Slashdot Mirror
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.
At least to my knowing this kind of violations is prety common. One simple example ... utorrent. At least i think it uses almost directly libtorrent (cannot guarantee on that).
On the other side i cannot offer any proof that can be considered serious on my thinking
In fire we trust http://www.getoto.net
When asked for comment, Richard Stallman stroked his beard lovingly and said, "Soon, my friends. Soon the world shall be ours."
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.
Did you try to contact the company? If not, that would be the first step.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Should be linking to http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 8/25/1648253 I guess.
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.
If it is GPL all the application should have same licence and be open source.
VirtualWorldsHub.com - News, forums, resources
I hate being a pessimist, but packaging OSS in binaries without mentioning it is probably being incredibly common.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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?
At a minimum, document everything and send a report to the GPL-violations homepage (in particular, refer to contact info). 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!
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 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
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.
[
I really don't care about things like that.
Oh, let it rest, fer chrissakes!!!
/. that EVERY article has to include a comment featuring the tired, stale "overlords" joke?
Is it a new rule on
If you can't be bothered to put a twist on it, or show even an ounce of creativity, then you are just aping other Slashdotters... you're like the annoying kid brother who keeps jumping up and down hoping to get noticed so he can "be part of the club." The answer is: NO. Go away.
It's not their fault you can't tell the difference between the words "on" and "in".
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
libtorrent uses the BSD license. It says so right on their page: http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/featu res.html#license
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Watch your mouth, Bill!
Nice try at trying to accuse MS of violating the GPL
Not his fault you didn't read the headline. It says "on Windows," not "in Windows."
There is a good chance that some of this software is written by a 13 year old in his moms basement, who has little understanding of the GPL for him is just seems like Free Software, and is probably confusing it with the BSD style license, if they indeed care. I would understand Screaming "YOU ARE BREAKING THE GPL!!" for larger packages where people are making a lot of money and/or the program widly distributed and used by a lot of people. But for silly application that are probably used by less then a thousand people in the world and if it is no longer supported next week no one would care then I wouldn't bother.
Am I am the only one who finds it funny for a group of people who Demmand to confront the Evils of DRM, Protect the rights of Pirates, Abolish the legal system for computers and let us just do our work freely, when peope violate a licence made by this group they basicly do the same as the evil companies do...
Create Software to find violators.
Want to send lawers to make the violators Pay (doesn't matter if is a 13 year old kid who writes software like kids use to have paper routes 30 years ago.)
Try to spread propraganda to make the overall comunity feel sorry for the poor GPL creaters whos work is violated and somehow hurts of the children (Wont someone please think of the children!!!)
Face it Open Source Closed Source kinda in the middle source.... It doesn't matter people are still jerks.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
> Nice try at trying to accuse MS of violating the GPL
The title says "on" Windows, not "in", which is clear enough. Learn your prepositions.
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)
It clearly says ON windows, not IN windows. The fact that you find that confusing leads me to think you are a moron.
Just think of it as piracy and accept it as the way it is. Scum will be scum; it knows to be nothing else. Besides, it's not like everyone isn't making it so easily. GPL may as well be stampled, "Steal Me".
Good point! The OSSers don't like it up 'em!
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. :)
Yes, my copy of Windows 98 is legitimate, I hold it in my hand this very moment, there's the CD key and all. And I'm not going to like anyone taking my GPL code (not much of it exists, but still...) and using it that way. With my full, legal and moral alike, rights to not like that. Then, again, who were you talking to? Your dear, invisible friend, or who? I hope he doesn't mind generalising him in a very rude and childish way...
I'm not sure if that was intended to be something funny - but it isn't anyway - or a flamebait - a quite lousy one, that is - but I'd have doubts about you signature...
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
First of all, separate out the LGPL software. It's perfectly OK to distribute these as a library. At most you have to give a written offer for source code, or include a text file with the license. Did you check their "About" dialog? The directory? Even if they're missing that, having the original author contact the company should get them to include this, as it's trivial for them. Just remember, ask for compliance, not money.
GPL'd software is more complicated. the license/offer for source code also applies, but on top of that you have to see if they are linking with the program. If they are calling an executable, they are probably OK. If it's statically linked, they have to GPL their code. If it's a dll it's a gray area. The FSF says their code is derivative, some people argue otherwise. Maybe the threat of a lawsuit would be enough to get them to open their sources but it's not as cut and dried.
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.
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...
I wonder how many of them are posting their comments from computers running illegal copies of Windows, copies which they themselves downloaded and installed?
