Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Alleged GPL Violation Spurs Accusations, Lawsuit 126

Posted by Zonk from the angry-gplers dept.
lisah writes "Linux.com is reporting that Alexander Maryanovsky, the developer of Jin (a Java-based chess client), has filed a lawsuit alleging that International Chess University has violated several aspects of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Maryanovsky claims that the online chess training website and its CEO, Alexander Rabinovitch, are in violation of both his copyright and the GPL by distributing software that is based on Jin. According to the report, though Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts." Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alleged GPL Violation Spurs Accusations, Lawsuit More

Alleged GPL Violation Spurs Accusations, Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • Already Posted (Score:4, Informative)

    by Phantombrain ( 964010 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @06:11PM (#16109228) Journal
    This Story has already been posted on Slashdot.

    GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel [slashdot.org]

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
      I noticed this and thought about posting it as a dupe, but its not.
      Its an editorial and even describes and links to the slashdot discussion itself.
      I would put this under a slashback article if it were painted in the slashdot colours.

      Also, how come the linux article can include slashdot as related links but slash itself cannot?
      • your defending slashdot like they knew it was already posted :)
        usually they would link back to the original slashdot story, in this case they didn't know about it.

        lucky for slashdot, people put up with dupes (even though they complain all the time)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mcmonkey ( 96054 )

          [you're] defending slashdot like they knew it was already posted :)

          Apparently submitters and story-approvers decline to RTFA. As a non-subscriber, that means there are 3 groups (submitters, approvers, subscribers) who get to not read the article before I do.

          Does the /. affect apply when there are already too many people not clicking the link to the article?

  • Now that's a poweful license (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Get accused of infringing and flee the country.

    That sounds even harsher than what the BSA does to Microsoft pirates.

  • Editing our way out of a paper bag. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, 2006 @06:17PM (#16109286)
    Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

    Yes, they are, but we don't feel the need to point out that fact constantly.

    Now, if you mentioned that Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG, that would be a relevant disclosure statement. I'm suprised no one mentioned it.
  • kinda hard to prove proprietary software uses gpl code when you only have the binaries.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GotenXiao ( 863190 )
      Not if it's still got the easter eggs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by EndlessNameless ( 673105 )
      The source code is made available to both parties during discovery. Technically, the plaintiff has to ask the court to make it available, but since there isn't a way to investigate/litigate the matter without doing so the judge will almost certainly order the defendant to turn it over to the plaintiff for examination.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Talchas ( 954795 )
      Also, this is java, so if you have access to the proprietary binaries as a jar you can probably decompile the code and see if it looks like your code.

  • exact whereabouts? (Score:5, Funny)

    by vancondo ( 986849 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @06:43PM (#16109468) Homepage
    According to the report, though Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts.

    "I've done nothing wrong and if anyone needs me I'll be in my secret underground chess igloo."

    -- You give me beer, I give you condo. [vancouvercondo.info]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SEWilco ( 27983 )
      Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts.
      That doesn't sound like playing chess.
      Well, maybe the blinded chess variant which I've tried...each player has a board with only their own pieces on it. A referee (and the audience) ensures that players only make legal moves (not moving through another piece), and announcing "Check!".

  • Derived work (Score:5, Informative)

    by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @06:45PM (#16109482) Homepage
    The GPL FAQ is just a FAQ. The legally-binding license (v2) only says "Derived Work". Now, Jin is a chess client; what happened here is that Rabinovitch extended the client to do voice chat. Doesn't matter that he wrote it in a different language and that he interfaced it with sockets, this, to me, is a clear case of "Derived Work" (IANAL though).

    The whole socket thing is meant for something else. Staying in the realm of chess, there's a generic chess protocol that is used to interface engines with clients. If you have a server and a client communicating over such a generic protocol, and one of them is distributed under GPL, it doesn't mean that the other one also has to be GPL, because neither is a derived work of the other (again, IANAL).

