GPL Violations On Windows Go Unnoticed?

Scott_F writes "I recently reviewed several commercial, closed-source slideshow authoring packages for Windows and came across an alarming trend. Several of the packages I installed included GPL and LGPL software without any mention of the GPL, much less source code. For example, DVD Photo Slideshow (www.dvd-photo-slideshow.com) included mkisofs, cdrdao, dvdauthor, spumux, id3lib, lame, mpeg2enc, and mplex (all of which are GPL or LGPL). The company tried to hide this by wrapping them all in DLLs. There are other violations in other packages as well. Based on my testing of other software, it seems that use of GPL software in commercial Windows applications is on the rise. My question is how much are GPL violations in the Windows world being pursued? Does the FSF or EFF follow up on these if the platform is not GPL? How aware is the community of this trend?" This new method of detecting GPL violations could help here.

Richard Stallman...

[Anonymous Coward]

When asked for comment, Richard Stallman stroked his beard lovingly and said, "Soon, my friends. Soon the world shall be ours."

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, if by "stroked his beard" you meant "nibbled his toenails"

Re:

[Soruk]

Another unwanted mental picture: Richard Stallman wearing a kilt and wearing blue paint on his face.

Re:Richard Stallman...

[gbobeck]

Richard Stallman wearing a kilt and wearing blue paint on his face.

I can just imagine him like that and saying "They may take our lives, but they can't take our free software!"

Bill's response

[ZeroFactorial]

Bill Gates issued a response, but it was already issued by SCO under the LGPL, so it's wrapped in a DLL. Good luck interpreting it.

Re:Bill's response

[Opportunist]

It shouldn't need interpretation if it's in a DLL, that should've been compiled.

Though... it would explain the speed of the average Windows executable...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bill's response

[bsander]

Yeah, let's not be picky.

Well..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Did you try to contact the company? If not, that would be the first step.

Re:Well..

[HappySmileMan]

I sent an email yesterday telling them that they were in violation of the GPL and that the story reached slashdot, didn't say much else and don't know much, but decided to inform them before they get a bunch of "OMG j00 r copyright n00b" emails.

Re:

[BlueParrot]

Which company are you talking about? The violator or copyright holder? I'm no lawyer, but I would think notifying the copyright holder about the violation is the most appropriate thing to do.

Re:Well..

[Atzanteol]

Or at least asking them for the source. It's a common misconception that a GPLd app must be accompanied by source code. The company only has to make it available upon request.

Re:

[DaHat]

More than that really as they aren't giving you the code outright, they need to offer (in writing) to give it to you if you ask... from the sounds of it neither is happening here.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, GPL software does not need to be accompanied by the source, but it does need to be accompanied by an offer to give you the source. The original article suggests that there was no such offer.

Re:Well..

[Arslan ibn Da'ud]

That is all very true...selling GPL'd code is perfectly legal. If they refuse to provide sourcecode to their sw upon request, that is illegal, but that hasn't happened, yet.

The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.

Re:Well..

[jessecurry]

whaT gpl code is apple making deRivative wOrks of? i know that a Large chunk of os x came from bsd-Licensed work, but AFAIK they do not have anything that was derived from gpl.

Re:

[jessecurry]

I see this in the license:
"B. Certain software libraries and other third party software included with the Apple Software are free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Library/Lesser General Public License (LGPL), as the case may be. You may obtain a complete machine-readable copy of the source code for such free software under the terms of the GPL or LGPL, as the case may be, without charge except for the cost of media, shipping, and handling, upon writt

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

Sort of.

I often see the intent of GPL as "we prefer that there were not copyright laws but if you insist there are then you have to obey them with regard to this code".

I don't see why people get so worked up about it. I mean just write the 500mb of video and audio codecs yourself or else obey the terms for using the code.

Re:Clarifying copyrights

[radish]

I often see the intent of GPL as "we prefer that there were not copyright laws but if you insist there are then you have to obey them with regard to this code".


Then I think you see a different intent than most people. What you are describing is much closer to BSD - here's the code, do what you like with it but just don't claim it's yours. The GPL makes use of copyright to ensure that you can only do certain things with the code - most notably that you must share the source of any modifications you make. Note that if copyright law didn't exist I could still quite happily give you a binary but keep the source to myself, which is now what the GPL wants.

Re:

[Ricin]

"BSD is an opt out of copyright"

I don't think so, considering that the license has a copyright notice and requires it to be retained (some strip down the license even more, explicitly removing this requirement but they keep in the second requirement or rather disclaimer..).

If anything it's an opt-out of public domain, because of the second principal part of a BSD license, which is waiving any warranty or liability. This is important because with PD you not only give up your copyright but also any such discl

Legal vs Legitimate

[NeutronCowboy]

I have no idea where you got the idea that people claim that copyright infringement is not illegal. From what I can tell (ignoring the crackpots for a second), the distinction between theft/piracy and copyright infringement is made to remove the "hang 'em high!" component of the piracy/theft argument. No one for a second is arguing that it is not illegal.

