Once again forgot to hit Reply-All.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>wrote:

> I'm not interested to take sides, I only want to learn about the GPL.

>
> Assumed that Miss B. forks a GPL'd project, as far as I understand the GPL,
> Miss R. is allowed to fork a project with a similar name, similar function,
> based on the open source code of Miss B. and if Miss B. had no time to open

> the source code, because she was in the manicure salon, but Miss B. accepted
> the GPL, e.g. a mailing list for manicure software can witness this, than
> Miss R. is allowed to decompile the software of Miss B.. Am I wrong?



You are confusing Copyright and Trademark Law.  Copyright law says that yes
they can fork the project.

Trademark Law however says that Miss B. is allowed to follow up legally to
prevent a trademark, which can be registered or unregistered, from being

confused by another similar trademark that might be confused with it.  The
fact that the trademark is similar, and the product is similar, is doubly
damning in that case.

So while a fork is certainly allowed by copyright, the original owner is

completely within their rights to make sure that the fork is not in any way
confusing with the original product.


>
> If Miss B. would use GPL'd code and won't agree to the GPL, than Miss B. is

> violating the GPL, but Miss R. isn't allowed to decompile the software of
> Miss B., because of copyright laws. Am I wrong?


This is correct, so long as Miss B is distributing the code.  The legal

process can mean that either Miss B either must cease distribution of the
product, or come into compliance with the GPL copyright.  However that also
means that it is the choice of Miss B. and not of Miss R. to force the

second option.


> But again, Miss B. accepted the GPL, but while the nail polish needs to
> dry, she wasn't able to distribute the source code, she only had time to
> distribute the binary. She wrote exactly this to the manicure developers

> mailing list, that's why Miss R. decided to decompile the code.


This is much greyer area to tell the truth, and one I won't touch.  But if
you look at the SFLC's cases in the past about the GPL, you will notice a

theme of them giving ample time to come into compliance with the terms of
the GPL before taking the product to court.  However those are all slightly
different due to none of those products to my knowledge, being GPLd software

that wasn't already availiable form another source.  So I suspect there will
be no final answer on this until a judge(Or more likely multiple) are forced
to answer it in a courtroom.

      Seablade