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.
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.
According to http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/featu res.html , libtorrent is BSDL.
-----------
100% pure freak
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.
[
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 ^_^
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. :)
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.
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
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.
Selling Free Software is just fine.
Join the Free Software Foundation
Stop trolling.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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?)
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.
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)
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
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.
But, does it run on Linux ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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 think things are probably a bit more complex than what you say, but I'm not confident with the GPL.
Don't you have to provide the GPL license itself with a GPL'ed program, even if in binary form?
Otherwise, they may not be in violation: they distribute a compiled GPL'ed application, they may claim that until now none asked for source code - since none knew that the license was GPL, of course...
We still have to see if they are willing to release their changes.
Moreover, can you distribute a derivative work of GPL software in binary for without giving credit to the original authors?
That _might_ be true in some countries. At least in Spain software and music are different beasts, with different limitations.
2) Boot-legging MP3s and violating the terms of the GPL are both copyright violations.
Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract. By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own. By the way, bootleg automatically implies breaking the law ("illicitly sold").
3) Neither violation is covered by "Fair Use" laws.
Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right? So your point wouldn't be correct.
Congratulations on getting so many +1, you have been overrated IMO.
Sort of.
I often see the intent of GPL as "we prefer that there were not copyright laws but if you insist there are then you have to obey them with regard to this code".
I don't see why people get so worked up about it. I mean just write the 500mb of video and audio codecs yourself or else obey the terms for using the code.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
I often see the intent of GPL as "we prefer that there were not copyright laws but if you insist there are then you have to obey them with regard to this code".
Then I think you see a different intent than most people. What you are describing is much closer to BSD - here's the code, do what you like with it but just don't claim it's yours. The GPL makes use of copyright to ensure that you can only do certain things with the code - most notably that you must share the source of any modifications you make. Note that if copyright law didn't exist I could still quite happily give you a binary but keep the source to myself, which is now what the GPL wants.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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
Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.
And without the contract, you're infringing copyrights by distributing the material.
By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own.
Here's the EFF's take: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php
Notice that none of the various legal uses of the CD include DISTRIBUTING the content. That's why it's called a "COPY - RIGHT". (copyright) Licenses give you rights to material you otherwise do not own or have rights to.
By the way, bootleg automatically implies breaking the law ("illicitly sold")
According to Dictionary.com, something, as a recording, made, reproduced, or sold illegally or without authorization (emphasis mine)
Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right?
Good question. But if the answer is yes, then you wouldn't be "bootlegging" it, thus the point is made either way.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Dude, if you don't know what you're talking about then STFU. GPL is not a bloody contract by any means. It only has to do with copyright law and that's ALL. You don't have to abide by anything before you get to read the GPL license in a package. That's because personal use is specifically allowed both by copyright law and the GPL. Neither cares what you do with GPL-covered stuff. The GPL restrictions start applying only when you re-distribute the stuff or create derivative works off it. In which case any sane individual would first look around for a license, because otherwise by default the copyright law does not allow him to do that.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
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.
I think you need to re-examine your legal definitions. The conditions stated in the GPL for the license to distribute the covered work is a contract. The ability or right to distribute the covered work it the license.
The fact that it hinges on copyright law to force a person into agreement of the contract means nothing to the parts of the document itself. The contract says if your going to do this, which is restricted by copyright law to the owners of the copyright, you must do that. And I can stop your from doing this because of copyright law. It has all the elements that a contract is supposed to have. That was a dumbing it down a bit. And not having to accept the contract to use the code in question doesn't mean squat. The copyright use or more aptly the right to do certain things protected by copyright is the payment.
Neither cares what you do with GPL-covered stuff. The GPL restrictions start applying only when you re-distribute the stuff or create derivative works off it. In which case any sane individual would first look around for a license, because otherwise by default the copyright law does not allow him to do that. Lol. the absence of a contract or license doesn't negate either when they are present. The GPL specifically says that if you don't agree to these obligations or fail to honor your obligations the license to distribute or use copyright covered works is terminates. Just because the payment (using the covered material in copyright protected ways)revolved around copyright doesn't mean that a contract isn't being made for that payment.
The recent court case we saw with the model railroad software exemplifies this in the ruling. The conditions are contract and the license is the payment.
"BSD is an opt out of copyright"
I don't think so, considering that the license has a copyright notice and requires it to be retained (some strip down the license even more, explicitly removing this requirement but they keep in the second requirement or rather disclaimer..).
If anything it's an opt-out of public domain, because of the second principal part of a BSD license, which is waiving any warranty or liability. This is important because with PD you not only give up your copyright but also any such disclaimer, which means you could be sued by a user.
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...
The rulling specifically says:In other words, breaking the contract didn't automatically revoke the license to use the copyright.
Show me another ruling that says otherwise or for all legal purposes, all you will find is people saying shit that have no grounds in a court. You can believe anything you want. Just don't cry to me when you goto court and find the copyright violations didn't exist. You will find out that in a court, it isn't like the Internet where the loudest most obnoxious person wins. You actually have to, you know, have you claim based in law and tort.
The copyright part is the payment for the contract. You cannot get the benefit of the contract which is the ability to do things copyright hold exclusive to the copyright owner unless you follow the terms of the contract.
You should really read the article you linked to. It mentions "I don't have to promise anything further to go fishing after I pay for my license or sign up for it or whatever the town requires. Once I have my license, I'm free to fish, as long as I abide by the terms." in relation to licenses. Of course a fishing license isn't the same thing as a copyright license. They are specifically defined by different sections of the laws. To compare the two is literally comparing apples and oranges. They share a common thing, Fruit but are both extremely different in appearance as well as taste. The GPL meets all the legally required parts of a contract. It uses copyright as an element but as we saw with the ruling I already linked to (which a ruling matter more then some website), violations of the contract aren't necessarily infringements on the copyright.
Now, I bet you cannot even explain how the copyright and the GPL work without describing a contract. Try it, I dare you to. I'm interested in seeing you walk all over yourself. But before you embark on this endeavor, look up the legal definition of a contract. This is a free version of a legal dictionary and it is materially the same as the pay versions I have.