Yeah agree these posters seem to be like a beowulf cluster to me. Ow my karma... my karma is hurting... ow ow ow.
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.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
to protect my freedom, I'm going to stick with proprietary software. The legal risks of being pursued by an angry, self-righteous group of nerds is just too great.
A few years ago I started exploring GPL software like apache, and it offers certain technical advantages.
However, in the recent climate, it is simply too dangerous in a legal sense to use or deploy any GPL. patents, signing keys, restrictions on what you can do with the software -- it's all a mess.
These are not benign hippie programmers -- they are a software house that uses the threat of litigation to compel the behavior of others. Watch out or end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit or injunction by the FSF or some kid trying to make a name for himself in GPL violation hunting circles.
So my advice is, keep your nose clean and avoid using anything connected to the GPL, especially if it's related to software development.
FSF will be the next SCO, just look at the legal arsenal they are assembling.
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
Keep a copy of all correspondence, better still post it on a web site with the companie's name plastered all over it (so that the search engines find it).
They sure don't sound like violations to me. Especially since they're "hidden in DLLs", it sounds a lot more like they're simply being used in their pristine forms. The GPL only requires that any modifications to the source be freely available under the same license as the original code. It says nothing about requiring you to convert to Free Software and attend church once a week.
I, for one, welcome our anonymous over-reacting cliche-enriching overlords!
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Read the first sentence of my post again. I know that they technically don't actually accuse MS of violating the GPL. However, the title is written in a way that would lead the casual reader to that conclusion anyway.
You seem to be the only one mislead and you're even too stupid to admit it.
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 SuSE 10.0 installation. (And anyone feeling like splitting hairs along the lines of "no, you're writing it in Mozilla" is cordially invited to go fuck themselves;) The bought DVD and manuals are over there. I still have a stack of previous versions of it too.
Why? Because I believe in paying for stuff I use and find some value in. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Even the issue of testing what works with what library version, and with which compiler options, is actually worth paying for, because my time is more valuable than that. Some people compile everything by hand, kudos to them, I don't.
Plus, hey, I've been raised to be the stereotypical D&D Lawful Good kinda guy. If I started pirating stuff, I might get my alignment adjusted by the GM
Now seriously, I don't know where everyone is getting their ideas that everyone is a pirate. Whether used pro-MS or anti-MS, the notion that everyone runs a pirated copy of Windows is just false. Even BSA's statistics for most of the western world don't put estimated piracy percentaces anywhere _near_ high enough for that to be the case.
And, hey, the BSA are the guys paid to cry wolf. Plus, you should look how those statistics are calculated. They don't actually measure a sample, they pull some numbers out of the ass as to how many copies should have been sold, and anything less is counted as piracy. If their numbers say every 1 computer sold should have 1 OS copy sold with it, then even if you only install an otherwise legit downloaded version of Gentoo or Ubuntu on it, you still count as a pirate because that's 1 less copy sold than their tables say. Plus other questionable assumptions. So their numbers are already inflated a lot as it is.
If even those don't say piracy is that high, you know, you can cut it out with repeating that falsehood already. If you're talking China or Russia, those pirate a lot, yes. (Partially, due to not being able to afford that stuff otherwise.) But in the western world it's just a bizarre axiom pulled out of the arse.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Isn't the point of open source to be able to use it? Most of the apps you list here are command line tools. The ones that aren't command line tools are licensed under the LGPL. 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?
I encourage you to go pester all these people using GPLed tools. Really, go for it. Prove the critics right, and that using GPL'ed software in your solutions is a legal nightmare.
Sheesh. 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!
So the Free-as-in-Speech crowd finally has a whipping boy, or many, if you RTFA, and whats happening? NOTHING. Why is that? Because the classic 'intellectual' response kicks in - hand-wringing, hints that the folks doing this are 'evil', that they have a License which prohibits this, etc. Will they go to court? No. Will they do anything? No.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
That's not good enough. I want a whole damn beowulf cluster of apologies for that one.
I'm posting from a machine running a downloaded copy of Linux. Shhh, don't tell anyone!
God is imaginary
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 their Linux firmware to hide the fact that it is indeed Linux. The devices used to even spell out the Linux banner at bootup time on the text consoles, and state it plainly in the management screens when you telnetted into them, and I saw this personally the last time I had my hands on a couple of these products. I tried to tell these people they are violating the GPL and asked them for the source code. They refused and claimed their lawyers told them Linux was the same as public domain and they could do whatever they pleased with it. This parent corporation is so freakin' huge that their legal staff is about as powerful as MS's or IBM's, or maybe even bigger. How would the FSF even begin to take on these guys?
