer: "The exact license version controls the permission timeline. GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 terminate automatically on breach and do not supply an express cure; GPLv3, AGPLv3, and LGPLv3 use GPLv3 section 8's provisional and, in specified circumstances, permanent reinstatement; MPL 2.0 uses its own notice-and-cure mechanism. Reinstatement can restore permission prospectively on the text and facts, but it is not a blanket release of already-accrued copyright or contract claims. No general U.S. rule turns a later cure into automatic immunity, and state-law notice, waiver, and damages questions require the selected forum's law." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, state-contract-law-forum-dependent] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0] +actors: [copyright-owner, licensor, distributor, modifier, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [distribute, convey, provide-network-access, omit-notice, withhold-source, cure, continue-after-termination] +topics: [termination, notice, cure, reinstatement, past-liability] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0013, PR-0015] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0011: Termination, notice, cure, reinstatement, and past liability + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This is a U.S. federal copyright baseline with an express state-contract-law limit. It assumes a claimant with the necessary copyright or contract standing, identifies the exact version and allegedly noncompliant release, and separates a current request to stop or cure conduct from money or other relief for earlier acts. It does not decide whether any particular combination is covered, whether a network-only act infringes an exclusive right, or whether an individual notice was effective. + +## Short answer + +"Termination" is not one doctrine across these instruments. GPLv2 section 4 and LGPLv2.1 section 13 say that rights terminate automatically upon a prohibited act and do not give an express cure path. GPLv3 section 8, incorporated by AGPLv3 and LGPLv3, likewise provides automatic termination but adds provisional reinstatement when the violation stops and permanent reinstatement in the text's specified first-notice circumstances. MPL 2.0 section 8 instead gives a notice-and-cure route with its own periods and conditions. These clauses describe license permission; they do not answer ownership, infringement, contract formation, damages, or the remedy. + +A timely cure can be central to whether ongoing conduct remains unlicensed. It should not be described as an automatic erasure of past acts: the texts do not contain a universal retrospective release, and the reviewed U.S. GPL record contains no controlling final decision that does so. In *Fisher*, GPLv3 cure and conveyance were fact disputes, not a final immunity holding. Forum-specific contract doctrines (notice, material breach, waiver, limitation of damages) may affect a contract claim independently. + +## Analysis + +### Build a version-and-event timeline before characterizing liability + +For each release, record the governing text, the claimed triggering act, when permission ended if it did, notice sent and received, cessation, cure steps, reinstatement trigger, and conduct after that point. GPLv2/LGPLv2.1 lack GPLv3's stated cure/reinstatement language; importing it changes the result. GPLv3/AGPLv3/LGPLv3 section 8 distinguishes provisional and permanent reinstatement. MPL 2.0 is file-level and has a distinct section 8 process. License text is operative evidence, not a judicial holding. See the [license landscape](../license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) and the linked license cards below. + +### Current conduct is different from a claim for historical conduct + +If permission is valid again, a prohibitory copyright injunction ordinarily targets future unlicensed acts, not conduct now authorized. That does not resolve remedies for a prior period: actual damages/profits require statutory proof, statutory damages and fees have registration-timing limits, and a contract claim turns on applicable state law. The statute separately supplies the copyright remedial menu; it does not make a cure clause a damages release. [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) and [AUTH-0090](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-registration-and-limitations.md) identify those separate gates. + +### Notice is a textual and evidentiary issue, not a universal prerequisite + +GPLv2's automatic-termination text is unlike GPLv3's specified notice/reinstatement route and MPL's notice-and-cure design. Whether a particular email, recipient, address, alleged repeat violation, or cure satisfies the text is fact-sensitive. A court may also need to decide whether the challenged term is a copyright condition or a contract covenant. *Jacobsen* and *MDY* are the relevant but forum-limited frameworks; no card in this corpus establishes a version-neutral notice rule. + +### Reported enforcement materials do not collapse the distinction + +The BusyBox settlements reported publication and conditional reinstatement, but settlements show negotiated terms, not a judicial construction of every cure clause. *Fisher* left material GPLv3 questions for factfinding. *Artifex* and *SFC v. Vizio* do not establish retrospective immunity. The absence of a final U.S. AGPL section 13 merits judgment is a bounded research gap, not proof that none exists. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Likely claim question | Relief a court could consider | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---|---| +| GPLv2 distributor later posts source | Was the earlier distribution unlicensed under §4? | Past copyright remedies if proven; future restraint only for unlicensed acts | No express GPLv2 cure; facts and applicable law | +| GPLv3/AGPLv3 first violation cured after notice | Did §8's stated conditions reinstate permission? | Declaration or tailored prospective relief; historical remedies remain separately analyzed | Notice, timing, repeat-violation status, covered conduct | +| MPL 2.0 file-level noncompliance | Was notice/cure under §8 satisfied? | Contract/copyright relief under the chosen theory | Exact file, notice, governing law | +| Network-only AGPL allegation | Does §13 create an enforceable claim and what is the current permission status? | Potential contract/equitable theory; not an established routine source order | Copyright nexus, standing, affirmative-relief standards | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [GPL-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md), [LGPL-2.1](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v2-1.md) | Automatic termination; no express cure in the standard text | License text only | +| [GPL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md), [AGPL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md), [LGPL-3.0](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-lgpl-v3.md) | Section 8 termination/reinstatement mechanics | License text only | +| [MPL-2.0](../../authorities/licenses/mozilla-public-license-v2.md) | Separate notice-and-cure structure | License text only | +| [*Fisher v. SAS Automation*](../../authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) | Cure/conveyance questions may remain factual | Trial-level partial summary judgment; no final GPL remedy | +| [*Jacobsen*](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md), [*MDY*](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | Conditions/covenants affect theory | Circuit-specific and fact/text limited | +| [BusyBox/Monsoon](../../authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) | Conditional reinstatement can be negotiated | Settlement, not awarded relief | + +## What would change the answer + +- The exact license version, notice record, conduct, and cure chronology. +- A selected state and governing-law clause for a contract claim. +- Proof that an asserted condition has a copyright nexus, or a final decision construing the exact clause. +- A later final U.S. AGPL section 13 or GPLv3 section 8 merits decision. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Does the chosen forum treat the relevant obligation as a condition, covenant, or both? +- What release/version and rightsholder chain supports claims for each historical act? +- Is a cure/reinstatement provision intended to release prior claims, or should that consequence be stated separately in a settlement? + +## Repository implications + +This analysis does not justify changing `LICENSE` or treating any cure clause as a universal past-liability release. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial remedies-doctrine research | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/scope/covered-work-derivative-linking-and-source-scope.md b/paralegal-research/matters/scope/covered-work-derivative-linking-and-source-scope.