GPL Violations On Windows Go Unnoticed? 445
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.
new method of detecting GPL violations (Score:5, Informative)
Re:prety much (Score:3, Informative)
Probably common (Score:5, Informative)
Be sure to report it. (Score:5, Informative)
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!
FSF pursues all violations (Score:5, Informative)
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
fsf is a fair weather friend (Score:5, Informative)
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:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
libtorrent is BSD licensed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Be sure to report it. (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bill's response (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Informative)
The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
It needs to be accompanied by a written offer for the source if it isn't accompanied by source.
Re:What's the issue here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
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); therefore, anybody copying software covered by the GPL whilst failing to abide by the conditions it imposes is probably violating copyright.
Unfortunately, the GPL fails explicitly to mention the use of Reasonable Force in pursuit of your entitlements. Maybe in v4
(As an aside, I note that this could be eliminated entirely by a requirement for every piece of software, whether it be sold or given away gratis and whether or not it be intended for redistribution, to be accompanied by its Source Code. Permission to copy could then be placed *in* the Source Code. I'll be writing to my Elected Representative about this, soon after I have received his response to the last letter I sent him and allowed a customary grace period to elapse.)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GPL is too dangerous - stay away! (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:GPL or LGPL (Score:1, Informative)
Now, who should I believe, the FSF, or the guy who thinks that all windows libraries are DLL's?
GPL plug-ins (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bill's response (Score:2, Informative)
No. It's CIL (Common Intermediate Language, a.k.a. MSIL, Microsoft Intermediate Language) . While this can be interpreted (for example, the Mono runtime includes interpreter), it is normally just-in-time compiled for the platform on which it is run.
CLR is the runtime that makes it all work.
Addressing a few comments... (Score:5, Informative)
- 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
Re:What's the issue here? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Informative)
DLL files are a little tricky though, not sure I understand how they would be considered.
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:2, Informative)
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 [die.net] 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.
Re:Question to your Question: (Score:3, Informative)
Whoever owns the software in order to protect their copyright claims. The Free Software Foundation recommends that GPL authors assign the copyright over to them, just for these reasons. They actively pursue copyright claims.
Who's going to pay for the lawyers to do so?
The FSF has lawyers on staff and people like me, who pay yearly dues to the FSF, pay for these lawyers.
Is there *any* money to be made? Even enough to pay for those lawyers?
No clue, but you could email the FSF to find out.
Are you just penalizing the "spirit" of the GPL by making it a legal battle rather than letting the code proliferate?
That's the point. The code here isn't proliferating. This is a corporate company distributing pirated software for their own gains. It'd be like Microsoft including Photoshop in Windows without paying licensing to Adobe.
The GPL isn't about free code, it's about keeping the code free.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
"B. Certain software libraries and other third party software included with the Apple Software are free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Library/Lesser General Public License (LGPL), as the case may be. You may obtain a complete machine-readable copy of the source code for such free software under the terms of the GPL or LGPL, as the case may be, without charge except for the cost of media, shipping, and handling, upon written request to Apple. The GPL/LGPL software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. A copy of the GPL and LGPL is included with the Apple Software."
I don't see how this really violates any part of the GPL, but you said that. Are there any other derivative works that they are distributing?
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Simple solution (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Windows devs don't know much about GPL (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:3, Informative)
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.
GPL is not an exclusive license (Score:2, Informative)
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...
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
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 [thefreedictionary.com]. This is a free version of a legal dictionary and it is materially the same as the pay versions I have.