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.
Did you try to contact the company? If not, that would be the first step.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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?
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)
I don't think the summary is misleading at all. The implication is that free software writers are less likely to notice when their code is used in violation of the license when the violation occurs in a Windows application instead of in an application written for an OS such an author is more likely to use him/herself.
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. :)
The point of the GPL is to keep the project, which you wrote code for, going in a publicly available form. The main complaint of TFA is that these people using GPL code aren't making their snapshot of code (with any modifications they made) available to the public. Without the GPL, public domain code for a project can be taken, modified and close-sourced. If some people start using the closed source version, then you have development forks which can't be synced and your version of the project can suffer as a result. Then, when the company maintaining the closed source version looses interest and lets the project languish, people aren't making use of your work anymore.
So, if all you want to do is make a chunk of code available for use, however people want to use it, then the BSD license or just public domain, are good choices. In other words, I agree with your comment, in this case. On the other hand, if you want to design a project to fill a specific need and want that project to survive in the public space, then the GPL is the way to go.
First of all, you forgot the Mac, which as someone else pointed out probably has just as many 3rd party apps using GPL code.
Second of all, there are PLENTY of firms writing proprietary code for linux, most of it VERY expensive. Besides the obvious (Oracle, BEA, IBM) there are a huge number of high end scientific analysis, manufacturing and financial companies doing so.
May no camel spit in your yogurt soup.
Part of the GPL says that they must "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." (section 1 at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.h tml ). If the program did "included GPL and LGPL software without any mention of the GPL", it's a violation as far as any GPL software is concerned. I looked over the LGPL briefly, but didn't see any problems. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html if anybody else wants to look.)
-----------
100% pure freak
- They must include a copy of the license.
- They must provide a written offer with the package to provide the source on request.
- They cannot strip attributions in what they provide
I don't know that they've done the last one, but it makes sense along with the other violationsYou appear not to care about the "guaranteed to remain so" part. That's fine. But understand that many among us find closing the source of code that was freely distributed to be rather unfriendly... and we're using copyright law as a tool to help guarantee that the code remains free. This guarantee helps encourage more people to create and to release (because many people would not release their code if they knew that others would commercialize/extend it without giving back). That is, copyright law is achieving, in this case, its stated goal: to encourage the production and dissemination of content.
That, in my mind, is the brilliance of the GPL: it co-opts copyright law, uses it in an unconventional way, and thereby achieves the fundamental purpose of copyright law: to give an incentive for creation and free distribution of creative works.
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?)
+1 for not saying 'my bad', friend!
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!
You're using the mechanical argument as to how a DLL is loaded. The opposing argument is that the GPL talks about derivative works. If you create a program that has to use a certain DLL (Without a standard interface where you cold drop in a replacement from another source) then the combined program is a derivative work. The FSF goes as far as claiming that your software is a derivative work as well, even though you don't distribute a prelinked version. Notice that this doesn't apply to standard libraries like the C library, but only to specialized libraries.
As I said, it's a gray area, and as I understand it nobody has yet tried to go against the FSF when confronted with this kind arguments, so I'm guessing the lawyers agree that there might be something to it, or that it's not worth the risk.
It's a very rare situation though, and I last saw this a few years ago so maybe it's been decided.
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.
No, we are saying that you have to include a copy of the GPL & an address/url where they can get the source of mkfsiso. Your code is your code, but msfsiso isn't yours so you have to follow the rules it's authors established on how it can be used.
Now assuming that the violation is only with the lack of a copy of the GPL & the URL, it's a 2 minute fix to add those to the liscense.txt file that nobody reads for the next run of CDs. I don't think that anyone would argue that that type of fix is an excessive request by the copyright holders in exchange for the volumes of work put into creating mkfsiso.
Funny doesn't seem like that at all to me. Charge for the work he put into building the distro vs require that he follow the licenses on the works he included in the distro. Two very distinct issues at hand. Seeing as I am almost certain I have seen that software & I believe it comes with a copyright notice on it declairing copyright belongs to the company selling it, I do feel this is a touch different than selling a distro with notices that the copyright belongs to the individual owners.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
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!!!
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
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
Two words: Dual license.
By signing away the copyright, you've signed away the ability to relicense your code. In short, many are of the opinion that if you'd like to contribute your changes back under the GPL that's fine. If you want to close source and make money off our code, mine and yours, then I want money off my part too. To put it in real world terms. If you asked me for help moving a piece of furniture I'd certainly do so. If I learned you were hired and paid to move said furniture, I'd want to get paid too. It's that simple, it's what you don't get with BSD and what you do get with the GPL.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings