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.
[
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 ^_^
> 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)
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. :)
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...
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.
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).
I, for one, welcome our anonymous over-reacting cliche-enriching overlords!
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
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.
A major purpose of the GPL is to serve as a lever to get other people to provide their own work under similar terms.
Other OSS licenses may have very different purposes.
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?
You know there ARE ways to get someone to respect your copyright which don't involve litigation. For example, a friendly e-mail explaining what license you are violating and how, and working with the offender to resolve the situation.
I wouldd be surprised if the majority of GPL violations were not solved this way.
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.
Selling Free Software is just fine.
Join the Free Software Foundation
It isn't necessary to make the source accompany the binary, but it is absolutely required to make the GPL license accompany the binary.
Stop trolling.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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
Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but Apache isn't GPL.
The freedoms and restrictions of the GPL are simple in principle, perhaps you're just not good at understanding what you can and cannot do. If you write a product which heavily levers other peoples' GPL code, chances are you're obliged to disclose your own code. Don't like that? Fine, then write yours all from scratch and we'll talk again in 10 years time.
In the meantime, get your facts straight and stop talking from your rectal dump-trumpet.
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?)
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.
Read up on the distinctions between the GPL and the LGPL. My limited understanding is that the LGPL exists because the GPL will require that your app be GPL. I also believe that the DLL source code may need to be provided, not just the source to the (L)GPL libraries. The user is supposed to be able to make changes and reintegrate those changes, in other words recreate the DLL with their changes. If the DLL is simply a rapper/bundling of various useful (L)GPL libraries the developer might as well do so to make this issue "go away". Well, assuming they also start handing out the GPL license text file too.
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'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.
So GPL critics are right, and it is a viral license that should be avoided by commercial software interests?
Apparently not according to the guy who submitted this article.
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.
"Isn't the point of open source to be able to use it?"
You only have to read the GPL preamble to find out what the point of the GPL is:
"the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users."
I think this particular case fails to do that, bigstyle.
"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?"
This isn't shelling out to a bundled copy of mkfsiso. This is a case where GPLed code has been lifted, without attribution and without attaching the GPL copyright notices and license document, and without the offer of source code, and placed into a proprietary DLL, so that it becomes part of a proprietary executable. Not the same thing at all. Whether these guys charge for their software is utterly besides the point.
"Prove the critics right, and that using GPL'ed software in your solutions is a legal nightmare."
Infringing someone else's copyright is a legal nightmare, GPL or not. Having a class action suit where open source constributors all batter the living shit out of a GPL violator in a courtroom would serve a salutary example to the many other GPL violators out there (the vast majority of whom settle at the slightest sign of trouble).
Your argument is basically some sort of 'oh noesss, we must let people attack the freedom of our software because otherwise people might not want to use it' type FUD. And after twenty years, and with millions upon millions of users, GPL software isn't going to go away anytime soon and the survival of the software is not an issue, putting the lie to everything you've just said. The freedom of the users IS under threat here, and elsewhere, and it's time to let the GPL do the job it was intended to do.
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!
Misuse of other people's code without permission is theft.
It does not matter if the license is GPL or Commercial.
Misuse of either will cause the same legal consequences.
The difference is often what the owner will accept as an out of court settlement.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
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...
They didn't shell-out to it. They compiled it and wrapped it in their own libraries, possibly modifying the source in the process. Many applications use GPL code without a problem, they leave the library as it was originally (or submit changes/source) and include the license. It's not a big deal. The GPL is weird though, in that using libraries do sometimes require you show the way you're using them (the course), but shelling out in no way counts.
Eternity is a time bomb.
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.
Yeah, RMS might whack you with a Katana.
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.
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.
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
To distribute the executables and use them with your program is fine. But, you need to declare it with your license and EULA crappola, and make the source for the GPL code available upon request.
It's that simple. Did these guys do this? I didn't bother to look. Using a DLL to call the programs in my view isn't much different then having a front end script to do the same. Worst case, the FSF should remind them to display the license for the GPL'd programs, and offer up a link to the Source.
Nothing to see here
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
He doesn't say that. Selling binaries compiled from GPL code is fine - but you must distribute the license with the binaries, and provide the user the means to obtain that code.
If you changed the code to create a derivative work, you must provide your changes. LGPL is a little easier about this - if you merely link LGPL libraries, this is not classed as a derivative work.
Work that links GPL libraries counts though. And wrapping entire GPL executables in Windows DLLs? The only thing you've changed is the interface. It smacks of deliberate license evasion*, especially when there are freely available Win32 builds of these programs.
* There are valid technical reasons for doing this with programs that use or emit a lot of stream based output. The architecture of Windows is not too friendly to them, chiefly because starting a new process on Win32 is much more costly than a POSIX fork(). I wrote a program in the *nix style for Powershell once - it was dog-slow. 70% of the CPU time was spent creating and tearing down lots of little processes, meaning it could have been at least 3 times faster as a Powershell add-in (DLL) rather than an executable.