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.
No *I* want 3) profit!
It isn't necessary to make the source accompany the binary, but it is absolutely required to make the GPL license accompany the binary.
To my understanding of the GPL, you can include the software in software you are selling, as long as if you make changes to the software, you give those changes back to the community. Not to disrespect the authors of the windows software, but if they are having to use the GPL software in their "for sale" software, do you really think that they are smart enough to make changes to the afore mentioned GPL software? Okay, there really was some disrespect meant, but really....
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
I for one welcome our new Anonymous Coward critiquing overlords. With your utmost esteem in the community may you continue to set the example we all may follow. I think there should be a new rule on slashdot where we all post as AC so that we may emulate your awesomeness.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
This is why I have problems with GPL, posting here hoping it will help propagate this kind of problem.
I faced this problem often with an ex-business partner (as IT consultant). He would develop modules, by quickly adapting libraries of GPL code, without even reading the license.
He would do this without telling anyone gaining 2 advantages: appear incredibly competent (fast developer of working code without bugs), and he could spend additional time doing something else at the clients office (still charging hours).
Of course when I would realize this (finding strange coding styles), we argued on legalities, the clients being sued and us paying at the end.
He did not care.
What I did not understand is that he was an incredible Linux advocate and one of the most Micro$oft hater I ever met, wanting all internal projects to be GPL'ed. I think his opinion was that all should be free for all to use as they pleased, and acted like it.
The key to making money is working with people and not against them. So, as the owner of the code, you have every right to relicense it. Call the company violating your license. Mention their non-compliance with your current license. Say that, should they not wish to comply with the current licensing, you would be willing to license it to them under a license they were more comfortable with, for say, a small sum. No, it's not like winning the legal lottery, the key is to rinse and repeat. But don't expect much in the way of repeats if you use GPL. The real key with making money is to provide support for it. When you make that license, be sure and mention that you are available to add custom code or assist with integrating with their product. Charge $1000 an hour as a consultant or specialist, whichever term you feel is more appropriate. Sleep on a bed stuffed with money and build more GPL code that attracts the attention of others.
Found the author of the quote used from http://members.ozemail.com.au/~danok/LegalQuotes.
''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''.
t m
0 030917-7.html
0 021007-8.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0619-04.h
"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 that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/2
"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/2
So, there are many many quotes insisting there was a link to Al-Qaeda. Which there wasn't. Thank you for playing, though.
My Babylon
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 this?)
Violations seem to be relatively common in the small specialist software market, where commercial software is expensive & does not have many customers. I'm a F/OSS zealot, but also a pragmatists & when a $100K - $3 million instrument in our lab needs a $1-50K proprietary software package to "make it go," we shut up & shell out the cash. Once the software comes, if it contains GPLed code, I do complain (and I doubt their other few customers would bother to check).
Most companies do appear to come into compliance--purchasing a commercial license to MySQL for your seat or replacing the library you've caught them using. But I feel like this is a cockroach infestation--did they purchase MySQL licenses for their other customers & will they continue to do so? Are there other GPLed libraries hidden in their code and/or do I have an inferior version of the software since it lacks the original (GPLed) library?
The "linking" violation really only applies if the resulting binary is statically linked and contains a copy of the GPL code inside itself. If it calls the code from a library or DLL, then it isn't infringing. However, you still must follow the GPL/LGPL terms to the letter on the libraries distributed with your product, provide a copy of the GPL/LGPL licenses for the components used and provide full source upon demand. There's no wiggle room on that one.
I can't believe no one let out the usual "you must be new here" yet...
I've been wondering about the default. How do you treat/include code that was published with no license at all.
For instance, Firefox plugins are often Javascript, and many are published with no license at all.
Do I have the right to publish alterations?
Another problem I've come up with is a little easier I guess, and that's source code that probably has a license, but it's a bit hard to decipher, being written in Japanese or some other language I don't read. I've noticed people including libraries that come from non-English speaking countries and considered it myself. Obviously the answer is to find or hire someone to read all of the documents, but that's not always easy.
In the gplv2
rule 1 states one must keep the licence intact.
Rule 2 asks for source.
So even if they provide source ( i bet they refer you to the download link of sourceforge.net) they still fail to obey the GPL because they DID NOT INCLUDE THE LICENSE.
