Ask Slashdot: When and How To Deal With GPL Violations?

jd writes "There are many pieces of software out there, such as seL4 (kindly brought to my attention by another reader), where the vendor has indeed engineered something that they're entitled to Close Source, but where their closed-source license includes the modifications to GPLed software such as the Linux kernel. Then there's a second type of behavior. Code Sourcery produced two versions of their VSIPL++ image processing library — one closed-source, one GPLed. It was extremely decent of them. When Mentor Graphics bought Code Sourcery, they continued developing the closed-course one and discontinued, then deleted, the GPL variant. It's unclear to me if that's kosher, as the closed variant must contain code that had been GPLed at one point. Here's the problem: complaining too much will mean we get code now that maybe four or five people, tops, will actually care about. It will also make corporations leery of any other such work in future, where that work will be of greater value to a greater number of people. So, the question I want to ask is this: When is it a good time to complain? By what rule-of-thumb might you decide that one violation is worth cracking down on, and another should be let go to help encourage work we're never going to do ourselves?"

Comments

Their code, their rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Code Sourcery produced two versions of their VSIPL++ image processing library — one closed-source, one GPLed. It was extremely decent of them. When Mentor Graphics bought Code Sourcery, they continued developing the closed-course one and discontinued, then deleted, the GPL variant. It's unclear to me if that's kosher, as the closed variant must contain code that had been GPLed at one point.

It's their code so they are free to decide. It doesn't matter if they once also GPL'd it - the owner still retains copyright. Bitching about that will just mean no company ever will provide both closed and open source versions. You are not magically entitled to them.

Re:Their code, their rules

[RobertLTux]

the hook on this is

THEY CAN NOT PREVENT THE GPL VERSION FROM BEING USED AND UPDATED

so if somebody else with a copy of the code decides to continue the work then they can not say anything.
if a company decides to make a GPL project closed source then they have to have permission from Every Single Contributor (assuming that they are all still available) this is one of the reasons that the Linux Kernel is still GPL 2 since chunks of the code are set with GPL 2 (no later version) licenses.

Re:Their code, their rules

[Grishnakh]

Yes, this is true, but it's beside the point. The FA is talking about a product that was GPLed, but its owner deleted the GPL version (though this doesn't mean others can't keep copies of it, or even fork it), and continued developing it under a proprietary license. It's their code, so they're completely allowed to do this.

You're only disallowed from making GPL code proprietary (or using GPL code in a proprietary product) if you don't own the copyright to the code in the first place. If it's yours, you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:Their code, their rules

[jd]

It's a little more complex. I'll clarify. There were two code bases - one optimized and closed-source, one regular and GPLed. There was quite a lot of code shared between them, but there was code that solely existed in the GPLed version (all the non-optimized functions, for example). I believe the GPLed version took code contributions* and any that applied to the shared code would then exist in both versions. I do NOT know if the GPLed version included code from pre-existing VSIPL code bases for which Code Sourcery had rights under open source licenses but did not own that software - it seems entirely possible but it's not certain.

*The USAF paid for several years for Code Sourcery to have the GPLed version and paid them to have developers maintain it. It's a safe bet that the USAF wouldn't have paid extra specifically for that license if having it closed would have been just as effective. At the very least, it can be assumed the US Government contributed patches to the GPLed code.

Mentor buys Code Sourcery and continues the closed-source version. That's their right. That's fine. Provided, of course, that the closed-source version Mentor currently deploys has no software that Code Sourcery had no right to close. (I'll assume Code Sourcery played nice and didn't break any licenses themselves.) I'd consider it a possibility, but it would be extremely hard to test. Since the USAF now uses the closed source version, whatever it was that was contributed CAN be assumed to be in the closed version.

The open source version is another matter, in that it depends on whether Mentor is the true owner of it or if they are merely the owner of a fork. Since the GPLed code was produced under contract to the DoD and since any bits pulled from other projects would still be nominally owned by their original authors, it's impossible to assume Mentor bought the full rights. They're more likely to have bought only Code Sourcery's fraction of the rights.

Again, though, even if we assume it's all fully legal - which it may well be, it does not seem in the ethos of open source (hence the usage of kosher) to prohibit access to that part of the code which was shared and has not been changed since. What they do with the bits that are theirs that replaced the open source stuff, that's their business, along with the code that was never shared and always closed. The remainder --- uhhhhhh. It feels very icky that anyone, owner included, can retroactively alter the rights to something.

Re:Their code, their rules

[Sique]

Why referring only to GPL code?

Code made from scratch, however, is pretty rare in my experience. People lift routines, interfaces, file system calls, all sort of stuff, routinely.

It's true for all sorts of code. It's called in the words of the immortal Bertrand of Chartres "standing on the shoulders of giants". It's what makes us humans so successful: Being able to learn from examples, being able to mimic what worked for others.

Re:Their code, their rules

[mwvdlee]

So if I may summarize; the question is (as it always is with GPL going closed) "Do all the copyrights on the code belong to the entity that closed the code?".

Dual license

[Arlet]

If code was produced with a dual license, one GPL, and one closed, then it's perfectly legal to abandon the GPL version, and keep working on the closed version.

Re:Dual license

[Crispy Critters]

It is unclear...if...perhaps...unless...

"When is it a good time to complain?" Sometime after you understand the facts and the laws relevant to the matter at hand.

