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.
Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Funny)
I can just imagine him like that and saying "They may take our lives, but they can't take our free software!"
Bill's response (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bill's response (Score:5, Funny)
Though... it would explain the speed of the average Windows executable...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bill's response (Score:4, Funny)
Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Informative)
The violation comes in stripping the GPL off the code....definitely illegal.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (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 writt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Clarifying copyrights (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (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 discl
Legal vs Legitimate (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The artist still has zero of my dollars. The record company still has zero of my dollars. My friend still has the album he paid for. I have an album that I didn't pay for, and that I didn't intend to pay for. Should I have that album in my possession to begin with? No. How
Derivative Works (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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: (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
Re: (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 fro
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Misleading summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect that software authors (free or not) are more likely than most people to use multiple operating systems, and free software authors probably as likely, or nearly so, to use Windows
Re:Misleading summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Misleading summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is Windows-specific. Companies who write software that works on Windows usually write non-GPL, non-Open-source, proprietary stuff... and it is reasonable to expect the GPL violations on Closed Source code would be harder to detect.
Software written for Linux generally tends to be GPL / Apache / MPL licensed... very few firms write propr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Second of all, there are PLENTY of firms writing proprietary code for linux, most of it VERY expensive. Besides the obvious (Oracle, BEA, IBM) there are a huge number of high end scientific analysis, manufacturing and financial companies doing so.
Probably common (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate being a pessimist, but packaging OSS in binaries without mentioning it is probably being incredibly common.
Quite common actually. I estimate at least 50% of I/T purchases today contain some amount of open source and do not disclose it. Worse yet, many deny it slamming open source. I often run "strings" on it, or compare outputs. ldd for which binaries it is linked to. It is often surprising what you can find.
Question to your Question: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any event it's the copyright owners job to fix this... one should of course drop them a mail. One impo
Re: (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
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!
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."
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
On its software (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The person I replied to focused on the first part of the sentence, ignoring the bit about it being FSF software that the FSF defends, and tried to make it sound like the FSF was there to defend any and all GPL software, which is not the case.
Hardware devices using Linux as the firmware OS. (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
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: (Score:2)
But it harms the third person in line. That guy is getting your good stuff, the second guy's questionable stuff, and has no way to distinguish the two. Or to give credit where credit (or blame) is due. The second guy in line took that opportunity away when
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fsf is a fair weather friend (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By signing away the copyright, you've signed away the ability to relicense your code. In short, many are of the opinion that if you'd like to contribute your changes back under the GPL that's fine. If you want to close source and make money off our code, mine and yours, then I want money off my part too. To put it in real world terms. If you asked me for help moving a piece of furniture I'd certainly do so. If I learned you were hired and paid to move said furniture, I'd want to get
Re: (Score:2)
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 entire point of the GPL is that you use the terms of your copyright to ensure that all the users of your software have the same rights to it that you do. You (the creator) have the right to use, and the right to modify. With the GPL your users have the same rights. The GPL goes farther than that, though. It also says that neither you nor none of you
Re: (Score:2)
So hire your own lawyer and keep that gigantic statutory damages award for yourself. Of course, there is a risk that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Works for SQLite.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Replace the "source code" with words like "music" or "movie" or "book" and your sentences make a lot more sense. Books are available on the library, so certainly I have the right to copy a book and then sell it with profit, right? If I didn't have this right, the book wouldn't be public. Right?
Windows devs don't know much about GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Here's how to deal with it: (Score:2)
2.) Add a GPL violations fee notice for commercial exploitation of GPL violation for code you commited. Something like half a million dollars or something.
3.) Wait till they update their product with your code.
4.) Sue them into next wednesday.
5.) Profit.
If you get a lawyer with some advice to join you before you rev up your code contributions you could easyly prep a lawsuit that kills of the entire company and leaves you both with a nice mound of cash
Rentacoder & others (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who owns the shares ? (Score:2)
patent and GPL? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or they're just careless.
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
I've been curious (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
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: (Score:3, Informative)
libtorrent is BSD licensed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0619-04.ht m [commondreams.org]
"THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy t
Re: (Score:2)
This is about applications that happen to run on Windows that may be violating the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was (Score:2)
Actually, it was. And so was my copy of NT 4.0. (I must be the only dolt who bought NT for a gaming computer at home, but there you go.) So is my XP on my current gaming machine, and the Windows 2000 the other computer dual boots to. (Well, it used to be my gaming machine back then. How fast they go obsolete...)
Linux? Well, any download is legit there, but I like to buy boxed versions anyway. I'm writing this on a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:welcome! (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our Auto-Joke Creation Overlords, but imagine a Beowolf cluster of them. In Soviet Russia, the auto-joke creates you!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A major purpose of the GPL is to serve as a lever to get other people to provide their own work under similar terms.
Other OSS licenses may have very different purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
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 sof
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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 int
Re:What's the issue here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:People getting all fired up about GPL violation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
DLL's are dynamically linked libraries. All windows libraries are DLL's. Static libraries get rolled into the EXE file. Thus there's no viral-GPL bullshit on Windows unless the developer is stupid enough to just copy/paste GPL'ed code into their app and compile it in directly.
The best you can ask for in this case is the source to the DLL's. These probably had to undergo some modifications to be DLL's, since most GPL'ed-library developers know that you shouldn't make i
GPL plug-ins (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are you sure these are violations? YES! (Score:3, Insightful)
's are GPL'ed and the source of the added code MUST be made available. (Where is RMS on thi