    Finally, regarding EULA - GPL is not a EULA. He can distribute the binary client under a restrictive license, but he has to provide the sources under GPL. Rabinovitch seems to be in non-compliance here as well.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Doesn't matter that he wrote it in a different language and that he interfaced it with sockets, this, to me, is a clear case of "Derived Work" (IANAL though).

      The question here is if the underlying chat engine code is dependent on Jin. I bet it is not, so the chat is not a derived work. If Rabinovich's extended client is a Jin with built-in chat, then - sure - it's a derived work. However if it's a voice chat application that also supports chess playing, then it is not a derived work.

      In other words the case

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arose ( 644256 )

        If Rabinovich's extended client is a Jin with built-in chat, then - sure - it's a derived work. However if it's a voice chat application that also supports chess playing, then it is not a derived work.

        I fail to see the difference between Jin with built-in voice chat and voice chat with built-in Jin. Now if we'd have a stand a alone voice chat application that also happens to communicate with a slightly modified standalone Jin in a generalized way, the voice chat part wouldn't be a derived work, but from wh

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by brpr ( 826904 )
          It is well established that simply using a GPL application without linking to any of its code does not constitute a derived work.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by arose ( 644256 )

            Why are you saying that to me, I know that, what I don't know if the voice chat part links into the Jin part, do you? The answer to that question however has no bearing on other aspects of the case, such as non-compilable source code and correct copyright information.

    • The GPL FAQ is just a FAQ.

      How I wish more people would realize this.

      The legally-binding license (v2) only says "Derived Work". Now, Jin is a chess client; what happened here is that Rabinovitch extended the client to do voice chat. Doesn't matter that he wrote it in a different language and that he interfaced it with sockets, this, to me, is a clear case of "Derived Work" (IANAL though).

      "Derivative Work" has a specific (though maddeningly vague) legal definition. It is not the same as "dependency", a mistak
      • I'd agree with you, if the software already had that socket interface in place, as a means of communicating with other programs. But, it seems that in this case it didn't originally have it. Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls ... So, I stick to my opinion that it is derived work.

        Yes, the definition is particularly vague, that's one thing they're addressing in GPL v3.

        • But, it seems that in this case it didn't originally have it. Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls

          It's still a very gray area. The modified software is indeed a derivative work. But the software that communicates to it is not. He must adhere to the terms of the GPL for the modified work, but not for the other. Original software is original software. Making a remote procedure call does not suddenly make it unoriginal.

          that's one thing they're addressing
          • It still sorta matters. The GPL is mainly a distribution thing. Under the GPLv3 someone wouldn't be able to distribute a CD with the a GPLed blob together with a proprietary blob that communicated with each other. It doesn't matter what the government defines derived work as in this case, because the point is they won't have authorization from the copyright holder to distribute it any more. However, I don't think the GPLv3 will be able to do a damn thing about webservices, etc..

            The GPL has always relied
        • Basically, he modified the software, and replaced procedure calls with remote procedure calls

          I want to add one thing from my other post... One common mistake programmers make in regard to copyright law, is to assume that making procedure calls constitute copyright derivation. But this view is not in the legal definition. This is even more so for remote procedure calls.

          I do not have much sympathy for those who consider this a loophole in the GPL. If you want proprietary like control over you software, then

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pofy ( 471469 )
        >"Derivative Work" has a specific (though maddeningly vague) legal definition.

        Not in all countries, many countries does not have that concept as it is in the US copyright law. If I am not mistaken, the person in case was Russian, living in Israel, right?

        > It is not the same as "dependency", a mistake all too many people make. Communicating
        >with a module via sockets does not constitute copyright derivation. Let me quote from Title 17:

        That would only be relevant if you live or work in the US, not for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arose ( 644256 )

      Finally, regarding EULA - GPL is not a EULA. He can distribute the binary client under a restrictive license, but he has to provide the sources under GPL. Rabinovitch seems to be in non-compliance here as well.

