Slashdot Mirror
MPlayer Alleges KISS Technology Violating GPL
bfree writes "Not for the first time, the people at MPlayer think they have found their code being distributed binary only, this time in at least one of KISS Techologies products. In their traditional quiet style the full story is now the first piece of news on their homepage including string comparisons between the player ROM and MPlayer. The 'evidence' presented relates to subtitle identification, where the KISS ROM includes the same list, in order, of subtitle formats as MPlayer (including their own format mpsub) and MPlayer's patterns for each of the formats are also there identically."
If anyone is wondering where the link with the actual accusation is, it is on the main page of Mplayer's website.
well it appears on their website that they offer the source for download here
90% of my stuff wouldn't even work right if I couldn't update the firmware, and there are a number of people that patch ROMs to extend hardware capabilities unofficially. Maybe the companies will get around it by encrypting their updates, but that doesn't sound like a win for anybody else.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Mplayer is one of those apps I just can't live without on my machine. It handles just about anything and everything that I've thrown at it. I use it as my default mp3/movie player. And Quicktime movies are not a problem for Linux anymore.
/home/sgant/music/playlist -shuffle" and I've got hours and hours of back to back music. When I want something a little more structured, I have different playlists.
I quickly made a list of all of my 10+ gigs of mp3/m4a files just using find and grep...touched it up a bit in vim and then use "aterm -e mplayer -playlist
Yeah, I probably could do this with xmms...but why?
Give Mplayer it's due. It's a fine piece of software and they deserve all the recognition they get.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Well, if they stole MPlayer's code, they get Ogg support without having to be cool and open-minded. :)
Jason.
try looking here.
Sometime in the near future, the GPL is going to be tested in court. This is a Good Thing, though, because I'm not sure that the Open Source movement can continue its momentum without an absolute guarantee by the courts that the work of developers will not be open to being "stolen" by proprietary software companies.
However, there is the possibility that the GPL is struck down as being untenable. In that case, one of two outcomes exists:
1. All formerly GPL software reverts to merely being copyrighted by the author, who can then do what he wants (close the source, BSD style license, etc.).
2. All formerly GPL software is considered public domain. There is a massive "land grab" as companies snap up the sources out there for use in their closed proprietary products.
IANAL. I want to make that clear. I do believe that the GPL is valid, legal, and will stand up in court. I just hope the court system agrees with me.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
Their fax number is busy... Either they took the ringer off, or other people have the same idea.
Bowie J. Poag
unauthorised distribution maybe, hacked no.
.wma), real (.rm, .ra) and an apple (if they played hardball with sorensen) for quicktime around just to see the videos that are released on the net today ? i dont care about some eulas i havent read if i can watch these on a system that doesnt connect to the net everytime i play a video.
ffmpeg is the replacement for all divx codecs based on the hacked microsoft dlls so thats fine.
and on the distribution bit, did it ever occur to you that you would have to keep a windows box for windows media (.avi,
From Mplayers homepage: Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted.
ok the issue is about code that reads subtitles. other comments here already pointed out that (at least some of the) source is available at the KISS website
besides possible GPL violation what i find disturbing is that apparently no credit was given to the mplayer developers.
one of the main motivations of working on something for free is being appreciated and acknowledged for the work you do. kill the motivation, and you kill the incentive to release for free. it's a gift, right?
Yes there is
theefer
i dont care about some eulas
then why should Mplayer expect anyone else to ?
they are distributing other peoples work for free illegally and then complain when someone else does the same ? haha gimme a break,
iam sure quite a few companies would like to address their copyright concerns to the Mplayer team
Um. Not to be difficult or anything, but the last bit of the news article states...
Every single one of their patterns match ours! This is not coincidence. This is stealing GPL code into a proprietary product! Kiss Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide), so this news entry is posted.
Sure looks like they asked for the source to me.
-- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
I don't suppose... could Keyser Soze be one of the MPlayer developers?
In accordance with the GPL, the source for KISS DP-508 is available upon
request, for a nominal fee to cover media and shipping costs.*
.
.
.
* = The source code will be provided to you as a series of large, neon-lit
marquee letters shipped individually in wooden packing crates. Currently,
the world's supply of neon gas limits our ability to ship large quantities
of source code. The current expected wait time is 32 years, plus or minus
6 months, depending upon the condition of labor relations in countries with
substantial noble gas exports.