However, another point you may have missed is the distinction between illegal and illegitimate - or, conversely, the distinction between legal and legitimate. This is for me a critical aspect of the debate whether it is worse to copy mp3s from someone else or to ignore GPL requirements when redistributing software.

Personally, I think that copying mp3s is often a victimless crime (if I didn't have buy the mp3 at full price because I thought it was overpriced, but then download it later from a friend because he has it results in a zero loss for all involved parties), though can screw over people in particular circumstances. As a result, downloading mp3s is for me a crime on the scale of jaywalking. It might therefore be legal to sue someone for $100000 per infringement, but it doesn't seem legitimate to me. On the other hand, ignoring the GPL when distributing software is taking someone's effort to improve the world, reapproprating it and selling it as your own. Monetary gain or not, it's a shit thing to do.

Again, I challenge you to find me posts that say downloading mp3s is not illegal. I'll show you a post arguing about pre-set levies on blank media or a crackpot. Not only that, but on the more subtle point of whether it is the same thing to download MP3s or to break the GPL license, I completely disagree with you. Breaking the GPL license is to me like stealing candy from a baby - you're a complete jack-ass if you do it. Downloading mp3s.... meh, just make sure to not get caught.

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

Imagine this scenario: an album currently costs $14.95. I have no interest in purchasing it at that price, and haven't. A friend of mine then says "hey, check this album out - it's great", and I download it from him. What's the end result?

The artist still has zero of my dollars. The record company still has zero of my dollars. My friend still has the album he paid for. I have an album that I didn't pay for, and that I didn't intend to pay for. Should I have that album in my possession to begin with? No. How

Derivative Works

[einhverfr]

I have been arguing this on another thread. IANAL, however.

I don't think that linking creates a derivative work (at least in terms of dynamic linking or static linking using a linker). Certainly Gates v. Bando (yes, a software case; no, not Billy) would suggest that some sort of copying of abstract expressive elements (not necessary code) would qualify. Now, doing "static linking" by compiling two source files into one object file might qualify but that might also depend on the circumstance.

Of course the

Re:Clarifying copyrights

[mcrbids]

Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.

And without the contract, you're infringing copyrights by distributing the material.

By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own.

Here's the EFF's take: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php [eff.org]
Notice that none of the various legal uses of the CD include DISTRIBUTING the content. That's why it's called a "COPY - RIGHT". (copyright) Licenses give you rights to material you otherwise do not own or have rights to.

By the way, bootleg automatically implies breaking the law ("illicitly sold")

According to Dictionary.com, something, as a recording, made, reproduced, or sold illegally or without authorization [reference.com] (emphasis mine)

Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right?

Good question. But if the answer is yes, then you wouldn't be "bootlegging" it, thus the point is made either way.

Re:

[Crayon Kid]

It is both a contract and a license. You see, in order to get the license concerning the copyright, you have to abide by a contract that requires certain things to be done.

Dude, if you don't know what you're talking about then STFU. GPL is not a bloody contract by any means. It only has to do with copyright law and that's ALL. You don't have to abide by anything before you get to read the GPL license in a package. That's because personal use is specifically allowed both by copyright law and the GPL. Neither

Re:

[sumdumass]

I think you need to re-examine your legal definitions. The conditions stated in the GPL for the license to distribute the covered work is a contract. The ability or right to distribute the covered work it the license.

The fact that it hinges on copyright law to force a person into agreement of the contract means nothing to the parts of the document itself. The contract says if your going to do this, which is restricted by copyright law to the owners of the copyright, you must do that. And I can stop your fro

Re:Clarifying copyrights

[sumdumass]

I would help if you knew what you were talking about. This is a ruling from a judge [sourceforge.net] who saw lawyers, not law clerks, arguing the case and chose to believe that while the license was over copyright, failing to honor the terms of the license was strictly contract law. And this ruling was made over 4 years after your linked post on grokelaw was made.

The rulling specifically says:

The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit the scope of
the license. Rather, Defendants' alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright
infringement where it would not otherwise exist. Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim properly sounds in contract and therefore Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merit of his
copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm

In other words, breaking the contract didn't automatically revoke the license to use the copyright.

Show me another ruling that says otherwise or for all legal purposes, all you will find is people saying shit that have no grounds in a court. You can believe anything you want. Just don't cry to me when you goto court and find the copyright violations didn't exist. You will find out that in a court, it isn't like the Internet where the loudest most obnoxious person wins. You actually have to, you know, have you claim based in law and tort.

The copyright part is the payment for the contract. You cannot get the benefit of the contract which is the ability to do things copyright hold exclusive to the copyright owner unless you follow the terms of the contract.

You should really read the article you linked to. It mentions "I don't have to promise anything further to go fishing after I pay for my license or sign up for it or whatever the town requires. Once I have my license, I'm free to fish, as long as I abide by the terms." in relation to licenses. Of course a fishing license isn't the same thing as a copyright license. They are specifically defined by different sections of the laws. To compare the two is literally comparing apples and oranges. They share a common thing, Fruit but are both extremely different in appearance as well as taste. The GPL meets all the legally required parts of a contract. It uses copyright as an element but as we saw with the ruling I already linked to (which a ruling matter more then some website), violations of the contract aren't necessarily infringements on the copyright.