      How do you come to the conclusion that you can distibute binaries under a restrictive license just because the GPL is not an EULA? The GPL is a distribution license, meaning that without it (lacking other agreements) you can't distribute the source code nor derivative works, like binaries without agr

  • This is the chance for the FSF to actually show its mettle in the courtroom. More is at stake here than the damages. Basically, the real point that is going to be made here is: Do gnu/bsd style licensed software works create enough revenue to hire big lawyers to take on the suit? If the answer is no, is there any reason to continue with this style of licensing? I'm pretty sure Berkeley will always back up their stuff with a torrent of papers (undergrad law students get put up to everything!) but the eff is

  • Maryanovsky needs to quite the whining... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @06:57PM (#16109558)
    Having read the article, it seems that it really comes down to this: The IChessU client connects to Jin through sockets, and Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one. Thus, the code for the IChessU client must be published. Rabinovitch says this isn't so, they are two separate things. But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL. It's a loophole for sure, but it's there and it's not a secret. If Maryanovsky wanted to have more control over the use of his code, he should have chosen a different license.
    • If Maryanovsky wanted to have more control over the use of his code, he should have chosen a different license.


      Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Thread has been beaten!
      • If that's all there is then there is clearly no GPL violation.. otherwise you'd be in violation of the GPL if you browsed to a website using a GPL webserver.. heck, you'd be in violation of the GPL if you ran a non-GPL CGI program on a GPL webserver.

        Two applications communicating via sockets is not a violation - it's actually very common (for example talking to bugzilla via its http interface.. I know of some very expensive proprietary packages that do that). That's not a derived work it's a collective wor
        • If that's all there is then there is clearly no GPL violation.. otherwise you'd be in violation of the GPL if you browsed to a website using a GPL webserver..


          Note that the GPL is not a EULA. It has nothing to do with using the software. It has everything to do with developing and distribution.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jthill ( 303417 )

      TFA:

      "What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?"

      Rabinovitch is talking out his ass to suit the taste of people who don't and don't want to understand the GPL. The GPL's dead plain on his hypothetical: link with proprietary code: fine. Distribute the result: illegal.

      Having read the article ... Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one

      Maryanovsky claims th

      • "Linking" is a well-understood term-of-art in comptuer science and "talking through socket" doesn't qualify.

        Sounds to me like Rabinovitch could answer Maryanovsky's objections by distributing source to the Jin-plus-sockets-adapter and source to a do-nothing socket-plugin to replace his chat application (without performing its chat function). That would make the modified Jin compile and run from the supplied sources - as Jin - without the proprietary code.

        (It would also provide a skeleton in case somebody e

    • Re:Maryanovsky needs to quite the whining... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @09:55PM (#16110399)
      But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL.


      Bull. From the article:

      Rabinovitch has not refuted most of the details in the account on Maryanovsky's site when asked to give his version of events. According to Maryanovsky, Rabinovitch approached him in early 2006 for help writing a chess client and server for IChessU. Pleading lack of time, Maryanovsky suggested that IChessU could either use Jin or pay him $4,000 for a commercial license instead. After Maryanovsky gave Rabinovitch advice on technical matters and introduced him to friends with experience with startup companies, on March 27, Rabinovitch told Maryanovsky that he planned to use Jin under the terms of the GPL.


      If this account is accurate - there has never been an issue with Jin being used for commercial interests. Granted - there are a contingent of folks who just don't understand that the GPL has little to do with commercial use of licensed code. I've met folks who bristle about "paying for Linux" or other such complaints. This does not seem to be the case at all. If Jin was used as the client-of-choice for the IChessU service without modification then there would be no issue. And your point would be valid.

      IChessU use of sockets is an interesting point. You might have a valid point claiming Maryonovsky can't have issue with this. In doing so, you've clearly decided to dismiss the various details of this. The reader might want to look in to it a bit more.

      Of course - there are more issues in the case. You're also ignoring IChessU's client EULA.