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..491fc32 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/scope/covered-work-derivative-linking-and-source-scope.md @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +--- +id: PR-0009 +title: Covered work, derivative work, linking, aggregation, and source scope +question: "How do copyright derivative-work boundaries and license-defined covered-work, linking, aggregation, and corresponding-source boundaries interact?" +short_answer: "Copyright's derivative-work inquiry and a license's defined coverage/source boundary are related but not interchangeable. Technical labels such as static linking, dynamic linking, plug-in, IPC, API use, containerization, or aggregation do not yield a universal answer. GPL-family licenses use work-based concepts and specific source/relinking rules; MPL/CDDL are file-oriented; EPL excludes files that only link/bind/subclass from Modified Works; EUPL, OSL, RPL, SSPL, and source-available terms use their own definitions. The reviewed authorities do not decide a general linking rule, so fact-specific analysis remains partial." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-Ninth-Circuit, European-Union, Germany] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, source-available] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, modifier, distributor, service-operator, recipient] +conduct: [modify, prepare-derivative-work, distribute, convey, aggregate, provide-source] +topics: [scope, derivative-work, linking, aggregation, corresponding-source] +confidence: low +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0002, PR-0003, PR-0004, PR-0006, PR-0008, PR-0010] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0009: Covered work, derivative work, linking, aggregation, and source scope + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: a contributor/owner, modifier, distributor, or source recipient. +Trigger: combining code, linking, bundling, conveying executables, or providing +source. This memo separates copyright law from contract/license definitions. +It does not render an engineering conclusion for a particular architecture, +dependency graph, build process, jurisdiction, or license exception. + +## Short answer + +The first question is copyright: does the resulting work embody protected +expression so as to be a derivative work under applicable law? The second is +textual: what does the selected license call a covered work, modification, +combined/larger work, extension, required component, corresponding source, or +service source? A third is factual: what source and installation/relinking +material was conveyed. *Micro Star* confirms that a digital file may be +derivative even without carrying every asset, but expressly cannot answer a +general linking rule. *Hellwig* did not reach GPL linking scope because proof +was insufficient. + +## Analysis + +### Do not substitute labels for facts + +Static/dynamic linking, header inclusion, runtime loading, RPC/IPC, API calls, +packaging, containers, and separate processes are evidence about architecture, +not statutory or license conclusions. Analyze protected expression, code +incorporation, control/data flow, build/relink mechanism, shared address space, +distribution unit, and each license's actual definitions. A lawful copyright +conclusion may still leave a contractual source/relinking obligation; a broad +license definition may still require enforceability analysis. + +### Textual comparison + +| Family | Coverage/source boundary stated by text | Critical limit | +|---|---|---| +| GPL-2 | Work based on Program / whole work containing portions; complete corresponding source on executable distribution | No authoritative universal linking test | +| GPL-3/AGPL-3 | Covered work, modified version, Corresponding Source; aggregate clause permits separate independent works on same medium | AGPL §13 separately reaches modified Program network interaction | +| LGPL-2.1 | Library versus work using Library; §6 supplies relinking/source routes | Technical compliance and derivative status remain fact-specific | +| LGPL-3 | Application, Combined Work, Minimal Corresponding Source/Corresponding Application Code | Definitions are not a judicial linking holding | +| MPL-2/CDDL-1 | File-level Covered Software/Modifications, permitting Larger Work non-covered files | A new file containing covered code is covered under MPL | +| EPL-2 | Program/Modified Works; excludes files only declaring/interfacing/linking/binding/subclassing | Other changes can alter classification | +| EUPL-1.2 | Derivative Works and source preferred for modification; compatibility list | National copyright law and language control | +| OSL/RPL/SSPL | Derivative Works/Original Work, Required Components, Service Source Code as defined | Broad terms require exact-version and deployment facts | +| Source-available | BUSL/ELv2/Commons Clause/FSL/PolyForm define licensed software, derivatives or use restriction differently; often no reciprocal source duty | Never infer copyleft source scope from source availability | + +Official-text cards in PR-0002 support these descriptions. They do not decide +technical scope or remedy. + +### Corresponding source is not simply "the repository" + +For GPLv3/AGPLv3, identify the Corresponding Source definition and the conveyed +object code/build context. LGPL variants add their own application/relinking +materials. MPL/CDDL/EPL divide covered source from larger work differently. +SSPL §13 can reach Service Source Code; RPL invokes Required Components. +The scope of a source offer must be tested against the particular defined term, +not a generic request for "all source." + +### Authority and contrary limits + +*Micro Star* concerned game-level files and preliminary injunctive relief, not +software libraries. *Fisher* left GPLv3 covered-work/conveyance facts for a +jury. *Hellwig* supplies a negative limit: failed proof did not establish that +VMware complied or that dynamic linking never makes a covered work. No reviewed +U.S. appellate opinion decides the requested GPL/AGPL/LGPL static-versus-dynamic +linking proposition. Mark it `partial` rather than adopting any steward FAQ or +technical rule as law. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Textual route | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| Separate proprietary program dynamically uses LGPL library | LGPL §6/§4 source-relinking analysis | Architecture, version, conveyed materials | +| GPL binary bundles independent utility on same image | GPL-3 aggregate clause may matter | Independence/copyright boundary | +| MPL executable includes modified covered file plus new files | Disclose modified covered source | File contents and source-access timing | +| SSPL service uses management/orchestration code | §13 Service Source Code analysis | Whether program functionality is offered as service | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0077](../../authorities/cases/micro-star-v-formgen.md) | Fact-specific derivative-work analysis | Ninth Circuit game facts; PI posture | +| [AUTH-0042](../../authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) | GPLv3 coverage/conveyance can be fact issues | District court; no final merits result | +| [AUTH-0059](../../authorities/cases/hellwig-v-vmware.md) | Proof failure before linking decision | Germany; no scope holding | +| [GPL/LGPL/MPL/EPL/CDDL/EUPL/OSL/RPL/SSPL cards](../../authorities/licenses/) | Exact defined boundaries | Official text, not judicial construction | + +## What would change the answer + +- Dependency/source tree, build scripts, binaries, symbols, licenses/notices, + delivery channel, and selected law. +- An exact-license appellate ruling on linking or Corresponding Source. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- What precisely is combined, copied, conveyed, and needed to modify/relink? +- Which license version/exceptions govern each component and what forum's + derivative-work test applies? + +## Repository implications + +This memo does not classify any FastLED or third-party component and makes no +change to `LICENSE`. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial scope synthesis for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md b/paralegal-research/matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fa0d20c --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/scope/distribution-network-use-and-deployment-triggers.md @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +--- +id: PR-0010 +title: Distribution, network use, and deployment triggers +question: "Which acts trigger public-license or source-available obligations: distribution/conveyance, remote network use, internal deployment, or a hosted service?" +short_answer: "Most traditional reciprocal licenses trigger their source obligations on distribution or GPLv3-style conveyance, not private internal use. AGPLv3 adds a modified-program remote-interaction offer; OSL defines External Deployment; RPL defines Deploy to include internal/external use; SSPL §13 addresses offering program functionality as a service. MPL/EPL/CDDL are distribution-focused and EUPL adds distribution or communication of derivatives. ELv2's managed-service restriction and other source-available use limits are distinct. Exact definitions, recipient, modification, and version determine the result; the reviewed U.S. authorities do not establish a final AGPL §13 network-only remedy." +research_status: partial +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-state-contract, European-Union] +licenses: [GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, SSPL-1.0, source-available] +actors: [distributor, modifier, service-operator, customer, recipient, copyright-owner] +conduct: [distribute, convey, deploy, provide-network-access, provide-hosted-service, withhold-source] +topics: [scope, distribution, network-use, deployment, source-disclosure] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0001, PR-0002, PR-0003, PR-0006, PR-0007, PR-0009] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0010: Distribution, network use, and deployment triggers + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +Actor: a distributor, modifier, service operator, affiliate, customer, or +remote user. Trigger: transfer of copy/object code, conveyance, public +communication, hosted functionality, or internal/external deployment. This +memo reports license text and limited court record; it does not decide whether +a real deployment meets technical definitions, whether corporate affiliates are +one licensee, or a remedy. + +## Short answer + +The trigger must be read from the selected instrument. GPLv2's source clauses +are distribution based; GPLv3/AGPLv3 use conveyance for object-code obligations. +AGPL §13 is an additional trigger only where a modified version enables remote +network interaction, requiring an offer to those users. MPL, EPL, and CDDL are +distribution focused; EUPL uses distribution or communication of derivatives. +OSL's External Deployment and RPL's Deploy reach beyond a transfer, while SSPL +§13 addresses a service offering and defined Service Source Code. BUSL/FSL use +restrictions and ELv2's managed-service restriction are not reciprocal public +source triggers. + +No reviewed final U.S. merits judgment determines the exact remedy for an AGPL +§13 network-only violation; PR-0001 and PR-0003 therefore remain controlling +repository cautions. A text trigger can create a licensing obligation without +automatically establishing copyright infringement, contract formation, or +compelled performance; see PR-0006 and PR-0007. + +## Analysis + +### Trigger matrix from official texts + +| License pattern | Trigger/audience | Boundary/limit | +|---|---|---| +| GPL-2 | Distribution of modified work or executable/object code; source recipient/offer routes | Private use is outside these distribution clauses | +| GPL-3 | Conveying covered work/object code; Corresponding Source routes | No general SaaS trigger | +| AGPL-3 | GPL-3 conveyance plus modified version's remote network interaction; offer to remote users | Must be a modified version and actual interaction; §13 remedy unresolved | +| LGPL-2.1/3 | Distribution/conveyance of library/combined work under version-specific routes | Application/relink/source boundaries vary | +| MPL-2/EPL-2/CDDL-1 | Distribution of covered/program/executable forms | Larger-work/file distinction; no general network trigger | +| EUPL-1.2 | Distribution or communication of derivative works | Applicable Member-State law and derivative definition | +| OSL-3 | Distribution/communication and External Deployment | Exact definition and assent/copyright nexus unresolved | +| RPL-1.5 | Deploy includes internal/external use/distribution; public source for licensed software/extensions | Required Components and entity facts matter | +| SSPL-1 | GPL-style conveyance plus provider makes functionality available to third parties as a service | Service Source Code definition may reach management code | +| BUSL/ELv2/Commons Clause/FSL/PolyForm | Use, competition, sale, managed-service, or additional-use limits as written | Not automatically a reciprocal source publication rule | + +These are official-text propositions from the license cards. They are not +holdings concerning a specific cloud, API, container, appliance, affiliate, or +customer configuration. + +### Distribution and remote use are not interchangeable + +Copyright distribution/conveyance facts can support a conventional infringement +theory if permission is conditional and lost. Network/deployment terms can be +contractual/license conditions but require a separate analysis of nexus, +formation, claimant, and remedy. The audience also changes: GPL source is +generally connected to conveyed copies; AGPL users receive a §13 opportunity; +RPL invokes the open-source community; SSPL says all network users. A source +repository accessible to the public may not answer whether it contains the +defined source, is timely, identifies the version, or reaches the required +audience. + +### Relevant authority and contrary limits + +*Fisher* leaves factual GPLv3 conveyance/cure issues unresolved. *Artifex* and +*XimpleWare* concern alleged distribution; neither decides AGPL network-only +operation. *SFC v. Vizio* concerns claimed distributed-device source and +beneficiary performance, not AGPL §13. Thus do not generalize a distribution +case to hosted service or vice versa. The CJEU's *IT Development* supplies an +EU reserved-act limitation principle, not a remote-source rule. + +## Scenario matrix + +| Scenario | Textual first question | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---| +| Appliance shipped with GPLv2 binary | Was it distributed and was complete source/offer supplied? | Scope, offer validity, owner/standing | +| Unmodified GPLv3 program offered only as SaaS | Was anything conveyed? | No GPLv3 general network trigger | +| Modified AGPLv3 application offered through browser/API | Does remote interaction with modified Program occur? | Modification, interaction, §13 enforcement theory | +| RPL code used only within enterprise | Does "Deploy" include the use/entity? | Definition, formation, enforceability | +| ELv2 product provided as managed service | Is provider offering the software itself to third parties? | Exact service/product facts | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0007](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md), [AUTH-0010](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v3.md), [AUTH-0009](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-gpl-v2.md) | GNU trigger text | License texts only | +| [AUTH-0013–0021](../../authorities/licenses/) | File/deployment/service family trigger text | Exact version/facts control | +| [AUTH-0003](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md), [AUTH-0033](../../authorities/cases/ximpleware-v-versata-tro.md), [AUTH-0042](../../authorities/cases/fisher-v-sas-automation-summary-judgment.md) | Limited U.S. distribution litigation | Pretrial/interim; no network-source rule | +| [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Recipient source-performance theory | Pending, not a holding | +| [AUTH-0050](../../authorities/cases/it-development-v-free-mobile.md) | EU limitation/infringement route | Not network/public-license case | + +## What would change the answer + +- The binary/source delivery, API/service architecture, modification history, + user population, entity/affiliate facts, and exact license/version. +- A final on-point AGPL/OSL/RPL/SSPL deployment judgment or statutory change. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which facts evidence conveyance, external deployment, or service availability + and who was the legally relevant user/recipient? +- Is the requested source tied to a copyright claim, contract performance, or + both, and what remedy is actually available in the chosen forum? + +## Repository implications + +This research does not classify any deployment or recommend a license change. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial scope synthesis for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/supply-chain/downstream-recipients-manufacturers-resellers-and-secondary-liability.md b/paralegal-research/matters/supply-chain/downstream-recipients-manufacturers-resellers-and-secondary-liability.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..537eea1 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/matters/supply-chain/downstream-recipients-manufacturers-resellers-and-secondary-liability.md @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +--- +id: PR-0018 +title: Downstream recipients, manufacturers, resellers, and secondary liability +question: "How do downstream-recipient, manufacturer, reseller, and secondary-liability questions differ in a license-agnostic software supply chain?" +short_answer: "The actor that directly reproduces, modifies, distributes, imports, or deploys software must be identified before applying a license condition or copyright claim. A customer, reseller, or contract manufacturer does not become directly or secondarily liable merely by appearing in a supply chain. Secondary liability requires the governing doctrine's own elements, including a direct infringement predicate where required; inducement under Grokster requires purposeful promotion, not mere product handling. Recipient source rights and direct copyright claims are separate questions." +research_status: answered +legal_review: pending +jurisdictions: [US-federal, US-state] +licenses: [] +actors: [copyright-owner, contributor, distributor, manufacturer, reseller, recipient, customer, service-operator] +conduct: [reproduce, modify, distribute, import, deploy, provide-network-access] +topics: [supply-chain, direct-infringement, secondary-liability, recipients, manufacturers, resellers] +confidence: medium +last_verified: 2026-08-25 +github_issues: [https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/17] +related_matter_ids: [PR-0016, PR-0017, PR-0019] +supersedes: [] +--- + +# PR-0018: Downstream recipients, manufacturers, resellers, and secondary liability + +> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license +> or policy decision. + +## Scope and assumptions + +This U.S.