6 ms·

what's the consequence if someone's product violates GPL ?

max76 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits The author can sue for damages and receive cash.
dmm 7y ago
If the copyright-holder of the GPL'd work doesn't do anything, the consequences are... nothing. The owners of lots of GPL'd works such as the GNU project tend to take an approach of quiet negotiation. They will contact the violators and attempt to inform them about their responsibilities when distributing GPL'd software. They want software to be free for examination and modification and many violations are unintentional. GPL violations are extremely common, especially with Linux. For example every ip surveillance camera runs Linux/Busybox/etc and I have never seen one that provides source.
- mooman219 7y ago
  I believe your last statement is incorrect. Applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen to run on a Linux-based operating system, distributed in conjunction with those works (Linux/Busybox/etc), are separate works within the meaning of copyright law. GPL requires you to provide complete and corresponding source for the GPL’d components and your modifications thereto, but not for independent proprietary applications. For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works and therefore don't need to also hold the GPL license. In the case of the topic, that appears to be a violation as the game can be considered a derived work. Most violations are handled on a case by case basis if there is legal action due to the nature of "derived work".
  - dmm 7y ago
    > I believe your last statement is incorrect. If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. > For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. In this case, the kernel source could be unmodified, which could mean that they could just refer you to where they got it.
    - grawprog 7y ago
      Surprisingly, i was happy to see both the bridge saw and the line polisher at my work both conform to the gpl and provide a link to the source code. It pops up on boot. Every time I see the 'this device is powered by free software message' when it powers up it makes me smile.
    - mooman219 7y ago
      Correct, they can provide the source for linux, or point you to where you can view the source for linux. The software running on the camera on top of linux does not have to be provided under GPL (in the majority of cases). You would have to prove the software on the camera is a derivative work of Linux to fall under GPL. edit > Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them. Yeah misunderstanding there, my apologies! Modifications to the Linux source would require them to also release those under GPL.
    - tzs 7y ago
      > Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. These kind of devices can lead to an interesting situation. Let's say you make Linux-based IP cameras. You accompany every single one you ship with a CD-ROM containing the complete source code. This completely satisfies your GPL obligation with regard to that unit. As a consumer, I buy one of your cameras. I have no use for the CD-ROM, check my trash collection company website to find out if CD-ROMs go in trash or recycling, and come next collection day it is gone. A few months later I don't need the camera any more and sell it used on eBay. The buyer eventually realizes it is a Linux-based camera and wants the source code. Q: Who, if anyone, is obligated to provide that source code? A: As far as I can tell, no one! You are off the hook because you accompanied every binary copy you distributed with the source code. You would only be obligated to third parties if you had elected to distribute the binary without source and accompany it with a written offer to provide the source. I'm off the hook because my distribution falls under the first sale doctrine, which basically says that if you own a lawfully made particular copy it is not a violation of copyright to sell that particular copy.
- chucksmash 7y ago
  I'm bad at open source licenses, but wouldn't they need to make modifications to the Linux they're running on to be required to distribute their source?
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    No, the whole binary this code was compiled into needs to be GPL licensed in its entirety.
  - dmm 7y ago
    Because they are distributing GPL'd software they also have to at least offer the exact source they used. If they are using an unmodified kernel, giving users a link to a git tag would satisfy this. In practice, every embedded use of Linux I've seen has included at least some modifications.
thrower123 7y ago
Cynically, I would guess just about nothing. If it could be proved that the GPL'd source was compiled in the real game, and was knowingly taken from a GPL'd source, I suppose whoever holds the rights could sue. I think it'd be difficult to prove sufficiently.
m463 7y ago
It depends on if and who pursues the violation. For example, apple is violating the GPL with bash by distributing a binary but not distributing all the source code used to compile it. I believe there are also violations by vmware and lots of others (I believe ubiquiti?) That said, there are legitimate ways to distribute GPL code, such as a dual license. You could write code and license it to company A under one license, and release it under GPL to company B. company A could have any rights or responsibilities you grant, while company B would have to comply with the distribution restrictions of the GPL. It's also worth noting that the GPL does not restrict how anyone USES the software, it only restricts how the software is redistributed.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > For example, apple is violating the GPL with bash by distributing a binary but not distributing all the source code used to compile it. https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-106.220.2/ https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-106.220.2/
  - m463 7y ago
    rootless.h
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      I'm not seeing that in the tarball?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits The author can sue for damages and receive cash.