You're making the wholly unreasonable assumption that those who use Free sofware are also those who pirate Microsoft's (and other proprietary) software. Did it not occur to you that Free software users might be using Free software instead of the proprietary alternatives?
Personally I'd like to see all those who pirate Windows get caught and be forced to pay up. Then a significant portion of the market would have to think of the real cost of owning Windows (not just the cost of being locked-in, which is usually moot as far as most are concerned), we might even get a year of the Linux desktop if that happened!
killin ur license!
under the gpl then its a gpl app
in essence my additions to said software would be under terms of GPL
while the original code that remains is BSD
totally allowable.
Something like mkisofs works just fine being called as a separate process. Assuming they didn't add any features to mkisofs, they could have simply used their proprietary GUI frontend and when people ask for the source, just point to the mkisofs/cdrtools/etc websites. Now by wrapping in DLL's, they'll either have to rewrite their application or publish their own source tree, possibly even their own proprietary code depending on how it's been written.
It looks like they're distributing a trial version, which I think means that anyone with the trial is entitled to any source under the GPL?
Yet another case of stupidity implying malice...
The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.
There seems to be a double-standard at work on Slashdot. I know, different people, yadda yadda. But when discussing "piracy" the mantra seems to be "It's not piracy/illegal, it's copyright infringement!". But when discussing the GPL, those people are silent when the term "illegal" is used when discussing violations of the GPL.
So, to clarify:
1) Both MP3s and the GPL are protected by the same copyright laws. It's pretty tough to truly violate the GPL. You can sell GPL software, without source, for any price. You can use it however you like. But you have to provide sources upon request in the "preferential form" (EG: Soft copy, no printouts) and the license extends to derivative products. (which is the 'viral' nature of the GPL) Don't like it? Don't code with it.
2) Boot-legging MP3s and violating the terms of the GPL are both copyright violations.
3) Neither violation is covered by "Fair Use" laws.
4) Both are bad. Both are also commonly done, like speeding on the highway.
5) Under some circumstances, violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US. In all circumstances, copyright violations leave the liable to the copyright owner.
Yes, IANAL and all that, but it needs to be said.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I post anonymously only because the mod system sucks. The mods are on crack 24/7 these days.
As for the critique, well "w00t! I can parrot back the same tired jokes I've seen a million times before! Aren't I funny??"
First step is we'd have to figure out who they are. But you helpfully didn't tell us, did you? Why is this rated interesting... without facts, it's just an anecdote with absolutely no veracity. Kinda like black helicopters, a fairy-tale some people just really want to believe is happening. Soon as names are named, then we can figure out whether AC is just an attention whore or not.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I for one welcome our Auto-Joke Creation Overlords, but imagine a Beowolf cluster of them. In Soviet Russia, the auto-joke creates you!!!
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The *IAA get steamed when you permit other people to share. While copying music doesn't deprive the originator of the music, it can be argued that you may be less likely to pay revenues to the artist concerned.
The FSF gets steamed when you deny others their right to share as specified in the GPL. Those who license and distribute software under the GPL specifically want people to be able to use and modify their software.
In the first case, if the person copying the music was genuinely not going to pay for a legit copy of the media (they could just be too dirt poor to afford it*), then the media cartel have lost nothing. No one is being hurt and no one is loosing anything. In the second case, people HAVE lost something. The GPL violator has gained some advantage from reusing GPLed code - they don't have to start from scratch. But they are not living up to the bargain and giving back their changes.
*ok, they can afford a high bandwidth connection and a computer and a big hard drive. Possibly stretching things a bit. Perhaps they could just buy a pirate copy in the local market?
The website hasn't been updated in nearly a year; what are they doing?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Just to address a few comments so far:
... 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.
:-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).
- 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!"
- 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...
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
You would not believe the poor quality of developers that these companies hire (mostly from outsourcing firms). I am not surprised they are stealing code left and right, there is no way they could write many of these things themselves. The interest in writing innovative software is not a variable with these companies and they hire developers who have little or no ability (Learn VB in 24 hours).
I have to post AC because my job is on the line here. I could very likely get sacked for disclosing the name of the company from a workstation that is on a network under their authority. I will post the name of the company to this thread later today when I can post from a PC that is on a different internet connection.
But, does it run on Linux ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One strategy that strikes me as really sketchy has become commonplace in the Mac OS X world. People create a UI that can only call a specific GPLed program to do the heavy lifting and then distribute it with that GPLed program. They either keep the source to the UI part to themselves - or worse, all too often they charge for it as nickel-and-dime-ware.