-focused memo addresses actor mapping in a mixed hardware/software +supply chain. It assumes an exact license and version will be supplied later; +it does not assume the license treats all transfers, making, hosted access, +resale, or recipient rights identically. It does not decide agency, +indemnification, exhaustion, product-liability, import, contract, or foreign +law issues. "Manufacturer" can mean an entity assembling to instruction, +designing a product, flashing firmware, or selling under its own mark—facts +that must not be collapsed. + +## Short answer + +Start with a transaction-and-copy map. Direct copyright analysis asks who +performed an exclusive-right act under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and without applicable +permission; license analysis separately asks which actor received permission, +accepted conditions, and took the conduct named in the exact text. A reseller +that merely transfers a finished product, a contract manufacturer that makes or +flashes copies, and a customer that uses a product can occupy materially +different positions. + +Secondary liability is not a shortcut around missing direct facts. Under +*Grokster*, inducement requires distribution with an object of promoting +infringement, shown by clear expression or affirmative steps; the case is not +a rule that every reseller/manufacturer is liable for a downstream breach. +Recipient claims to source or notice may rest on the particular license and, +where asserted, contract/beneficiary theory; they are not automatically the +copyright owner's direct claim. + +## Analysis + +### Map copies, control, and contractual roles + +For every relevant version, identify: source provider; party that compiled, +flashed, or embedded it; party that imported or distributed each product; party +that advertised/provided any source; recipient; and any service operator. +Record dates, jurisdictions, transfer documents, instructions, and which party +controlled the relevant act. Do not infer that an OEM brand owns source code or +that a retailer made the embedded copy without evidence. + +Section 106 identifies exclusive rights; [AUTH-0006](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) +addresses remedies once a claim exists. The condition/covenant analysis in +[AUTH-0001](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) and +[AUTH-0002](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) underscores +why exact language and copyright nexus matter. Those cases do not decide a +particular physical supply chain. + +### Separate direct from secondary claims + +Direct liability asks whether the defendant itself committed a legally relevant +act. Inducement, contributory, vicarious, agency, and joint-liability theories +have distinct elements that vary by doctrine and circuit. *Grokster* supplies +one binding inducement rule, but it involved peer-to-peer software distribution +and users' alleged infringement, not license compliance in a product channel. +[AUTH-0114](../../authorities/cases/mgm-v-grokster-secondary-liability.md). + +The required predicate direct infringement, knowledge, material contribution, +control/financial benefit, intent, causal connection, and defenses should be +kept in separate columns. Contractual responsibility, indemnity, and a product +specification may be relevant facts, but they do not automatically establish a +copyright secondary-liability theory. + +### Recipients are not interchangeable with owners + +A recipient can be evidence source, licensee, customer, or asserted contract +beneficiary. Its ability to obtain or demand source depends on the text, +assent/beneficiary law, and remedy. In *SFC v. Vizio*, the public record +illustrates a third-party-beneficiary/specific-performance theory but not an +adjudicated general recipient right. [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md). + +## Scenario matrix + +| Actor/fact pattern | Direct question | Secondary/recipient question | Main uncertainty | +|---|---|---|---| +| Contract manufacturer flashes firmware | Did it reproduce/modify/distribute and under whose permission? | Agency/contract allocation may matter | Actual instructions and control | +| Brand owner sells product | Did it distribute relevant copies or direct others? | Knowledge/control and product chain | Identity/version of embedded code | +| Retail reseller transfers sealed goods | Did it make a copy or accept an obligation? | Mere resale is not inducement by itself | License text and role facts | +| End user receives device | Did it exercise an exclusive right? | May have recipient/contract theory | Text and governing state law | +| Platform/service provider | What acts did it itself perform? | Inducement/contributory/vicarious elements | Specific conduct and control | + +## Authorities + +| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits | +|---|---|---| +| [AUTH-0114](../../authorities/cases/mgm-v-grokster-secondary-liability.md) | Supreme Court inducement standard | Not a reseller or GPL case | +| [AUTH-0001](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) | License conditions can be copyright-relevant | Exact wording and law matter | +| [AUTH-0002](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | Ninth Circuit condition/copyright-nexus framework | Circuit-specific framework | +| [AUTH-0005](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Recipient contract theory pleaded | Pending; no final remedy | +| [AUTH-0055](../../authorities/cases/welte-v-d-link.md) | Foreign device-distribution enforcement record | Source/posture limits stated in card | + +## Research checklist for counsel review + +- Build a per-version map of code provenance, copies, transfers, control, + contractual roles, locations, and recipients. +- Identify exact rights holder(s), license(s), assenting party/parties, and the + condition/covenant language before assigning responsibility. +- Test direct infringement first; list each secondary theory and all its + governing-jurisdiction elements separately. +- Treat recipient entitlement, warranty/indemnity, agency, exhaustion, and + supplier contract claims as distinct analyses. +- Preserve lawful sales, packaging, notices, build/flash records, and public + source-access evidence without treating them as conclusive attribution. + +## What would change the answer + +- Exact license terms, selected jurisdiction, copy/transfer map, agreements, + technical control, intent evidence, or foreign distribution facts. + +## Open questions for counsel + +- Which actors own or control the relevant copyrights and which actually made + each relevant copy or transfer? +- Whether a target jurisdiction recognizes the asserted secondary or recipient theory. +- Whether manufacturing/resale agreements alter agency, indemnity, or other claims. + +## Repository implications + +No license carve-out or enforcement policy follows from this general analysis. +Any project-specific manufacturer/reseller terms require separate review. + +## History + +| Date | Change | Author/reviewer | +|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Initial research for issue #17 | Agent; attorney review pending | diff --git a/paralegal-research/search-logs/README.md b/paralegal-research/search-logs/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9df35a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/search-logs/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +# Search-log index + +Search logs record how a systematic research pass was bounded. They preserve +queries, repositories, dates, exclusions, inaccessible materials, negative +results, and follow-up leads. A negative result means only that the documented +search did not locate a usable source; it is never proof that no authority +exists. + +| Date | Research lane | Log | Canonical matter | +|---|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-25 | Official license texts and classifications | [License landscape](license-landscape-2026-08-25.md) | [PR-0002](../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) | +| 2026-08-25 | Historical and additional license gap audit | [License gap audit](license-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md) | [PR-0002](../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md) | +| 