[kurts_mustache]

I know they don't rely on GPL much, but what does the ruling here suggest for OSS foundations like Apache and CNCF? Specifically this part: only the author can initiate the lawsuit.

Does that mean failure to adhere to the terms of licenses like ASLv2 or MIT would could only be settled in court if the person who wrote the code actually bring suit and that OSS foundations basically become (more) toothless?

[Karellen]

> Does that mean failure to adhere to the terms of licenses like ASLv2 or MIT would could only be settled in court if the person who wrote the code actually bring suit and that OSS foundations basically become (more) toothless?

Until now, only the authors of code have actually been the ones to bring suit against non-compliers. OSS foundations have been able to choose to provide financial/legal support to authors willing to bring suit, and I don't see why that would change no matter how this court rules.

The only question here is whether end users can bring suit, with third-party beneficiary standing. Until now, no end-user has tried. If the case succeeds, it may open the floodgates to compliance actions from end-users, but if it fails then it should have no bearing on the actions that authors and the organisations that support authors can take, as the court is not being asked to rule on any such question.

However, the result of ruling may be dependent on the intent of the license authors. The GPL, having been written by the FSF, has the explicit goal of empowering end-users, so whether end-users have third-party beneficiary standing to enforce it (and other FSF licenses) seems like a reasonable case. However, if other OSS licenses (like those authored by ASF or CNCF) do not have that as an explicit goal, and instead focus on "creating better software", then even if the ruling in this case goes in the SFC's favor, it may not automatically apply to works covered by those other licenses. Another test case might be needed to see whether end-users of those other works do have standing, and it need not turn out the same way.

[GrilledChips]

The reasoning of this case rests on the intentions of the FSF when they wrote the licence. If the person who wrote the licence didn't intend you to be able to get benefits, you can't.

[NoZebra120vClip]

> The reasoning of this case rests on the intentions of the FSF when they wrote the licence. If the person who wrote the licence didn't intend you to be able to get benefits, you can't.

I contend that it does not.

It doesn't matter who wrote a license, it only matters who adopted that license when they authored a work.

The Conservancy is doing license enforcement on behalf of numerous authors and vendors of code, not authors of licenses such as the FSF or Creative Commons.

When I create a distribution of code and copy a LICENSE file into it, I take responsibility for the wording of that license. I don't foist that onto the FSF or MIT or BSD. I take responsibility for the wording, whether it is boilerplate or if I modify it after the fact.

[lemax]

MIT / Apache are not copyleft and do not stipulate any obligations to release modifications. There would be no basis for a third party to go after a product that incorporates software with these licenses and ask them to release it.

[8note]

The impacts of the case are only to keep the status quo, or to extend who can bring a case.

Apache can have enforcement rights to a project if you as an author gift them the copyright over one of the commits