For more information, please inject crystal meth directly into your eyeballs,
and light yourself on fire while listening to the following song:
http://www.ibiblio.org/propaganda/pogo/easteregg.
Thats the version of the GPL I prefer, personally.
Bowie J. Poag
Are you smoking crack? Personal use? They're using (maybe) MPlayer's source SO THAT THIER PRODUCT WILL SELL. That's not personal use. That's comercial use.
And not costing MPlayer a penny? No. But you can't copy the source or binaries unless you accept the GPL which says you have to release your modified code. Frankly, if the Mplayer team found strings in there then they didn't do much modifying of the code, eh? So they can just put mplayer.tar.bz2 on their website and everyone will be happy.
I think you know that though. Your post read like you were trying to be `funny' by comparing/parodying slashdotter's views on compying mp3s. Frankly, that IS fair use because 1) there's no license and 2) they're raping you by charging too much money. Mplayer costs exactly $0.00 to use in your product. See the difference?
My other car is first.
...going to get away with this.
There is no way the KISS Army can withstand the awesome onslaught of the GNU Hurd! RSS will lead the charge against the interlopers, with the battle cry "They're properly called GNU/Linux Systems!" ringing over the Plains...
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
> I own one of their players (The DP-450). I love it, simply love it.
I had the same player, and returned it. Hate to spoil, but
- it mutes the audio on AVIs with WMA audio encoding (DIVX AUDIO)
- it freezes on most SVCD discs I tried, usually after fast-forwarding
- it freezes on some older DIVX AVIs, usually within the first 20 seconds
- it turns into a slideshow on DIVX3 with lots of stuff moving, like eg in
Matrix when the world turns into green hex numbers, or explosions with
particles flying around
- it doesn't play MP3 discs headless (to replace CD player in stereo)
Other than that, it's a great product. I'd love to check their products again in a year or so.
Start reading here
groklawThe Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
How long until someones acknowledgement is denied and work is stolen by a large company who can hide behind the DMCA? An Open Source project could be "appropriated" by Sony or Microsoft who then releases it as their own project. If the source is unavailable, could you determine the origin deffinatively without reverse engineering?
Could this be true, or am I missinterrupting the DMCA (shudder, I hate that thing)?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
How, exactly?
Really, I'm being serious.
Again, I ask, with all honesty, just how do products like these benefit the OS community; because frankly the way I see it, what's happening here is nothing more than greedy sons-of-bitches who are exploiting the hard works of others.
So, not only they don't comply, they don't even kiss ass. Pretty damning if you ask me!
If nobody ever gets in any trouble for using GPL code in a closed project, then isn't it reasonable to assume that it'll happen more often?
And who is supposed to hire the lawyers on behalf of a free project? And don't tell me FSF will just handle everybody's legal troubles pro-bono...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
It's a copyright violation.
The GPL is not a contract you agree to before using or obtaining source... it is a license that permits you to do things other than those allowed by copryight law alone.
If they are using MPlayer's code without license, that's copyright violation, and all that entails.
They can either come to an agreement with the copyright holders, or cite the GPL as their permission, if they had followed it.
The FSF tends to stick with GNU projects. They insist that all GNU developers give them a form assigning the FSF their copyrights - so that they have strong standing in a court. One potential argument a GPL-violator could bring up against most other projects would be to argue to the judge that the plaintiff can't prove that all the copyright holders agree with the suit. Then again, all the copyright holders did release their code under the GPL, so the court might nix that argument. The FSF prefers not to risk it, however.
If the FSF gets one or two cases with significant penalties, companies will fall in line. If a company knowning violates the GPL and sells a billion dollars worth a product they could face huge penalties - the loss of several billion dollars isn't worth saving a few million in development costs by ripping off the code...
Before someone says that they're just a small band of impoverished but brave open source developers who can't afford to pay lawyers....well, tough.
Actually, then they are still likely to be represented by the FSF, or FSFE in this case, probably.
I don't understand why they say it's a GPL Violation. The source is offered as a download on the kiss website.s
http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=hot_news&v=user
The GPL states that you only have to provide the sources along with the distibution. The distibution is in this case embedded in their player, so the only thing they would have to answer to is a demand from a verified owner of the player.