2026-08-25 | United States enforcement cases | [U.S. case census](us-case-census-2026-08-25.md) | [PR-0003](../matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | +| 2026-08-25 | Non-U.S. enforcement cases | [International case census](international-case-census-2026-08-25.md) | [PR-0004](../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | +| 2026-08-25 | Missing-case and later-history audit | [Case gap audit](case-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md) | [PR-0003](../matters/case-census/us-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md), [PR-0004](../matters/case-census/international-open-source-license-enforcement-census.md) | + +For a new systematic pass, copy [the search-log +template](../templates/SEARCH-LOG.md). Add a new dated log rather than silently +rewriting the old search boundary. Update the canonical matter and authority +cards when the new pass changes a proposition. diff --git a/paralegal-research/search-logs/case-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md b/paralegal-research/search-logs/case-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..16b503f --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/search-logs/case-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +--- +date: 2026-08-25 +scope: systematic-case-gap-audit +related_matter_ids: [PR-0003, PR-0004] +--- + +# Case gap audit — 2026-08-25 + +> Paralegal research for attorney review, not legal advice. This log records +> search coverage and source boundaries; a negative result does not establish +> that no case or docket exists. + +## Scope and method + +Actor: copyright owner, licensor, recipient/customer, distributor, or alleged +third-party beneficiary. Trigger: distribution, missing notices/source, asserted +source-performance right, derivative-work scope, cure, or a GPL-based defence. +Jurisdictions: U.S.; EU, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, UK, Spain, China, +Japan, and Australia. The audit required a direct court/docket/government source +or a materially identifiable full judgment reproduction before creating a new +card. It did not revise existing cards or license text. + +## Sources searched and results + +| Lead or source | Queries/check | Result and treatment | +|---|---|---| +| U.S. GovInfo | `1:14-cv-00012`, `Versata Ameriprise GPL`, March 2014 order | Official W.D. Tex. order located. Added AUTH-0150; it is a preemption/remand ruling only. | +| Reported D. Mass. decision | `195 F. Supp. 2d 328`, `Progress MySQL NuSphere` | Full reported preliminary-injunction order located. Added AUTH-0151; GPL interim relief was denied, while separate trademark relief was granted. | +| U.S. GovInfo and docket record | `3:06-cv-01905`, `Jacobsen Katzer 395 404` | Official 2009 summary-judgment order and court-record reproduction of 2010 dismissal located. Added AUTH-0152 as later-history card; no public final source-performance award found. | +| SFC docket collection / Orange County order | `SFC Vizio 2025 2026`, current case page, 2023 minute order | Official 2023 minute order denies Vizio's first MSJ/MSA. SFC's dated page says action ongoing and lists later materials. No final merits/source-delivery order retrieved; existing AUTH-0005 retained and later status routed in PR-0003. | +| Cour de cassation / Légifrance | `Entr'Ouvert Orange 21-15.386`, `22/18071`, later pourvoi | Official 2022 Cassation and 2024 Paris remand decision pages reviewed. No later official cassation disposition located in this audit. Existing cards retained; PR-0004 history is rechecked, not restated as final beyond the 2024 appellate judgment. | +| Doctrine public full-text judgment | `Gestionale Open`, `RG 33516/2018`, `1293/2025` | Identifiable Milan appellate full text located. Added AUTH-0153, limited to BSD condition enforcement and a narrow GPL/MySQL defence issue; host is not an official court portal. | +| German court/archival sources | `Welte Fortinet 2005`, `LG München Fortinet GPL`, state portals | Only contemporaneous reporting/archival material found; no authenticated full order, docket, requested relief, or dispositive text retrieved. No new Fortinet card. | +| France | `AFPA Edu4`, `Edu4 GPL`, Légifrance | FSF France and legal commentary identify the 2009 Paris appellate result, but an official/full judgment source was not retrieved. No card created. | +| SCO/IBM/Novell and Red Hat | `SCO IBM GPL`, `Red Hat SCO GPL court` | Existing *Wallace* cards cover the GPL antitrust line. The SCO/IBM/Novell ownership litigation concerns UNIX copyright ownership/standing, not reusable GPL enforcement/formation/remedy doctrine on the located primary record. No card created. | +| UK, Spain, Japan, Australia | national free repositories and local-language combinations for `GPL`, `open source licence`, `software libre` | No sufficiently accessible, material reciprocal-public-license merits judgment located in this pass. Logged as negative searches only. | +| China and Netherlands | SPC/Rechtspraak name/citation checks | Existing official-source cards remain the usable record; no new different merits decision found in this bounded audit. | + +## Added material + +1. AUTH-0150 — *Versata v. Ameriprise*: source-performance contract claim + survived preemption; no standing, breach, or remedy result. +2. AUTH-0151 — *Progress v. MySQL*: GPL preliminary relief denied because + derivative-work/cure/harm matters remained disputed; trademark relief is + separate. +3. AUTH-0152 — *Jacobsen* post-remand: 2009 summary judgment followed by a + 2010 dismissal; no public final source-performance remedy. +4. AUTH-0153 — Milan 2025 *Gestionale Open* appeal: BSD public-license + conditions enforced; GPL issue limited to an upstream-rights defence. + +## Inaccessible or commentary-only leads + +- *AFPA v. Edu4* (Paris, 2009): significant reported GPL dispute, but no + authenticated full judgment/official court record retrieved. Obtain a court + copy or archive before relying on requested relief, rescission, or source + finding. +- *Welte v. Fortinet* (Munich, 2005): reported interim injunction, but no + authenticated order/docket or exact operative terms retrieved. Do not infer + a source-publication command from reporting. +- Historical German Welte matters (Sitecom, D-Link, Skype, Fantec): existing + cards already flag uneven source quality; this audit found no new primary text + sufficient to add a distinct authority. +- Milan first-instance 2023 decision is identifiable, but the court-hosted + original was not found. AUTH-0153 uses the later appellate full-text + reproduction and expressly preserves host/translation limits. +- Later 2025/2026 *SFC v. Vizio* minute orders are listed by SFC; direct web + retrieval of the December 2025 order timed out. Do not treat summaries as a + substitute for the order. + +## Residual gaps and recheck triggers + +1. Obtain PACER/certified state-court docket results for *Progress/MySQL*, + *Versata/Ameriprise*, and *Jacobsen* if final disposition or settlement terms + matter. +2. Obtain Orange County docket orders and any verdict/judgment in *SFC v. + Vizio*; the matter was still reported ongoing on the last dated case page. +3. Check Court of Cassation docket/publication systems after any future + *Entr'Ouvert* appeal, and obtain a certified French translation if used for + advice. +4. Obtain original German court orders for Fortinet and the historical Welte + line; do not elevate reporting into an awarded remedy. +5. Repeat Italian, Spanish, UK, Japanese, Australian, and Chinese searches with + local-language/court-docket access. Public nonretrieval is not evidence that + no authority exists. diff --git a/paralegal-research/search-logs/international-case-census-2026-08-25.md b/paralegal-research/search-logs/international-case-census-2026-08-25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d713736 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/search-logs/international-case-census-2026-08-25.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +--- +date: 2026-08-25 +scope: international-open-source-license-enforcement-census +related_matter_id: PR-0004 +--- + +# International case census search log — 2026-08-25 + +> Research log for attorney review, not legal advice. A search hit is not a +> holding unless confirmed in the linked authority card. + +## Protocol + +**Inclusion.** Publicly accessible court judgments, official court case +summaries, or official EU/government repositories materially addressing an +open-source/reciprocal licence, GPL-based defence, licence loss, compliance, or +remedy. **Exclusion.** Commentary, party press releases, and commercial +database-only reports unless retained only as a lead; settlements are not +classified as decisions. Original language controls; translation provenance is +recorded on every card. + +## Repositories and searches + +| Jurisdiction/source searched | Terms and date | Result / treatment | +|---|---|---| +| CJEU EUR-Lex / CURIA | `C-666/18`, `IT Development Free Mobile`, 2026-08-25 | Official French case-language and official English texts located; included AUTH-0050 | +| France Cour de cassation | `Entr'Ouvert Orange`, `21-15.386`, `22/18071`, 2026-08-25 | Official Cassation 2022 and Paris 2024 text located; included AUTH-0052–0053. First-instance decision only secondary/index access; flagged AUTH-0051 | +| Germany dejure / state-law portals / ifrOSS | `21 O 6123/04`, `2-06 O 224/06`, `7 O 5245/07`, `16 O 255/10`, `Fantec`, `310 O 89/15`, 2026-08-25 | Case metadata/excerpts located; full reproduced AVM judgment and Hamburg portal record located. Older official-host originals not retrieved; cards explicitly source-limited AUTH-0054–0059 | +| Netherlands Rechtspraak | `ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:2582`, `Jelurida Apollo`, 2026-08-25 | Appellate judgment located; official identifier/URL and readable mirror recorded; AUTH-0060 | +| China SPC IP Tribunal / court sites | `GPLv2 开源软件`, `（2021）最高法知民终51号`, `GPL3.0 Virtual App`, 2026-08-25 | Official case summary for final OfficeTen appeal and official report/PDF for Virtual App found; AUTH-0061–0062; party identities/dockets are limited where anonymised | +| South Korea official law database | `GNU GPL 판결`, `2006도8369`, 2026-08-25 | Official Supreme Court decision located; AUTH-0063 | +| Italy | `GPL licenza sentenza`, `Tribunale Milano open source GPL`, 2026-08-25 | 2023/2025 Milan leads surfaced in commercial/commentary databases; no authenticated public full text retrieved. No card created | +| Spain | `GPL licencia sentencia software libre`, OEPM case-law database, 2026-08-25 | No sufficiently accessible primary reciprocal-licence merits decision retrieved. Negative result only | +| United Kingdom | `GPL license court judgment`, National Archives Find Case Law, 2026-08-25 | No material GPL/open-source-license enforcement merits decision retrieved. General software cases excluded as not licence-enforcement decisions | + +## Known gaps and recheck queue + +1. Obtain court-certified German texts/dockets for Sitecom, D-Link, Skype, and + Fantec; do not cite the secondary summaries for exact relief. +2. Check finality/any pourvoi after CA Paris 14 February 2024 and verify its + precise dispositive damages from the French original. +3. Obtain full Chinese judgments and certified translations for OfficeTen and + Virtual App; the available materials are official summaries/reports. +4. Repeat country-database searches with local counsel/language specialists for + Italy, Spain, UK, China, Korea, and the Netherlands; public availability is + not a measure of whether a decision exists. +5. Search additional European national courts for unpublished interim orders and + publicly documented settlements, but classify each by actual posture. diff --git a/paralegal-research/search-logs/license-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md b/paralegal-research/search-logs/license-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2577e8a --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/search-logs/license-gap-audit-2026-08-25.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +# License-gap audit search log — 2026-08-25 + +> Preliminary research for attorney review, not legal advice. This log records +> an auditable expansion boundary; it does not prove that no other license, +> docket, settlement, or decision exists. + +## Scope and method + +- Matter: [PR-0002](../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Date searched: 2026-08-25 (America/Los_Angeles). +- Routing: actor (licensor/licensee/distributor/service operator/recipient); + conduct (distribution, deployment, network service, commercial use, + conversion); jurisdiction (text-selected law only unless an existing case + card applies); issue (textual obligation/status, not legal advice); exact + named version where available. +- Inclusion rule: an authenticated official steward, project, or OSI text plus + material reciprocity, deployment, delayed-conversion, commercial-use, or + enforcement relevance. "Official" includes a publisher-maintained repository + where the publisher identifies it as the license text. +- Exclusion rule: no authenticated text, merely a generic family name where + the project text controls, duplicate version/variant, or no material relation + to the matrix dimensions. +- Local review: read repository and paralegal `AGENTS.md`, `INDEX.md`, + `TAXONOMY.md`, issue #17, PR-0002, all then-current license cards, and + `license-landscape-2026-08-25.md`; searched the corpus for each license name, + version, `case`, `court`, `judgment`, `enforcement`, and `remedy`. + +## Included instruments and authenticated sources + +| Card | Instrument and classification | Official/steward source checked | Material reason | +|---|---|---|---| +| AUTH-0130 | Artistic License 1.0 — historical OSI-approved | [OSI text](https://opensource.org/license/Artistic-1.0), [OSI registry](https://opensource.org/licenses) | *Jacobsen* comparator; modified-package/source conditions | +| AUTH-0131 | Artistic License 2.0 — OSI-approved | [OSI text/approval](https://opensource.org/license/Artistic-2.0) | Modified source/compiled-source instructions and patent terms | +| AUTH-0132 | Affero GPL v1 — historical reciprocal, not current OSI listing | [Original Affero text](http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html), [SPDX record](https://spdx.org/licenses/AGPL-1.0-or-later.html) | Pre-AGPLv3 network-source trigger | +| AUTH-0133 | CAL 1.0 — OSI-approved | [OSI text/approval](https://opensource.org/license/CAL-1.0) | Third-party recipient autonomy and express specific-performance language | +| AUTH-0134 | Parity 7.0.0 — non-OSI public reciprocal | [Publisher text](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html) | Operation/analyse-with-software public-source trigger | +| AUTH-0135 | Prosperity 3.0.0 — source-available commercial-use restricted | [Publisher repository text](https://github.com/licensezero/prosperitylicense.com/blob/main/3.0.0.md) | 30-day commercial trial | +| AUTH-0136 | CeCILL 2.1 — OSI-approved | [Official CeCILL text](https://www.cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2.1-en.html), [steward status](https://www.cecill.info/index.en.html) | French-law reciprocal/compatibility comparator | +| AUTH-0137 | JPL 1.1 — project-specific public reciprocal | [Jelurida PDF](https://www.jelurida.com/sites/default/files/JPLv1.1-NRS.pdf) | Object-source/airdrop terms and existing Dutch case | +| AUTH-0138 | Sybase Open Watcom 1.0 — historical OSI-approved | [OSI text/approval](https://opensource.org/license/Watcom-1.0) | Internal deployment and public-source duration | +| AUTH-0139 | CERN-OHL-S 2.0 — OSI-approved open hardware | [CERN OHL](https://cern-ohl.web.cern.ch/home), [OSI text/approval](https://opensource.org/license/CERN-OHL-S-2.0) | Strong reciprocal design-source/product comparator, explicitly non-software | +| AUTH-0140 | Sustainable Use 1.0 (n8n) — fair-code/source-available | [n8n official text](https://docs.n8n.io/privacy-and-security/sustainable-use-license) | Internal/noncommercial and no-charge distribution restriction | +| AUTH-0141 | RSALv2 — source-available | [Redis agreement](https://redis.io/legal/rsalv2-agreement/), [Redis overview](https://redis.io/legal/licenses/) | Service/functionality restriction and reinstatement | +| AUTH-0142 | Confluent Community 1.0 — source-available | [Confluent text](https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license), [FAQ](https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq/) | Competing-service exclusion, assent, forum/arbitration | +| AUTH-0143 | CockroachDB Community Agreement — product agreement, not OSI | [Cockroach Labs agreement](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/) | Paid self-hosted/trial and release-specific Core-license boundary | + +## Status checks + +- The OSI registry was used only to identify current OSI approval. It supports + OSI status for Artistic-1.0/2.0, CAL-1.0, CeCILL-2.1, Watcom-1.0, and + CERN-OHL-S-2.0. CERN-OHL-S remains categorized here as open hardware, not + software, despite OSI approval. +- Affero GPL v1 is historical and distinct from GNU AGPL-3.0; the current OSI + registry check did not supply a separate AGPLv1 entry. +- Parity is a public reciprocal license but not OSI-approved. Prosperity, + Sustainable Use, RSALv2, and Confluent Community are source-available or + fair-code/commercially restricted instruments, not open source by OSI status. +- CockroachDB's current agreement does not itself classify every Core release; + the text directs the reviewer to the applicable release license file. + +## Judicial-treatment searches and bounded results + +Searched the local corpus and official/steward/OSI pages with each exact name +and version plus `case`, `court`, `opinion`, `judgment`, `enforcement`, and +`remedy`. No additional reported decision was located for Artistic-1.0, +Artistic-2.0, Affero GPL v1, CAL-1.0, Parity-7.0.0, Prosperity-3.0.0, +CeCILL-2.1, Watcom-1.0, CERN-OHL-S-2.0, n8n Sustainable Use, RSALv2, +Confluent Community, or the current CockroachDB agreement. + +Two qualified exceptions are already in the corpus: + +- [*Jacobsen