Excellent news! Good to see independent GPL enforcement work.
Any idea why the article purposely avoids the term Free Software when it is clearly about the enforceability of copy-left, use by Free Software, not Open Source in general?
That’s a bit much to take from this ruling. Looks like the judge in question simply denied a preliminary motion to dismiss. I don’t know business law that well, but I get the feeling that it’s standard practice to file motions to dismiss and for all sorts of other things, even when you know they’re legally hopeless, just to force the plaintiff to bear the expense of fighting it. There’s not much in the way of legal precedent AFAICT until an appeals court rules on it, which happens after the main case goes to trial, concludes without setting, and is then appealed by the losing side.
The situation is very bizarre, because Hancom all but admits it uses Ghostscript. It actually publishes its modification to Ghostscript to add support for WMF device. Maybe it thinks Ghotscript is under LGPL and this satisfies the license? But then, how can it be so clueless, Hancom is not exactly a small company?