If you ask me the evidence is a bit thin. They are offering a full rom update (btw what os is it?) and all they find on them is a couple of strings in a binary? You'd expect the whole player to be in there, not just some subtitle stuff.
Oh well, their server recieves a slashdotting and their pr-person(subhuman) gets scalded. Then they release the code and all will be good again...
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Yes, in 2002 MySQL AB sued Nusphere for statically linking to GPL code without including source. The judge didn't rule on the merit of those claims however, so it wasn't a very good test for the GPL. The judge just told Nusphere to stop using the MySQL name with their product.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You're joking right? "Oh dear god they are doing some thing we don't like; SUE THEM!!!" /me Hits speed dial to lawyers
There is no need at all to sue KiSS, all they need to do is send a nice letter to them asking politely if they will comply with the GPL and if applicable give MPlayer some credit. (Though they aren't bound by anything to give open credit, only the basics.)
If that fails you take it to the next step and the step after that and at some point they will comply as one of the last steps you get too will be courts.
There is no need to jump to possibly expensive court cases for no reason at all.
I ate your fish.
Just curious about this, but has anybody ever been sued for a GPL violation?
AFAIK, it's never gone to court.
If nobody ever gets in any trouble for using GPL code in a closed project, then isn't it reasonable to assume that it'll happen more often?
I'd have to assume it'd be a gamble for both sides... would you really want to be the first company to test out the GPL? And even if you won, is that really the kind of PR you want?
And who is supposed to hire the lawyers on behalf of a free project? And don't tell me FSF will just handle everybody's legal troubles pro-bono...
I believe they will, if you sign over the copyright:
"...only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same."
And failing that, don't forget that a lot of companies have significant interest in GPL'd software (think IBM, Novell, etc). If the GPL really ever came into question, I imagine you'd see more than a few significant financial contributions from third parties.
Thats not the way to do it. The KISS folks have been one of the people who seem to have got the Linux DVD player thing right with regard to the source modules. Secondly the mplayer people need to find out who that code came from - the kiss player if I remember rightly is based on a kit from Sigma designs.
.. ranting and raving isn't how you solve problems because you make it hard for an accidental offender to correct a problem without losing face, which sometimes means they'll try and tough it out rather than sort it out.
So firstly its quite possibly not their fault
Secondly its quite possible they are all still on their christmas holiday
Someone at mplayer might want to look at the other sigma based players firmware files.
And finally
There are lots of GPL infringements that get sorted out politely. Mostly involving large companies who regardless of what people like Microsoft may claim about Open v Closed most definitely DO NOT do any checking on what their contractors shipped them. They get sorted because the company can add a footnote to the manuals or put the tar source files up on the support page without embarrasment.
"Gene Simmons unavailable for comment."
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Sounds like they need to upgrade to the latest version of mplayer!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So, you are saying we should tolerate GPL copyright violations so that you can get updates to your ROMs from sleazy companies? I don't think so. As long as software copyrights are the law of the land, GNU has the same rights to enforce them as everybody else.
If KISS doesn't want to deal with the GPL, they can always license Windows XP/Embedded for their players and you can pay for it. And you can bet that Microsoft will enforce their licenses.
RMS is a smart guy, if he had wanted to enforce the "spirit of the GPL" (whatever that is) he would have made compliance specific in the GPL. To expect more than what is written in the GPL is only setting yourself up for constant disappointment.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The DMCA prohibits reverse engineering for the purpose of circumventing copy protection devices. Analyzing binaries for detecting copyright infringement is not something prohibited by the DMCA.
It's the mplayer developers' choice whether they want to enforce their license against KISS. If they don't, after a while they may not be able to.
But their actions have no bearing on whether you or I can legally enforce the GPL against software we have created and released under the GPL. The GPL is just contractual language. Just because you may fail to enforce your contracts doesn't affect my ability to enforce my contracts even if the contracts we use use the same language.
If your line of reasoning applied, most of the real estate contracts people use (which are mostly standardized) would be unenforceable because many people fail to enforce their contractual rights under them.
they're still in the same position to sell that same hardware (and perhaps services) regarless of whether some other organization is violating a GPL stipulation
If the GPL is questioned in a serious lawsuit, it'll be more than just "some other organization violating the GPL". You'd essentially be proving (or disproving) the legal validity of the GPL.