At the very least, it's pretty scummy - even if technically legal (and I would guess that would turn upon the untested question of what makes a work derivative).
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
A company that use GPL and keeps it WITHIN THE COMPANY does NOT need to do anything more than keep it to itself.
So many don't know anything at all about GPL, but here on SD, everyone thinks he does.
Back when AutoIt was at v2.x it was GPL
d =11944370
Then the developer started to see Commercial forks of their code under different licenses and for pay!
Son with version 3.0, they closed the source but still offer the compiled EXEs for free.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=142553&ci
(Windows only clone of Winbatch that worked better)
http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
In Soviet Russia, the Beowolf cluster of auto-joke creators creates clusters of you!!!
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I am the former lead developer of the program BinDiff, which compares the contents of two executables without access to their source code. It's usually used for security purposes, to compare a security-patched DLL with its pre-patched equivalent in order to find the vulnerabilities. We also used it to detect code theft.
I am still unsure of the legal ramifications of naming names, so I'll be general: GPL violations are incredibly common on Windows, especially in application domains such as CD and DVD rippers. DVDx and CDex get ripped off like there's no tomorrow. Literally every commercial DVD ripping software that I investigated was stealing from DVDx.
As far as what to do about it, I recieved conflicting advice from the lawyers that I contacted. It is possible that the company has licensed the source code from the open-source developers and does not want to disclose that fact, so announcing it publicly isn't necessarily a good idea. I've also been informed that the company still retains all rights on whatever code that they actually wrote (even if it's just glue), despite the virality of the GPL.
I guess that your best bet is to contact the leader(s) of the project anonymously and inform them of your discovery. This is not possible in DVDx's case, as the author has disappeared. There's also the GPL-violations mailing list.
It's fatheads like you who vote for GWB and support Micro$oft.
Electric chair for you! Try ignoring that!
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Wrong.
The copyright holder of the music gets steamed when people make unauthorized copies of the music, thereby depriving the copyright holder of the income. Regardless of whether the artist or a company owns the copyright, it is still a copyright violation.
The GPL software is not lost. The software under the GPL is still available and can still be shared. Even the source code of the GPL software is available.
The fact that the person would not have bought the music is irrelevant. Using your argument, the fact that I would not buy a romance novel is justification for going to a bookstore or library and making a copies of every single romance novel, then reading the novels and giving them away.
Using your own argument, if the developer was genuinely not going to develop the application without using the GPL software, then the GPL software copyright holders have lost nothing. Moreover, if the developer would have genuinely developed the software without GPL code and not made his code available under the GPL, the GPL software copyright holders still haven't lost anything.
The music "sharers" have gained music tracks but have not lived up to the bargain and paid for their music and not shared it without permission.
You are a hypocrite and your argument is nothing more than special pleading.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
payback's a pelosi;-)
One thing I can't understand about FOSS is this obsession over the GPL. Who cares? When you give something away for free... let it go!
The only thing I can see wrong is if someone just repackages your work and charges people for it. But if someone wants to borrow lines of your supposedly "open" source code, all of a sudden the GPL wants to make criminals of them.
The GPL really just appears as nothing more than a complex scheme to have the FOSS community dictate to businesses how they can do stuff. No wonder everyone views the GPL as hostile to businesses and commercial usage- the FOSSies want to run the company without actually having any stake in the success or failure of the company. If you want to make a company's decisions for them, buy some stock or get a job there.
My FOSS longs to be free!!!
Whatever happened to Natalie Portman and hot grits down the pants jokes? I miss those.
Yes, I realize this is off topic. I can afford to be modded down.
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?
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
> The FSF will only work to enforce the GPL if the GPL code in question is signed over to the FSF.
They can't sue unless they own the copyrights or act as lawyers for someone who does. They don't have any legal standing to enforce the copyright, otherwise.
> 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?
Now you reveal that your problem is with the GPL in general. People *can* use that method. They just can't use it in proprietary software. There's a world of difference. Anyhow, if it's your own software, feel free to release it under any license you want. But don't expect the FSF to act as free lawyers for just anyone. Besides, if you BSD license it, just how badly could they infringe, anyhow? At worst, you ask to have your name left in the credits? Whatever. You know that no one reads those things, right? It's like the list of patents Adobe puts on their splash screen: nobody even cares.
The developer of the copyrighted code should purchase the software and, if indeed finds a true GPL violation of his software, simply post the binary for public download on their project site. Draw attention to the project as some sort of partner highlight. What's the worst that can happen? That company sues the original developer? Oh no! GPL might be tested in court!
