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.

Richard Stallman...

[Anonymous Coward]

When asked for comment, Richard Stallman stroked his beard lovingly and said, "Soon, my friends. Soon the world shall be ours."

Re:Richard Stallman...

[gbobeck (926553)]

Richard Stallman wearing a kilt and wearing blue paint on his face.

I can just imagine him like that and saying "They may take our lives, but they can't take our free software!"

Well..

[WhatAmIDoingHere (742870)]

Did you try to contact the company? If not, that would be the first step.

Re:Well..

[HappySmileMan (1088123)]

I sent an email yesterday telling them that they were in violation of the GPL and that the story reached slashdot, didn't say much else and don't know much, but decided to inform them before they get a bunch of "OMG j00 r copyright n00b" emails.

Re:Well..

[Atzanteol (99067)]

Or at least asking them for the source. It's a common misconception that a GPLd app must be accompanied by source code. The company only has to make it available upon request.

Re:

[DaHat (247651)]

More than that really as they aren't giving you the code outright, they need to offer (in writing) to give it to you if you ask... from the sounds of it neither is happening here.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, GPL software does not need to be accompanied by the source, but it does need to be accompanied by an offer to give you the source. The original article suggests that there was no such offer.

Re:Well..

[Arslan ibn Da'ud (636514)]

That is all very true...selling GPL'd code is perfectly legal. If they refuse to provide sourcecode to their sw upon request, that is illegal, but that hasn't happened, yet.

The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.

Re:Well..

[jessecurry (820286)]

whaT gpl code is apple making deRivative wOrks of? i know that a Large chunk of os x came from bsd-Licensed work, but AFAIK they do not have anything that was derived from gpl.

Legal vs Legitimate

[NeutronCowboy (896098)]

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.

Re:Clarifying copyrights

[radish (98371)]

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.

Re:Clarifying copyrights

[mcrbids (148650)]

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 [eff.org]
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 [reference.com] (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.

Re:Clarifying copyrights

[sumdumass (711423)]

I would help if you knew what you were talking about. This is a ruling from a judge [sourceforge.net] who saw lawyers, not law clerks, arguing the case and chose to believe that while the license was over copyright, failing to honor the terms of the license was strictly contract law. And this ruling was made over 4 years after your linked post on grokelaw was made.

The rulling specifically says:

The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit the scope of
the license. Rather, Defendants' alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright
infringement where it would not otherwise exist. Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim properly sounds in contract and therefore Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merit of his
copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm

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 [thefreedictionary.com]. This is a free version of a legal dictionary and it is materially the same as the pay versions I have.

Re:Well..

[petard (117521)]

Or at least asking them for the source. It's a common misconception that a GPLd app must be accompanied by source code. The company only has to make it available upon request.

It needs to be accompanied by a written offer for the source if it isn't accompanied by source.

Re:

[TapeCutter (624760)]

Speaking as someone who does this on a reasonably regular basis...

1. Read "free" license.txt. (Some are surprising, eg: SQLite's original "prayer" or FractInt's "Got money - want admiration")

2. Cut & paste the "free" license.txt into the appendix of your license.txt

3. ???

4. Profit!

There are companies and individuals who are willfully ignorant of steps 1&2 particularly when talking about shrink-wrapped software but IMHO most corporate shops treat copyright issues with "due dilligence".

Re:

[ajs318 (655362)]

It doesn't have to be accompanied by the Source Code, but it does have to be accompanied by the text of the GPL -- which explicitly states that you are entitled to the Source Code and if you didn't find it included with the software, then you need only ask for it.

The GPL is usually the only thing giving you permission to make copies of someone else's copyrighted work (unless your use constitutes Fair Dealing or you have separately-negotiated permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent)

Re:

[Knuckles (8964)]

I would think notifying the copyright holder about the violation is the most appropriate thing to do.

Right on. Using code that is available under GPL does not even always mean that there is a violation. It's possible that the copyright hold allowed them to use it under a different license. (Given the number of packages that are included in this DVD authoring application, this seems unlikely, though.)

new method of detecting GPL violations

[chalkyj (927554)]

Should be linking to http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 8/25/1648253 [slashdot.org] I guess.

