HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

sbx320

no profile record

comments

sbx320
·vor 4 Jahren·discuss
Yeah, the linked article is very shallow. Heise [0] goes a bit more into detail, sadly the actual ruling isn't available yet.

Quick Summary from the Heise article: Axel Springer tried to claim that the website itself is a copyrighted work and therefore an adblocker would not be allowed to modify it. However the court decided:

1) Removing elements (ads) from being displayed does not modify the originally transferred HTML, but only the data structures as generated by the browser, which is allowed to be modified by the user. Otherwise using a browser without images would also be in breach of copyright.

2) The website in itself is not a copyrighted work, as there's no original creative effort involved in generating the HTML.

[0] (in German) https://www.heise.de/news/Landgericht-Hamburg-Adblocker-vers...
sbx320
·vor 5 Jahren·discuss
Most of the prior GPL cases ruled on (including the one you linked) were about redistribution of modified works without providing source and about who actually has standing to sue regarding GPL violations.

This case however brings two new (as far as I'm aware) questions to the table:

- Whether the permanent license revocation clause holds up

- Whether the neural networks is considered a part of the covered work (and must therefore be provided in "source" form, rather than just a trained network)

The second one is especially interesting, since the court will likely have to go into how far the GPLs coverage extends into other parts of a covered work.