[KLUG Members] Re: Reporting GPL Violations?

[Bryan J. Smith]

--=-K2rr9MMPUh0XHnJpC5ZA
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 16:25, Adam Williams wrote:
> Is there any organization to which one can report violations of the GPL?

You should contact two entities:
  1.  The copyright holder of the original code used in the derived work
  2.  The Free Software Foundation c/o this page:
      http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Remember, legally there's not such thing as a "GPL violation."  Either a
program adheres to the GPL license, or it doesn't.  If the software
released was released as GPL, and the derived work doesn't adhere to the
GPL license, then it is not GPL.

It then it becomes a question of what other license was the original
software released under, either publicly or to the specific entity, that
the derived work is based on.  If it wasn't released under any other
license, then such a derived work becomes a copyright issue.  Without a
license to created a derived work, the creator of the derived work can
be sued by the original copyright holder.

Unlike other licenses, the GPL is _not_ about what you can _not_ do
under copyright law.  It is about what things you can do under copyright
law with the designated public license, the GPL in this case, without
licensing the software directly from the copyright holder.  If you don't
agree to those terms, then you don't have a license.  And, again, any
derived work then becomes a possible copyright violation.

The MySQL AB v. NuSphere lawsuit is a good study in this.  The anti-GPL
lobby believes it hurt the GPL when, in fact, the judge stated that the
GPL is one of the least intrusive licenses in existence, and very clear
in the eyes of law.  Why?  Because it doesn't take away things from
copyright, it only states how any derived works can be made, under what
context, without an additional license.

In a nutshell, the GPL provides a way for a company to create a derived
work of someone else's copyright without additional licensing
negotiation.  If you do not agree to the terms of the GPL in any derived
work when the original work is GPL licensed, then you must negotiate
another license with its copyright holder.  If you don't, then you are
guilty of copyright violation if you release the derived work.

> Unfortunately the company in question is in Germany (as far as I can=20
> tell),  so I don't really think I can do anything but bitch.  They have=20
> released software marked as GPL'd but - no source code anywhere to be=20
> found and they aren't cooperative.

If it is based on GPL code, then you need to contact both.

If it's a 100% original work, then just contact the FSF about possible
trademark violation of the use of "GPL" if it is not the GNU Public
License.

--=20
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (BSECE)       Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
[ http://thebs.org/files/resume/BryanJonSmith_certifications.pdf ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
* A lecture on software piracy from Bill Gates is like a lecture *
* on adultry from the owner of a brothel of other people's wives *


--=-K2rr9MMPUh0XHnJpC5ZA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+El0mDjEszaVrzmQRArDtAKCcYsU/IlEC4HmBqrgJz1jglx9VfQCfdRX7
5foPVZiSQBz7m7YgnMY73PM=
=FN6F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-K2rr9MMPUh0XHnJpC5ZA--