【编者按】
本案中，原告 Versata 在其 DCM 软件中应用了被告 XimpleWare 依据 GPLv2.0 开源的 XML 软件中的局部代码，并将 DCM 软件销售给其客户 Ameriprise 等公司（下称“Versata 客户原告”）应用。XimpleWare 基于其领有的与 XML 软件相干的三项专利，向法院提出的诉讼主张之一是 Versata 客户原告应用 DCM 软件的行为形成专利间接侵权。在解决此争议点时法院指出，在 Versata 客户原告恪守 GPLv2.0 条款的前提下，GPLv2.0 明确容许其对 XML 源代码进行纯正的应用；即便上游散发方 Versata 违反许可证条款，在 Versata 客户原告自身不违反 GPLv2.0 的状况下，其应用行为不会受到限制。若要指控 Versata 客户原告形成专利间接侵权，必须证实 Versata 客户原告在违反 GPLv2.0 条款的状况下进行了散发。但因为 XimpleWare 无奈举证证实 Versata 客户原告存在散发 DCM 软件（其中蕴含 XML 代码）的行为，法院驳回了 XimpleWare 该诉讼主张。从法院的阐述中可看出，单纯的“应用”行为并不触发 GPLv2.0 的条件，“散发”行为才是 GPLv2.0 条件的触发器。
裁决译文节选
译文全文请浏览“浏览原文”
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.
涉案客户原告均提出动议，以 XimpleWare 未能提出事实证明任何涉案客户原告散发了 DCM 软件为由，申请驳回 XimpleWare 的间接侵权主张。
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.
在驳回 XimpleWare 在 FAC 中对涉案客户原告提出的间接侵权主张时，法院认为，无论涉案 Versata 原告的行为如何，依据 GPL，“只有客户自身不因‘散发’XimpleWare 的软件而违反许可证”，则涉案客户原告都“保留应用 XimpleWare 软件的权力。”XimpleWare 在 SAC 中依然保留对涉案客户原告“通过应用侵权的 Versata 产品进犯并继续成心进犯专利权”的指控。因为 GPL 明确容许应用行为，法院就这一点的论断依然没有扭转：SAC 因涉案客户原告对蕴含在 DCM 软件中的 XimpleWare 代码应用行为而提出的间接侵权主张无奈失去反对。
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.
尽管 GPL 不限度应用行为，但却对散发行为作出了限度。只有在散发方满足若干特定条件的状况下（包含随散发程序附上 GPL 的正本）GPL 才容许散发。法院先前认为，XimpleWare 已充沛指控涉案客户原告未能满足散发 XimpleWare 软件的条件。因而，“惟一真正须要解决的问题”是“XimpleWare 是否充沛指控了客户在与其独立承包商、特许经营商和制造商共享软件时‘散发’了其软件”。法院进一步认为，XimpleWare 没有就此进行充沛指控，因而驳回了其对涉案客户原告的诉讼请求。不过，法院准许 XimpleWare 修改起诉状以补救这一缺点。
**
**
翻译：薛杨洁
审校：刘伟、郭雪雯
裁决英文原文：
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/california/candce/5:2013cv05161/271648/142/
**
**
免责申明：本译文由凋谢原子开源基金会组织翻译和审定，根据 CC BY-NC-SA
4.0 向公众凋谢共享，容许任何人自在应用、复制及流传。同时请留神，相干译文不属于法院指定的官网译文，也不提供任何明示或默示保障。如您对本译文有任何倡议或意见，欢迎您分割咱们：legal@openatom.org
我的项目介绍
：“源译识”翻译我的项目是由凋谢原子开源基金会发动的开源公益翻译我的项目，旨在通过共译凝聚对开源的共识。目前本我的项目次要波及开源许可证翻译、开源案例翻译、开源书籍翻译及开源资讯翻译等。详情请见：https://atomgit.com/OpenAtomFoundation/translation