Misleading summary

[CogDissident (951207)]

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.

Re:

[ivan256 (17499)]

I don't think the summary is misleading at all. The implication is that free software writers are less likely to notice when their code is used in violation of the license when the violation occurs in a Windows application instead of in an application written for an OS such an author is more likely to use him/herself.

Re:Misleading summary

[Mark J Tilford (186)]

Part of the GPL says that they must "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." (section 1 at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.h tml [gnu.org] ). If the program did "included GPL and LGPL software without any mention of the GPL", it's a violation as far as any GPL software is concerned. I looked over the LGPL briefly, but didn't see any problems. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html [gnu.org] if anybody else wants to look.)

Re:Misleading summary

[mr_mischief (456295)]

Several others have pointed these things out:

1. They must include a copy of the license.
2. They must provide a written offer with the package to provide the source on request.
3. They cannot strip attributions in what they provide

I don't know that they've done the last one, but it makes sense along with the other violations

Probably common

[Jugalator (259273)]

I hate being a pessimist, but packaging OSS in binaries without mentioning it is probably being incredibly common.

Question to your Question:

[JeremyGNJ (1102465)]

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?

Be sure to report it.

[kebes (861706)]

At a minimum, document everything and send a report to the GPL-violations homepage [gpl-violations.org] (in particular, refer to contact info [gpl-violations.org]). 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!

Re:Be sure to report it.

[Vulva R. Thompson, P (1060828)]

This snippet from the FAQ is probably worth posting for others that run into this issue (before posting on Digg or Slashdot). Note the last paragraph, emphasis mine:

"How can I help gpl-violations.org ?

Firstly by not reacting to a technical GPL violation in an extreme fashion. Secondly by checking the violation is indeed a violation.

Join the mailing lists, discuss issues there first. Be polite but firm when dealing with companies and remember that the goal is to ensure a company stops violating the GPL and does not violate it again, rather than to leave a smoking crater at the location of their HQ... at least not on the first offence.

Keep records of conversations with companies. Co-ordinate with others. A company faced with eight different stories will find it hard to deal with. A company faced with a single accurate information source can respond better.

Beware the "public shaming" bomb. It's easy to let off, but very hard to defuse if you made a mistake or the issue turned out to be minor and is rapidly resolved. In addition companies may become very defensive in such cases and decide to "tough it out". We want to build bridges and giving a company no way to avoid losing face hinders that, especially in certain cultures."

FSF pursues all violations

[Brett Smith (1081153)]

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 [fsf.org] 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

On its software

[fotbr (855184)]

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)

Re:

[PhilHibbs (4537)]

OP wrote:
The FSF investigates and pursues GPL violations on its software on all platforms.
Its software - software owned by the FSF, such as the GNU project. The article is incorrectly tagged 'gnu' but this is not a GNU issue. Just because someone used the GPL for their software, doesn't make it part of the GNU project or owned by the FSF and the FSF have no obligation to do anything about this. (dsclaimer: I havent checked to see whether any of the software listed actually is part of the GNU project but it

fsf is a fair weather friend

[Speare (84249)]

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.

Re:

[Aram Fingal (576822)]

The point of the GPL is to keep the project, which you wrote code for, going in a publicly available form. The main complaint of TFA is that these people using GPL code aren't making their snapshot of code (with any modifications they made) available to the public. Without the GPL, public domain code for a project can be taken, modified and close-sourced. If some people start using the closed source version, then you have development forks which can't be synced and your version of the project can suffer

Re:fsf is a fair weather friend

[kebes (861706)]

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

No benefit to yourself? If you're putting code under the GPL, it's usually because you believe in the principles of the GPL (keeping code open source, encouraging freedom, etc.). In such a case, the benefit of signing copyright over to the FSF is that they will take care of enforcement on your behalf.

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?

If you want your code to be public domain, then you would release it to the public domain in the first place (or use a BSD license). Using the GPL is not a substitute for public domain: it is a license which guarantees certain things, namely it guarantees that the code will remain open and shareable ("free"). If you don't care about code remaining open and shareable, then don't license it under GPL. If you do care about it being open and shareable, then license it under GPL. If you further don't want to deal with the hassles of protecting said license, sign over the copyright to the FSF, who have much experience in such matters.