Re:Dual license

[Toonol]

Yes, it's legal to abandon the GPLed version but nobody has answered (so far) the fact that a certain percentage of the code WAS distributed under the GPL and whilst the GPL has a provision for allowing code to be reused in closed-source software, it only permits that specific piece of re-use to not be GPLed when it is substantially different from the GPLed version.

That's not true at all. If you wrote the code, or have the copyright assigned to you, you can change licenses to and from GPL at will. You can GPL a utility you wrote, and then close it and refuse to give the source code to anyone, without changing a single bit of code. The only limit GPL puts on you is that you can't limit somebody else from redistributing the source that was out there during the time the code was GPL'd.

The copyright holder doesn't have to keep GPL'ing

[jeff4747]

When Mentor Graphics bought Code Sourcery, they continued developing the closed-course one and discontinued, then deleted, the GPL variant. It's unclear to me if that's kosher, as the closed variant must contain code that had been GPLed at one point

Doesn't matter. They created the software. They do not have to keep distributing new versions under the GPL. The 'must remain open' part of the GPL does not apply to the people who hold the copyright. They can change licensing of any future versions at any time.

Owner of code vs. User of code

[Corporate T00l]

The owner of the code can do whatever they want with it. Making it GPL doesn't force them to keep making future versions GPL, because they own all the rights. Users of GPL code need to adhere to the terms of the GPL because they don't own the rights, but are rather licensees of the owner.

That being said, if you have a copy of the GPL'd code, you were automatically granted some rights under the GPL which can't be revoked. So you can continue to use the code that you have under the GPL terms for as long as you want.

Re:The author(s) can license any way they want

[Grishnakh]

This is a good point that seems to have been overlooked: if anyone else (outside the organization) made any significant contributions to the GPL version of the code, then they absolutely can demand the proprietary version be released under the GPL, or else their contribution be removed, unless they agreed to assign the copyright back to the the original writers.

Totally "Kosher"

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

"It's unclear to me if that's kosher, as the closed variant must contain code that had been GPLed at one point."

It's absolutely fine. They own the code, they can publish it under whatever license they want. They can also stop publishing a GPL'd version if they want. Anyone who received the GPL version can continue to use it, modify it, etc. under the GPL. They cannot revoke that.

Been Through This Myself

[Anonymous Coward]

I contacted the FSF's GPL folks some years back about a GPL'ed program that had been re-licensed to a proprietary one. The answer is simple: the copyright _owners_ can decide how to license their own code. Including changing anything any way they like. (In my example, the owners purged Sourceforge and all other reachable repositories.)

You may also remember a dust-up over Mepis Linux not providing source code to what was essentially a repackging of GPL code. The GPL requires that if you _distribute_ GPL code, you must provide the source as well. Stallman said this was to prevent just the situation you're seeing; the original source goes dark for some reason.

So, while it's distressing to have a nice tool go proprietary, Stallman called it right again. He _thinks_ about these things, and is far from being some fanatic. He has a goal and he has been calling his shots right since the whole Xerox debacle in the seventies.

There was another case where the code in question had contributions by multiple people. Those people were the owners of the copyrights, and were able to engage the offender and uphold their rights. So if you own any of that code, complaint is the correct course of action. If not, then there's not much you can do, as they appear to be within their rights.

In my example, the user community put out the word to find the most recent copy of the GPL source, and they have continued development from there. One reason a company would open-source their code is to get the advantage of volunteer developers; you get source, they get code. If the open-source community for that code is 5 people, they may well decide there's no advantage, and that they should reduce their costs by shutting down the resources used for that collaborative development.

Re:The copyright holder doesn't have to keep GPL'i

[jeff4747]

Even if Code Sourcery created every bit of the version Mentor bought, it's not clear Mentor owns the GPL version.

The only way something is distributed under the GPL is if the copyright holder does so. If Code Sourcery/Mentor didn't own it, it could not have been released under the GPL. The copyright holder is the only entity that can license the software.

Mentor never produced or distributed the GPL version

Irrelevant. They bought the copyright when they bought the company that owns the copyright.

Since the code bases included shared code but were NOT identical (the closed version had heavily optimized versions of many of the functions), I'm not seeing anything that says Mentor is the sole copyright holder of the GPL edition.

Code differences between the closed-source and GPL'ed version are not relevant, assuming they have the copyright to both. The only way they would not have the copyright is if they accepted patches from others and did not have the patch author transfer copyright to them. It is standard practice to only accept patches when the patch author transfers copyright.

Sure they do not have to keep distributing new versions under the GPL, but that doesn't indicate to me that they're entitled to not distribute the old versions that were under the GPL.

Doesn't matter if it was once GPL'ed. They do not have to comply with the GPL because they own it. The only protection you have is they can't revoke the GPL on the previously-released version.

I couldn't fork Linux and then close-source it, claiming I was the owner of that fork

That is only true because you do not own the copyright to all of the code. If you own the copyright, you can distribute it any way you please and you are under no obligation to continue distributing it the way you used to.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Mentor do own the code and do have all the rights. Is it still kosher to un-GPL code?

Yes. As the owners of the code, they are not using/distributing it under the GPL. They are using using/distributing it under their copyright.

Forgetting whether you'd win in court, is it kosher to take software that had once been GPL and close it to the world?

They are perfectly within their rights to do so. And what makes open-source a nice counter to this problem is the open-source version remains open. If people don't like the close-sourcing of the product, they can continue development on the open-source fork. And since they own the copyright on their patches, Mentor can not use those patches in their closed-source version.

Essentially, it doesn't matter if it's "kosher". If people don't like it, they can continue the open-source fork.