[LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Ralf Mardorf]

Arnold Krille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
>   
>> I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
>> proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
>> violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
>> GPL) software.
>> Comments?
>>     
>
> As far as I know this is right. Because GPL is a license (thats what the L 
> stands for:), not an end-user agreement. All the GPL talks about is 
> (re-)publishing. So as long as you do not re-distribute your app (outside your 
> home/business) no one knows and cares.
>
> And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-
> version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before 
> publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of 
> your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't 
> know...
>
> Arnold

You can skip 1., 2.1 and 2.2 and directly read 3. ;).

1.

If somebody has got a website made with Drupal (GPL) and he wants 
visitors of the side to install the proprietary flash player to use the 
web site, this won't be a problem. But will it be a violation, if 
somebody publishes a web site done with GPL software and proprietary 
software? Doing this isn't a distribution of the software. Doing this 
has nothing to do with with reprogramming the software, but even if 
somebody publishes a website done with reprogrammed GPL software, it's 
not publishing the reprogrammed software.

GPL has nothing to do with just using software.

2.1

I download your GPL software and only change the copyright, I claim that 
I'm the original coder and in addition I add comments that you are liar, 
you have stolen my software. I copy this software with the faked 
copyright to 100 DVDs, but I keep this copies my own.

This isn't a violation of the GPL.

2.2

I take those copies with me, while I'm using the short distance public 
transport and I forget them in a bus, without purpose, some people take 
a copy and install it to their desktop computers.

This might be a violation, but the whole situation is grotesquely.

3.

E.g. Cinelerra

I guess this is software that links to Non-GPL software.

"64 Studio cannot include it as part of the distribution because it has 
too many patent encumbered dependencies. But not to worry, if you 
install it yourself from other sources it is yours to use as you please! 
And this is that story..." (http://www.64studio.com/howto_cinelerra)

 From the file COPYING by "git clone 
git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra":

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
               Version 2, June 1991"

 From the file LICENSE by "git clone 
git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra":

"In addition to the GPL's warranty stipulation, Cinelerra is distributed 
WITHOUT
GUARANTEED SUPPORT; without even the guarantee of ADDITIONAL LABOR. Support
that is not guaranteed includes technical support, compiler troubleshooting,
debugging, version matching, updating, among other additional labor which
may or may not be required to meet a user's requirements.

                GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
               Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
                       59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  
02111-1307  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."