I suppose it depends on what happens to previously-GPL'd code if the GPL is ruled unenforceable. I really know nothing about it, but I've heard speculation that all GPL'd code could revert back to being "just plain copyrighted" by the author if the GPL was stricken down. I understand that to mean that unless the author chose to re-release it under a different, valid, free license, you'd have no legal right to continue using it at all.
Their interest in GPL is limited to the extent that it can help them sell hardware
IBM was just an example, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to sell hardware if you're not legally entitled to use the code.
Guess what. Not being a asshole get's you farther in life.
email-ing them politely and other actions that don't cost money are your first step. I have solved amny GPL violations of my code with a simple email and a request that they fix the oversight on someone's part. Being nice get's you farther. throwing money at a lawyer to piss someone off only get's you hated.
I suggest you read 'how to make friends and influence people", it sounds like you need some help with negotiation skills.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
don't Mplayer distribute hacked unauthorised divX,mpg4 and quicktime and realaudio .dlls for win32 ?
No, they don't. You're probably thinking of the Penguin Liberation Front codec pack, which is not part of mplayer itself.
You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support. This support comes from GPL'd source code, not from hacked binaries.
The GPL is a LICENSE not a contract.
Statutory damages can be tremendous, I believe $150,000 per violation if wilful.
The other penalty is that KISS will have to stop distribution altogether if they lose in court. That basically puts them out of business.
GPL protection has nothing to do with using or modifying, only with distribution.
You barely have anything right. You need to read more groklaw.
Infuriate left and right
Wow, these devices are realy cool. Before someone shouts rape, just look on their website:
;-).
http://www.kiss-technology.com/?p=gnu&v=users
It states that they use gpl'd software, nice
This also includes a link to de full source code.
About MPlayer, their player rocks. This is just good advertisement for them, nothing more.
Keep it cool homys
Not entirely true. Read the GPL FAQ:
Q. I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order?
A. You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.
If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.
Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.
So as long as no one requests a physical copy of the source, you're right, sticking it on your site for them is good enough. The 24MB source zip file would be a little tough on dialup users, so there could be a case where they're required to provide the source on CD or whatever.
In any event, I just downloaded said file and here's what it contains (edited for lameness):
Archive: GPL.zip
Length Name
751701 busybox.tar.gz
24236327 uClinux-2.4.17.tar.gz
24988028 2 files
So unless they're offering the mplayer source separately, they're probably in violation of the GPL anyway.
Kiss are using a lot of sigma stuff in their products. Not sure if they are in this case but maybe it is Sigma who did yet another cut n paste?
This isn't about whether or not the MPlayer guys are socially adept, it's about whether or not KiSS Tech is violating their license.
Even assholes have rights, no matter how much other assholes might dislike them.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Is that it only takes one lazy programmer for their to be a GPL violation. I don't see this is being some high-up manager instructing their programmers to use mplayer to save time, I see this as someone realising they needed subtitles code and mplayer had it already, so they did a quick cut&paste.
Maybe but it is distributed on and by the mplayer site, just click on "downloads".
You can compile mplayer entirely from source with DivX, mpeg4 and Quicktime support.
Yes. But they still distribute those binary codecs in clear violation of the law.
This shows that MPlayer is of a quality worth stealing. Way to go!
The FSF opposes on principle most licensing schemes other than the GPL (and legally equivalent variations). They don't wan't dual-licensed products (a la MySQL), etc. You are correct that as a result many developers don't like working on GNU projects. But quite a few do - the FSF is largely about a revolution in how software is licensed in general. In the FSF's vision of the world, there is no such thing as closed-source software. The way they propose to create this new world is by making GPL-based software which is better than anything offered in closed-source.
The FSF is definitely about activism. Not all programmers are activists, but the FSF believes that the GPL gives them an edge that no proprietary development firm can beat - the fact that even if only a minority of GPL software users give back, they still receive more than proprietary vendors do from their community.
I'm not bashing those who disagree with the FSF - as I said the FSF is definitely an activist group. But they obviously have been successful despite their requirements regarding copyright assignment. GCC is probably the most widely used compiler there is...
Because MPlayer never pretends to have written the source for all the dll's they're including. Everyone using them knows where they're from.