Now, I bet you cannot even explain how the copyright and the GPL work without describing a contract. Try it, I dare you to. I'm interested in seeing you walk all over yourself. But before you embark on this endeavor, look up the legal definition of a contract [thefreedictionary.com]. This is a free version of a legal dictionary and it is materially the same as the pay versions I have.

Re:Well..

[petard]

Or at least asking them for the source. It's a common misconception that a GPLd app must be accompanied by source code. The company only has to make it available upon request.

It needs to be accompanied by a written offer for the source if it isn't accompanied by source.

Re:

[TapeCutter]

Speaking as someone who does this on a reasonably regular basis...

1. Read "free" license.txt. (Some are surprising, eg: SQLite's original "prayer" or FractInt's "Got money - want admiration")

2. Cut & paste the "free" license.txt into the appendix of your license.txt

3. ???

4. Profit!

There are companies and individuals who are willfully ignorant of steps 1&2 particularly when talking about shrink-wrapped software but IMHO most corporate shops treat copyright issues with "due dilligence".

Re:

[ajs318]

It doesn't have to be accompanied by the Source Code, but it does have to be accompanied by the text of the GPL -- which explicitly states that you are entitled to the Source Code and if you didn't find it included with the software, then you need only ask for it.

The GPL is usually the only thing giving you permission to make copies of someone else's copyrighted work (unless your use constitutes Fair Dealing or you have separately-negotiated permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent)

Re:

[sholden]

They have to include a written offer to supply the source, they just can't just not include it and hope no one notices and then send a copy of someone does.

Re:

[Knuckles]

I would think notifying the copyright holder about the violation is the most appropriate thing to do.

Right on. Using code that is available under GPL does not even always mean that there is a violation. It's possible that the copyright hold allowed them to use it under a different license. (Given the number of packages that are included in this DVD authoring application, this seems unlikely, though.)

new method of detecting GPL violations

[chalkyj]

Should be linking to http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 8/25/1648253 [slashdot.org] I guess.

Misleading summary

[CogDissident]

So, its a software violation on windows, but really its just one program thats not terribly popular that happens to have broken the GPL. I really don't think this is a "windows specific" issue at all. They can, and likely do, violate the GPL on linux or mac all the time. Infact, said company sells software for the iPod.

Re:

[ivan256]

I don't think the summary is misleading at all. The implication is that free software writers are less likely to notice when their code is used in violation of the license when the violation occurs in a Windows application instead of in an application written for an OS such an author is more likely to use him/herself.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

I don't think the summary is misleading at all. The implication is that free software writers are less likely to notice when their code is used in violation of the license when the violation occurs in a Windows application instead of in an application written for an OS such an author is more likely to use him/herself.

I would expect that software authors (free or not) are more likely than most people to use multiple operating systems, and free software authors probably as likely, or nearly so, to use Windows

Re:Misleading summary

[Mark J Tilford]

Part of the GPL says that they must "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." (section 1 at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.h tml [gnu.org] ). If the program did "included GPL and LGPL software without any mention of the GPL", it's a violation as far as any GPL software is concerned. I looked over the LGPL briefly, but didn't see any problems. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html [gnu.org] if anybody else wants to look.)

Re:Misleading summary

[mr_mischief]

Several others have pointed these things out:

1. They must include a copy of the license.
2. They must provide a written offer with the package to provide the source on request.
3. They cannot strip attributions in what they provide

I don't know that they've done the last one, but it makes sense along with the other violations

Re:

[jkrise]

but really its just one program thats not terribly popular that happens to have broken the GPL. I really don't think this is a "windows specific" issue at all...

I think this is Windows-specific. Companies who write software that works on Windows usually write non-GPL, non-Open-source, proprietary stuff... and it is reasonable to expect the GPL violations on Closed Source code would be harder to detect.

Software written for Linux generally tends to be GPL / Apache / MPL licensed... very few firms write propr

Re:

[gray peter]

First of all, you forgot the Mac, which as someone else pointed out probably has just as many 3rd party apps using GPL code.

Second of all, there are PLENTY of firms writing proprietary code for linux, most of it VERY expensive. Besides the obvious (Oracle, BEA, IBM) there are a huge number of high end scientific analysis, manufacturing and financial companies doing so.

Probably common

[Jugalator]

I hate being a pessimist, but packaging OSS in binaries without mentioning it is probably being incredibly common.

Re:

[NewWorldDan]

It's extrodinarily common. Especially in the custom software market. Small programs rip off GPL software all the time. If pushed, a lot of them could find free* alternatives, or find a cheap commercial product to license, but why bother. (*note, I don't use free in the RMS manner, but in the literal, truly free public domain manner)

Re:

[canuck57]

I hate being a pessimist, but packaging OSS in binaries without mentioning it is probably being incredibly common.