v. Katzer*](../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) is a + Federal Circuit condition-of-license decision concerning an Artistic License. + It is not a version-wide source-publication or remedy decision; exact text + correspondence must be verified for a version-specific proposition. +- [*Jelurida v. Apollo*](../authorities/cases/jelurida-v-apollo.md) records a + Dutch appellate interim order requiring specified JPL compliance within the + EU and a penalty mechanism. It is not a final worldwide JPL construction or + a general source-publication rule. + +These are bounded negative findings only. They do not exclude private disputes, +unreported decisions, dockets, settlements, arbitration, later history, or +foreign-language materials outside the recorded search set. + +## Excluded candidates and reasons + +| Candidate | Disposition | +|---|---| +| Artistic License (Perl) 1.0 / Clarified Artistic | Excluded as adjacent historical variants: the requested Artistic 1.0 and 2.0 cards cover the relevant *Jacobsen* comparison; exact variant text needs project-specific review. | +| GNU AGPL-3.0 | Already represented by AUTH-0007; not duplicated. | +| CERN-OHL-W-2.0 and CERN-OHL-P-2.0 | Excluded as sibling variants; requested strong-reciprocity variant is the material comparator. | +| CeCILL-B/C | Excluded as different permissive/component variants; not necessary to answer the requested CeCILL-2.1 reciprocal comparison. | +| Redis SSPLv1/AGPLv3 alternatives | Already represented by AUTH-0019/AUTH-0007; RSALv2 card is limited to RSALv2. | +| Historical CockroachDB BUSL/older CCL release terms | Excluded pending an exact release and authenticated release file; current agreement expressly delegates Core licensing to the applicable release file. | +| Other projects named "Sustainable Use License" | Excluded because the name is non-unique; only n8n's authenticated v1 text is carded. | + +## Residual gaps and recheck triggers + +- Docket-level and non-English searches for each exact version, including later + history for *Jelurida*, remain outside this audit. +- Verify the actual release text, notices, parameters, special conditions, and + dual-license election before applying any card to a product. +- Recheck OSI registry status, publisher/steward revisions, project license + files, judicial/arbitral outcomes, and translations before relying on a + classification or enforcement proposition. diff --git a/paralegal-research/search-logs/license-landscape-2026-08-25.md b/paralegal-research/search-logs/license-landscape-2026-08-25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c274f7d --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/search-logs/license-landscape-2026-08-25.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +# License-landscape search log — 2026-08-25 + +> Research log for attorney review, not legal advice. This records what was +> searched and is not proof that unlocated authority does not exist. + +## Scope and method + +- Matter: [PR-0002](../matters/license-comparison/copyleft-source-availability-license-landscape.md). +- Date searched: 2026-08-25 (America/Los_Angeles). +- Inclusion: the exact requested license/version; operative steward text; + OSI status; official project licensing statements; existing repository + authority cards; direct court/government materials if located. +- Exclusion: project-wide status where an exact release is multi-licensed; + unverified blogs as legal authority; a worldwide exhaustive docket census. +- Negative-result convention: “not located” means only that the stated search + set did not surface a reported decision; it is not a claim that no action, + settlement, docket, or unpublished decision exists. + +## Repository pre-search and issue routing + +- Read `AGENTS.md`, `paralegal-research/AGENTS.md`, + `paralegal-research/INDEX.md`, `BACKLOG.md`, both templates, and existing + AUTH-0007 before web research. +- Searched local corpus with: `rg -n -i "license landscape|copyleft|source.available|GPL|MPL|EUPL|SSPL|BUSL|PolyForm|FSL|reciprocal" paralegal-research LICENSE LEGAL-REVIEW.md README.md`. +- Read issue: `gh issue view 17 --repo FastLED/license`. The index contained + PR-0001 only; its AGPL-remedies scope is related but does not answer this + license-text landscape question. + +## Primary sources checked + +| Family | Direct authority checked | Result used | +|---|---|---| +| OSI status | [OSI approved licenses](https://opensource.org/licenses) | Current approved-list classification; OSL/RPL exact pages also checked | +| GNU | [GPL-2.0](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html), [GPL-3.0](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html), [LGPL-2.1](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html), [LGPL-3.0](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html), [AGPL-3.0](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html) | Terms, source timing, termination, patents | +| File/copyleft | [MPL-2.0](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/), [EPL-2.0](https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/), [CDDL-1.0](https://docs.oracle.com/en/servers/x86/x9-2/license-manual/common-development-and-distribution-license-cddl.html), [EUPL-1.2](https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12) | Boundary, notice/source, termination, patents, forum | +| Network/copyleft | [OSL-3.0](https://opensource.org/license/OSL-3.0), [RPL-1.5](https://opensource.org/license/RPL-1.5), [SSPL-1.0](https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license) | Deployment/service trigger and conditions | +| Source-available | [BUSL-1.1](https://mariadb.com/bsl11/), [ELv2](https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license/faq), [Commons Clause](https://commonsclause.com/), [PolyForm Shield](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0), [FSL](https://fsl.software/) | Restriction, conversion, and publisher status | +| FastLED | [local operative rc1](../../LICENSE), [public repository copy](https://github.com/FastLED/license/blob/main/LICENSE) | Draft comparison only; no adoption conclusion | + +## Web queries and results + +| Query family | Sources/results | Use or disposition | +|---|---|---| +| `official GPL 2 GPL 3 MPL 2 OSI license` | FSF, Mozilla, OSI | Used official text/status | +| `Eclipse EPL 2 Oracle CDDL 1 EUPL 1.2 official` | Eclipse, Oracle, Joinup/European Commission, OSI | Used operative text/status | +| `MongoDB SSPL 1 MariaDB BUSL 1.1 Elastic License 2 official` | MongoDB, MariaDB, Elastic | Used primary text and project statements | +| `Commons Clause PolyForm Shield FSL 1.1 MIT official` | commonsclause.com, PolyForm Project, fsl.software/fair.io | Used primary text/publisher characterization | +| Exact license/version plus `case`, `court`, `opinion`, `judgment`, `enforcement` | Existing corpus plus official/steward/OSI searches | No reported decision located for the bounded exact-version set listed below; deferred to the case-census lane | + +## Negative-result searches and unresolved leads + +- No reported decision was located in this pass construing the exact listed + LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, MPL-2.0, EPL-2.0, CDDL-1.0, EUPL-1.2, OSL-3.0, RPL-1.5, + SSPL-1.0, BUSL-1.1, ELv2, Commons Clause, PolyForm Shield, FSL-1.1-MIT, or + FastLED rc1. This is bounded to the searches above and the existing corpus. +- GPL/AGPL-related judicial materials already collected under AUTH-0001–0008 + were reused; they are not proof of an all-version reading. +- Required follow-up: CourtListener/PACER/state and non-U.S. official court + databases; exact-party/product aliases; docket records, complaints, orders, + and later history; local-law/translation verification for EUPL-related cases. + +## Recheck triggers + +- OSI registry/status change, steward revision, or project dual-license change. +- An exact-version court decision, government docket, official settlement + document, or an attorney-selected governing jurisdiction. +- Adoption or attorney-reviewed revision of the FastLED release candidate. diff --git a/paralegal-research/search-logs/us-case-census-2026-08-25.md b/paralegal-research/search-logs/us-case-census-2026-08-25.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b217717 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/search-logs/us-case-census-2026-08-25.md @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +# U.S. open-source-license case census — search log + +> Research log for attorney review, not legal advice. Searches were run on +> 2026-08-25. Court documents, not search-result summaries, control the cards. + +## Scope, inclusion, and exclusion + +Included: U.S. opinions, orders, complaints, judgments, and publicly disclosed +settlements that address GPL-family or comparable public-license enforcement, +license construction, or a meaningful defense. A separate docket order in the +same case is listed only when it resolves a materially different question. + +Excluded from substantive propositions: commentary alone; a GPL mention with +no issue decided; press reports that did not supply a primary record; and +non-U.S. decisions assigned to the comparative lane. *Planetary Motion* and +*KBS v. Dijk* are retained as expressly limited negative/relevance checks. + +## Databases and queries + +| Source/database | Queries or docket checks | Result/use | +|---|---|---| +| GovInfo, U.S. Courts collection | `XimpleWare 5:13-cv-05161`; `Fisher 3:20-cv-00216`; party names and docket numbers | Primary PDF orders for XimpleWare and Fisher. | +| Ninth Circuit / published appellate opinion reproductions | `Neo4j PureThink 21-16029`; `Wallace IBM 06-2454`; `Planetary Motion Techsplosion 261 F.3d 1188` | Published appellate dispositions; official docket/order URL used when located. | +| CourtListener/Justia docket document indexes | Case number plus `order`, `dismiss`, `summary judgment`, `settlement` | Leads and accessible docket-PDF mirrors; card labels say when source is a court-document mirror rather than court-hosted. | +| SDNY docket index and FSF/SFLC archival pages | `1:08-cv-10764`; `BusyBox Xterasys 07-CV-10455`; `High-Gain 07-CV-10456`; `Verizon GPL` | Complaint/docket identity and disclosed settlement reports. | +| General web, primary-source-first | quoted party names plus `GPL`, `AGPL`, `opinion`, `docket`, `complaint` | Located case leads; secondary accounts are not used as holdings. | + +## Searches with material results + +- `Planetary Motion Techsplosion GPL` — GPL is a fact in a published trademark + appeal; no GPL claim or remedy was adjudicated. +- `Wallace Free Software Foundation` and `Wallace IBM 06-2454` — district + dismissal and Seventh Circuit published antitrust decision. +- `XimpleWare Versata Ameriprise 5:13-cv-05160 5:13-cv-05161` — TRO denial, + customer dismissal, and later dismissal orders. GovInfo documents 85 and 142 + were reviewed directly. +- `Neo4j PureThink 5:18-cv-07182 21-16029` and `Neo4j Graph Foundation + 3:19-cv-06226` — district orders and nonprecedential appellate disposition; + Graph Foundation action described as settled in the appellate order. +- `Knowledge Based Solutions Dijk 16-cv-13041` — proprietary-software + jurisdiction/contract case; no GPL/open-source license identified. +- `Trent P Fisher SAS Automation 3:20-cv-00216 GPL` — GovInfo summary-judgment + order directly reviewed; GPLv3 coverage/conveyance/cure not finally decided. +- `Free Software Foundation Cisco 1:08-cv-10764` — complaint and public + settlement announcement; no merits judgment found. +- `BusyBox Monsoon Xterasys High-Gain Verizon` — archived SFLC announcements + identify settlements/complaints; no contested merits opinion found in the + documented search, apart from existing Westinghouse default card. +- `Great Minds FedEx 886 F.3d 91` and `Drauglis Kappa Map` — published + comparable Creative Commons public-license construction cases. + +## Negative searches and unresolved leads + +| Search/lead | Current result | Follow-up needed | +|---|---|---| +| Final merits U.S. AGPL §13 network-source judgment | None located | PACER/CourtListener full-docket audit if this proposition becomes decisive. | +| XimpleWare final disposition after 2014 orders | No final merits opinion located in public indexed materials | Obtain docket sheet/PACER documents before stating final status. | +| Fisher final disposition after trial setting | No final merits order located in reviewed primary sources | Obtain docket sheet/PACER documents. | +| BusyBox High-Gain and Verizon termination/settlement terms | Complaint and public reports, but no authenticated final order/complete terms located | PACER retrieval or counsel confirmation. | +| Neo4j Graph Foundation settlement terms | Ninth Circuit says action settled; terms not located | Do not infer relief; obtain unsealed record only if material. | +| GPL/LGPL/AGPL/MPL broad census | No material published U.S. MPL merits decision identified in this pass | Search separately by MPL text and product names if a later matter requires it. | + +## Primary-source URLs reviewed + +- [GovInfo — XimpleWare, No. 5:13-cv-05161, Doc. 85](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161-1.pdf) +- [GovInfo — XimpleWare, No. 5:13-cv-05161, Doc. 142](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05161-3.pdf) +- [GovInfo — Fisher, No. 3:20-cv-00216, Doc. 129](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-3_20-cv-00216-4.pdf) +- [GovInfo — Wallace district order, No. 1:05-cv-00678](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_05-cv-00678/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_05-cv-00678-1.pdf) +- [Ninth Circuit — Neo4j order, No. 21-16029](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/03/14/21-16029.pdf) +- [FSF/Cisco complaint PDF](https://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf/view) + +## Verification note + +No search result, vendor statement, or settlement announcement is treated as a +court holding. Where an official court-hosted PDF was unavailable, the card +identifies the accessible docket-document mirror and narrows the proposition. diff --git a/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md b/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md index d9eba28..f5fb03d 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md +++ b/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md @@ -3,12 +3,26 @@ id: AUTH-#### title: Authority name authority_type: case jurisdiction: Jurisdiction +court: Court or issuing body date: YYYY-MM-DD authority_status: current +procedural_posture: appellate-merits +precedential_weight: binding +licenses: [] +topics: [] +source_quality: primary +source_url: https://example.invalid/direct-source +original_language: English +translation_status: not-needed last_verified: YYYY-MM-DD related_matter_ids: [] --- +For a non-case authority, identify its legislature, agency, steward, or other +issuer in `court`, and use `not-applicable` for `procedural_posture` and +`precedential_weight`. Do not use those values to avoid researching a case's +actual posture or weight. + # AUTH-####: Authority name ## Citation and source @@ -16,6 +30,7 @@ related_matter_ids: [] - Full citation or identifier: - Direct primary source: - Later history or current status: +- Original language and translation provenance: ## Procedural posture and weight @@ -23,6 +38,18 @@ State whether this is a reported appellate holding, interlocutory order, default judgment, pending matter, settlement, statute, license text, or secondary commentary. Explain whether and where it binds. +## Claims and requested relief + +Identify the claimant, standing theory, causes of action, material license and +version, alleged conduct, and relief requested. These are party positions unless +the court adopts them. + +## Holdings and relief actually awarded + +Separate each holding from dicta and record the actual order. If the source is +a complaint, settlement, dismissal without merits, or procedural ruling, say +that no merits relief was awarded by that source. + ## What it supports - Proposition supported by the authority. diff --git a/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md b/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md index 4249067..d9963c8 100644 --- a/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md +++ b/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md @@ -7,8 +7,15 @@ research_status: unresearched legal_review: not-requested jurisdictions: - jurisdiction +licenses: + - exact-license-and-version +actors: + - actor +conduct: + - conduct topics: - topic +confidence: low last_verified: YYYY-MM-DD github_issues: [] related_matter_ids: [] diff --git a/paralegal-research/templates/SEARCH-LOG.md b/paralegal-research/templates/SEARCH-LOG.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7d3b301 --- /dev/null +++ b/paralegal-research/templates/SEARCH-LOG.md @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +# Search log: topic and date + +> This log records research coverage. A negative search result means only that +> no responsive source was found within this recorded method and date. + +## Scope + +- Research question: +- Jurisdictions: +- Licenses and versions: +- Date searched: YYYY-MM-DD +- Researcher/model: +- Included source types: +- Excluded source types: + +## Databases and repositories + +| Source | Coverage sought | Access limitations | +|---|---|---| +| | | | + +## Queries + +Record queries verbatim so another researcher can rerun them. + +| Source | Query | Result | +|---|---|---| +| | | | + +## Included authorities + +| Authority | Why included | Card or proposed ID | +|---|---|---| +| | | | + +## Excluded results + +| Result | Reason excluded | +|---|---| +| | Duplicate, unrelated license, party allegation only, inaccessible source, or another reason | + +## Negative searches + +State the bounded proposition, sources checked, queries, and date. Do not write +“no cases exist” unless a legally authoritative source establishes that fact. + +## Unresolved leads + +- Inaccessible docket item, untranslated decision, ambiguous citation, later + history to confirm, or source requiring counsel/library access. + +## Handoff + +- Matter memos affected: +- Authority cards created or updated: +- Recheck trigger: