Using open-source code such as GPL in products: comply with licensing requirements by open-sourcing or switching licenses; this does not mean “no one cares”
Copyright infringement requires compensation based on the actual losses suffered by the rights holder or the profits you’ve earned. If neither can be accurately calculated, compensation is determined by what a normal licensing fee for that software would be. For intentional and serious violations, penalties can reach 1 to 5 times that amount. In one case, a defendant hired a former employee of the plaintiff to develop gateway software; the code was substantially similar to the plaintiff’s. The defendant argued that since the plaintiff’s software was originally based on GPLv2 and thus required to be open-sourced, no infringement occurred. The Supreme People’s Court ruled these two issues — whether GPLv2 was violated and whether copyright existed — were independent matters, and ordered the defendant to cease infringement and pay 500,000 yuan in compensation.
There is no cost involved. Before using someone else’s ope…
Copyright infringement demands compensation calculated either from the rights holder’s actual losses or from t…
There is no cost involved. Before using someone else’s open-source code, simply check its license — that is, the usage terms set forth by the author. GPL-type licenses require that any product using them also release its source code, which conflicts with selling closed-source products for profit; in such cases, you must switch to another license. The real difficulty lies in giving up a library you’ve already grown comfortable using.
Copyright infringement demands compensation calculated either from the rights holder’s actual losses or from the infringer’s profits. When neither figure can be precisely determined, compensation is set based on what a standard licensing fee for such software would be. Intentional and severe violations may incur penalties up to fivefold compensation. If public interests are harmed, illegal profits may also be confiscated and fines imposed. Official case reference: (2021) Supreme People’s Court Civil Appeal No. 51. In this case, a defendant hired a former employee of the plaintiff to develop gateway software nearly identical to the plaintiff’s product. The defendant claimed that since the plaintiff’s software was originally under GPLv2, it should have been open-sourced anyway; the Supreme Court ruled that whether GPLv2 was violated and whether copyright existed were separate issues, ordering the defendant to cease infringement and pay 500,000 yuan nationwide.
全国人大常委会 (2020). 著作权法（2020 年修正，第五十三、五十四条）. http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202011/t20201119_308796.html；最高人民法院知识产权法庭 (2022). 涉「开源软件」著作权侵权案（（2021）最高法知民终 51 号）. https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3042.html
Open source linkThis case demonstrates that merely claiming “the other party used GPL code” cannot serve as a valid defense for your own copying. Conversely, GPL authors have successfully sued commercial entities that failed to open-source their products in China; however, no official text of such rulings could be found on the Supreme People’s Court website, so they are not cited here. This item is rated B because compliance with open-source licensing relies solely on general contract and copyright laws rather than any dedicated statutory provisions.