      I know its more fun to poke at the GPL. But you're being misleading.
      • The fact that Maryanovsky asked for money and Rabinovitch refused is irrelevent to the question of if this is or is not a GPL violation. Sure, it would be nice if Rabinovitch had paid up, it would have solved a lot of problems. But that's why many people don't use the GPL, they want to get paid. If you GPL your work, this may not happen even ifyour work is used commercially. This is why I said Maryanovsky should have chosen a different license...

        • The fact that Maryanovsky asked for money and Rabinovitch refused is irrelevent to the question of if this is or is not a GPL violation.

          I agree. Absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

          Sure, it would be nice if Rabinovitch had paid up, it would have solved a lot of problems. But that's why many people don't use the GPL, they want to get paid. If you GPL your work, this may not happen even ifyour work is used commercially. This is why I said Maryanovsky should have chosen a different license...

          Rabino

          • I don't really think commercial use has much to do with the license issue at all. But it does have to do with why Maryanovsky is upset at Rabinovitch. Rabinovitch found a loophole in the GPL that allows him to circumvent the "spirit" of the GPL. Maryanovsky doesn't like this, but it doesn't change the facts that while the "spirit" of the GPL has been violated, the letter has not.
            • I think if you go back over the case, you'll find that the letter of the license was violated as well. The issue of using sockets actually is a red herring. That method wasn't used. Now, whether sockets provides a loophole is open to debate and is arguably what the discussion is about (albiet not applicable in this case).

              With that in mind, I would again stress that the premiss of your comment seems to be that this whole complaint is simply sour grapes. And again, I don't see it. You'd have to show some
              • No, maybe not "sour grapes". But there are some (many?) in the "Open Source world who do resent it when their work is used commercially, and nothing is "given back" to Open Source. They have a point. I would argue that these people need a more restrictive license than the GPL, and indeed there are other "Open Source" licenses that offer a more restrictive framework. But if they choose the GPL, no whining when someone exploits a loophole.

                No, I think maybe this case needs closer examination to see if in fact

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 )
      Um, from my several readings of posts by the Jin author, that is *NOT* the case. He does not use sockets to communicate with Jin, he planned on doing that at one point in time but now simply uses Jin "directly". I assume this means he is linking to it as a DLL or something comparable.

      So I think your critique of the guy as a whiner is unwarranted. I agree Maryanovsky's posts are a bit confusing at times, but then, I don't think any of these guys are native English speakers so you have to cut them a break.
    • The GPL allows for "mere bundling" with propritary software.

      Whether it is "mere bundling" or a derived work most likely depend not on the specific mechanism the two components use to communicate, but whether it happens through standard, predefined protocol.

      If Jin already included a socket interface and a documented protocol for remote control, Maryanovsky has to live with the fact that someone used it (or he should have used the Alladin Licence).

      If it was something Rabinovitch created for IChessU, he will h

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ctid ( 449118 )
      Amazingly, you're happy to accuse Maryanovsky of "whining" when you're not even prepared to read the article properly. The article states specifically that the IChessU client does not connect through a socket.
      • Thanks for pointing that out. I had missed it. From the article:

        In the end, IChessu did not use a socket, but produced its own client that Maryanovsky describes as "95% my code and 5% theirs." Rabinovitch agrees, writing in an email, "We never tried to hide the fact that our client is based on the Jin code." IChessU's addtions included an audio/voice over IP module, and several Java classes associated with the module. Some source code was posted to the site, but how much and whether it included the code f

    • But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL.
      Yeah basically, that being the whole point of the GPL in the first place. Bring on version 3 I say.

    • The IChessU client connects to Jin through sockets, and Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one.

      Two points:

      (1) IChessU doesn't connect via sockets.

      (2) Even if it did, Maryanovsky might still be right. Although the GPL talks about linking, the GPL doesn't really get to decide what constitutes a derived work under copyright law. The courts get to decide that. If this were to go to court (and if IChessU did connect via sockets, rather than linking), it see

  • Did they get the source via P2P (Score:5, Funny)

    by supun ( 613105 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @07:09PM (#16109621)
    As we all know, P2P removes all licensing agreements from software, music, and videos.
    • I was just thinking about that...

