The claim in this subthread was, "the GPL does not create new obligations upon authors who combine original works with GPL works"

If you accept license to the GPL'd work, that plainly isn't true. What part of the phrase "If you accept license to the GPL'd work" was unclear? Yes of course if you don't accept the GPL license to the work then it's simply infringing and nothing in the GPL applies.

A decent argument can be made, but you can come at this one from a number of angles. For example, GPL v2 section 4 says: "However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." This means that IF Versata accepted the GPL license then none of their customers are in violation unless those customers further redistribute the software. Even though Versata itself is in violation. More importantly, it means that IF Ximpleware asserts that Versata accepted the GPL (they seem to make this claim) that must also mean that the GPL license flowed down to everyone who received the software from Versata and themselves accepted the GPL license. Even if they never requested the source code and don't care to.

But that's just the thing - they ARE using it within the context of using VTD-XML. It just happens to be a copy of VTD-XML that's embedded in Versatta's derivative work. And if you grant that the patent license comes with the download of the GPL'd code then the license must have been meant to cover as many copies of VTD-XML that the downloader cares to use.

That would be simple fraud. Which would essentially kill XimpleWare's case in spite of Versata's bad behavior.

That's an error. Violated != void. Violated means the license remains in full force and effect and you're entitled to enforcement of its terms. But it remains in full force and effect, including all the rights granted to the violator! Void means the license does not exist. They have no rights arising under any license and you're entitled to general remedies at law for the absence of permission.

You're conflating three distinct issues here: unlawful posession of a copyrighted work, unlawful copying and distribution of a copyrighted work and unlawful use of a patent.

Downloading the original GPLed work places Versata's customers in a position where they're entitled to posession of the derivative work. The path gets arcane but that's the bottom line.

Versata's customers are not entitled under the GPL to further distribute the derivative work without versata's source code. Period. They're liable for any such distribution, witting or otherwise, and Versata is liable to them for any damages they suffer as a result.

There's a decent case to be made that separately acquiring the software in a manner compliant with the GPL entitles the recipient to a license to use the Versata patents. Versata's behavior allows the statements they made about patent use in the GPL software to be interpreted that way. It puts the patent claim uncomfortably close to the 50% preponderance of the evidence line.

Ignoratio elenchi.

35 U.S. Code  287 (A) reads in part: "In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement"

So technically you're right, it's a question of damages not culpability. But practically speaking I was right too: failure to adequately mark the patented product hurts Ximpleware's case. In the worst case, Versatta could argue that error in conjunction with Ximpleware's other behavior shows bad faith. That could get really ugly.

Versata, I typoed it.

As far as acceptance of the license goes, it doesn't matter where they steal the source from, the license is not automatically accepted. The GPL is funky that way: one part tries to say it can be automatically accepted, another part concedes that it isn't, and the law everywhere in the US except two states says it isn't.

Woohoo! My browser can run Doom and it only needs 20 times the memory and CPU power of the original.

Why can't I just have a browser that takes a 10th of the CPU and memory and doesn't do all this other BS?

Of course they still have a valid contract. Breach doesn't void a contract. Think about it.

Breach entitles the non-breaching party to restitution and enforcement. How would that work if the contract was void?

In the time between the authors filing a suit and the court entering a judgement you can write your way around any GPL infringement that isn't your whole product. After which you take your lumps for the past activity... which amounts to paying the authors who sued.

Here's what it says:

"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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

And:

"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work"

And:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

So it would seem to me that an argument can be made that if patent restrictions by Ximpleware prevent you from using derivative works of VTD-XML then Ximpleware may not be distributed under the GPL. Since Ximpleware DID distribute it under the GPL, he either intended folks receiving a derivative work to have a license to the patent or he breached the GPL up front.

It also hurts their position that the only mention of patents on VTD-XML's GPL web site (http://vtd-xml.sourceforge.net/) is: "Although VTD-XML is protected by US patents 7133857, 7260652, and 7761459, as long as you abide by GPL, you don't have to worry about patent infringement."

Explain the error in the reasoning (preferably referencing case law) or STFU.

Nonesense. The code is distributed with the expectation of payment in kind, namely providing your source code as well. At a minimum, your source code that you're trying to keep closed has a monetary value which you deprived the GPL author of.

That isn't true either. If you accept license to the GPL'd work, you're bound by the terms of that license, which includes providing the source for the combined work to anyone to whom you also provide the binary. The terms of the license can be enforced against you by anyone the license empowers to do so -- namely anybody to whom you directly provided the binary code.

In tlhIngan's scenario, you never knew about the GPL'd work thus could not have agreed to the license. That makes it unwitting infringement -- copyright and patent law apply, but the GPL does not.