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? ... I think it's just a bit petty to show the code but not authorize its use.

You are basically saying that you prefer BSD to GPL. That's fine. (So, go ahead and license your code that way.) However, understand that the purpose of the GPL is to encourage all code to be "free," where free means: open source, shareable, and guaranteed to remain so.

You appear not to care about the "guaranteed to remain so" part. That's fine. But understand that many among us find closing the source of code that was freely distributed to be rather unfriendly... and we're using copyright law as a tool to help guarantee that the code remains free. This guarantee helps encourage more people to create and to release (because many people would not release their code if they knew that others would commercialize/extend it without giving back). That is, copyright law is achieving, in this case, its stated goal: to encourage the production and dissemination of content.

That, in my mind, is the brilliance of the GPL: it co-opts copyright law, uses it in an unconventional way, and thereby achieves the fundamental purpose of copyright law: to give an incentive for creation and free distribution of creative works.

Re:

[DragonWriter (970822)]

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?

Works for SQLite.

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?

The GPL (conceptually); lets people use the software freely, but requires that they "pay" you if the change and distribute the software. Now, they don't pay in money, they

Windows devs don't know much about GPL

[Shados (741919)]

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...

Rentacoder & others

[drspliff (652992)]

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 :)

patent and GPL?

[pruss (246395)]

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.

Addressing a few comments...

[Scott_F (19754)]

Just to address a few comments so far:

- 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!" ... 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.

- 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... :-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).

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

Re:

[Mark J Tilford (186)]

According to http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/featu res.html [rasterbar.com] , libtorrent is BSDL.

libtorrent is BSD licensed

[Inf0phreak (627499)]

libtorrent uses the BSD license. It says so right on their page: http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/featu res.html#license [rasterbar.com]

Re:

[zeridon (846747)]

my fault, acknoledged

Re:Bill's response

[Opportunist (166417)]

It shouldn't need interpretation if it's in a DLL, that should've been compiled.

Though... it would explain the speed of the average Windows executable...

Re:Bill's response

[Bottlemaster (449635)]

The company tried to hide this by wrapping them all in DLLs.

There would have been no violation to hide if they had left those utilities in their original form. But because they turned them into libraries and linked to them, the company must abide the GPL with respect to its own code.

It sounds to me like the company isn't trying to hide anything. They're just clueless.

Re:Bill's response

[bsander (774553)]

Yeah, let's not be picky.

Re:

[Random BedHead Ed (602081)]

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. :)

Re:

[byolinux (535260)]

Selling Free Software [gnu.org] is just fine.

Re:What's the issue here?

[tinkerghost (944862)]

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?

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.

This reminds me of the big argument the founder of Slackware got into, when he announced he was going to sell distributions. Yes, sell! Oh my god, the horrors of actually charging for somehthing!

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.

Re:

[Ash-Fox (726320)]

A few years ago I started exploring GPL software like apache, and it offers certain technical advantages.

Apache isn't GPL, if you really explored it, you'd know that.

Stop trolling.

Re:Are you sure these are violations? YES!

[scharkalvin (72228)]

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 thi

GPL plug-ins

[tepples (727027)]

Not if the GPL software is all in DLL's.

Using a DLL with an app may constitute combining two programs into one work, in which case an app that imports from a DLL also imports obligations under copyleft. Whether or not a judge would apply copyleft depends on the facts, including whether the DLL is an integral part of the application's functionality (which implies combination) or is a replaceable plug-in (implies aggregation), and whether the interface between the app and the library resembles shared memory (combination) or streams (aggregation). See "Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?" in the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].

Re:welcome!

[Maximum Prophet (716608)]

Is it a new rule on /. that EVERY article has to include a comment featuring the tired, stale "overlords" joke?

Yes. What slashdot should do is have a link to the auto-joke creation page, where it takes the subject and automatically creates the Overlord, Beowolf, and in Soviet Russia jokes. Once those are taken care of by an AI, people won't feel the need to repeat them.

I for one welcome our Auto-Joke Creation Overlords, but imagine a Beowolf cluster of them. In Soviet Russia, the auto-joke creates you!!!