      I don't even think it's funny, more insightfull, I have not seen anyone respond and expalin the difference to me...

      (People have tried to "explain" the difference but no one has managed to do this using coherent reasoning....)

  • Some comments and corrections (Score:5, Informative)

    by SashaM ( 520334 ) <msasha@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday September 14, 2006 @09:51PM (#16110389) Homepage
    I'll post here what I've already posted on linux.com:

    • [Rabinovich] now points to online articles that he believes supports his position, such as Eric Schnell's and Jason Rumney's blogs.

      Eric Schnell [blogspot.com] got the whole thing backwards. He thinks that Jin has an A/V module, which IChessU decided not to use and thus do not publish its source code. From his blog:

      From I can make out, Jin's creator Alexander Maryanovsky's problem with IChessU is that while IChessU has utilized Jin's code, they are not distributing Jin's entire source code. An A/V module in Jin is not being used by IChessU and therefore the source code is not included.

      I've tried to respond to his blog, but his captcha seems to be broken. I've emailed him but got no response so far.

      I couldn't find anything related on Jason Rumney's [jasonrumney.net] blog, even with a google search [google.com].

    • "All the articles were produced only by Maryanovsky people/fans," [Rabinovich] says, "which is fine because they are published in developer's magazines/sites..

      Where would Rabinovich have GPL violation related articles posted? A cooking magazine? Are Slashdot, Yediot Ahronot and Arstechnica all my fans? I didn't know I was that popular.

    • "He also said," Maryanovsky writes, "that they are planning to wrap Jin in a layer that would allow it to be controlled via a socket. I told [Rabinovitch] that I believe this would still, most likely, be violating the GPL." Despite this opinion, IChessU proceeded with its plan [snip]

      That's wrong. As I mention on my page, they abandonded that idea and proceeded to use Jin in a straightforward manner.

    • Rabinovitch, however, writes [snip] The guy is hurt

      Gee, I wonder why I'd be hurt? Could it be because Rabinovich stole my work?

    • Rabinovitch rejects the charge of bad faith negotiations because it is made without any explanation or evidence.

      As I explained to him in my response [sf.net], there's was no need to explain anything or bring evidence. The letter was to him - he already knows all the evidence! He was there at the negotiations!

    • Writing to NewsForge, Rabinovitch states that all source code was posted to the IChessU site, including that for the audio-visual module -- a claim that cannot be substantiated, since all code has now been removed from the IChessU site. He characterizes the audio/voice module as a separate program that "has nothing in common with the original Jin (it is even written in a different computer language!).".

      So if the source code to the A/V module was released under the GPL, as required, why argue that it's a separate program? Not that it makes any difference, as that is exactly the point of the GPL - even unrelated code becomes "infected", as long as it's part of the same application. If I didn't want unrelated code infected, I'd release Jin under the LGPL. That is the whole difference between the GPL and the LGPL!

    • What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?

      No, I would then claim that they cannot publish the resulting application at all, as the GPL clearly states:

      If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

      As has been pointed out many times - you do not have any rights to a GPLed application except for the rights that the GPL gives you. The GPL does not give you the right to add a "Microsoft Word button" to Jin (excep

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )

      I couldn't find anything related on Jason Rumney's blog, even with a google search.

      I can't think of anything related on my blog either, and if I were to post something, it would certainly not support Rabinovich.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jrumney ( 197329 )
        I think he must mean this post [jasonrumney.net]. The post is about adding image support to the windows port of Emacs, and mentions that the image support uses DLLs which it links to at runtime. I can only guess that he mistakenly assumes that I took this approach for licensing reasons, and thinks that because my changes were accepted into Emacs CVS, then it supports his case. But this is a false assumption. The libraries I link to are all released under a GPL compatible license.
    • I'd be a fool to argue the claims and explanations of your message, but I will take exception with your final comment ...