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).
Sending a nicely worded, sugar coated, message saying "you are in violation and if you continue to violate we will sue you" doesn't change the fact that it is a threat... a nicely, friendly worded threat, but a threat none-the-less.
So if I camp out in your backyard and you nicely ask me to leave or I'll get arrested for trespassing should that be considered wrong?
Same thing here.
A nice threat that someone should stop something (justifiably) illegal isn't a bad thing. Just like getting a warning from a cop about speeding, it sure beats a ticket. And if you knock it off you should be OK.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I thought that, under the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, both static and dynamic linking were considered "creating a derivative work" (i.e., modification). It was my understanding that you cannot link (statically or dynamically) GPL code to closed-source code. I personally think that the dynamic-linking restriction is over broad, as it prohibits things like creating GPL plugins for commercial programs, but in this case, turning GPL code into a DLL which is then required by a closed-source program is pretty clearly what the GPL is aiming at. The dynamic link is nothing more than a dodge to avoid static linking, which is definitely prohibited.
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
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
Not really. While lots of Free Software zealots see the GPL as a way to "stick it to the man", from a commercial point of view the more GPL software is in the marketplace, the bigger the commercial advantage to whoever has the most well-established support organization. If the best "starting points" to build new applications from are available under the GPL, so that it is much more costly to build software to be released under a different license, you can't really compete on software quality, since competitors can take your source and provide the same software quality, the main avenue of competition is support.
So if you are IBM, Oracle, etc. or another "commercial software interest" with extensive support organization, the GPL is potentially great for you.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like you'd better email him.
C|N>K
The only friendly way is the way Hormel Did it by sending you a letter saying we will give you a license to use our trademark. But that doesn't work for OpenSource Applications. Even if the origional author doesn't really care Militant sections of the FSF will come out in force, to protect your Work even if you don't think it needs protection.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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...
I made no statement as to the 'rightness' or the 'wrongness' of the threat... just that it was a threat.
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!
The only thing I can see wrong is if someone just repackages your work and charges people for it.
Dude, that's what happened in this case. They repacked GPL software inside DLLs and then wrote a GUI that used the GPL software. And then went and charged money, when about 1/2 the code (or more) was written by someone else.
We are the 198 proof..
Are you really comparing software run on my own machine, scanning software I download from you for GPL violations, to DRM that I might impose on you and your machine?
You must be joking.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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
Then you should be aware that many options you are given in society carry an implied threat. For example, if your landlords asks for your rent which is overdue, the implied threat is that if you do not give it to him soon, he will throw you out, but he doesn't necessarily have to yell and shout at you about it and make you feel like crap to get his point across. If your boss asks you to have a report to him by Thursday morning at 9 AM so he can present it to the CEO then the implied threat is that if you don't have it to him then he may have you fired (although hopefully not if you are a good employee). Both of these examples show perfectly reasonable requests which might be made of you in your life, neither of which have to be presented in an unpleasant way, while giving you no choice in your response to them. In fact, your landlord and your boss could ask for things in this way, and you could continue to have an excellent relationship with them, despite the fact that refusal to pay or produce would result in very unpleasant things for you. In the same way, I think that saying that a person who writes GPL'd code is threatening someone every time they ask them to respect the license they have written the code under is hyperbole. While the threat of litigation obviously exists if they do not comply, and therefore compliance is not an option, there is no reason that it cannot, and is not resolved in a pleasant manner most of the time, with threats firmly left out of it (except as they are implied, at least at first).
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
That's the opinion of the FSF, which I hope is correct, but in reality, the question of whether dynamic linking constitutes a derivative work or not is very much a legal gray area without any sort of precedent set by the courts.
The truth is, until some judge out there rules that dynamic linking does indeed constitute a derivative work, we can't be sure whether the GPL applies or not.
I hope it does, though.
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.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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...
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.
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. GPL covers distribution, not what you can do with GPL'd software on your own computer. If you release the DLL and EXE separately, your users are perfectly allowed to put that DLL in the same directory as the EXE and use them together, they're not distributing them together.
Remember, we're talking about dynamically linking libraries. The linking happens at *runtime*, not compile time.
Yes.
DRM is Digital Rights Management. Because you are using the software to Manage (or find violations in) the digital rights of the software. As a software developer for a closed source application you don't want people poking around in your code find reasons to sue you except for the fact they happen to look at your program. GPL People care about the end users rights, not for the developers rights. Developers are people too who deserve some rights of their own.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why not?
True.
And as a developer, I really do enjoy the right to develop just about every piece of software I use.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Err, why can't you link in software that's LGPL, and make offers to buy source from copyright owners if it's GPL. Or do your lawyers not like the former and the projects you want to buy from have too many contributors?
Au contraire. I think your overestimating the scruples of the average small business owner.