Quite common actually. I estimate at least 50% of I/T purchases today contain some amount of open source and do not disclose it. Worse yet, many deny it slamming open source. I often run "strings" on it, or compare outputs. ldd for which binaries it is linked to. It is often surprising what you can find.

Question to your Question:

[JeremyGNJ]

Here's the question to your question about whether violations are followed up on or being investigated:

Who's going to follow up on it and why?
Who's going to pay for the lawyers to do so?
Is there *any* money to be made? Even enough to pay for those lawyers?
Are you just penalizing the "spirit" of the GPL by making it a legal battle rather than letting the code proliferate?

Re:

[someone1234]

Yeah, there is money to be made. LITIGATE the BASTARDS out of their PANTS.

Re:

[Bloater]

The spirit of the GPL is that if they've got any improvements at all (such as packaging them in a dll - nice) they *have* to offer to make them available on request and follow through on that offer. That is the whole point of the GPL - guarantee that distributers of improved versions don't devalue the versions that are more generally available by letting them fall behind.

Re:

[fsmunoz]

That "penalizing the spirit" part is very important... most GPL violations (around 90% IIRC) are not made on purpose, but stem from sheer lack of knowledge. I would think that this would be even more the case with freeware Windows developers. Generally a simple conversation with the authors fixes things (the termination clause in situations of non-compliance was made more lenient in GPLv3 due to this).

In any event it's the copyright owners job to fix this... one should of course drop them a mail. One impo

Re:

[Synn]

Who's going to follow up on it and why?

Whoever owns the software in order to protect their copyright claims. The Free Software Foundation recommends that GPL authors assign the copyright over to them, just for these reasons. They actively pursue copyright claims.

Who's going to pay for the lawyers to do so?

The FSF has lawyers on staff and people like me, who pay yearly dues to the FSF, pay for these lawyers.

Is there *any* money to be made? Even enough to pay for those lawyers?

No clue, but you

Be sure to report it.

[kebes]

At a minimum, document everything and send a report to the GPL-violations homepage [gpl-violations.org] (in particular, refer to contact info [gpl-violations.org]). That website tracks GPL violations and is in contact with the FSF. They will probably pass the information along to those whose copyright is being infringed, so that they can take direct action.

The normal course of action is that the authors of the GPL code will send friendly "please comply with the license" messages. Usually the infringing party will comply with the GPL before threat of lawsuits are mentioned.

It's definitely unfortunate that consistent policing of proprietary vendors is necessary (they, of all people, should know better!)... but ultimately I think most projects can be made to comply with the GPL without too much trouble, once they are uncovered.

So, in short, document your findings and notify the appropriate people!

Re:Be sure to report it.

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

This snippet from the FAQ is probably worth posting for others that run into this issue (before posting on Digg or Slashdot). Note the last paragraph, emphasis mine:

"How can I help gpl-violations.org ?

Firstly by not reacting to a technical GPL violation in an extreme fashion. Secondly by checking the violation is indeed a violation.

Join the mailing lists, discuss issues there first. Be polite but firm when dealing with companies and remember that the goal is to ensure a company stops violating the GPL and does not violate it again, rather than to leave a smoking crater at the location of their HQ... at least not on the first offence.

Keep records of conversations with companies. Co-ordinate with others. A company faced with eight different stories will find it hard to deal with. A company faced with a single accurate information source can respond better.

Beware the "public shaming" bomb. It's easy to let off, but very hard to defuse if you made a mistake or the issue turned out to be minor and is rapidly resolved. In addition companies may become very defensive in such cases and decide to "tough it out". We want to build bridges and giving a company no way to avoid losing face hinders that, especially in certain cultures."

FSF pursues all violations

[Brett Smith]

The FSF investigates and pursues GPL violations on its software on all platforms. I've handled violations on Windows, MacOS X, GNU/Linux, and embedded devices. We provide complete instructions for reporting violations [fsf.org] on our web site; if you're finding any kind of violation on FSF-copyrighted software, please don't hesitate to contact us.

-- Brett Smith, FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer

On its software

[fotbr]

They won't pursue shit unless they own the copyright being violated, which is as it should be.

Your code, your responsibility to look after it, not some third party organization's responsibility. (yes, I know submitter isn't complaining about HIS code being used)

Re:

[PhilHibbs]

OP wrote:
The FSF investigates and pursues GPL violations on its software on all platforms.
Its software - software owned by the FSF, such as the GNU project. The article is incorrectly tagged 'gnu' but this is not a GNU issue. Just because someone used the GPL for their software, doesn't make it part of the GNU project or owned by the FSF and the FSF have no obligation to do anything about this. (dsclaimer: I havent checked to see whether any of the software listed actually is part of the GNU project but it

Re:

[fotbr]

Which is exactly the point I was making.

The person I replied to focused on the first part of the sentence, ignoring the bit about it being FSF software that the FSF defends, and tried to make it sound like the FSF was there to defend any and all GPL software, which is not the case.

Hardware devices using Linux as the firmware OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brett,

I cannot give out my name, but a huge, giant US electronics and appliances corporation (a brand name that everyone has known for well over a century) is using Linux as the core OS and firmware in at least a couple of the products they sell... these products came from a smaller company they bought rather than developed themselves. The people running this division have no intention whatsoever of complying with the GPL and are probably right now trying to "sanitize" the identifying characteristics of th

fsf is a fair weather friend

[Speare]

The FSF will only work to enforce the GPL if the GPL code in question is signed over to the FSF. While I can understand that legal logic, I have a hard time with the concept of creating something, keeping a copyright in force, and then signing the copyright away for no benefit to myself. The only benefit would be that the FSF would then fight when someone uses it in an "unauthorized" manner. If I'm not going to hold my own copyright, why not just specifically disavow copyright and let it enrich everybody via the public domain?

This is the root of my problem with GNU in general: why show everybody how you achieved and developed a certain technological capability, without letting people actually use that method? If you only want certain people to be able to use that method, then only show those certain people how it's done. I think it's just a bit petty to show the code but not authorize its use. The "unauthorized" user can't steal it because you will always have it. The "unauthorized" user can extend it and keep those extensions hidden, but I fail to see how that really hurts me: I can extend my copy too. If I give an ice cream cone to my brother, I can't dictate to him how he eats it.

Re:

[Tiger4]

If the next guy "steals" the code for his own purposes, it may or may not hurt you. Assuming you really did give it away, then presumably you don't care about compensation, so no harm done. Unless he does something really stupid and blames you for it.

But it harms the third person in line. That guy is getting your good stuff, the second guy's questionable stuff, and has no way to distinguish the two. Or to give credit where credit (or blame) is due. The second guy in line took that opportunity away when

Re:

[Aram Fingal]

The point of the GPL is to keep the project, which you wrote code for, going in a publicly available form. The main complaint of TFA is that these people using GPL code aren't making their snapshot of code (with any modifications they made) available to the public. Without the GPL, public domain code for a project can be taken, modified and close-sourced. If some people start using the closed source version, then you have development forks which can't be synced and your version of the project can suffer

Re:

[00_NOP]

Parent is more than a little unfair. FSF has no locus in the case unless it is assigned the copyright. And something in the public domain has no copyright and so cannot be protected or kept free/open.

Re:fsf is a fair weather friend

[kebes]

I have a hard time with the concept of creating something, keeping a copyright in force, and then signing the copyright away for no benefit to myself

No benefit to yourself? If you're putting code under the GPL, it's usually because you believe in the principles of the GPL (keeping code open source, encouraging freedom, etc.). In such a case, the benefit of signing copyright over to the FSF is that they will take care of enforcement on your behalf.

If I'm not going to hold my own copyright, why not just specifically disavow copyright and let it enrich everybody via the public domain?

If you want your code to be public domain, then you would release it to the public domain in the first place (or use a BSD license). Using the GPL is not a substitute for public domain: it is a license which guarantees certain things, namely it guarantees that the code will remain open and shareable ("free"). If you don't care about code remaining open and shareable, then don't license it under GPL. If you do care about it being open and shareable, then license it under GPL. If you further don't want to deal with the hassles of protecting said license, sign over the copyright to the FSF, who have much experience in such matters.

This is the root of my problem with GNU in general: why show everybody how you achieved and developed a certain technological capability, without letting people actually use that method? ... I think it's just a bit petty to show the code but not authorize its use.

You are basically saying that you prefer BSD to GPL. That's fine. (So, go ahead and license your code that way.) However, understand that the purpose of the GPL is to encourage all code to be "free," where free means: open source, shareable, and guaranteed to remain so.

You appear not to care about the "guaranteed to remain so" part. That's fine. But understand that many among us find closing the source of code that was freely distributed to be rather unfriendly... and we're using copyright law as a tool to help guarantee that the code remains free. This guarantee helps encourage more people to create and to release (because many people would not release their code if they knew that others would commercialize/extend it without giving back). That is, copyright law is achieving, in this case, its stated goal: to encourage the production and dissemination of content.

That, in my mind, is the brilliance of the GPL: it co-opts copyright law, uses it in an unconventional way, and thereby achieves the fundamental purpose of copyright law: to give an incentive for creation and free distribution of creative works.

Re:

[Speare]

This is exactly my point: I don't release things under GPL because I don't believe in the GPL ideals (to fight people who want to use a published method alongside an unpublished method). I do release things to BSD-like or public domain as I see fit. The incentive to creation is either financial or feel-good. I don't get any feel-good by fighting.

Re:

[Kjella]

Two words: Dual license.

By signing away the copyright, you've signed away the ability to relicense your code. In short, many are of the opinion that if you'd like to contribute your changes back under the GPL that's fine. If you want to close source and make money off our code, mine and yours, then I want money off my part too. To put it in real world terms. If you asked me for help moving a piece of furniture I'd certainly do so. If I learned you were hired and paid to move said furniture, I'd want to get

Re:

[quanticle]

I have a hard time with the concept of creating something, keeping a copyright in force, and then signing the copyright away for no benefit to myself.

