Imagine this: a large organization builds its core infrastructure around GPL-licensed open-source software, investing in staff training and becoming fully dependent on it. Then, the licensor imposes a per-minute fee, demanding massive payments to continue using the very software they thought was protected under open-source principles. If the court upholds this ruling, nothing would stop licensors from pulling this bait-and-switch type move.
If this ruling is upheld, future disputes could reference it to justify imposing additional, unintended restrictions on other open-source licenses, even those outside the GPL family. It might not directly rewrite existing licenses like MIT or Apache, but it could set a legal precedent that:
- Gives licensors more room to argue that modifying permissive licenses with restrictive add-ons is valid.
- Encourages courts to allow ambiguity and contradictory clauses to favor licensors, rather than maintaining open-source principles.
-Weakens the enforceability of "no additional restrictions" clauses across multiple licenses.
This case is an important battleground for maintaining the integrity of all open-source licensing, not just GPLv3.
