【編者按】本案中，被告Versata在其DCM軟件中使用了原告XimpleWare根據(jù)GPLv2.0開(kāi)源的XML軟件中的部分代碼，并將DCM軟件銷(xiāo)售給其客戶(hù)Ameriprise等公司（下稱(chēng)“Versata客戶(hù)被告”）使用。XimpleWare基于其擁有的與XML軟件相關(guān)的三項(xiàng)專(zhuān)利，向法院提出的訴訟主張之一是Versata客戶(hù)被告使用DCM軟件的行為構(gòu)成專(zhuān)利直接侵權(quán)。在解決此爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)時(shí)法院指出，在Versata客戶(hù)被告遵守GPLv2.0條款的前提下，GPLv2.0明確允許其對(duì)XML源代碼進(jìn)行純粹的使用；即使上游分發(fā)方Versata違反許可證條款，在Versata客戶(hù)被告本身不違反GPLv2.0的情況下，其使用行為不會(huì)受到限制。若要指控Versata客戶(hù)被告構(gòu)成專(zhuān)利直接侵權(quán)，必須證明Versata客戶(hù)被告在違反GPLv2.0條款的情況下進(jìn)行了分發(fā)。但由于XimpleWare無(wú)法舉證證明Versata客戶(hù)被告存在分發(fā)DCM軟件（其中包含XML代碼）的行為，法院駁回了XimpleWare該訴訟主張。從法院的論述中可看出，單純的“使用”行為并不觸發(fā)GPLv2.0的條件，“分發(fā)”行為才是GPLv2.0條件的觸發(fā)器。

判決譯文節(jié)選

The Customer Defendants each move to dismiss XimpleWare's claims of direct infringement on the basis that XimpleWare has failed to plead facts showing distribution of the DCM software by any Customer Defendant.

涉案客戶(hù)被告均提出動(dòng)議，以XimpleWare未能提出事實(shí)證明任何涉案客戶(hù)被告分發(fā)了DCM軟件為由，請(qǐng)求駁回XimpleWare的直接侵權(quán)主張。

In dismissing XimpleWare's claims for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants in the FAC, the court held that regardless of the actions of the Versata Defendants, under the GPL the Customer Defendants each "retain the right to use XimpleWare's software so long as the customer does not itself breach the license by 'distributing' XimpleWare's software." Unchanged in the SAC is XimpleWare's allegation that the Customer Defendants "infringe and continue to willfully infringe the Patents by using the infringing Versata products." As use is expressly permitted under the GPL, the court's conclusion on this point is likewise unchanged: the SAC fails to state a claim for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants based on their use of XimpleWare's code included in the DCM software.

在駁回XimpleWare在FAC中對(duì)涉案客戶(hù)被告提出的直接侵權(quán)主張時(shí)，法院認(rèn)為，無(wú)論涉案Versata被告的行為如何，根據(jù)GPL，“只要客戶(hù)本身不因‘分發(fā)’XimpleWare的軟件而違反許可證”，則涉案客戶(hù)被告都“保留使用XimpleWare軟件的權(quán)利?！盭impleWare在SAC中仍然保留對(duì)涉案客戶(hù)被告“通過(guò)使用侵權(quán)的Versata產(chǎn)品侵犯并持續(xù)故意侵犯專(zhuān)利權(quán)”的指控。由于GPL明確允許使用行為，法院就這一點(diǎn)的結(jié)論仍然沒(méi)有改變：SAC因涉案客戶(hù)被告對(duì)包含在DCM軟件中的XimpleWare代碼使用行為而提出的直接侵權(quán)主張無(wú)法得到支持。

While use is unrestricted under the GPL, distribution is not. The GPL permits distribution only if the distributing party satisfies several specific conditions, including among other things including copy of the GPL along with the distributed program. The court previously held that XimpleWare had adequately alleged the Customer Defendants failed to satisfy the conditions for distribution of XimpleWare's software. Accordingly, the "only real issue to resolve" was "whether XimpleWare has sufficiently alleged that its software was 'distributed' by the customers when they shared the software with their independent contractors, franchisees, and producers." The court further held that XimpleWare had not, and dismissed its claims against the Customer Defendants. However, the court granted XimpleWare leave to amend to cure this defect.

雖然GPL不限制使用行為，但卻對(duì)分發(fā)行為作出了限制。只有在分發(fā)方滿(mǎn)足若干特定條件的情況下（包括隨分發(fā)程序附上GPL的副本）GPL才允許分發(fā)。法院先前認(rèn)為，XimpleWare已充分指控涉案客戶(hù)被告未能滿(mǎn)足分發(fā)XimpleWare軟件的條件。因此，“唯一真正需要解決的問(wèn)題”是“XimpleWare是否充分指控了客戶(hù)在與其獨(dú)立承包商、特許經(jīng)營(yíng)商和制造商共享軟件時(shí)‘分發(fā)’了其軟件”。法院進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，XimpleWare沒(méi)有就此進(jìn)行充分指控，因此駁回了其對(duì)涉案客戶(hù)被告的訴訟請(qǐng)求。不過(guò)，法院準(zhǔn)許XimpleWare修正起訴狀以彌補(bǔ)這一缺陷。

**
**

翻譯：薛楊潔

審校：劉偉、郭雪雯

**
**

免責(zé)聲明：本譯文由開(kāi)放原子開(kāi)源基金會(huì)組織翻譯和審定，依據(jù)CC BY-NC-SA 4.0向公眾開(kāi)放共享，允許任何人自由使用、復(fù)制及傳播。同時(shí)請(qǐng)注意，相關(guān)譯文不屬于法院指定的官方譯文，也不提供任何明示或默示保證。如您對(duì)本譯文有任何建議或意見(jiàn)，歡迎您聯(lián)系我們。

項(xiàng)目介紹：“源譯識(shí)”翻譯項(xiàng)目是由開(kāi)放原子開(kāi)源基金會(huì)發(fā)起的開(kāi)源公益翻譯項(xiàng)目，旨在通過(guò)共譯凝聚對(duì)開(kāi)源的共識(shí)。目前本項(xiàng)目主要涉及開(kāi)源許可證翻譯、開(kāi)源案例翻譯、開(kāi)源書(shū)籍翻譯及開(kāi)源資訊翻譯等。

審核編輯 黃宇