No Preliminary Injunction in Jacobsen Case

Those who follow the Jacobsen v. Katzer case know that it likely will have a significant on how US courts view open source licenses and what legal remedies are available when they are violated. The latest twist in the case, as reported on the Madisonian blog, is the decision of the US District Court for the Northern District of California to deny Jacobsen's request for a preliminary injunction. On its face, this decision might seem like a setback in the ability of open source licensors to ensure the terms and principles of the open source licenses are enforcable. However, my view is that the facts of the Jacobsen case are unique enough that this ruling will not significantly interfere with the efforts of other open source licensors to obtain injunctions.

For an excellent summary of the history of the Jacobsen case, including all the legal developments up to and including the Federal Circuit's ruling in August, please see Larry Rosen's excellent article "Bad Facts Make Good Law: The Jacobsen Case and Open Source". The particular fact of importance here is that Jacobsen requested a preliminary injunction based on Katzer's failure to comply with the terms of the Artistic License requiring the licensee to "duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers". Compare this to the Free Software Foundation's claims against Cisco, which include allegations that Cisco failed to comply with the GPL and LGPL obligations to distribute source code to modifications made by a licensee.

This distinction important because the types of harm likely to result from failure to distrbute source code are easier to identify and articulate than the types of harm from failure to reproduce copyright notices. Under the 2008 US Supreme Court opinion in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Court elaborated on the well-accepted requirements for granting a preliminary injunction with a particular emphasis on the point that plaintiffs must show more than a mere possibility of harm, but must actually back up the claims of harm with meaningful evidence. Here is criteria cited by the Court for all US courts to use in deciding whether a preliminary injunction request should be granted:

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest." (I added the parenthetical numbers for easier identification in this blog post. The Court cites multiple cases on this point going back to 1982 including another 2008 opinion.)

Elements (2) and (4) are the most important for our purposes. With respect to element (2), meaningful harm from a failure to maintain proper copyright notices in publicly available software seems difficult to prove, and proving that the harm is irreparable is even more difficult. At worst, a recipient of the licensed software would receive the proper copyright notice after the software is distributed, but this would not result in any change in use or non-use of the software. By contrast, a failure to distribute source code could change the way a recipient uses the software, which is central to the purpose of the open source license.

Element (4) is particularly interesting as applied to open source software which, by its very nature, is intended to benefit the public. The public does not necessarily benefit from knowing whether a particular copyright notice is accurate, but the public cannot take full advantage of the software made available under an open source license unless it receives the actual source code.

Setting aside variations in application of the law across jurisdictions, a plaintiff is a more likely to be able to present evidence adequate to support a preliminary injunction when a case revolves around availability of source code under an open source license as compared to a claim of failure to adequately comply with copyright notice requirements. In my opinion, cases like the FSF's claims against Cisco are the types of cases we are most likely to see in enforcement of open source license terms. As a result, plaintiffs should not let the Jacobsen case discourage them from requesting preliminary injuctions, particularly when the plaintiff's claims are based on failure to distribute source code.

For All the Law Students Interested In Open Source

I recently met several law students who are interested in intellectual property law and the open source business. I was impressed with their awareness of the impact of open source on the technology industry, and happy to see how interested they were in learning more. In response to their questions on how to develop the skills needed to focus on open source, I have advised students that no pre-defined path of classes or experience leads to expertise, but there are several activities to emphasize as they progress in their journey towards finding their niche in the legal community.

A. First and foremost, all students interested in open source must have a solid foundation in intellectual property law. Open source business models arose as novel ways to utilize traditional proprietary rights. For example, the GNU General Public License ("GPL"), the most well known and widely used open source license, relies on a liberal grant of the rights held exclusively by a copyright owner to ensure that software users have a maximum amount of freedom to use open source software. A thorough understanding of copyright law is critical to understanding the impact of "copyleft" licensing.

B. Of equal importance to students is understanding contract law and having strong contract drafting and interpretation skills. Using the GPL as an example again, the copyleft effect only works because the license is drafted in such a way that passing along the rights granted under the license to subsequent licensees is a condition of the license grant. (See Mark Radcliffe's commentary on the Jacobsen v. Katzer case, which hinged on the "conditional license" issue.) In other words, the contract is written to enforce the viral nature of copyleft licensing. The conditional nature of most open source licenses means that contract interpretation skills are critical. A legal interpretation of a particular open source license must take into account the contractual conditions and obligations along with the broader context in which the licensed components are used.

C. As in any endeavor requiring legal analysis, a lawyer must always look beyond the relatively narrow context of "the law" to recognize and understand the bigger picture and real world consequences of legal conclusions. This is particularly true with open source businesses because the goal of businesses to generate revenue contradicts the act of giving something away for free does and open source technology must be used to generate revenue in other ways. In addition, open source businesses are heavily tied into their corresponding development communities and open source solution partner networks. The choice of an open source license, or a division of features between open and closed source versions of a product, and other such decisions open source companies must make have significant impacts on the viability of an open source business.

D. A more practical point for law students is to look for internships and clerkship opportunities with companies and law firms known for open source expertise. My employer, Sun Microsystems, for example, is a leader in the open source community and typically offers internships to several law students each year. These students get to see the details behind the hard decisions that business units make in guiding their open source activities. They also get to research details of the law as applied to open source issues, which gives them a level of expertise in a particular subject matter that can follow them the rest of their career.

E. Attend conferences and talks about open source law, as well as trade shows featuring open source businesses. The open source business has become big enough that a multitude of conferences and trade shows are presented virtually every week across the country and around the world. Events like OSCON and the OSBC are fixtures in the open source world, as are conferences like the MySQL User Conference and SugarCon for SugarCRM, to name just a few. Look at the upcoming Continuing Legal Education calendars to see how many seminars are devoted to open source or spend at least an hour on open source. (Shameless plug: I will be presenting a talk on open source business models with Joyce Chow from Apple Inc. at a December 10 PLI conference in San Francisco.) These are all great opportunities to learn how open source works in the real world, and students sometimes get free or reduced fee admission.

F. As a final note of encouragement, do not get discouraged by a lack of technical background (such as engineering or computer science) because this does not need to be a barrier to understanding open source technology and businesses. My college degree was in government and economics with no formal training on how software is written or even the difference between source and object code. While it is true that many law students start with a technical background, it is common for a lawyer in the tech industry to not have a deep technical background. (See the blog of one of my colleagues at Sun who did a survey of college majors of those within the Sun legal group... the results are very interesting.)