The entire point of the GPL is that you use the terms of your copyright to ensure that all the users of your software have the same rights to it that you do. You (the creator) have the right to use, and the right to modify. With the GPL your users have the same rights. The GPL goes farther than that, though. It also says that neither you nor none of you

Re:

[spiritraveller]

The FSF will only work to enforce the GPL if the GPL code in question is signed over to the FSF. While I can understand that legal logic, I have a hard time with the concept of creating something, keeping a copyright in force, and then signing the copyright away for no benefit to myself. The only benefit would be that the FSF would then fight when someone uses it in an "unauthorized" manner.

So hire your own lawyer and keep that gigantic statutory damages award for yourself. Of course, there is a risk that

Re:

[DragonWriter]

If I'm not going to hold my own copyright, why not just specifically disavow copyright and let it enrich everybody via the public domain?

Works for SQLite.

This is the root of my problem with GNU in general: why show everybody how you achieved and developed a certain technological capability, without letting people actually use that method?

The GPL (conceptually); lets people use the software freely, but requires that they "pay" you if the change and distribute the software. Now, they don't pay in money, they

Re:

[dcollins]

Free as in speech, not free as in ice cream.

Re:

[dvice_null]

> If you only want certain people to be able to use that method, then only show those certain people how it's done.

Replace the "source code" with words like "music" or "movie" or "book" and your sentences make a lot more sense. Books are available on the library, so certainly I have the right to copy a book and then sell it with profit, right? If I didn't have this right, the book wouldn't be public. Right?

Windows devs don't know much about GPL

[Shados]

I used to work for a very large (not software) company (somewhere in fortune 20) that was using GPL stuff left and right without complying to the terms and redistributing.

I personaly don't care much for the GPL, but I do care for complying with licenses and copyright, so I mentionned it to them. Their answer was "GPwhat? No, its free code people give away on the net!". My reply was a long explaination of the difference between "free to do whatever" and the GPL, and even repeating several time, I'd literaly get the same answer: "But...its free! What conditions could there be?".

Eventually I got through by explaining to a project manager, who essentially said that the day someone asks for the source, we'll give it, and that will be that. I still don't think they realised what it meant considering the amount of trade secrets that were in the code, but...

Here's how to deal with it:

[Qbertino]

1.) Contribute something critical to one of the projects.
2.) Add a GPL violations fee notice for commercial exploitation of GPL violation for code you commited. Something like half a million dollars or something.
3.) Wait till they update their product with your code.
4.) Sue them into next wednesday.
5.) Profit.

If you get a lawyer with some advice to join you before you rev up your code contributions you could easyly prep a lawsuit that kills of the entire company and leaves you both with a nice mound of cash

Rentacoder & others

[drspliff]

I've noticed that on a lot of the rentacoder style sites where people are asking for clones of this or that or just a general program (e.g. I want a DVD writing application), in order for developers to remain profitable they cannot write everything from scratch - like Nero and others have have done (just an example).

On a few occasions when I used to freelance, I've warned people that in order to deliver something on time they'd need to buy-in external components, and to deliver something on budget they'd need to use existing GPL/LGPL or BSD licensed components along with some suggestions and a full rundown of the licensing requirements.

In response to atleast one of these I was just told to strip the copyright from a GPL component and hide it in the application.

The problem isn't really in the violations themselfs, but in the commercial commodity software ecosystem (mostly Windows) where people build up software portfolios as fast as possible for the lowest cost just to try and get market share (and profit). In this desparate effort to get products to market most are just a re-branded combination of existing software, which usually end up violating source code licenses.

Basically when consumers start caring about ethical software the industry will start changing. Until then we still have a problem :)

Re:

[PitaBred]

In response to atleast one of these I was just told to strip the copyright from a GPL component and hide it in the application.

I hope you told them to go fuck themselves with a metal rasp?

Who owns the shares ?

[Alain Williams]

1. Really make sure that you are right, ie something much better than "this has the same name as a GPL bit of code"
2. Write to the company - write to the Managing Director or CEO
3. If they do nothing, write and tell them what you will do next
4. Write to their auditors and the stock exchange were they are listed; point out that there is a big risk that their flagship product may need to be pulled because of copyright infringement. Say that you have told the company and that they are hiding this important informatio

patent and GPL?

[pruss]

I wonder if they have the proper mpeg-2 visual patent licenses for mpeg2enc. They may be caught in a bind. If they obtain the patent licenses for mpeg2 encoding, then they may be violating the GPL since they are not allowing their users to pass the patent licenses on (they can't allow that, as the mpeg2 encoding license won't allow them to allow them that). And if they don't obtain the patent licenses, they're likely to get sued. Since I suspect they're more likely to get sued by someone with money for good lawyers for patent violation than for GPL violation, they may be making a shrewd--though immoral and illegal--decision to pay for the patent licenses but to violate the GPL.

Or they're just careless.