      Why would he be avoiding the lawsuit, which would obviously clear his and his company's name, if he was right?

      What's so hard to believe about his explanation?

      Rabinovitch ... says that he and his wife moved for employment and family reasons (emphasis added).

      Or did you mean to imply (from the laundry list of statements you discounted above) that you wouldn't believe him if he said "wate

  • Isn't this the same thing Dave Watanabe is accused of, right down to the sockets vs. linking debate?

  • So many Commie Ruskies in Israel - how come ?? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How come so many Commie Ruskies are in Israel ?? That's the last place I'd want to be. Maybe that's why that Commie left . .

  • Everybody gets this wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Friday September 15, 2006 @04:59AM (#16111779)
    There is no such thing as "a violation of the GPL". What these people have violated is copyright law.

    In RMS's ideal world {and mine for that matter}, it would be law that every piece of software had to come with Source Code {this being necessary for the meaningful exercise of Freedoms One and Three}, either at the time it was obtained or anytime later on request; and failure to supply the Source Code on request would be punishable. Source Code isn't the only requirement, but we're simplifying a little here. Anyway, Freedoms Zero and Two can be taken by force if necessary; at the present time, it is orders of magnitude more difficult {though mathematically not impossible} to obtain Source Code by forcible techniques.

    The GPL is a sort of "second best" approach, a way to approximate the ideal situation using existing laws.

    Existing copyright law already says that if you want to distribute copies of something someone else originally made and which is still under protection of copyright, you usually need permission in writing from that person. The law actually gives you some limited right to make copies in the name of "fair dealing" or "fair use", which nothing can take away -- even if you promise not to exercise your statutory rights, you can go ahead and do so anyway without fear of repercussions. The other person is a sucker for believing in a worthless promise.

    Now, if you have written a program and want people to use it, it's clear that you have to make some provision for distributing copies. This is where copyright law comes into play. If, as a fine upstanding citizen, you want to ensure the Four Freedoms for everyone who uses your program, then you can give permission to distribute copies of your program so long as they preserve the Four Freedoms for everyone who receives a copy from them.

    The GPL is a letter of permission to do things above and beyond what the Law of the Land allows, on certain conditions. What it basically says is that: you get Freedom Zero whatever happens, and you get Freedom Two if and only if you don't seek to deny any subsequent recipient of the program from you any of the Four Freedoms. If you don't comply with the conditions of the GPL, then it doesn't give you any permission to do anything, and normal copyright law applies.

    If you make a derivative work of a GPL program and don't show it to anyone else, then the Law of the land says you can do that: it's Fair Dealing. However, once you overstep the bounds of Fair Dealing, you require written permission. And the GPL only affords permission if you comply with certain conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by morie ( 227571 )
      True, but slightly incomplete:

      you require written permission. And the GPL only affords permission if you comply with certain conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law.

      Unless you get your written permission from the copyright holder on another basis.

      They negotiated over that, for a feeble 4000, but he decided not to buy that permission. Therefore, he is still in violation of copyright law.

      • Re:Everybody gets this wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Friday September 15, 2006 @07:29AM (#16112150)
        You're correct. The necessary "written permission" needn't be the GPL -- it could be a separate agreement altogether. However, nobody but the copyright holder {or, in exceptional circumstances, the courts} has the power to grant such permission, and distributing GPL software without permission is no different to distributing any other copyrighted software without permission. Which is why the permission under the GPL originates from the copyright holder -- and even if you didn't receive a copy of the text of the GPL with the program {which is against the GPL conditions unless you specifically requested that}, in fact even if the copy you received is legally considered infringing, you still have all the permissions granted by the GPL.

        He does not hold the copyright in the work in question, he did not comply with the conditions of the GPL, he did not pay for the commercial licence and his acts of distribution go well beyond Fair Dealing. Therefore, however you look at it, he is in violation of copyright.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close