Sounds like you'd better email him.
C|N>K
Heh, remember Cherry OS?
1. Go short on company stock
2. Go public on fact that company is lawyer-bait
3. Profit!
Who said you couldn't make money with the GPL?
This sig is intentionally left blank
If you write software that is essentially a wrapper for a GPL app, and distribute both (but without modifying the GPL application, are you supposed to include the source for your software as well? It doesn't seem to me that something like a closed K3b sort-of clone would necessarily violate the GPL, as long as the open software is properly distributed.
I think my understanding of the concept of "derivative work" may be lacking.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I, for one, welcome our "tired, stale overlord-joke"-ing overlords!
Still trying to think of a clever sig...
It would be legal if they actually included the GPL and were prepared to provide source code for those commandline utilities.
But yeah... clueless.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And who pursues these violations?
Small groups of underpaid programmers working on the next big thing for free? People with mortgages and children and pets and the &($^#)!@ car that needs fixed. I don't think so.
Are *you* going to go up against Microsoft? I doubt it. That would take IBM, who'd rather not bring attention to their own GPL violations.
Hate to say it guys, but GPL and open source is a sucker's game for most of the individuals who create it and hope to profit from it in some way (selling services, etc.). A few, a *very* few make money, and not much, usually. THere aren't many Red Hats. You might as well play the lottery.
What you're *really* doing is donating free programming to IBM and Microsoft. Enjoy.
The author of this article gets no love from me for rattling off a list and then saying that they are either GPL or LGPL. How many of each? Who is doing what? You can't slump the two in the same category because "GPL" looks close enough to "LGPL". They are vastly different licenses. LGPL does not have GPL's zombie clause.
Many LGPL projects are typically contributed to and maintained by commercial interests in a specific industry. People have always used LGPL codes and similiar licenses in commercial software.
Less trolling and more useful facts please.
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 Gates test is not universally applied in the US and might be different internationally. However in the US, only original, expressive elements are protected. Aspects which are purely functional are not. Thus an algorythm is not protected even though its implementation might be. Furthermore, a list of facts (as in a header file) might not be protected, though the selection and ordering might be. What is interesting in Gates however is that it presupposes that one must show some copying of code which is protectable into the new application.
My argument is based on the following elements:
1) Substitutability. Can a library be substituted with another one (hypothetically or actually) without affecting the program? The hypothetical element is required to prevent questions like "if I also create a library with the same API or a portion of it does this interfere with another works' copyrights?" The substitutability portion is also required because Excel doesn't suddenly become derivative of my ODBC driver just because I write another one.
2) Filtering out non-expressive elements. Maps of entry points of a compiled executable are not expressive because they are merely interfaces. Or at least they are no more expressive then XML DtD"s for web services and the like.
3) How tightly coupled is the library? Static linking using a linker would seem to create a collected work rather than a derivative work (i.e. a larger work containing two inependent pieces, rather than a work derived from both). Using the GCC to merge source files prior to compiling might or might not.
4) Can preparation for linking create a derivative work by mere inclusion of a header file? Yes. However nothing prevents the author from creating a header file derived only from the list of facts.
5) Can things you do in the program create derivative works? Yes. Copyright extends beyond code to things like storylines of games, graphical design elements, and the like. If the library changes these, it might be a derivative work...
6) Can number 5 be done without linking? Yes. I have no reason to think that Corba (like GTK uses) would render something safe just because it is more loosely tied.
Assuming I am right in US law (and IANAL), then linking would be relatively irrelevant itself. What would matter would be what happens both before and after linking. Hence it could be indicative but neither sufficient nor necessary. THis means however that since derivation is usually shown circumstantially it might be seen as some sort of evidence.
Perhaps this is what the FSF is saying in the linking question. But again, IANAL.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The GPL only applies if you modify the original application code. If you keep the application in tact, don't touch it at all, and just call it externally as a library, your code does NOT become infected with the GPL.
:)
Read the GPL before posting stuff about the GPL
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
That's the LGPL, buddy.
Linking to a GPL program without GPLing your program is definitely a copyvio.
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.
There's a lot (and I mean lot - nowadays it's hard to find something that's not so) various network-aware equipment that runs Linux and other (L)GPL software without mentioning the fact. Anyone who's been looking at a lot of various VoIP and NAS appliances (especially the cheaper ones) can testify to this. Who cares? Who should care? Linus himself? The users certainly won't.