dmm 7y ago

If the copyright-holder of the GPL'd work doesn't do anything, the consequences are... nothing. The owners of lots of GPL'd works such as the GNU project tend to take an approach of quiet negotiation. They will contact the violators and attempt to inform them about their responsibilities when distributing GPL'd software. They want software to be free for examination and modification and many violations are unintentional. GPL violations are extremely common, especially with Linux. For example every ip surveillance camera runs Linux/Busybox/etc and I have never seen one that provides source.

mooman219 7y ago
I believe your last statement is incorrect. Applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen to run on a Linux-based operating system, distributed in conjunction with those works (Linux/Busybox/etc), are separate works within the meaning of copyright law. GPL requires you to provide complete and corresponding source for the GPL’d components and your modifications thereto, but not for independent proprietary applications. For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works and therefore don't need to also hold the GPL license. In the case of the topic, that appears to be a violation as the game can be considered a derived work. Most violations are handled on a case by case basis if there is legal action due to the nature of "derived work".
- dmm 7y ago
  > I believe your last statement is incorrect. If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. > For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. In this case, the kernel source could be unmodified, which could mean that they could just refer you to where they got it.
  - grawprog 7y ago
    Surprisingly, i was happy to see both the bridge saw and the line polisher at my work both conform to the gpl and provide a link to the source code. It pops up on boot. Every time I see the 'this device is powered by free software message' when it powers up it makes me smile.
  - mooman219 7y ago
    Correct, they can provide the source for linux, or point you to where you can view the source for linux. The software running on the camera on top of linux does not have to be provided under GPL (in the majority of cases). You would have to prove the software on the camera is a derivative work of Linux to fall under GPL. edit > Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them. Yeah misunderstanding there, my apologies! Modifications to the Linux source would require them to also release those under GPL.
  - tzs 7y ago
    > Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. These kind of devices can lead to an interesting situation. Let's say you make Linux-based IP cameras. You accompany every single one you ship with a CD-ROM containing the complete source code. This completely satisfies your GPL obligation with regard to that unit. As a consumer, I buy one of your cameras. I have no use for the CD-ROM, check my trash collection company website to find out if CD-ROMs go in trash or recycling, and come next collection day it is gone. A few months later I don't need the camera any more and sell it used on eBay. The buyer eventually realizes it is a Linux-based camera and wants the source code. Q: Who, if anyone, is obligated to provide that source code? A: As far as I can tell, no one! You are off the hook because you accompanied every binary copy you distributed with the source code. You would only be obligated to third parties if you had elected to distribute the binary without source and accompany it with a written offer to provide the source. I'm off the hook because my distribution falls under the first sale doctrine, which basically says that if you own a lawfully made particular copy it is not a violation of copyright to sell that particular copy.
chucksmash 7y ago
I'm bad at open source licenses, but wouldn't they need to make modifications to the Linux they're running on to be required to distribute their source?
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  No, the whole binary this code was compiled into needs to be GPL licensed in its entirety.
- dmm 7y ago
  Because they are distributing GPL'd software they also have to at least offer the exact source they used. If they are using an unmodified kernel, giving users a link to a git tag would satisfy this. In practice, every embedded use of Linux I've seen has included at least some modifications.

thrower123 7y ago

Cynically, I would guess just about nothing. If it could be proved that the GPL'd source was compiled in the real game, and was knowingly taken from a GPL'd source, I suppose whoever holds the rights could sue. I think it'd be difficult to prove sufficiently.

m463 7y ago

It depends on if and who pursues the violation. For example, apple is violating the GPL with bash by distributing a binary but not distributing all the source code used to compile it. I believe there are also violations by vmware and lots of others (I believe ubiquiti?) That said, there are legitimate ways to distribute GPL code, such as a dual license. You could write code and license it to company A under one license, and release it under GPL to company B. company A could have any rights or responsibilities you grant, while company B would have to comply with the distribution restrictions of the GPL. It's also worth noting that the GPL does not restrict how anyone USES the software, it only restricts how the software is redistributed.

saagarjha 7y ago
> For example, apple is violating the GPL with bash by distributing a binary but not distributing all the source code used to compile it. https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-106.220.2/ https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-106.220.2/
- m463 7y ago
  rootless.h
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    I'm not seeing that in the tarball?