Addressing a few comments...

[Scott_F]

Just to address a few comments so far:

- Selling GPL and LGPL software is fine ("nominal fee" clause). The issue is that some of the packages that they are using are GPL'd and the company is LINKING against them. When you link to a GPL package when compiling your software, even if it is a DLL (same address space, symbols resolved in memory), the work becomes one as a whole and the whole package must be GPL. If the package is not GPL'd, it is a violation, even if you provide a license file (which they don't). When you link to a LGPL package, you do NOT need to LGPL your software BUT you need to provide a copy of the LGPL, a way for them to download the source to the LGPL package, and the object files used to link the software as a whole (this last one is heavily overlooked).

- It doesn't matter how popular a software package is. They are still violating the terms of the GPL and LGPL at $60 per sale. "But the code is free!" ... no. Someone else wrote it and copyrighted it. If you want to sell software, you had better properly license or write everything yourself or you're cheating people out of their time.

- I did not contact the company because I am not a copyright holder in any of the packages whose licenses are being ignored. I contacted all of the projects to let them know of the violations. I have also contacted the FSF for ANOTHER software package (Wondershare DVD Slideshow Builder) who is using vcdimager in addition to most of the above named packages (ffmpeg, dvdauthor, mplex, spumux, mencoder). There are still a few others who I've found just in this category of software who are using GPL/LGPL software.

- The spirit of the GPL isn't just to let code proliferate (not that I am a spokesman for the GPL.. I don't know how it wants to be remembered... :-P). It is to let code freely proliferate (free as in speech, not beer). Any time a copyright issue comes up, it will always be a legal one because that is the nature of the beast. Copyrights exist due to laws. You can also argue that the company is bottling up the spirit of the GPL and selling it. (OK, that last one was rediculous).

This company and a couple others I'd seen make no mention of the GPL, LGPL, or any other licensing terms and provide no means to download the source code for the LGPL packages.

The reason this came up is because almost every package I installed seemed to contain these exact packages. The companies are profiting from GPL / LGPL software without respecting the licenses.

-Scott

I've been curious

[jessecurry]

I've often been curious about how copyright would really work in regards to the GPL if the source code is sent to a country where copyright laws don't apply, or where anyone with a right to use something could relicense it.
Once the source code gets to this country "John" says, this source code is now licensed to "Mike in the US".
Now "John" e-mails the source code(under a new license) back to "Mike"
Is there still a problem if "Mike" decides to make a derivative work closed source?

Simple solution

[Guspaz]

There is a simple solution. Say you take a GPL'd MP3 encoding library. You compile it as a DLL.

You then release a frontend for the library, a program that uses the library for the compression.

The GPL says that your frontend need NOT be GPL'd so long as you distribute them separately. So if, on your webpage, you have a link to the EXE ("Download program here") and the library ("Download required files here"), you ONLY need to provide GPL'd source for the library.

The GPL only requires you to GPL your own code when you distribute your code with GPL'd code as a "whole", and it specifically mentions the separation bit.

Re:

[Mark J Tilford]

According to http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/featu res.html [rasterbar.com] , libtorrent is BSDL.

libtorrent is BSD licensed

[Inf0phreak]

libtorrent uses the BSD license. It says so right on their page: http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/featu res.html#license [rasterbar.com]

Re:

[zeridon]

my fault, acknoledged

Re:

[Curien]

It's not their fault you can't tell the difference between the words "on" and "in".

Re:

[Random BedHead Ed]

Hey, I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this but the title actually says "on" Windows, rather than "in" it. Just in case no one else replies to tell you. :)

Re:

[ericrost]

''The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda'', U.S. President George W Bush told reporters Thursday, is ''because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda''.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0619-04.ht m [commondreams.org]

"THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy t

Re:

[phoenixwade]

Nice try at trying to accuse MS of violating the GPL while being able to come back later and say you didn't actually accuse them of it.
This is about applications that happen to run on Windows that may be violating the GPL.

Nice try about.... oh, yeah, what the other 50 people dumped ON the moron Windows Fanboi..... Though he obviously knows what IN means, 'cause he has a bug in his ass.

Re:

[Shados]

hehehe, I think you hit a nerve :) Though I feel bad for people who are legit all the way that end in those situations, you're right that its pretty ironic how many will scream fool if THEIR stuff is used without permission, and the curse them out loud while going back to their pirated games and softwares.

Actually, it was

[Moraelin]

For years the big trend was to "steal" Microsoft software... was your copy of Windows 98 legit?

Actually, it was. And so was my copy of NT 4.0. (I must be the only dolt who bought NT for a gaming computer at home, but there you go.) So is my XP on my current gaming machine, and the Windows 2000 the other computer dual boots to. (Well, it used to be my gaming machine back then. How fast they go obsolete...)

Linux? Well, any download is legit there, but I like to buy boxed versions anyway. I'm writing this on a

Re:

[McNihil]

Yeah agree these posters seem to be like a beowulf cluster to me. Ow my karma... my karma is hurting... ow ow ow.