-- Sig down
Read for yourself... :)
Read the GPL FAQ and it's discussion of linking. It's all about how you're linking.
For those folks who might not bother to follow a link:
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
So, sometimes you're right, and there's no requirement that the other code be GPL'd.
BUT, conversely, sometimes there's code co-mingling, and that does mean that the new code is required to also be GPL'd.
What it boils down to is what you're really doing, and how you're really doing it, which seems pretty reasonable, when it comes down to it.
Free and Open Source software shouldn't be limited by the GPL. If somebody takes open-source libraries and incorporates them into a proprietary program, does it harm you at all? No, it doesn't. They've chosen to seek profit for their software, while you have chosen to freely distribute your work for use and derivative productions. In doing that, the creator of that open-source code hereby surrenders their right to restrict its use.
I can understand everyone's outrage if somebody was reselling an unmodified open-source program, but if your software is truly free, people should be allowed to do whatever they please with it. Make it better, make it worse, give it away or sell it at a price that makes even Photoshop look cheap. Such is the blessing of true freedom.
IANAL and I have no idea about Spain's IP laws, but I assure you that the entire point of the GPL/LGPL/any other "copyleft" license is that it is a copyright license. There is no contract anywhere. The GPL is not an EULA either; there is no limit on use or modification of GPL software such as you'll find in most End User License Agreements... the only restriction in the GPL covers the act of providing copies. The GPL is nothing but a limited license to redistribute. Since it's a copyright license, its only limitations are on distribution (which is a copyright issue) so violating the GPL is, by definition, copyright violation
Without getting into the Fair Use/RIAA/"music piracy is good!" arguments or discussing what the finer points of definition on "boot-legging", the GPP's point #2 is correct. The laws prohibiting unlicensed music redistribution are exactly the same as the laws prohibiting unlicensed (outside the terms of the GPL, in this case) software redistribution.
I'd like to take this moment to point out that, while I have mod points, I chose to comment instead; there is no moderation -1: Wrong for a reason.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
But seriously, the article mentions DVD slide show or some such, and I can NOT find an easy fast way to make a music backed slide show in Ubuntu. Advice?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
http://gpl-violations.org/
Didn't see it mentioned anywhere, so I thought I'd post it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
So, basically, you can't do much about a perceived GPL "violation" unless the copyright holder cares to do something about that particular use other than permit it, and you are an agent for the copyright holder. You could add some code of your own, and then hope your fork becomes more popular in use, but then you'd only be able to do something about your fork, not the original.
...but IANAL, so the above is probably all nonsense, as per the usual on slashdot...
Why not ask about Mac and Linux GPL violations?? Oh wait, Mac and Linux can DO NO WRONG!
Under your list of exclusions: Include non-copyrightable portions of its source code (such as standard OS headers whose contents are dictated by standard interfaces); How are OS headers not copyrighted but library headers subject to copyright? Can you please provide an explenation for this distinction? Include portions of its object code in your own binary, when this object code is considered part of the standard operating environment of the platform your code is compiled on (IIRC this is why Linux programs do not have to be GPL); or Why is this different than libraries? My understanding is that interoperation is protected under copyright law and this is why linking doesn't necessarily equal derivation. Link dynamically to a shared object in such a way that it can easily be swapped for another, non-GPL shared object, and such other shared object actually exists and is feasible for users to acquire. This seems to me to be very problematic from a copyright perspective because copyrights cover exclusive rights. It doesn't mean "exclusive until someone else writes something similar." It means "exclusive for the term of the copyright." Thus I don't think you could really have a copyright analysis which was predicated on availability of functional replacements, since functionality isn't protected anyway.
Again, IANAL, but I think you are smoking some of RMS's stash
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I hope lots of people on Windows will use GPL'ed software. There's no need to sue right away. By the time the world wakes up to it, GPL will have become such an integral part of the Windows software infrastructure that Microsoft has no way of getting rid of it.
> 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?
Because when you later discover a derivative of your software running on your new toaster, you will be able to further modify it.
Basically, having made (on thus being an expert on) popular copyleft software will improve your value as a programmer, compared to having made popular pd software, as you will more often have access to to the source of the derived products.
If you distribute the DLL as part of a larger work, you will have a hard time convincing a judge that the larger work as a whole is not derived from the code used in the DLL. The mechanics of how you combine the components of the larger works will be of little interest to the judge. Your only chance would be to find help in the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL, and argue that the DLL had nothing really to do with the rest of your product. As DLL's can't run stand-alone, that seems unlikely to success. Unless none of your code links with it, dynamically or otherwise.
