help & more
On this page, we list some of the articles and other discussions found on the web. The list is by no means complete!
An October 2008 article in Datamation by Bruce Perens provided a particularly good view of the issues at stake at that point, and a February 2010 article by him discussed how it turned out.
Early web coverage included an article titled "Jacobsen and FOSS Community Win Big in Jacobsen v. Katzer Settlement" by Mark Radcliffe on his Law & Life: Silicon Valley site.
Andy Updegrove also covered it with a brief article titled "A Big Victory for F/OSS: Jacobsen v. Katzer is Settled" on Linux.com.
Detailed articles appeared shortly after on the ConsortiumInfo standards web site, and on the OStatic web site.
Once it was posted to Slashdot, the JMRI web site took 10's of thousands of hits (although of course some people in the discussion got a few of the details wrong).
Bruce Perens wrote a detailed article for Datamation.
Dana Blankenhorn of ZDnet wrote an article that generated a lot of traffic to the JMRI web servers.
Katherine Noyes wrote a good article for LinuxInsider. Ars Technica covered it in some detail. There was a shorter article on Java Zone.
Secondary articles appeared on Linux Today, IT Business Edge, Won't Get Fooled Again, Linux Plus, H-online, David Wheeler's blog, das-u blog, the Wilson Sosini Goodrich and Rosati law firm site and others.
Of course, not everybody agreed the result was a good thing. One advocate thought that it would "spook" government agencies away from using Open Source. If it "spooks" them into complying with the license terms, just like any other license, it's not clear what the problem is. One the other hand, "blog of bile" thinks that any use of intellectual property law is a bad thing, and that people should be able to use the work of others in conflict with their wishes. Having enemies like this is almost as good as having friends. Finally, one commentator doesn't understand why this is a win, because Open Source all along "falls under U.S. Copyright Law". Well, he may have thought so, but apparently others didn't. The big deal is that now the Courts have said that's true, and deniers have one fewer tool for FUD.
The August 2007 decision denying our request for a preliminary injunction on copyright, and even questioning whether copyright is available for Open Source projects that use "non-exclusive licenses", generated much more attention. The first article was on Mark Radcliffe's Law & Life: Silicon Valley blog on August 22, 2007. Evan Brown's Internet Cases site carried a somewhat different analysis the next day.
This was followed by an article in The Register, closely followed by coverage in a number of places:
As the Federal Circuit appeal progressed, there was some web discussion:
Then it hit SlashDot in a well-written item that of course caused much discussion.
Comments in mainstream media:
Computer industry media:
Model railroad specific:
Some more selected statements, posts and discussions:
Only 24 hours after the decision was released, Google found 577 unique new hits on the search string "jacobsen katzer open source decision".
The Wikipedia Article on the Artistic License has been updated to include this case, and somebody created an article about the case itself (though Matt Katzer's brother was later caught trying to semi-anonymously slant it by making it appear that the Court had said some things favorable to Katzer when it actually hadn't)
By mid-September 2008, the case had attracted enough interest that it became the topic of Continuing Legal Education classes:
As time goes on, more thorough articles have started to emerge. Not all the facts in these are correct, but they do make some thought provoking points:
Larry Rosen will be presenting a paper at several intellectual property conferences, and posted a copy on his website.
Bruce Perens wrote an article in Datamation magazine. You have to love an article that refers to Matt Katzer as "the worst enemy a Free Software project could have", because "Katzer's quest for money has so far only resulted in making Open Source stronger, while so far gaining Katzer nothing". (This article was also slashdotted resulting in almost a hundred-thousand accesses to the JMRI web site; that really spreads the word!)
Michael Swaine wrote an article for Dr. Dobb's covering this case. (It was the cover story for the November 2008 issue.) The article makes the interesting point that model railroading is where free software begain.
Coverage and discussion continues. In late October 2008, for example, Sean Hogle wrote a widely referenced article on how the case was a "significant victory". The October 2008 issue of "Litigation", the magazine of the American Bar Association's litigation section, carried an article titled "Open Source Software Licenses Held Enforceable".
Article in the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Spring 2009 issue. The case was also covered by a nice article in the July/August 2009 issue of "Landslide", the magazine of the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Section.