KISS, on the other hand, is allegedly using MPlayer source without releasing the sources to their modifications, and in essence are claiming the software as their own. This is a violation of the license MPlayer is released under.
This is quite different from repackaging and redistributing files that were freely available on the net.
Who's law?
Check where they operate, it might not be your country!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
besides possible GPL violation what i find disturbing is that apparently no credit was given to the mplayer developers. one of the main motivations of working on something for free is being appreciated and acknowledged for the work you do.
How odd to read someone writing negatively about violation of the GPL when the one thing that the FSF said made the original BSD license non-free was the advertising clause! If you want credit that badly, use a license that insists upon it. The GPL doesn't ask for it, and asks for a lot of other stuff, so it apparently doesn't matter to folks who release their code under the GPL.
No, you could not as easily argue that. If it can be interpreted as having miniscule financial value, how do you explain the number of companies who are using it to make, you know, money?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
then why should Mplayer expect anyone else to ?
Because for the ten billionth time, the GPL is not an EULA.
You're right though, it's quite funny to see the MPlayer guys complain about unauthorised distribution of their property when they've done it themselves with others' property.
Actually, the award is not necessarily based on the copyright holder's actual damages. According to 17 USC 504 (a), "an infringer of copyright is liable for either... the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c)." The emphasis on the additional profits language is mine, but it's important: the copyright holder is entitled to any additional profits the infringer made through use of the infringing material.
Even in cases where it's difficult to prove damages or additional profits from the infringing material, the copyright holder is entitled to statutory damages. See 17 USC 504 (c). That's $30,000 for infringement in general, and $150,000 if it's willful infringement. An infringer who uses language like "KISS off" or an infringer finding themselves back in court for doing it again will probably be facing the $150,000 number. Paying the judgement does not entitle you to future use of the copyrighted work.
Violating the GPL can cause 'real' monetary damages.
Please get the concept that 'free' software can cost money!
Just because English is a piss poor language does not mean reality has to accommodate it.
How can an author lose mone by some company violating the GPL? Easy. If the company wanted to keep their modifications to my code proprietary, they would have to contact me for a licence other than the GPL, which I would have gladly given them; in return for some $$$.
Get it now?
This is why a lawsuit can show real damages. Based on the companies revenues and typical licence fees.
P.s.: Most other languages seem to have different words for free/freedom and free/beer. Only native English speakers seem to be hung up on this.
just like good science, most accomplishments are built on the works of others, and when your piece of the puzzle comes to fruition, you credit the others upon which your work depends.
....then your comparison would be correct.
mplayer makes no pretense to have created divx, xvid, mpeg, the dlls from microsoft etc etc etc.
those that have the rights to those protocols that are being called by mplayer, are free to enforce whatever rights they think they have.
the line in mplayer is clearly visible. the mplayer engine that mplayer developers wrote, and codecs that are called.
but you are saying that it's ok for others to blur that line, and just claim GPL code as their own.
If mplayer had packaged microsoft's, real's, apple's codecs AND CLAIMED "we are responsible for the creation of ALL THESE WONDEROUS THINGS"
but don't let the facts stand in your way.
and when things get a little more complicated then tying a shoe, please continue to refrain from making distinctions.
your broad brush, black and white world probably has someone wishing evil upon you even as I type this...
Isn't RMS's stated goal to destroy copyright altogether? Logically, at that point anyone will be able to use or "steal" code in any way they want because there will be no way to enforce the author's wishes. Maybe KISS Technologies is just ahead of the game. ;)
(I'm half serious here; what is supposed to happen after copyright no longer exists?)
Lets see if we can resolve that address:
Hrrmmm...
Lets just check.
Magic internet faries, you've done it again.
Forgive my sarcasm, I've been battling AC's and its left me jaded and cynical.
No, he's actually correct. He's just been using mplayer longer than you.
Back in the early days of Mplayer the developers used some third party code that wasn't released under the GPL. As a result, they forbid people from distributing binaries of MPlayer, as they felt that this would violate the GPL. Eventually that code was replaced, and you can now get MPlayer binaries legally, but this wasn't always the case.
Not quite the same situation same situation as KISS, but worth noting none the less.
Sort of. I'll say "yes" but qualify. You can't sue somebody for violating the GPL. It's not a contract. It's a license. If they don't agree to the license then it has no legal weight.