If you don't distribute the DLL but relies on the user to get it otherwise, it will be the FSF (or other copyright owner) who will face an uphill battle convincing the judge that the larger work is really derived from the DLL. And more so, that you are bound by the GPL despite not distributing any code under the GPL.
I have for a long time wondered if there is in fact a legal method for closed source applications to make use of GPL code without actually opening the entire application.
I currently develop and application that sells for approximately $50,000 a unit, of course less after contract negotiations and volume discount. The application is a transport stream multiplexer with DVB subtitle support that meets CableLabs VoD compliance. The demand for this software in the broadcast industry is extremely high, which is what justifies the cost, but I have been forced to rewrite library after library at library because of the LGPL and GPL licenses. We sell about 20 copies of this software a year and if we open sourced it, there is in fact no possible way to even feed the programmers and sales people from it.
We have been forced to reimplement from scratch (documentation only) :
libdvbpsi
dgindex
dgmpgdecode
packetizers we could have used from mplex
DVB subtitle encoders we could have used from VLC
libdvdread for using DVD sources
and quite a few more.
We occassionally make use of GPL applications in unmodified form by running them as command line applications when a feature request comes in we can't make good on in less than a few months.
The fact is, if we could link to GPL code without having to open our entire product, we would gladly enhance the performance, functionality, documentation, and most importantly, we'd participate in cleaning up all the relevant bugs in the bugzillas of each of the libraries/applications we use and feed back to the open source community we love, but instead we spend all our time working on complete replacements of the libraries, which we then have to debug from the start. We tend to develop code as cleanly as we can and refactor constantly to improve performance and scalability. And we know the open source world would greatly benefit from our skills. We're paid developers working 50 hours a week each on nothing but video technology and we have customers that demand the highest level of quality from our products, if there are bugs we don't have the resources to fix, we hire the best developers we can find to take on the task.
So what I'd really like to know is, how can we possibly work together instead of "competing" with each other? Frankly, I'd much rather help to improve VideoLAN or even be able to release our video frameworks to the open source for everyone to benefit from. It just seems ridiculous that we have to spend $200,000 a year in developer hours to reimplement open source code when we could instead spend $200,000 a year on making open source code better, and then we can all profit from it. We'd get up and running faster and the open source community would greatly benefit from our patches.
It's perfectly fine to embed and ship a LGPL library with your closed source app. You don't need to mention it even. If you are using a BSD or Apache licensed library, however, you must include the the attribution statement in the documentation. I guess that is what most software doesn't do. Another case is when you are shipping a patched version of an LGPL library, then you need to offer the source code of that patched version to your customer. Mind that "source code" also includes build scripts. That may be a major PITA for most companies.
I used to run the GPL enforcement efforts at FSF. Since I left FSF, I am involved with similar work now that I'm with the Software Freedom Law Center.
The first thing to do is a always to notify the copyright holders of the software in question. They are the only people who have the power to carry out an GPL enforcement action. Once the copyright holders want to do the enforcement, then you could have them contact the Software Freedom Law Center for help. We do pro bono GPL enforcement for community projects when we can. We can't promise to take on every client who contacts us, but I am sure a GPL enforcement case with good facts would get serious consideration.
Mentioning the EFF in this context is sheer confusion, though. EFF has nothing to do with issues related to Free Software, they don't hold any copyrights on software.
The company does not provide a postal address. It uses "Japan" where "Japanese" should be used, which suggests the owner is not a native English speaker. So it seems the owner is in a country where it is difficult to file such lawsuits.
Wait ... let's see the registrant of the domain name. Michael Show, in Hong Kong. Oh god, a shameless Chinese. I am so sad about it (I am Chinese). But the technical contact, Michael Shaw, has a Canadian address. I wish he were still in Canada. Sue him down.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
This article suggests that the relationship between the KHTML team and Apple is much improved over what it once was. They maintain a blog/svn at webkit.org and have a relatively open development process for a traditional closed-source shop.
If you want to see what else Apple gives back to the community, you can find it yourself at their main Open Source page, which includes links to their OS kernel (mainly Apple + NeXT), userland (mostly FreeBSD), Launchd (Apple), etc.
Apple also runs macports.org, which is a community-driven ports system for OS X, following along the example of the BSD ports systems. Apple contributes hardware & some development resources (not sure if they're paid for this or if it's voluntary, but they are there).
Not True: you cannot link GPL and non-GPL. If it's LGPL, fine. If not, you are in violation.