Re:

[hanshotfirst]

I, for one, welcome our anonymous over-reacting cliche-enriching overlords!

Re:welcome!

[Maximum Prophet]

Is it a new rule on /. that EVERY article has to include a comment featuring the tired, stale "overlords" joke?

Yes. What slashdot should do is have a link to the auto-joke creation page, where it takes the subject and automatically creates the Overlord, Beowolf, and in Soviet Russia jokes. Once those are taken care of by an AI, people won't feel the need to repeat them.

I for one welcome our Auto-Joke Creation Overlords, but imagine a Beowolf cluster of them. In Soviet Russia, the auto-joke creates you!!!

Re:

[udippel]

But, does it run on Linux ?

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Isn't the point of open source to be able to use it?

A major purpose of the GPL is to serve as a lever to get other people to provide their own work under similar terms.

Other OSS licenses may have very different purposes.

Re:

[DragonWriter]

So GPL critics are right, and it is a viral license that should be avoided by commercial software interests?

Not really. While lots of Free Software zealots see the GPL as a way to "stick it to the man", from a commercial point of view the more GPL software is in the marketplace, the bigger the commercial advantage to whoever has the most well-established support organization. If the best "starting points" to build new applications from are available under the GPL, so that it is much more costly to build sof

Re:

[byolinux]

Selling Free Software [gnu.org] is just fine.

Re:

[Dr_Barnowl]

He doesn't say that. Selling binaries compiled from GPL code is fine - but you must distribute the license with the binaries, and provide the user the means to obtain that code.

If you changed the code to create a derivative work, you must provide your changes. LGPL is a little easier about this - if you merely link LGPL libraries, this is not classed as a derivative work.

Work that links GPL libraries counts though. And wrapping entire GPL executables in Windows DLLs? The only thing you've changed is the int

Re:What's the issue here?

[tinkerghost]

Are you seriously saying that if I bundle mkfsiso with my app and shell out to call it, I have to release my source code too?

No, we are saying that you have to include a copy of the GPL & an address/url where they can get the source of mkfsiso. Your code is your code, but msfsiso isn't yours so you have to follow the rules it's authors established on how it can be used.

Now assuming that the violation is only with the lack of a copy of the GPL & the URL, it's a 2 minute fix to add those to the liscense.txt file that nobody reads for the next run of CDs. I don't think that anyone would argue that that type of fix is an excessive request by the copyright holders in exchange for the volumes of work put into creating mkfsiso.

This reminds me of the big argument the founder of Slackware got into, when he announced he was going to sell distributions. Yes, sell! Oh my god, the horrors of actually charging for somehthing!

Funny doesn't seem like that at all to me. Charge for the work he put into building the distro vs require that he follow the licenses on the works he included in the distro. Two very distinct issues at hand. Seeing as I am almost certain I have seen that software & I believe it comes with a copyright notice on it declairing copyright belongs to the company selling it, I do feel this is a touch different than selling a distro with notices that the copyright belongs to the individual owners.

Re:People getting all fired up about GPL violation

[SiChemist]

I'm posting from a machine running a downloaded copy of Linux. Shhh, don't tell anyone!

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Shuntros]

Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but Apache isn't GPL.

The freedoms and restrictions of the GPL are simple in principle, perhaps you're just not good at understanding what you can and cannot do. If you write a product which heavily levers other peoples' GPL code, chances are you're obliged to disclose your own code. Don't like that? Fine, then write yours all from scratch and we'll talk again in 10 years time.

In the meantime, get your facts straight and stop talking from your rectal dump-trumpet.

Re:

[Mattintosh]

Not if the GPL software is all in DLL's.

DLL's are dynamically linked libraries. All windows libraries are DLL's. Static libraries get rolled into the EXE file. Thus there's no viral-GPL bullshit on Windows unless the developer is stupid enough to just copy/paste GPL'ed code into their app and compile it in directly.

The best you can ask for in this case is the source to the DLL's. These probably had to undergo some modifications to be DLL's, since most GPL'ed-library developers know that you shouldn't make i

GPL plug-ins

[tepples]

Not if the GPL software is all in DLL's.

Using a DLL with an app may constitute combining two programs into one work, in which case an app that imports from a DLL also imports obligations under copyleft. Whether or not a judge would apply copyleft depends on the facts, including whether the DLL is an integral part of the application's functionality (which implies combination) or is a replaceable plug-in (implies aggregation), and whether the interface between the app and the library resembles shared memory (combination) or streams (aggregation). See "Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?" in the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].

Re:Are you sure these are violations? YES!

[scharkalvin]

Even if you distribute binaries in their pristine forms you STILL need to make the source code available, and (probably) include the license agreement with the code. Also (IANAL) I thought that under the GPL any code that was linked in with GPL'ed code also had to be GPL'ed. DLL's would qualify (unless the code was LGPL). Also if the DLL's were created by linking GPL'ed code with other code, then the resulting DLL
's are GPL'ed and the source of the added code MUST be made available. (Where is RMS on thi