The impressive part about the GPL is that if they don't agree to the GPL then copyright law springs into effect. Copyright law can kick them in the teeth a lot harder than the GPL ever could.
So you don't really sue for a GPL violation. You sue for copyright infringement. You offer the GPL as an escape mechanism. If the guilty party accepts the GPL then they avoid the lawsuit. If they don't accept the GPL then... well... simply put, they lose in court.
There have been several examples of companies being sued for copyright infringement of GPLed software. I think they've all ended in settlement so far. So effectively the courts have been used to enforce the GPL. A recent example was MySQL vs NuSphere as reported on Slashdot.
It uses patented technologies (which they certainly have not payed the royalties for). In Hungary, software patents are not (yet?) in existance, so it is legal to distribute from mplayerhq.hu. However, within the United States, the patents that apply to the program run afoul of the GPL (read the addition restrictions section of the GPL).
By distributing it from a country where it violates patents, they are violating the terms of the GPL.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
(This is a hair you are splitting.)
IANAL, but...
"Contract Law" is a bit like saying "Intellectual property". It isn't right. Contract law is really "tort" law, and a "tort" is a twisting (violation etc) of an agreement. The word "contract" is just a place-holder for the formula for an agreement, and it is broader than you might imagine.
A contract exists when (if I recall correctly) consideration (value) is exchanged under terms of agreement. In point of fact, there is legal precident for the idea of a "social contract". In other words, a contract is just an agreement of a certian complexity that meets certian requirements. All the penalties and violations happen in/as "tort" and that is a broad brush indeed.
In gerenral, if the author finds value in having his work used, and indeed worked on or modified and distributed, this argument becomes stronger. But... (always more buts... 8-)
-- Default terms were offered.
-- Acceptance of those terms is inferred by re-distribution. (this is as valid as a click-through in terms of being evidence of agreement.)
-- Value was exchanged more-or-less, though some of that value is a little esoteric.
-- The failure of KISS to fulfill their agreement is tort (kind of like not paying after you agreed to pay.)
IF you insist that you had no agreement *THEN* it is copyright issue.
The thing is, there is nothing to be had by persuing the tort, as the tort can be resolved by providing the source and licencing terms. The remedies under tort are huge if you *need* the product and you insist on your refusal to pony up the source. This is why the GPL violations are essentially resolved by production of the source, which is much easier than pulling the product etc. If the distributor fulfills the agreement and causes the tort to disapear, the issue is over.
GOD SAVE the company that insists the GPL is invalid, refuses to comply whit it, has not other agreement to use the material, and thereby gets things promoted into the copyright law.
So, in fact, the License Agreement is a contract. But just as a man with a legion standing behind him is stronger than a man standing alone; the license agreement (as a concept) has copyright law standing behind it. It creates a "deal with me or deal with my armies" kind of condrum that brings lawyers nicely to heel.
These bodies of law overlap a good bit, but here is the key thing: I have a copyright and I proffer terms for its use. There isn't a special body of law saying what those terms may be. There are no explicit "copyright assignment statutes". The fact that I cannot require you to do bizzare and incidental things comes from "contract law" and not copyright law. The word "agreement" is the great unifier here. Only certian kinds of agreements are enforcable. What those kinds are is covered in contract law. (and so on, forever, ahmen... 8-)
The GPL is a CONTRACT dealing with the assignments of copyright rights.
just as
The purchase agreement on a home is a CONTRACT dealing with the transfer of real property (rights) between parties.
just as
If I ignore my Microsoft EULA, particularly if I do something having nothing to do with "copying" such as actually securing my system against Microsoft's right to snoop on and upgrade my box (8-) or deleting all the microsoft logos and replacing them with pictures of blowfish, I am liable for things like lawyers fees but I am not automatically thrown to the $150,000 sharks.
If you violate the GPL, you tort a contract, if you abrogate that contract by any means so there is no governing agreement at all, THEN the copyright holder can hammer you for viloating his copyrights.
Remember, there is no magic to "signing something", a signature is *ONLY* evidence of agreement. For a contract to exist there needs *only* be an agreement by all parties that isn't otherwise illegal as an agreement per-se. (e.g. an contract to murder someone isn't legally
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press